Commons Sitting of 11 February 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
TELEGRAPH OFFICES (SCOTLAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th January; Mr. Cathcart Wason]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [514.]
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the city of Bath, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the city and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
Return ordered "of the amount of all Public Revenue derived from taxes levied by Parliament and from any other sources which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1910–11, 1911–12, and 1912–13 (estimated), with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 322, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Lees Smith.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Katanga (Imprisonment of Mr. Moore).
  Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further information relating to the case of Mr. Moore, editor of the "Livingstone Mail"; if he can say whether he is likely to be released from prison; and, if so, when?
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further information as to the trial and imprisonment of Mr. Moore in Katanga; whether the British Vice-Consul was present at the trial or on the hearing of the appeal; whether Mr. Moore had the assistance of counsel; whether the conditions of his imprisonment are satisfactory; and whether all communications between Mr. Moore and his friends in Rhodesia have now been stopped?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The acting British Vice-Consul was not present at the trial of Mr. Moore or at the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Moore was represented by counsel. The conditions of his imprisonment are reported by the Vice-Consul to be quite satisfactory and his health good. He has been permitted to communicate freely with any persons he chooses, but his correspondence is opened in accordance with official regulations. I understand that he could be released from prison if the fines were paid, and, though I reserve final opinion pending the receipt of a full report of the trial, I do not see on the information at present before me that there would be justification for the intervention of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MORRELL: When is the report likely to be received?
  Sir E. GREY: In about a fortnight.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the Government assured itself, by due inquiry of the Law Officers of the Crown, that this arrest was a perfectly proper one—the arrest of a British subject for an offence committed in British territory—the trial taking place and the arrest taking place under another flag and in other territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I have had a report on the information before us from the legal adviser to the British Legation at Brussels, who advises that under Belgian law there was jurisdiction. I have made such inquiry as I can as to what would be the case under British law. I cannot say without all the facts before me, but it is not quite certain whether under British law also there would not have been a case for jurisdiction under similar circumstances.
  Sir G. PARKER: Are we to assume, then, that if the editor of a paper in

  679
  London committed a supposed libel upon a citizen of Belgium, and if he went to Belgium he could be arrested?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is getting rather far from the question on the Paper.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fate of Mr. Stokes, and will he remember that Congo prisons are not particularly healthy for those who criticise the conduct of Congo officials?
  Sir E. GREY: That case occurred years ago under an entirely different regime from that which now exists. I stated I have been satisfied by telegraphic inquiry and telegraphic report of the acting Vice-Consul that the conditions in the prison are satisfactory and the prisoner's health is good.

  Lake Nyasa (Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas.)
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the murder of the Rev. A. J. Douglas took place at Lake Nyasa; when the trial of the murderer took place; when His Majesty's Government first received a report of the murder; if there was any delay in a full report being sent of the murder and trial; and if he will lay the Report of His Majesty's representative upon the Table without further delay?
  Sir E. GREY: Mr. Douglas was killed on 10th November, 1911. The trial took place on 25th and 26th November, 1912. The first official report received by His Majesty's Government of the death of Mr. Douglas was contained in a telegram from His Majesty's Consul at Lourenco Marques of 15th November, 1911. There was no unnecessary delay in sending the report of the trial. The report of the trial will be laid.

  Gulf of Guinea.
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to say when the British Consul will leave for the islands in the Gulf of Guinea, and on which of these he will reside?
  Sir E. GREY: One of the two salaried Vice-Consuls to be appointed under the superintendence of His Majesty's Consul at Loanda has already reached Fernando
  680
  Po. It is hoped to appoint the second Vice-Consul shortly. The Vice-Consuls will reside for alternate periods of six months, respectively, at Fernando Po and San Thomé and at Lobito.

  Mexico.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the extent of British interests in Mexico, and the prejudicial effect upon such interests of the continued unrest in that country, he has taken any steps, and, if so, what steps, consistently with the Monroe doctrine, to urge upon the Government of the United States the desirability of taking such action as shall conduce to the early restoration of order in Mexico?
  Sir E. GREY: The action of His Majesty's Government has been confined to approaching the Mexican Government with requests for protection for such British interests as are known to have been, or to be endangered, and to the dispatch of a ship on certain occasions to places on the coast where danger has been apprehended. It would be entirely contrary to international practice to approach the United States Government in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In view of recent occurrences has a ship been sent to Mexican waters?
  Sir E. GREY: The recent occurrence has been in the city of Mexico and not at a port. I do not think any ship is under orders immediately to go to a port, but if the hon. Member will give me notice I will ascertain.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before and since the killing of Captain Eckford, officers and men of the British troops now stationed at Shiraz have been repeatedly shot at, without reprisals; whether there is any prospect of any effective action being taken by the Persian Parliament; and, if not, what steps the Government proposes to take to restore the reputation of British arms and the opportunity for British trade in Southern Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: In reply to the first part of the question, it is a fact that on various occasions shots have been fired at officers and men of His Majesty's forces when in

  681
  the neighbourhood of Shiraz, but I have had no reports as to similar occurrences since Captain Eckford's death. As regards parts two and three, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 6th instant.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any foundation for the suggestion in the question that the Persian Parliament is going to be called into being?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say anything more about that than I said before. There is no present prospect.
  Colonel YATEasked whether the concession has now been granted to Russia by the Persian Government to construct a railway from Julfa, to Tabriz, with an extension to Lake Urumiah and a preferential right to build a railway from Tabriz to Kazvin; and, if so, when the concession will be granted to Great Britain for the construction of a railway from Mohammerah to Khorramabad, with a preferential right to similar further extension?
  Sir E. GREY: A concession has been granted to a Russian syndicate for a concession for a railway from Julfa to Tabriz, with a conditional preference for an extension from Tabriz to Kazvin. A two years' option for the construction of a line from Mohammerah, or a point adjacent thereto, to Khorramabad has been granted to a British syndicate, but the details are not yet finally settled and will partly depend on the results of the survey; the option does not carry with it the right for an extension which has not been asked for.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that a preferential right to further extension is granted to the British Concessionaires similar to that which has been granted to Russia, namely, from Tabriz to Kazvin?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no exact parallel for the extension from Tabriz to Kazvin. The line from Mohammerah to Khorramabad is of considerable length. I am not sure how it compares with the existing Russian concession.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare the length of the British with the length of the Russian concession, and whatever number of miles may be in
  682
  excess on the Russian side, will he obtain a concession for a similar amount for the British side?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, I will compare the actual mileage, but I would guard myself against being presumed to say that the actual measure in mileage is necessarily the best standard of comparison in equality of merit as regards this particular concession.
  Mr. MORRELL: In return for all these concessions, has any progress been made with the long-delayed loan?
  Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question for Thursday, I might be able to say something more definite
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Foreign Minister of Persia has signed an agreement whereby a Russian company acquires the right to build a railway from Julfa to Tabriz, with the option of making another from Tabriz to Kazvin; and when an agreement will be signed for the British railway from Mohammerah to Khoramabad?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which has just been returned to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the concession for the Julfa-Tabriz railway has now been granted by the Persian Government; if so, what is the period of the concession; and in what way are Persian interests safeguarded?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the last two parts is that I am not in possession of a copy of the concession.

  Trade with Portugal.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress, if any, has been made in the Government's negotiations with Portugal in regard to a commercial treaty referred to by him in his replies to questions on the following dates: 13th July, 1911, 14th December, 1911, and 14th November, 1912?
  Mr. WATTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the import duty to Portuguese territory for French and German chassis is £4 8s. 9d.

  683
  while for British chassis it is £15 10s. 6d.; and that for French and German tyres it is £1 13s. 3d., while for British tyres it is £19 19s. 4d.; will he say at what date he began negotiations with Portugal for the rectifying of this inequality; whether that country gives him any hope of success; and whether he will try to expedite matters in view of the fact that British traders are much handicapped by the present tariffs?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the first part of the latter question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which is being returned to-day by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Worcester. In reply to the second part and to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Worcester, negotiations for the conclusion of a commercial treaty have been passing in one form or another between His Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government at intervals since 1902. No reply was made by the Portuguese Government to the latest proposals that were laid before them, and these have been repeated to them last month, and a reply is expected.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the figures in the first part of the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Watt) are substantially accurate?
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for this preference to Germany and France over this country?
  Sir E. GREY: Roughly, the course of the negotiations has been that we have not got the most-favoured-nation treatment from Portugal because the Portuguese Government have complained that in regard to their wines we have not given them the most-favoured-nation treatment. It is a most complicated matter, which has been, and still is, the subject of negotiation.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Portuguese Government that we do not think their action is fair, and that we will discriminate against them if they do not act fairly?
  Sir E. GREY: Unfortunately, the contention of the Portuguese Government is that we do already discriminate against their wines.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a copy of the Report from the United States of the finding of Mr. S. J. Fuller, the result of whose visit to the Putumayo has now been laid before Congress; if so, whether the findings of Mr. Fuller gives ground for the belief that atrocities are still being perpetrated by collectors of rubber on the Putumayo; and whether, in view of this publication by the United States, the Report of Mr. Consul Mitchell on his visit to the Putumayo will now be laid upon the Table?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not yet received a copy of Mr. Fuller's Report, for which I have asked the United States Government. I hope to lay Consul Mitchell's Report early next Session.

  Great Britain and Germany.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the speech of Admiral von Tirpitz in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag, especially in respect of the naval situation; and whether he has any information, official or otherwise, as to the ratio of sixteen British ships to ten German ships being regarded as a satisfactory standard for the respective naval fleets?
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what importance he attaches to the statement of Grand Admiral von Tirpitz in the German Reichstag Budget Committee to the effect that his Government is content to acquiesce in the relative superiority in naval strength of 60 per cent. in favour of Great Britain which was claimed by the First Lord last March as being sufficient and satisfactory; and whether the statement now made on behalf of Germany affords ground to hope that the competitive building of the two Powers, so costly to their respective taxpayers, may now cease, and that a proportional reduction of existing fleets corresponding to the 60 per cent. formula may be gradually effected?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the First Lord, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will answer these questions together. It will, he thinks, be better for us to wait till the Estimates are

  685
  presented, and then to deal with the naval position as a whole. In the meanwhile he desires to give expression to the general feelings of satisfaction aroused by the friendly tone which has characterised the recent German discussions on naval subjects.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the trade arrangement made between His Majesty's Government and Tibet has been violated by the imposition of internal transit dues; and what steps the Government proposes to take in the direction of posting a British representative at Lhassa?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Complaints have been received on several occasions from Indian traders of illegal duties levied by local Tibetan authorities on their merchandise. The most recent case that has been brought to the Secretary of State's notice was in September, 1912. I understand that the duties complained of have now been removed. As regards the second part of the question, no action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is contemplated by His Majesty's Government.

  Indian Opium Trade.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government has consented that Chihli and Kwangsi shall be added to the list of Chinese provinces into which the importation of Indian opium is prohibited; and whether it contemplates similar action in respect of Hunan, Anhui, and Shantung?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, His Majesty's Minister has been authorised to inform the Chinese Government that Hunan, Anhui, and Shantung provinces shall be subjected to joint investigation at the earliest possible date, and if the result is satisfactory His Majesty's Government will agree to their being placed on the prohibition list.

  Indian Students (Edinburgh University).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Indian students at Edinburgh University have protested against the proposal to
  686
  put them under official supervision; and, if so, what action has been taken on such protest; whether the permanent retention of the staff associated with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Mallet is contemplated; and whether the unofficial members of the Indian Legislative Councils have expressed their opinions on the need for the expenditure involved?
  Mr. BAKER: As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh yesterday. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. No such expression of opinion as is referred to in the last part of the question has been brought to the Secretary of State's notice.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any War Office contracts have been given out in respect of other works besides those at Tidworth and Bulford in which German cable has been used; and, if so, where it has been used?
    Mr. BAKER: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the inspectors representing the War Office are present throughout the manufacture at Eschweiler, Germany, of the cable for the Army camps at Tidworth and Bulford, or do they merely inspect and test the completed cable; and is the former practice followed in respect of cable manufactured for War Office use in this country?
    Mr. BAKER: The inspectors representing the War Office test the cable during course of manufacture in Germany and again when completed. The same practice is adopted in respect of cable manufactured in this country.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for War whether there was any clause in the specifications for the work at Tidworth and Bulford camps in which the German armorduct cable is employed requiring the use of pure Para rubber only and excluding the use of re-manufactured rubber?
    Mr. BAKER: There was no such clause, but it was specified that the layer next to the conductor was to be of pure rubber,

    687
    and the other two of vulcanised rubber. The quality of the whole was covered by a mechanical test.

    ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, WOOLWICH (WAGES).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been come to regarding the representations made in November last in connection with the wages and conditions of service of the clerical staff in the store-houses of the Ordnance Department at Woolwich; and, if so, can he state the nature of such decision?
    Mr. BAKER: I hope to be in a position to reply shortly to these and other points brought to the notice of the Army Council on the same occasion.

    NEW MACHINE GUN.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether it is proposed to issue a new machine gun to the Regular Army; whether this gun is of an entirely new pattern and of British invention; and when the issue will be made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It has been decided to issue a new pattern machine gun to the Cavalry; the question of issue to the Infantry is still under consideration. The gun is similar in principle to that with which the troops are at present equipped, but is much lighter. It is of British invention. Issue will probably commence next month.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the gun be placed in the Tea Room, or where we may be able to see it?
    Colonel SEELY: If there be a general wish that that should be done, I will consider the suggestion.

    ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether it has been finally decided to abolish the cadres of Batteries AA and BB, Royal Horse Artillery; and whether, before carrying such a decision into effect, he will explain to this House his reasons for so serious a step?
    Colonel SEELY: I have nothing at present to add to the information which I have already given the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject. I hope to be able to make a general statement on this subject on the introduction of Army Estimates next month.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the question?
    Colonel SEELY: It would be impossible to make a general statement as to the reorganisation of the Artillery rendered necessary by the return of troops from South Africa within the limits of question and answer.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I am sorry, having regard to the answer, I have to give notice that I will bring this question up on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-morrow.

    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the importance of the efficient training of non-commisisoned officers of the Territorial Army, he will consider the advisability of providing greater facilities for week-end classes of instruction; and whether he is aware that at present the sum of money in the hands of general officers commanding districts is insufficient to provide such facilities?
    Colonel SEELY: It is the duty of the permanent staff, under the orders of the commanding officer of the unit, to secure that all non-commissioned officers are thoroughly trained in their duties, and that they are afforded facilities for obtaining the necessary instruction. The money allotted to general officers commanding-in-chief for the training and instruction of the Territorial Force is not considered insufficient.

    PENSIONERS.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will say, with reference to the desire of the Army Council that it should be more widely known that an Army pensioner may, if he wishes, receive his pension by monthly instalments instead of by quarterly payments, whether he may not also receive it, if he wishes, by weekly instalments, seeing that that is the basis on which he has been in the habit of receiving his pay while in the Army and probably also afterwards when in civil employment?
    Colonel SEELY: Arrangements can be made for the payment of pensions quarterly, with the consent of the pensioner, to some responsible person for issue to him in weekly sums.
    Captain CLIVE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear by some further

    689
    communication to the pensioners in addition to what has been done already that a pension can be paid weekly as well as monthly?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and this reply may give that information, but if any further notification is necessary, I will certainly consider whether it should be made.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates introducing a Revenue Bill in the next Session of Parliament in order to amend the valuation of the land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, so as to exclude from full site value of agricultural land the unexhausted value of such improvements on or under the soil as are at present included in that valuation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Hanley on the 4th inst.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what good purpose is being served by this valuation, seeing that it is of no use for rating purposes? The answer given was that it was not customary to make a statement. This question has nothing to do with that. It merely asks whether the valuation could be amended.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This question asks about legislation for next Session of Parliament. I cannot make any statement about that.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the valuation is likely to be completed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not give that information without notice.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Insurance Commissioners to refuse to sanction any alteration in the benefits to be received by the Midland Railway Friendly Society members if such alteration reduces the benefits to be re-
    690
    ceived, in view of the fact that the Midland Railway employés were compelled, on taking service, to join that friendly society, and such proposed reduction of benefits would be a breach of contract?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that there is nothing in the rules of this society to make membership compulsory on employés of the railway company, and there has been no rule of such a kind, at any rate since 1879. I have explained in earlier answers the circumstances in which the benefits of this society were reduced. The alteration was in no way due to the Insurance Act and the Insurance Commissioners have no power to sanction or refuse to sanction, alterations of benefits which are not provided from, and are quite independent of, the Insurance Funds.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the person insured joined the society before 1879?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That does not compel us to take that society as an approved society.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Was this society registered as a friendly society under the Friendly Societies Acts, and if so, is not the Registrar obliged to refuse sanction to an alteration which would limit the benefits to members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer the hypothetical part of the question, but I have information as to the other part which I will give to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this has nothing to do with the Insurance Act? It has to do with a member of the Midland Railway Friendly Society.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree that it has nothing to do with the Insurance Act. I explained, in answer to earlier questions the circumstances in which the benefits were reduced. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman copies of the answers.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the benefits will not be reduced without notice to the persons concerned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to know whether I have any power to give such an instruction.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the National Insurance Act doctors have issued notes for supplying appliances to patients; whether he is aware that articles scheduled as appliances are of a limited description and do not include kidney belts or appliances for relief of cases which are a source of trouble without this assistance; whether he is aware that before the National Insurance Act came into operation patients in possession of hospital notes could obtain kidney belts at 30 per cent. less cost than persons insured under the Act are able to do; and whether, as the average of insured persons requiring kidney belts would not amount to one in 1,000 insured persons, he will advise the inclusion of this article amongst appliances?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The prescribed list of appliances is subject to such revision as may be found advisable when more experience has been gained after working of the Act. I have noted the suggestion of the hon. Member and it will receive due consideration.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked if under the National Insurance Act medical benefits can be extended to Ireland except by way of additional benefits; what would be the additional cost to the United Kingdom of extending full medical benefits to Ireland; and if under the Government of Ireland Bill the payments to be made by the United Kingdom for the working of the National Insurance Act are limited to the purposes for which that Act is applied to Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first question is in the negative. If medical benefit were provided in Ireland upon the same terms as in Great Britain and if the contributions were adjusted accordingly, the additional cost to the Exchequer over and above the present provision on the basis of those actually insured would be approximately £40,000. The general extension of medical benefit to Ireland could not be effected without legislation. Such extension would clearly appertain to the general subject matter of the Act of 1911 within the meaning of Clause 2 Sub-section (12) of the Government of Ireland Bill. An Exchequer Grant is already made to Ireland under Section 81 (10) of the National Insurance Act of the same amount as would be paid under
    692
    the Act were medical benefit provided in that country.
    Mr. F. HALL: Would the whole of that £4,000 be an Exchequer Grant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The extension cannot be done without legislation. The legislation would arrange as to the conditions under which the money should be given.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the insurance committees in the county of Middlesex, the Isle of Ely, and Sheffield have refused free choice of doctor outside the panels unless exceptional circumstances are proved; and whether any definition of exceptional circumstances has been laid down by them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that the three insurance committees mentioned have acted differently from other committees. As I have frequently stated, the Act only contemplates permission being given to an insured person to make his own arrangements in exceptional circumstances. It is for the committee to decide upon each application whether the circumstances of the case are or are not exceptional.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it left absolutely to the discretion of the insurance committee to deny the choice of a doctor to insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is absolutely left by the Act to the discretion of the committee to permit or not to permit any case of what is ordinarily called "making their own arrangements."
    Mr. F. HALL: Is that consistent with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell what the hon. Member means by "another place."
    Mr. F. HALL: Whitefield's Tabernacle, where he said all insured people would have the right to choose their own doctors.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member studies the speech to which he referred, he will find that it is not so.
    Mr. F. HALL: I have studied it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that every insured person has the right to choose his own doctor among those doctors who are willing to serve?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Every insured person has the right to choose his own doctor among all the doctors willing to serve him and willing to serve under the Insurance Act.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Have arrangements yet been made by which nurses in hospitals are allowed to make their own arrangements, and have they received the forms to be filled in?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know, but I believe that certainly in London those arrangements have been made.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether an insured person is entitled to the provision of the services of a herbalist, instead of a doctor, when desired; and what benefits will be provided for Christian Scientists under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Duly qualified medical practitioners alone have the right to be included in a panel list. It is, however, open to persons who belong to an unorthodox school of medicine to apply to their insurance committee for permission to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment, and if such permission is given the committee will make a contribution towards the cost of the treatment.
    Major HOPEasked whether an insured person who has paid all his contributions since 15th July, 1912, and has requested without success both his approved society and the Insurance Commissioners that he should be allotted to a doctor for receipt of medical benefit, is entitled, if taken ill, to call in any doctor available and recover that doctor's bill in full from the National Insurance Fund?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If an insured person has been refused by the doctor whom he has selected, he is entitled to be allotted to some doctor on the panel. The allotment, however, is not a matter for the approved society or the Insurance Commissioners, but for the insurance committee of the area in which he resides. I am inquiring, however, concerning the special case in Midlothian which the hon. and gallant Member brought to my notice in last week's debate, and will communicate with him on the subject.
    Mr. TOUCHE: If an insured person is not refused by a doctor, but the doctor is too busy to attend him, and if after much delay a doctor not on the panel has
    694
    to be called in, will the insured person be entitled to claim the fee necessary for the other doctor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He certainly is not entitled to claim the fee, but whether any fee could be allowed would depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the number of members of approved societies who have taken reduced contracts on the voluntary side of their insurance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No estimate is possible of the number of members of approved societies who have reduced their contracts on the voluntary side. The Registrar has no information as to the number of members of societies who have reduced or have exercised individual options to reduce.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the-right hon. Gentleman try to get the information?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the information can be obtained without undue strain on the Department I should very much like to do so.

    RESERVES (RELEASE).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the release of reserves promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been sufficient to cover the whole of the insured persons' compulsory weekly contribution in the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows, the Foresters, and Hearts of Oak, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The valuations of the societies named for the purposes of Section 72 have not yet been completed, and therefore the information is not yet available.

    VOLUNTARY INSURANCE.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the Registrar of Friendly Societies. to draw up a Report on the basis of the actuarial reports which are being received by him as to the probability of friendly societies being able to work the voluntary side of their insurance successfully during the next ten years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that it would be impossible to estimate from the valuations received by the Registrar the

    695
    probability of friendly societies being able to work their voluntary side successfully during the next ten years. I am unaware of anything which has happened which makes it likely that the societies will be less successful during the next ten years than they have been during the last ten years.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that employers demand health insurance stamp cards for the new quarter before giving up those for the previous -quarter; that small societies, not having agents, are prevented from delivering the new cards in bulk and collecting the old ones at works and factory offices as in the case of the large insurance companies, thereby placing the members of small societies at some comparative disadvantage with their employers; and whether, under these circumstances, arrangements can be made whereby cards may be sent post free to insured persons or, alternatively, a regulation made by the Commissioners to the effect that the stamp card must be returned to each individual worker, and so avoid any interference with freedom of choice of an approved society consequent upon the collection of cards in bulk?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware that in some cases employers have called upon their employés to produce the new quarter's cards before delivering up the old, although there is nothing in the Regulations authorising them to do so. It would not be possible without serious loss to the revenue to allow cards to be sent through the post free of charge between contributors and their societies, but the disadvantage to which the hon. Member refers could probably be obviated by the smaller societies appointing one of their members to collect and distribute the cards of his fellow members employed in the same workshop. The Commissioners would take a serious view of any case in which it was shown that cards had been handed by an employer to the agent of any society not authorised to receive them.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether a person insured under the National Insurance Act who, being sick and unable to work on a Monday, becomes entitled to the receipt of sick pay on the
    696
    following Thursday, but on the following Saturday forenoon is certified by the doctor to be capable of following his employment, is entitled to that day's sick pay, making three-sixths of 10s. for that week; or whether, Saturday being the day of his recovery, although he was prevented from returning to work that day by the fact that the doctor had not seen and certified him capable of work until after 10 a.m., he would only be entitled to two-sixths of 10s. for the week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question whether benefit is payable in any specific case depends on facts which are not within the knowledge of the Commissioners, and must be decided in the first instance by the society or insurance committee administering the benefit, subject to appeal to the Commissioners. It would be impossible for me to anticpate the judicial decision which the Commissioners would give upon all the facts in such a case even if all the relevant facts were included in the question.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many societies are desirous of guidance on this specific question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are some questions which I think will probably be the subject of judicial decision. It would be very improper for me in question and answer to forecast what that decision will be.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (WORCESTER DISTRICT).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the officials of the Great Western Railway Company in the Worcester district are asking insured workmen who have met with an accident the name of the society that they have made their approved society under the National Insurance Act; and if he will say, in view of the provisions of the National Insurance Act, what action he proposes to take to protect the men who refuse, in accordance with their rights, to give the information?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on this subject, but it may be that the company desired to send notice of an agreement for compensation to the society in accordance with Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act. I will make inquiries if my hon Friend desires.

    HEARTS OF OAK APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Hearts of Oak Approved Society has adopted a rule the effect of which will be to suspend any of its members who have failed to pay a fine imposed by the society within four weeks from the date on which it was inflicted from all benefits under the National Insurance Act; and whether, having regard to the trivial nature of the offences for which under the rules of the said society fines must be imposed, such as, for instance, omitting to state the registered number on a written communication from a member to the society, or neglecting to give notice of a change of address in writing within seven days, and also having regard to the fact that the benefits which will be withheld under this rule are provided by funds contributed by the State and the employer as well as the offending member, he will take action to prevent the imposition of such penalties?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware of the rule in question which also includes a provision giving an insured member who has been subjected to any penalty the right to have the case decided by arbitration with a further appeal to the Insurance Commission. A similar rule has been adopted by the great majority of societies in virtue of the power expressly given by Section 14 of the Act. I understand that the rules thus enforced by penalty are rules which the friendly societies have found essential for the proper working of sick benefit.

    MEDICAL PANEL.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether insured persons under the National Insurance Act who do not select a doctor on the local panel may be allotted to a coloured doctor without their knowledge, and may not know that such has been done till illness compels them to requisition his services; and whether, in the event of an insured person's own selected white doctor not being available for any reason, he or she is compelled under the Act to accept the services of another panel doctor in the same administrative area, even though coloured, or else call in the services of a medical man not on the panel, the payment for whose services cannot be recovered from the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If an insured person fails to exercise his right of choosing a doctor, he thereby leaves to the insurance
    698
    committee the duty of allotting him to one of the doctors on the panel. If the doctor who has undertaken the treatment of an insured person is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home, or other reasonable cause from personally attending, he is required to the best of his ability to provide that when he is so precluded from personal attendance some other doctor will give attendance as his deputy on his behalf.
    Captain CRAIG: Does not that make it possible for some of those who require assistance to have a doctor to whom they object?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly not if they exercise the choice of doctor which is given to all insured persons, and I should think they could equally exercise the choice in desiring not to be attended by a particular doctor.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: What is the position of affairs if a doctor refuses certain patients?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Most elaborate provision is made in the Regulations, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.

    WORKMEN AWAY FROM HOME.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if any arrangement can be made whereby workmen away from home on the business of their employers can be attended to, in the event of illness, by doctors on the panels in the place in which they may be taken ill; and is he aware that many men who habitually work away from home have not had their medical tickets endorsed because of the uncertainty on the point?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An insured person moving from the area of one insurance committee to that of another can, by giving notice to the second committee, obtain medical attendance and treatment from a doctor on the panel in that area. The endorsement of the medical ticket by a doctor on the panel in the first area would not prevent this arrangement from being carried out.

    OPERATIONS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if regulations have been made as to the arrangements to be followed for the performance of operations on insured persons who cannot be dealt with at hospitals; and whether these will in all or any cases have to be dealt with at the patient's home?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No such regulations have been made. Whether an operation should be performed at the patient's home, or at the doctor's surgery, or at a hospital must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

    SUPPLY OF DRUGS.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the sum of 6d. per ounce of 480 grains is allowed in the tariff under the National Insurance Act for benzoate of ammonia and that the price of well-known retail chemists in a large way of business is 9d. per ounce of 437.5 grains; and will he explain how chemists in a small way of business can give a supply at this price; and (2) whether he will explain why many articles are priced in the tariff under the National Insurance Act at 20 to 30 per cent. less than the wholesale houses charge retailers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no "tariff under the National Insurance Act" applicable to every part of the country. Each insurance committee is required by the Regulations to prepare a drug tariff for its own area, and the prices included therein are a matter for negotiation between the insurance committee, the chemists, and the doctors of each area. As a matter of fact the drug tariff usually adopted is one that was drawn up by the Pharmaceutical Society themselves.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are the qualities issued the same as those under the Insurance Act. tariff?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have never heard the expression except from the lips of the Noble Lord.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I send the right hon. Gentleman the wholesale catalogues of several firms in the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Noble Lord may send them, but I do not think they would cheer me up at all.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the threat, or possible danger, to Scottish pharmacists which caused the Pharmaceutical Standing Committee (Scotland) to circularise pharmacists in Scotland, advising them to join the panel
    700
    before 31st December in a letter dated 12th and 13th December, 1912?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No threat was made or authorised by the Scottish Committee to the Scottish pharmacists. In answer to specific inquiries from the Pharmaceutical Standing Committee (Scotland), the Scottish Commissioners explained to them that it would be their duty to authorise the insurance committee to make arrangements for the supply of medicines to insured persons otherwise than through a panel of chemists, if in any area no adequate panel was formed.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Do I understand that there was a threat that they were going to set up a State chemist's shop?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that there was any suggestion of setting up a chemist's shop. I think they were informed that it is a duty laid upon them by the Act to provide in sonic form or another medicine for every insured person.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that in Holbeck, Leeds, there are eight chemists' shops to a population of 50,000 inhabitants, and that only two of the proprietors of these shops have the right of dispensing medicines under the National Insurance Act simply because these two proprietors are members of the Pharmaceutical Society; whether he is aware that the other six proprietors of chemists' shops have for years dispensed the prescriptions of qualified medical practitioners, but that under the National Insurance Act this business is taken away from them unless they dispense under the control or supervision of a member of the Pharmaceutical Society; and, having regard to the danger of such a monopoly, will he arrange that qualified, but unregistered, chemists shall be on local panels with the right to dispense doctors' prescriptions not containing scheduled poisons; and (2) whether he is aware that in the Parliamentary Borough of Oldham there is a population of 211,227 and that the number of chemists to dispense prescriptions on the panel under the National Insurance Act is eight resident and twenty-six non-resident, while in the same borough there are thirty-one resident and eleven non-resident drug-store proprietors Who are debarred from being on the panel for dispensing purposes; and whether, in

    701
    view of the danger to health and life which these figures indicate, he will arrange for drug-store proprietors, whose business it has been and still is to dispense for doctors in private practice, to be members of the local panels to dispense prescriptions not containing scheduled poisons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 30th January, it would not be possible to authorise the supply to insured persons of medicines requiring dispensing to be arranged for by other persons than those entitled to make these arrangements under the National Insurance Act. The Commissioners are, however, seeing tomorrow a deputation on this subject.

    New Main West Road (Metropolis).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the scheme now before the Road Board to construct, at a cost approaching £2,000,000 sterling, a new main road as an approach to the Metropolis from the west; and whether, having regard to the public interests involved, he will refuse to sanction any such scheme without submitting it to Parliament by a legislative proposal?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No applications have yet been made by the highway authorities concerned to the Road Board for grants towards the construction of a western approach road. It would, therefore, be premature to consider questions of procedure at the present time.

    Woodlands (Income Tax).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that persons claiming reimbursement of Income Tax upon woodlands in consequence of the latter resulting in yearly loss to their owners are being informed by the authorities at Somerset House that the fact that an occupier who is an owner derives no profits or incurs a loss is not material except in a case where lands are occupied for husbandry only; whether such decision has his approval; if so, what authority there is for discriminating between agricultural husbandry and other forms of husbandry; and, if the cultivation of underwood is not deemed to be husbandry, whether the owner can claim to be assessed alternatively under Schedule D on realised profits only?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Woodlands, like other lands, are chargeable to Income Tax, Schedules A and B, under the general rules of those Schedules on their full annual value in their existing condition; but, while relief in case of loss on cultivation is specifically provided for by Statute where lands are occupied for purposes of husbandry only, no such provisions exist with regard to woodlands which have never been regarded as falling within the description of "husbandry." There being no statutory authority to assess woodlands under Schedule D, an owner cannot claim to be charged under that Schedule on realised profits only.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean that although there may in fact be no annual value in woodlands yet income tax will be charged? Also upon what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that woodland husbandry is not husbandry?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I never said that woodland husbandry is not husbandry, as the hon. Member will see if he looks at the answer.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Should not the Liberal party give up saying that they are going to assist forestry in this country?

    Customs and Excise Department.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the Customs branch of the Customs and Excise Department, a number of officers who were formerly receiving overtime payment at the rate of 2s. an hour have, since the 10th December last, suffered a reduction in rate to 1s. 6d. an hour; whether this is a direct breach of the principles laid down in regard to leave in paragraph 255 of the Amalgamation Committee's Report; whether a present actual loss of 6d. per hour is intended to be compensated for by a future contingent right to an additional 6d. per hour; whether there is any precedent in the Civil Service for such reduction; and will he say, taking into consideration all the circumstances, whether the £10 allowance made to all members of the former classes of Customs second-class examining officers and assistants is designed to cover the actual reduction in overtime rate in the case of the officers referred to?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have nothing to add to my answers to the hon. Member's question of the 16th December last on this subject.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Sir W. BYLESasked if an owner who had accepted an under-valuation of his house, in the belief that Increment Value Duty would fall only on an increased value of the site, would be subject to the duty in case he sold the house at its true value, but at a price greatly in excess of the official valuation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the case of a property being sold at its true value, Increment Value Duty would only be charged on an increased value of the site.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is true value what would be fetched at a public or private sale or what an official valuer says?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: True value is what is agreed on between the owner of the house and the valuation official.
    Mr. G. FABER: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question: Is the true value of the house what it fetches at a public or private sale or what an official valuer would value it at?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The official value, when a valuation is put down and the owner exercises his right of appeal, which afterwards is decided by a Referee, will be the true value of the house.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is true value in question at all, or has true value nothing to do with valuation nowadays?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not understand that question. The value has to be found every day for various purposes. It is found, for example, under the Death Duties Act.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: True value for the purpose of Increment Tax is not true value, but Budget value.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: True value for the purposes of Increment Tax is true value for every other question for which true value is arrived at.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it price that determines the value of the house?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Price is one thing. It máy be the same as true value or it may be different.

    Mid-Scotland Ship Canal.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the importance of the proposal for a Mid-Scotland canal, which would accommodate war vessels in passing from the Irish Channel to the North Sea; and whether he is prepared to assist financially a preliminary survey to enable engineers to determine the type of soil or rock which would be met with on the proposed route, or whether such financial assistance might be got from the Development Fund?
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will endeavour to secure from the Development Fund a Grant of £900 towards the cost of boring along the route of the projected Mid-Scotland ship canal for the purpose of enabling the engineers to secure the data necessary to form an accurate estimate of the cost of constructing a short and safe route for British shipping for European and American traffic and for the Empire's Navy?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The scheme referred to is so large in its scope and purpose as to suggest the necessity of caution in dealing with even such a preliminary survey as my hon. Friends contemplate. As the purposes covered by the Development Act, however, include the construction and improvement of inland navigations, I should be prepared, on the clear understanding that the Government is in no way committed to approval of any scheme, to consider any arguments which my hon. Friends may wish to lay before me in support of this proposal for a preliminary survey.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman collected figures as to the expense of other countries in reference to canals and ascertained how this country compares in that respect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. I have not collated those figures. I believe that we have had reports upon the subject.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make the same reply when we ask for a Grant to improve the Trent and Burton canal.

    Land Tenure.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have

    705
    Return prepared from the data secured in connection with land valuation to show by appropriate schedules how the land of Great Britain is held, as was done in the case of Lord Derby's Return?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I presume what my hon. Friend desires is a Landowners' Return such as was printed on page 15 of Lord Derby's Return (C. 1097 of 1875), showing for each county of England and Wales the number of owners below an acre, the number of owners of one acre and upwards, the total number of owners, and the extent of lands occupied by them. My right hon. Friend will consider whether such a Return could not be prepared as soon as the original valuation is completed.

    Agricultural Labourers' Cottages.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Salop, in which it is proposed to lend money at an artificially low rate of interest to landlords to build cottages for agricultural labourers; whether the Treasury have considered this or similar proposals; and whether they have recommended that such proposals would only result in keeping down the wages of the labourers, thus enabling the tenant farmers to pay higher rents?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My attention has been called to the Bill referred to. The Treasury are aware of the objections of the character described in the last part of the question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What are the objections referred to? Is it not in the interest of workmen that they should be able to get cheap houses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot discuss the economic question of the effect on wages of giving houses below cost price.

    Necessitous School Children (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland what proportion of the £7,500 granted for the treatment of necessitous school children in Scotland has been allocated to the Highlands and Islands?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There is no formal allocation of the sum in question to the various districts of Scotland. Applications for
    706
    assistance from this fund were invited from all school boards, and those boards which made application have as a rule had their claims allowed in full.

    Free Church of Scotland.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received further information regarding the administration of the property allocated to the Free Church of Scotland by the Royal Commission under the Churches (Scotland) Act; whether that information discloses the fact that the Free Church are unable adequately to carry out all the trusts of the property; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for a new allocation of property?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My hon. Friend has sent me certain information which appears to support his contention. I have received no representations from the authorities of the United Free Church on the subject, and I think it premature to add anything to my previous answers.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the "Monthly Record" of the Free Church of Scotland for January of this year the Church authorities state that there is only one minister available for every two congregations and stations, and will he not take facts like that into account in insisting that this Church should live up to its trusts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will take all relevant facts into account, and one of the most relevant of all, the United Free Church.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether, in the event of a new allocation of these religious endowments being necessary, it is proposed to allot them to the county councils and the museums in Scotland?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the limitation in the Church of Scotland Act, 1906, has been recognised in Scotland as a permanent limitation; and may I ask whether, though under the Act of 1906, it is quite true that the vacant charges in the Free Church of Scotland number 146, and that number has been gradually decreasing since that time—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only eight students finishing their term in the Free Church now, and that only four of these are bi-lingual.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Prime Minister institute inquiries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am waiting to hear what the United Free Church has got to say.

    Land Reform.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the Prime Minister will make a statement as to the position of the Government in the matter of land reform?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are giving the question of land reform careful consideration.
    Mr. F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the statements recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the National Liberal Club?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the question.

    Friendly Societies Act.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prime Minister will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act, with a view to simplifying the machinery and giving the Registrar larger powers of control and administration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not at present see any necessity for such amending legislation, but I am prepared to consider any points which the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

    Fatal Motor Car Accident (Barnes).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to the case of John Williams, acquitted at the Old Bailey on the 7th February, on a charge of the manslaughter of a lady at Barnes on the 7th December; that Williams admitted he knocked down the lady and did not stop the car; whether, seeing the car was travelling, according to the police, at thirty to forty miles an hour, he will say what steps he proposes taking, if any, to afford protection to His Majesty's
    708
    subjects; and whether, seeing the large number of persons killed and injured by motor vehicles, he will now appoint a Royal Commission to report on the question of motor traffic, with a view to prevent this loss of life?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. My attention has been drawn to the verdict of the jury in the case referred to, but I am not prepared to draw any conclusions from the result of a single trial. At the present time a Select Committee of this House is inquiring into the causes of street accidents, and nothing would be gained by appointing a Royal Commission.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that the Committee at present sitting is only dealing with accidents in London, and that is has no reference to the country generally. With regard to the first answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, is he aware that the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long). when he introduced the Bill of 1903, gave a definite pledge to the house that it was only a temporary measure, until motor traffic had further developed?
    Mr. McKENNA: No doubt my hon. Friend is right in what he states, but it had escaped my memory. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is quite true that the investigations of the Committee relate only to London.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has my Constituency, and have other constituencies in the country, no interest in this subject?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; there is great interest, but we would rather hear what the Committee have to say upon the first reference.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Several people have been killed in my district, and that interests them.
    Mr. WATT: And are Scotehmen to be killed with impunity?

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can say why there are only 550 applicants for land under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act from twenty-five counties in Scotland, whereas there are 532 in Argyllshire; and

    709
    why in the distinctively agricultural counties of Aberdeen, Forfar, Stirling, Selkirk, Kincardine, Banff, Linlithgow, Berwick, Haddington, Kinross, and Nairn, there were only ninety-three up to the 31st December, 1912?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Differences in the number of applications arise from a variety of local circumstances, but it may be that the applications from the crofting counties, of which Argyllshire is one, are more numerous because the benefits of landholding legislation have been experienced there since the Crofters Act, 1886.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the deficiency in the applications in the counties I have mentioned is due to the fact that the necessary advertisements have not been made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I do not think so.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is not another possible explanation that in these distinctly agricultural counties they are practical agriculturists who do not think much of the Bill?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if, in view of the evidence given before the Land Court as to the depredations by deer, the Secretary for Scotland proposes to introduce legislation for the more adequate protection of small holders?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Government has already legislated on this subject, both in Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and in Section 10 (3) of the Small Landholders Act, 1911. The effect of the latter provision is that damages claimed by a small holder suffering from the depredations of deer are assessed by the Land Court instead of by arbitration. In view of this recent provision it would be premature to propose further legislation at the present time.

    Trawling (Scotland).
    Mr. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the Fishery Board for Scotland to send an inspector with the trawlers to see and to report on the actual effect, of trawling and immature fish, as has been done by the English Fishery Board?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have already communicated with the Fishery Board to that effect.

    Sheriff Clerks' Deputes (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Macrae, who has been a clerk for twenty-nine years in the office of the sheriff clerk at Perth, but who has now become blind and has been forced to resign his office; whether he is aware that, although Macrae has been in the service of the State for such a long time, no fund exists out of which to pay him any honorarium or pension; will he make representations to the Treasury on behalf of this administration of the law in Scotland; and will he introduce legislation in the incoming Session dealing with the position and emoluments of the sheriff clerks' deputes and their assistants?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. In answer to the third and fourth parts of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by me to my hon. Friends the Members for the Wick Burghs and for Ross and Cromarty on the 1st August last
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any promise as to legislation?
    Mr. URE: No; I cannot give any undertaking at present.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is blindness a disqualification for judicial office, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man who was blind for fifteen years justified his retention of his position on the ground that justice is proverbially blind?
    Mr. URE: This was not a judicial position.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the present system of rating small holder's improvements is making the administration of the Small Holdings Act difficult; and whether he contemplates relieving progressive agriculture from the burden of the present rates upon improvements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information as to the first part of the question. My right hon. Friend is unable to make a statement as to any contemplated legislation on the rating system.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon.

    711
    Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture made that statement in this House some days ago?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; I am afraid that I could not have been present.
    Mr. PARKERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is considering the possibility of establishing a system of Rent Courts for fixing the rents and tenure of agricultural land; and, if so, whether they will bear in mind that agricultural experts now hold that it is not desirable to perpetuate the large grazing farms of the present day, and that it may therefore be undesirable to create a tenant right in such large holdings?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board are always ready to consider any proposal likely to affect the agricultural industry, and all relevant facts and opinions will be borne in mind.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if, in view of the fact that under the terms of the Small Landholders Act for Scotland Scottish small holders are not liable to be rated on their improvements, the President of the Board of Agriculture will take steps to place those who have acquired land under the Small Holdings Act for England and Wales in a like advantageous position?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) on Wednesday last.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to give publicity to the fact that the assessment for rates on the Skidby estate was raised from £583 to £1,012 10s., and on the East Heddon estate from £633 10s. to £1,450, as a result of small holders coming into possession, so that applicants for small holdings in Yorkshire and Northumberland may realise the extent of the obligations they propose to undertake?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend has already given wide publicity to the facts by calling attention to them in this House, and I do not think I need take any further steps in order to make them generally known.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman find out the number of people
    712
    who were employed on these farms before they were broken up into small holdings, so as to compare with the number now employed upon them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I can ascertain those facts, I will be very glad to give them.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can I have the amount of money expended on buildings, etc.?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think those facts have already been given.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mere fact of dividing farms into small holdings is now held to be sufficient ground for raising the assessment?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that is held by some assessors. My own view is that it is insufficient.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will applicants be warned as to what is likely to be their fate if they secure this land with the liability incurred by the great increase in rates and probably on the rent compared with what the farm previously paid?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as my information goes the applicants know quite well.

    Foxes and Poultry.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to a publication issued by the Poultry Keepers' Protection Society, in which it is asserted that if foxes were wired into coverts over a million birds would be saved yearly to the country; and if he intends to propose legislation to deal with this subject?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would it not be very much simpler to wire in the poultry, and run the poultry farms on American methods?

    Ceylon.
    Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the affidavit made by the editor of the "Ceylon Morning Leader," affirming the authenticity of the interview with Mr. Thurley, Madras Excise Commissioner, on leaving Ceylon;

    713
    whether Mr. Thurley was appointed to advise the Government of Ceylon as to the steps to be taken for the institution of a reformed Excise, to organise the necessary machinery, and to supervise its operation for a period after it had been put into working order; whether Mr. Thurley did so advise; what advice he offered; whether his scheme was adopted; and whether he will state the reasons why Mr. Thurley has not remained in Ceylon to supervise the scheme as originally intended?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Mr. Thurley (who has denied the truth of the interview) is being asked for further explanations upon the matter. With regard to the remainder of the question, Mr. Thurley's deputation to Ceylon was for a period of three years, which expired in September last. The advice which he gave, in conjunction with Mr. Horsburgh, of the Ceylon Civil Service, who was associated with him in the inquiry, is contained in their report which has been published in Ceylon, and forms the basis of the changes now being introduced. Before Mr. Thurley's departure the policy of the Government had been definitely decided, and it was not considered necessary to retain his services for the work of supervising the establishment of the new system, which the Government felt, having regard to the accumulated information on the subject, could be equally well carried out by an officer of junior standing.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a memorial from the Low Country Products Association, Ceylon, in opposition to the increase of licensed facilities under the new Excise Ordinance; whether he will give careful consideration to the facts laid before him in this memorial, with the object of meeting the wishes of the memorialists; and, in particular, whether, in view of the statements made in the memorial, instructions will be issued preventing any increase in the number of licences until the promised advisory committees are established?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen a copy of the memorial in question, and shall give careful consideration to the representations which it contains when I receive it through the Government of Ceylon. As I
    714
    have already explained to my hon. Friend, it is not possible to postpone the issue of licences for the coming year until after the establishment of the advisory committees, but I am assured that no licences will be renewed or new ones issued where there is not proved demand for liquor; and, as he is aware, formal and detailed instructions have been given by circular to the Government agents to ensure that local opinion shall receive a proper hearing before any new tavern is opened.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the resale of toddy rents in the Ratnapura district; whether he is aware that the Government agent has sold over 100 toddy licences in this area, but that only about one-third of that number of shops have been opened; whether he is aware that in the Kuruwita division the purchaser of the toddy rents has opened three shops, but has been called upon by the Government agent to open seven more; and whether, in view of this evidence that the licences issued are in excess of the real demand, instructions will be issued to the Government agent to refrain from insisting upon the opening of this excessive number of toddy shops in these areas?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware that statements have been made to this effect, but I am not aware whether they are correct. I am expecting a Report upon the matter from the officer administering the government. The fact that it has been found necessary to resell toddy licences in certain districts does not necessarily show that there is no demand for liquor in such districts in view of the prevalence of illicit consumption, and the opposition of persons interested in the arrack trade. As my hon. Friend is aware, one of the main principles on which the recommendations in the Excise Report with regard to retail trade were based, was that legal facilities should be given where extensive illicit sale is known to be going on.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is this not a case where the liquor itself creates the demand?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No; I am not quite sure that is the fact in view of my knowledge of what has been the illicit sale.

    Sierra Leone (Messrs. Lever Brothers).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he has received any expression of opinion

    715
    from the West African section of the London Chamber of Commerce, by deputation or otherwise, with regard to the Lever concessions in West Africa; and will he say if the opinion was favourable to the grant of the proposed concessions or otherwise; and (2) whether the West African section of the London Chamber of Commerce indicated to him the result of their consideration of the Palm Oil Ordinance with the proposed amendments; and will he say whether they were in principle opposed to, or in favour of, the passing of the Ordinance?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The opinion of the section is not in favour of the Ordinance. This also answers the hon. Member's other question, No. 63.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether unofficial members of the Legislative Council expressed approval or disapproval of the Gold Coast Palm Oil Ordinance for the purpose of granting special privileges to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited?
    Mr. HARCOURT: So far as I know, the Palm Oil Ordinance, in its amended form, has not yet been discussed by the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Has it been discussed in other than its amended form sufficiently to enable the right hon. Gentleman to know whether the unofficial members approve of it in principle or disapprove?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The principle is rather affected by the amendments. I have had no opportunity of knowing what is the opinion of unofficial members on the Ordinance as now presented.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain their opinion before it is put into operation?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I can ascertain their opinion when they have expressed it in their local legislative council.

    House of Commons (Works of Improvement).
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any important works of alteration or improvement are in contemplation in the buildings of Parliament?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): It is proposed at once to con-
    716
    struct a temporary staircase to replace the existing one which leads from the Strangers' Lobby to the Terrace. A permanent structure will be erected later in the year. It is also hoped in the autumn to put at the disposal of Members for the use of their secretaries a large room in Westminster Hall. A new Committee Room will also be opened there to replace a room upstairs which in future will be devoted to the use of the Committee Office. A considerable sum is being spent at once in improving the Cloak Room accommodation at the head of the grand Staircase.
    Mr. KING: Will the extra accommodation for Members' secretaries include lady secretaries?
    Mr. WILKIE: Will the hon. Gentleman make provision for more elevators?
    Mr. W. BENN'Sreply was inaudible.

    Road Board (Grants).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Road Board will favourably consider a proposal that Grants should usually be made on the scale of 75 per cent. of the total improvement in road crust work; and, in view of the fact that the Board are prepared to allocate further Grants up to £100,000 for the period ending 31st March, 1913, and that most of the local authorities are unaware of this sum, will the Board indicate to each county the approximate sum for which schemes may be considered; and, inasmuch as the actual execution of the works under the above £100,000 will not probably be completed before March, 1914, will the Board consider the advisability of indicating now a further allocation to each county to cover the period to March, 1914?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Road Board are usually prepared, within the limits of the funds available, to make a Grant of either 50 per cent. of the total cost of resurfacing or 75 per cent. of the cost of improvement in road crust work on roads which they consider suitable for Grants. Before allocating further Grants the Board desire to have certain technical advice as to the roads on which moneys can most advantageously be spent, and in order to obtain such advice they have appointed an advisory committee of Irish road engineers, who will shortly commence an inspection of a considerable mileage of Irish roads. The Board are not prepared to indicate a further allocation to each county at the present time.

    City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
    Mr. BARNESasked if the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies in Scotland, Mr. Addison Smith, has the authority of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in his attempt to get the board and officials of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society to call a meeting of the delegates of the society to carry out the alteration of rules to give effect to the undertaking given by the management when the society was approved in July last, and to the inspector's recommendations being made effective; and will the Chief Registrar now make such representations to the society so that the special meeting of delegates will be called at once?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies in Scotland has the full authority and approval of the Chief Registrar for the action he has taken to secure the amendments necessary to carry out the undertaking given by the City of Glasgow Friendly Society as a condition of being approved. There have been constant meetings for the purpose between the Assistant Registrar and the representatives of the society, the last having been a prolonged meeting last Saturday morning, 8th February. Representations have been made to the society as to the necessity of an immediate meeting for the adoption of the amendments.

SCOTT ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION.

  STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given private notice. If any excuse is needed for putting myself forward and asking a question which I
  believe will express the general wish of the House, I plead the fact that I was for some time the guardian of the public purse. My question is whether the Prime Minister has seen Captain Scott's last request message to his countrymen, and whether the Government will give favourable consideration to the appeal made by Captain Scott on behalf of the dependants of those who, in his own words, "Have given their lives to this enterprise, which is for the honour of our country"?
  The PRIME MINISTER(Members being uncovered): We are all at this moment under the deep impression produced by reading the last message of Captain Scott—one of the most moving and pathetic
  718
  utterances in the annals of discovery of a brave and enduring man face to face with a tragic but noble end to a career of self-devoting service. I can only say that his appeal will not fall on deaf ears.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any later information of the lamentable catastrophe to the Scott Antarctic Expedition; whether he can give the names of those who have perished; whether there are any survivors; and, if so, can he give their names?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The only official news I have is contained in the following telegram from Commander Evans, "Terra Nova," Christchurch, received this morning:—
  "Regret report deaths of Captain Scott and Petty Officer, First Class, C. Edgar Evans, 29th March and 17th February, 1912, respectively."
  Captain Scott and Petty Officer Evans were serving in the Royal Navy. Hon. Members have read in the papers news, which I am afraid is true, of the deaths of Captain Oates, 6th Inniskilling Dragoons; Dr. E. A. Wilson, principal scientific member of the expedition; and Lieutenant H. R. Bowers, Royal Indian Marine. As far as we know, all other members of the expedition are safe.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what extra business he proposes to take to-day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: After Ways and Means, we hope to take the Committee stage of the Aerial Navigation Bill, the Second Reading of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions) Bill, and consideration of Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill.

  LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC" INQUIRY (LEGAL COSTS).

    MR. SCANLAN'S VOTE.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to call your attention, Sir, to an incident which occurred in connection with the discussion in Committee last night. The Committee were discussing the Vote of £16,000 for legal expenses in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry, and after a full discussion the Deputy-Chairman put the Question, "That the reduced sum of £15,900 be granted to His Majesty for the said service." In that Division the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) voted in the "No" Lobby. I wish to ask you, on the general question, whether a Member who has a direct financial interest in the question under discussion is entitled to give a vote in this House. I have had an opportunity since last night of going through the different statements of your predecessors during the last 300 years, but I can find no parallel for a case of this kind. I do not propose to bring to your notice the very early rulings of your predecessors, but may I call your attention to a ruling of 17th July, 1811, when Mr. Speaker said:—
    "The rule was very plain. If they opened their journals they would find it established 200 years ago. and then spoken of as an ancient practice that a personal interest in a question disqualified a Member from voting."
    He then said:—
    "But their interest it should be further understood must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects or a matter of State policy."
    On 11th March, 1892, a Resolution was brought forward in this House to disallow the votes of three Members who had voted in favour of a Grant-in-Aid of the cost of the preliminary survey for making a
    746
    railway from the coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza. The First Lord of the Treasury, who was Leader of the House at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) said:
    "The principle which has been laid down from the Chair, and which I think is embodied in most books on this subject, is that no man shall give a vote if his interest in it be of a direct personal character. That principle must evidently be interpreted by the particular occasion on which the House is called upon to apply it."
    I pass over all the other rulings and come, Mr. Speaker, to your own ruling when Chairman of Ways and Means, in 1904 particularly, when you referred at some length to the previous rulings of your predecessors on a Motion in connection with the Licensing Bill of 1904. The then Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, rose in his place after a Division, and moved that a Member of the Conservative party who had voted in favour of that licensing question in which he was indirectly interested should have his vote disallowed. On that occasion, Sir, you said—in the first place you quoted from previous Speakers' rulings, and then, coming to 1898, you quoted:—
    "The rule of the House is well understood. There must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular character, and not of a public and general nature. Where the question before the House is of a public and general nature and incidentally involves the pecuniary interest of a class which includes Members of this House, they are not prevented by the rules of the House from voting."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but I may call the attention of the House to the further point, that when Mr. Speaker, as Chairman, gave that ruling, he did not put the concluding sentence of that 1898 ruling. It was as follows:—
    "If it were otherwise, it is obvious that on any proposal for altering the law of rating anyone who is either a landlord or a ratepayer might be prevented from voting."
    That was the ruling given by Mr. Speaker in 1898, when there was under discussion by the House the Local Government Board Vote. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on:—
    "I understand that Mr. Speaker's ruling was that where the pecuniary interest was incidental the general rule would not apply."
    You, Sir, then said this:—
    "I know that view was taken by the hon. Member, and by a great many other hon. Members, but I think he will admit that it is not the universal view. There is also this to be said, that it is perfectly possible that the hon. Member's position will not be affected in any way. The interest of the hon. Member is not of that direct personal character to which the ruling of Mr. Speaker refers."
    It is true there have been decisions by your predecessors, particularly in 1899,

    747
    when the question was raised as to whether the vote given by the Attorney-General in relation to his own salary would not bring him within the scope of this ruling. In reply, Mr. Speaker said that this was a very different question: the Motion to reduce the salary was made merely to raise the question as to the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Sir Erskine May on this question is perfectly clear. The whole point, I submit to you, turns upon what is meant by the word "incidental." I submit to you that the House has always in these matters been very careful indeed about its ancient privileges, that no Member should vote who had a direct personal interest. Sir Erskine May has said—but I do not wish to trouble the House by going into details. The whole question, I submit, so far as I am able to get into the matter, is what comes under the term "public policy." Does the vote that the hon. Member gave last night come within the term "public policy?" I submit it does not, because there never can be a vote given in this House which must not necessarily be one in which public policy is not involved. Therefore, I respectfully submit to you that according to the usages and long traditions of this House, that any hon. Member who has a direct personal interest—as in this case, an hon. Member having the direct financial interest of £500 in the particular Vote—has no right to vote. The hon. Member ought not to have voted. In conclusion, I may say that I have never spoken to the hon. Member in my life till yesterday. He is quite a stranger to me, and I am not raising this question on personal grounds at all.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I take no exception to the form in which the hon. Member has stated the general ruling. He has collated some of the dicta that has fallen from my predecessors, and added one of my own. I believe that they are all harmonious. I think that the rule as it appears from what he has said, is perfectly clear. I do, however, take exception to his raising the matter now. I think the proper time for him to have raised the matter was in Committee as soon as the vote was given. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] Well, the hon. Member made no Motion. A Motion could have been made that the vote of that particular Member should be disallowed. We, sitting here to-day, are not necessarily the same individuals as were sitting here last night and who heard the discussion. We are
    748
    not in a position to judge of the case which ought to have been treated instanter. In the well-known case which occurred in regard to the directors of the British East Africa Company, it is true that one or two days elapsed between the disallowance of the votes of those individuals, and the time when the Division was taken in which their vote was challenged, but that was by reason of the fact that the Committee in regard to that particular question of the East Africa Company were not sitting. This Vote was taken in Committee with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair and with presumably the interested parties present. I think the hon. Member is out of time in raising the question now. It ought to have been raised at once. If he had made out a primâ facie case the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Deputy-Chairman, would have allowed the matter to proceed at once and to be settled there and then.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: The Chairman ruled against the hon. Member.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the matter was settled then by the Chairman it cannot be reopened now. The action of the Chairman precludes it. That information from the hon. Member shows how difficult it is to raise, with me in the Chair, a matter which occurred, and that the hon. Member says was settled last night when the House was in Committee.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, might I ask you, as the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, as to whether you might not give an opinion on the general matter, because it is a very serious question; it affects every Member of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that there is any doubt whatever in regard to the general view. The general view is that a Member is not entitled to vote who has a direct personal pecuniary interest in the subject under discussion.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Yes, Sir; but the hon. Member concerned had not a direct pecuniary interest. I may remind you, too, that every day the Law Officers of the Crown vote for their own salaries. The question has been raised in reference to them, and it has been decided that it is perfectly right that they should vote.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: On that point may I just call your attention, before you answer the hon. and learned Gentleman,

    749
    that your predecessors have stated that the vote given in connection with the salary of the Attorney-General was one which enabled his conduct as Minister to be brought under the review of the House; that is an entirely different matter. On the general question may I say this: that the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means prevented me raising the question last night; therefore I had no opportunity to ask him whether the House was or was not entitled to review the matter at any time. I do not wish in any way to reflect upon the ruling given by the Deputy-Chairman. I was merely asking your view on this general question, and having got that I am perfectly satisfied.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt that the decisions of the Chairman are open to review, but that must be done upon a proper formal Motion, on which the House is asked to reconsider the decision and, if necessary, to set it aside. I am not a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Chairman in Committee.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not want to put down a Motion.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I, by way of personal explanation, say a few words as to what took place yesterday, as my position might be misunderstood? In giving my vote last night in Committee on the Motion for a smaller sum than was proposed in the original Estimate, I believed I was not doing anything wrong, and I maintain I did not do anything wrong, subject, of course, to what you, Sir, may say. My position was this: I was employed, not by the Treasury or the Board of Trade, but I was instructed by a solicitor who represented the National Union of Seamen and Firemen, and at a public inquiry I represented a private client. The Wreck Commissioner, Lord Mersey, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him under the Merchants Shipping Act—and any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the Act will know he has such powers to award costs against any party appearing at an inquiry—awarded costs against the Board of Trade, and directed, amongst other matters, that the costs of the clients I represented should be paid by the Board of Trade. These costs were paid by the Board of Trade. Of course I would have been paid my fees by my clients in any event. In these circumstances I submit that in giving the vote I did give I was as disinterested as any Member of the House,
    750
    including the hon. Baronet who raised this point; and, although I was not shaken in my view of what was right in the matter, in order not to have any question, I did not vote subsequently in the Division by which the full amount was voted to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. SPEAKER: After what the hon. Member has said I think it will be quite clear to the whole House, first of all, that the hon. Member has no direct pecuniary interest; and, secondly, that the Deputy-Chairman was therefore right in not allowing the question to be raised.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    FARM SERVANTS' HOLIDAYS BILL.
    "To give powers to local authorities to fix provisionally Holidays and Half-Holidays for Farm Servants." Presented by Mr. PRIMROSE; supported by Mr. Pringle, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Towyn Jones; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to move that leave be given to introduce a Bill to "Amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."
  It is not too much to say that the Report of the Committee on the social conditions of the Highlands and Islands has come as a shock to every Member who has made himself acquainted with the contents. I do not propose to allude further to the Report, except with reference to one matter on which the Committee lay special stress, and which cannot be met by any amount of Treasury Grant, and as it is the particular grievance from which many of my Constituents have suffered for many years, and can get no redress, that induces me to bring forward this Bill, which I trust will command the unanimous approval of the House. I allude to the difficulty experienced in the Highlands and Islands, and indeed in other districts in Scotland, with reference to the difficulty of obtaining suitable housing accommodation for doctors. The minister of the parish is provided with a good manse, the schoolmaster and mistress are invariably provided with comfortable houses, but the doctor has got to camp where and how he can, and the parish council, who know

  751
  well the urgent necessity of having a doctor in their midst, are powerless to assist.
  Hon. Members who have perused the Report will have noticed a special reference to the Island of Eday, Orkney; there the rent asked for a house which was erected by a former tenant and cost the landlord nothing, and which is the only house in the island available for a doctor's house, is absolutely extortionate, compared with the rent of other houses in the island. An adjoining case is much worse, and I regret very much that it is not made public in the Report of the Committee.
  This case, for sheer disregard for the safety of the lives of the islanders, is difficult to match. The estate is managed by a factor, and the mortgagee has no connection with the island or the people beyond that created by his mortgage. The islanders have for a long period, over twelve years, been striving to get a decent house for a doctor in their midst, and some ten years ago raised, by subscription, a considerable suns of money for the building. They were at first met in an uncompromising spirit of hostility, and the mortgagee or his advisers definitely refused to either sell, lease, or grant us a site for the house. We were powerless, but always hoped for a better spirit of Christian charity, and a little later we thought we were home, as the lawyer represent ing the mortgagee professed sympathy, and the islanders thereupon appointed him treasurer of the building fund, and the money was deposited in his bank.
  We now thought we were home, and were thankful; and the House will judge of our surprise when we found renewed hostility greater than ever, and that the money we had raised, and which had been placed in his agent's bank, was likely to remain there. The islanders have struggled to keep a doctor in their midst, and from time to time have been able to find a lodging somewhere for him or for her in a crofter's house, or such like place. They formed a medical committee and voluntarily subscribed annually to pay the medical officer of the parish council an additional sum to encourage him to come to and stay in the island. Hon. Members will hardly believe that the mortgagee in possession strained every effort to prevent them having a doctor in their midst, mid even appealed to the Scottish Local Government Board to find that it was illegal for the parish council to keep a medical
  752
  officer and rate for his salary, but I rejoice to say he was unsuccessful in his efforts to take away that little crumb of comfort enjoyed by the people. Thanks to the intervention of the Scottish Secretary, some further light was last year thrown on the matter in a letter, from which it appeared that the mortgagee had always professed his willingness to give or grant a site and the best title in his power. This offer was never made known to the committee charged with the conduct of the matter, and directly it appeared was immediately accepted and immediately withdrawn.
  We then tried to find out what reason there could be for this determined refusal, and imagined it might be that the landlord feared some small extra liability for rates. In order to get over this difficulty, I offered to enter into a bond to relieve the landlord of any possible liability under this head, and was assured that the offer would be transmitted to their client and a reply sent me. From that day, over six months ago, we have had no reply. There the matter rests. The awakening of the public conscience by the publication of the Report seems to afford a suitable opportunity for bringing this disgraceful state of matters before His Majesty's Government and the House of Commons. The island is separated from any other by a dangerous sea, where high tides render communication additionally difficult, sometimes impossible; and those of us who have seen our near and dear ones suffer from want of a little timely aid will appreciate the anxiety of the islanders to have a doctor in their midst. The Bill is merely for the purpose of slightly enlarging the powers of the parish councils in Scotland, and to enable them to acquire land for the purpose of obtaining a site for a house for a doctor and nurse, and to make a grant from the rates for that purpose, as the councils are already empowered to do in respect of other matters.
  Captain CRAIG: In rising to oppose the introduction of this Bill, needless to say I do not do so on the general principle of the Bill outlined by the hon. Member, but I do think it is reducing this House to an absolute farce when an hon. Member sitting on the Government side brings in a Bill within three or four days of the conclusion of the Session. The Bill outlined by the hon. Member would, from the sentimental point of view, appeal to all classes and sections of political

  753
  opinion in the House and in the country, but that is a very different thing from taking sensible action in a matter of this kind. Why could not the hon. Member wait until next Session, which, I understand, is to begin on the 10th March, to bring in his Bill? That would give all hon. Members an opportunity of examining it from the point of view of seeing how it conforms to the principle which the Government have already announced in granting something like £10,000 for the removal of the very state of affairs which the hon. Member complains of. One effect of allowing this Bill to go through would be that the hon. Member would get ahead of his Scottish colleagues in this way, that his Bill would be in print, and the Government, having announced their intention of making a Grant at an early date to the isolated parts of Scotland where the doctors have not proper facilities, and not only giving a Grant but of making inquiries to see what further is necessary in these widely-scattered areas, the hon. Member's Bill would be looked upon as a sort of guide in the matter, and therefore would prejudice the scheme which the Government intend to introduce as a whole. Without any desire of criticising the kindly spirit of the hon. Member who has presented this Bill, although tainted I am afraid by a little of the spirit of vote-catching in his own Division, and without impugning the sentimental character of the object of the hon. Member, I appeal to him not to press this Bill at this late stage of the Session, unless he intends it to take the same rank as the other large measures put forward by the Government under the Parliament Act. I do not know whether the hon. Member has sufficient support amongst the various log-rolling groups to get his measure starred by the Government, but I say that it is reducing the whole thing to absolute ridicule for such a staunch supporter of the Government to introduce a Bill like this, three days from the end of the Session, and in a Session, so far as length is concerned, which is without parallel within the memory of most of us. I think the hon. Member must feel that this Session we have carried more than enough legislation. For those reasons I oppose this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Barnes, Sir John Dewar, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Lyell, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Macpherson, Mr.
  754
  Morton, Mr. Munro, and Mr. Eugene Wason. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 365.]

  RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  The following notices of Motion appeared upon the Order Paper:—
  Mr. MORTON: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to consider the desirability of making provision for requiring railway companies to provide sleeping accommodation for third-class passengers on all trains on which sleeping accommodation is provided."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the desirability of requiring railway companies to separate their trading accounts so that the approximate cost of dealing with passengers, goods, and mineral traffic, respectively, can be ascertained by the public."
  Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the desirability of requiring railway companies to separate their trading accounts so as to enable traders and others interested to ascertain if one branch of trade is being charged for the increment cost of working other branches of trade."
  Mr. PETO: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that it be a condition precedent to putting in operation the provisions as to increased rates that every increased rate which includes conveyance and station terminals has been shown in the book of rates kept by a company under Section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as a station to station rate, and that there has been included in the matters shown in the said book of rates a statement setting out the separate amounts charged for the station accommodation provided, and for each of the several services performed by the company as part of the increased rate."
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they be empowered to limit the operation of the Bill as to increases of rates or charges by railway companies to increases of the rates or charges on goods imported from abroad and on minerals."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that provision shall be made for the taking into consideration of the element of economy, as well as of increased cost due to improvements made in the conditions of employment in the staff of any railway company, in deciding whether an increase of rate or charge is justified."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The first Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) proposes to insert provisions in the Bill in order to provide sleeping accommodation for third-class passengers, and that is beyond the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. MORTON: May I point out that on the Second Reading the House discussed railway nationalisation, railway accounts and other matters connected with third-class passengers, and I wish to know why I am precluded from dealing with the same questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot go back on the Second Reading. I have only to deal now with the Instructions as they appear on the Paper. To insert now any Clause dealing with third-class sleepers is quite irrelevant to the subject-matter of this Bill.
  Mr. MORTON: You stopped me discussing this question on the Second Reading.
  Mr. SPEAKER: As I have already pointed out, you cannot go back upon the Debate on the Second Reading, and I am now dealing with the Instructions on the Paper. If the hon. Member objected to anything I said on the Second Reading he should have raised it then. The next three Instructions, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), the hon. Member for East Bradford (Sir W. Priestley), and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), are all mandatory Instructions, and therefore are out of order in Committee of the Whole House. The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. George Terrell) proposes to limit the operation of this Bill as to increases of rates or charges by railway companies to increases of the rates or charges on goods imported from abroad and on minerals. That can be done, if the Committee think fit, by Amendment in Committee. The last Instruction, standing in the name
  756
  of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Charles Bathurst), is also a mandatory Instruction, and cannot be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increased Expenditure due to Cost of Improved Labour Conditions to be treated as a Valid justification of Increased Rates.)
    Where on a complaint with respect to any increase (within the maximum) of any rate or charge under Section one of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, the railway company proves to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commissioners—

    (a) that there has been a rise in the cost of working the railway resulting from improvements made by the company since the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and eleven in the conditions of employment of their staff; and

    (b) that the whole of the particular increase of rate or charge of which complaint is made is part of an increase made for the purpose of meeting the said rise in the cost of working; and

    (c) that the increase of rates or charges made for the purpose of meeting the rise in the cost of working is not, in the whole, greater than is reasonably required for the purpose; and

    (d) that the proportion of the increase of rates or charges allocated to the particular traffic with respect to which the complaint is made is not unreasonable, the Commissioners shall treat the increase of rate or charge as justified.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I ask on what ground my Amendment has been ruled outside the scope of the Bill. The object of my Amendment, with the consequential Amendments which follow, is to limit the cases in which it can be shown there has been improvement in the conditions of those cases which are mentioned and surely that is within the scope of Section 1 of the Act of 1894.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Bill deals with increases of rates or charges made for the purpose of meeting a rise in the cost of working a railway due to improved labour conditions. The hon. Member's Amendment goes far in advance of the general question. The first Amendment in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood).
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "complaint" ["where a complaint"], to insert the words "made on or before the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirteen." If my Amendment is carried the Clause will read:—
    "Where on a complaint made on or before the 19th day of August, 1913, with respect to any increase (within the maximum) of any rate or charge under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, the railway company proves to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commissioners."
    My object in moving this Amendment is, so far as I can, to limit the Bill to carrying out the definite pledge which the Prime Minister made to the railway companies in August, 1911. The terms on which the railway companies consented to have the strikers back again in their employ included a promise from the Prime Minister that if they did so, and if they raised the rate of wages owing to that strike, then the Government would allow the railway companies to use that increased rate of wages as evidence before the Royal Commission that specific rates should be raised against the traders of the country. My Amendment accurately carries out the pledge of the Prime Minister. In any case I do not think it binds the rest of the House, although it binds the Government, but I believe the Government could accept this Amendment and still be keeping to the letter and the pledge they gave to the railway companies in August, 1911. This Amendment says that complaints made before a certain date shall be allowed to take into account the rise of wages, and it limits the operation of the Bill in this way, that in the case of any rise in wages made subsequent to the present date utterly unconnected with the late railway strike of August, 1911, the company should not be able to plead those rises in wages as a ground for increasing the rates against the traders. It says to the companies "You shall be allowed to plead the increase in wages which was directly due
    758
    to the great strike, but you shall not be allowed to plead for all time that any rise of wages in any part of the land is ipso facto a good ground for a general increase in railway rates. I maintain that if we put this Amendment into the Bill we shall be doing all that the railway companies can reasonably require of the Government, and at the same time we shall be conferring an enormous benefit upon the whole of the trading community. If this Bill passes as it is drawn it stands to reason that at any future date, it may be fifty years hence, if a trader complains of some rate being increased—it is true that everyone knows that the maximum is 50 per cent. above the present rates—he will have pleaded against him some rise in pay which makes that increase in rate justifiable.
    If this Amendment is put in, you make it quite definite that the railway company must raise the rate within a certain period, and must not come along 50 or 100 years hence, and say because we raised wages in 1911 we now rule you out and we say that as traders you have no right to complain of our increased rates. I appeal to hon. Members whether it is not fair and right in the interests of the trading community, and also in the interests of the consumers, that we ought to say that this measure only refers to increases in wages made during the great strike, and that it shall not be possible for railway companies, years and years hence, to use a rise in wages given them as an excuse for a subsequent increase in the rates charged to the traders. Agriculture has suffered already sufficiently by high rates. Every reform in regard to small holdings and intensive cultivation is hampered by charges upon market produce, and owing to the want of co-operation and poverty those engaged in agricultural pursuits are unable to bring before the railway companies and the Railway Commissioners complaints in regard to any increase in railway rates. You are putting those people in an unfair position, because they never know how far back the railway companies may go to discover in some hole-and-corner manner a trivial increase in wages, and use that against the interests of the agricultural small holder, who, if we pass this Bill as it stands, will have no power to resist the plea put forward by the railway company. If we pass this Bill without limiting the period during which the railway companies will be able to plead excuses of this kind, we shall be putting

    759
    an unfair penalty on the small trader, and the consumer, and giving an unfair bonus to the vested interests of the railway companies. I do not think vested interests have any right to ask from Parliament the power to transfer to the back of the consumer an increase in their charges due to their paying, for the first time, a living wage to their men. I do not think this House would be well advised to increase or go forward with this precedent which was made in the hard times of a national strike. Even if the House agrees that we should give to this vested interest the bonus which this Bill confers upon them, I think it should be limited within the bounds of reason, and we ought to lay down that after such and such a date—I am not particularly anxious about fixing the date as the 1st of July, 1913, because any subsequent definite date would suit me—so that the traders may know that this can only apply after that date. I ask the Government, at any rate, to give us some hope of a limitation in this direction.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I do not think my hon. Friend quite understands the effect these words would have. If the words were accepted the Clause would read:—
    "Where on a complaint made on or before the 19th day of August, 1913, with respect to any increase—"
    etc. It appears to me if these words were passed it would be immensely to the disadvantage of the trader, because, if the Railway and Canal Commissioners agreed to the proposed rate, it would then come in force. The 13th of August, 1913, is not very far off, and, if they did not make complaint before then, they would be precluded under the Amendment from making any complaint at all. I am sure that is not the object my hon. Friend has in view, but it is the effect of his words. I understand his object is that this undertaking shall not continue indefinitely, but only for about one and a half years, during which time the increases made shall be subject to the consideration of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and that after a certain period no further increases in rates shall be made under the Bill. I think it would be a very great mistake from every point of view to fix any period, because the first result would be that the railway companies, being limited in the period during which they could make their increases, would obviously make them at the earliest possible moment, and that
    760
    would certainly not be to the advantage of the trader. They would also naturally recoup themselves to the fullest possible extent in the period which the Act allowed. That also would not be to the advantage of the trader. My hon. Friend said the only increases which ought to come under the Bill were those made during the strike.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Those made as the result of the strike.
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Conciliation Committees under which these increases are practically made will in many cases continue in existence until 1914, and, if they are working satisfactorily, they will undoubtedly continue after that time, probably indefinitely. I do not think therefore there is any justification for limiting, and certainly I should not consider the Government were carrying out their undertaking if they limited it to such a period. It would be altogether contrary to the spirit and the intention of the undertaking, and I think it would be to the great disadvantage of the traders themselves. I pointed out on the Second Reading, and I think it was generally understood, that the object of the Bill was to facilitate and induce railway companies to improve the conditions of their employés, and to remove the stumbling block which already exists in the way of their doing so. That stumbling block, it seems to me, should be removed for as long a period as possible, and I think from the point of view of the traders, and certainly of the employés, the Amendment would be really injurious, and I hope under those circumstances my hon. Friend will not press it.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Debate on this Amendment will make any further debate on the Amendment standing in my name impossible?
    The CHAIRMAN: To which Amendment does the hon. Member refer?
    Mr. PETO: My Amendment limiting the operation of the Act to three years. It is a new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I shall have to be guided by the nature of the present Debate; it has hardly developed far enough yet.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am sure there is no one in the House who feels more

    761
    strongly than I do with regard to the administration of the railway campanies as affecting the welfare of the traders, and particularly the farmers and small holders to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite has referred, but I am bound to say, after carefully studying the Amendment, I cannot see how the traders will benefit, and I am quite certain the employés of the railway companies will suffer. I represent a considerable number of railway employés, and, as representing their interests as well as those of agriculturists, I am opposed to the acceptance of this Amendment. It seems to me, if this limitation is inserted, it is bound to operate against any increase of wages to employés after August next, and for that reason I shall oppose it. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the Railway and Canal Commissioners already have jurisdiction to allow increases in railway charges if there is an improvement as regards wages in the condition of those employed by the railway companies, so, supposing this Amendment were passed, if it could be shown the railway workers had benefited, that would still be sufficient justification for an increase in rates.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, because the effect from every point of view will be disadvantageous both to the trader, the railway companies, and the railway employés. Whatever his motive may have been, if he reads the Amendment as it will be when it comes to be put into the Bill, he will see the only effect will be to restrict the complaints that can be made, and I therefore hope he will not press it.
    Mr. MARTIN: If that were the effect of the Amendment I should be opposed to it very strongly, but I cannot see that is the effect at all. The Amendment does not suggest that complaints are to be restricted, far from it. A railway company can only raise this new question of more money having been paid to employés where a complaint is made under Clause 1 of this Bill.
    Mr. BUXTONindicated dissent.
    Mr. MARTIN: A railway company raises the rate first, and then a complaint has to be made. When the complaint is made the Railway and Canal Commissioners have power under Clause 1 to consider the question of the better conditions of the employés. The Amendment does not interfere with that in any way. It provides that Clause 1 shall not apply to
    762
    any complaints unless they are made before August, 1913. This Bill refers only to increases in the rates of wages of railway employés and improvements in their conditions made by the railway companies to settle the strike of 1911. If it were not for that, I am sure the House would not have consented on Second Reading to pass a Bill of such far-reaching importance at this late stage in the Session. I entirely disagree with those who have suggested that a Bill of that kind would be a good Bill. There may be a difference of opinion. Some hon. Gentlemen may think that would be a good Bill, and I may think it would not; but I hope all will agree that this stage of the Session is not the time to discuss and finally decide a wide-reaching proposition of that kind. The Amendment, I submit, would do what the Government announced they intended to do, and, without which announcement, I do not think they would have got the Bill through on Second Reading. I know a large number of Liberal Members voted for the Second Reading, not because they were in favour of the Bill at all, but because they consider the Government had bonâ fide made a promise for the purpose of settling a great strike, and they felt called upon to back the Government up in carrying out that promise. I therefore say my hon. Friend is quite justified in attempting to confine the Bill to what the Government promised. It was certainly very far from the Government's promise that railway companies should be entitled to unload the whole cost of every rise in wages and every change for the better in the conditions of the men upon the trading public of the country. They did not promise any such thing.
    There was a strike, and the men asked for certain wages and certain improvements in their conditions. The Government said if the railway companies would give those wages and grant those improvements in the conditions they would introduce a special Bill to allow them to add it to their rates. That is the question before us. The Bill was passed on Second Reading, after very inadequate discussion, because it dealt with that single point. I was very anxious to deal with the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, but I had no opportunity, because it was closured by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think for a moment he would do that for the purpose of suppressing discussion of a very important question, but he did it because the Bill dealt

    763
    with that single point, because we were at the end of the Session, and because the Government wanted to carry out their promise. I do not blame him for closuring it under those circumstances, but I do protest against such a very wide principle as is contained in Clause 1 being allowed to go through under the circumstances in which we are here at the present time. I suggest that the Government, in order to be fair with the House and to get the Bill through, should accept the Amendment. I protest very vigorously that it is not an Amendment which will prevent traders making a complaint. It will prevent the railway companies pleading Clause 1 before the Railway and Canal Commissioners except with regard to complaints that are made as to rises in connection with the strike in August, 1911. Under those circumstances, I support the Amendment very strongly. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter very intimately with railway employés, of whom my Constituency is largely composed, and I know they are very much opposed to this Bill, and expect, if possible, to have it confined in Committee by Amendments such as this to the circumstances under which the Government actually made the promise, and under which they have got the Bill through the House on Second Reading.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I confess that, while I quite agree that we are bound in honour by the promise of the Government, and while I think that if this Bill was presented immediately after the strike was over we should have passed it with very little comment, yet as it is now, there is not the slightest doubt that there has been a very considerable amount of disturbance, and a considerable amount of opposition has been generated against this measure. Therefore it is well we should criticise the Bill, whilst giving legislative effect to the promise of the Government, and that we should seek to keep it within the limits of that promise. I venture to suggest, in spite of the discussion that has taken place on this Amendment and the various criticisms upon it, that really the effect of the Amendment is to carry out the bare promise of the Government, and not to allow the companies to use this Bill for extracting still further tolls out of the traders who use their lines for purposes of transit. The situation is very serious indeed; there are very few traders who can afford any in-
    764
    crease whatever upon the cost of transit. I have many complaints from my own Constituency with reference to this Bill and to the Clause which is now under discussion; and it is for those reasons necessary that we should calmly and judiciously consider this proposal. The situation, as I understand it, is that the Government made a promise to the railway companies that if they would agree to certain advances of wages, they on their part would agree to this Bill being passed to enable them to recoup some of the expenses they had incurred in making that improvement. The Clause which we are now discussing says to the companies, "You shall have no powers practically beyond what you now possess." It says that the rates must be still within the maximum, but, even so, traders can complain that the freights charged are excessive, and when the trader does make such a complaint it will be open to the company to rebut that complaint on the part of the public, and to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to take into account the amount of wages which has resulted from the negotiations which took place a year ago, and the increased cost of transit which has resulted from those wages. So far as they could prove their case, that shall be on the part of the railway companies an answer to the complaint, even if the freight is still within the maximum.
    What does the Amendment say? It proposes to put after the word "complaint" the words "made on or before the 19th day of August, 1913." That allows the rates to be raised by the railway companies on account of the extra expenditure which they say has resulted from the settlement of the dispute a year ago, and then, if the trader complains of that rate on the ground of it being excessive, it puts a limit to that defence by the railway company by the period mentioned in the Amendment. After that the railway companies shall not be entitled to use the remaining Sections of the Clause for the purpose of rebutting that complaint. At the same time, unless these limiting words are inserted, you will give them carte blanche, so that at any period, it may even be ten years hence, when a complaint is made by the traders of excessive freightage the answer of the companies can be that recently, or during the nine or ten years, wages have been so improved that they are entitled to make this increase, and that must be considered by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, if proved,

    765
    as a sufficient answer to the case of the traders. That is not quite the sort of cheque which we ought to write and give to the railway companies. We should limit it to the increase which has resulted from the strike which the Government settled by making this promise. If, on some future occasion, any dispute takes place, and the railway men are able to make another demand and extract another concession from the railway companies, then the companies ought to come again to this House for a similar measure. What it amounts to now, as a matter of fact, is that for the future they will be able to use this Bill whenever they pretend they have made a concession to their workpeople. I quite agree that some kind of proof that they have made this concession will have to be given before this would be an answer on the question of increased rates.
    I venture to suggest on many grounds that this Amendment is necessary. First, on the side of the men. I have 800 railway men in my Constituency, and I represent them to that extent, and for their own sake, for their own purpose, for the purpose on some future occasion of extracting still another increase for these men, we ought to retain this power in our own hands, and not give carte blanche to the railway directors to say that this is an answer to any suggested improvement in the condition of the workpeople. Still more in the interests of the traders it ought to be limited. Take my own Constituency; the whole population there are practically ruined by railway freightage as it is to-day; it is well known, and shows how necessary some limit of the kind is, that it costs as much to take a crate of goods from Longton to Romford, a distance of some 37 miles; it is exactly the same sum, I am informed by the President of the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce, which is charged to put the same crate on board a ship, take it across 3,000 miles of sea, put it on board an American railway truck, and take it across 2,500 miles of American railway. The cost is exactly the same for 37 miles as it is for 7,000 miles.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can enter upon this Bill into a general discussion of railway rates. The Bill is closely limited in its title and scope, and it only deals with the proposed increase of rates suggested to meet the increased cost of working in view of increase of wages.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I quite understand that I am bound to keep within the terms of this Bill, or else one could show where a good deal of this useless expenditure on railway management goes at the present time, representing a sum which would be sufficient to meet all that the workmen have got in increases of wages. I merely use that argument to show that we must have some kind of limitation as to how far the complaints of the traders can be rebutted by the railway companies. We must see that they cannot always use this, Section, and that they shall be limited to some time, so that if there is any future bound forward in wages, which would justify Parliament in interfering again, they shall be bound to appeal to this House and to prove their case before they are granted such a concession. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme goes to a Division I shall support him. We want to be able to say to the railway companies, "If you want to meet the objections and complaints of the traders you must show that there has been a positive improvement since the last rate was made." There must be some limit—I do not say these are the exact words, but they cannot have carte blanche for ever. They may say that porters' wages at such and such a station have been improved or that platelayers have got sixpence more or are working half an hour less than they used to do, but they should not be able to use this Clause for ever as an answer to the complaint, made by the traders. That is an absurd proposition. I think this Amendment represents the promise made by the Government when they settled the dispute.
    Mr. PETO: I intend to keep closely to the actual Amendment. It seems to me the Committee should bear in mind that there is not a single word in the actual undertaking given by the Government stating that their offer to the railway companies shall be limited exclusively to the increased rates due to the late strike. Therefore it seems to me that several of the speeches made on the other side are based upon an entire misconception of the situation. On one point I agree with what has been said on the other side, and that is that this Bill requires some limitation, but we have reasonable Amendments down to carry that into effect, and I do hope that this subject will be properly discussed. I found myself in agreement with the President of the Board of Trade when he said that it would be undesirable.

    767
    both from the point of view of the wage-earner and the trader, that the whole question should be rushed in the next few months, as proposed by this Amendment. I believe the result would be to produce exactly that state of industrial unrest which is so undesirable, and which would present an insuperable incentive to the railway companies to rush all their increases of rates through in the next few months and disorganise the trade of the country. I am also entirely in agreement with the hon. Member who spoke in the interests of agriculture in saying that, so far as the agriculturists and traders of the country are concerned, a reasonable limit to the operation of this Bill is desirable, but this particular Amendment is most undesirable. I am opposed to it for one additional reason, which is that the hon. Member for Stoke, who has just spoken, said that in desiring to limit the operation of this Bill exclusively to the results of the crisis of last year he deliberately wished—and that, I assume, is concurred in by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—to lay down that if at any time we have a strike on the railways we should have to pass another Bill through this House to deal with the situation. If that were to be the result of this Amendment it would be a most unfortunate result, in addition to the unfortunate results I have already enumerated. I hope, therefore, that there is not the slightest chance of the Amendment being carried.
    Sir A. MOND: I hope the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will not press his Amendment, and I am speaking on behalf of the traders. As I read it, and as I am advised, the only result of it is to limit the time in which traders can make complaints in regard to this matter before the Court of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It says "where any complaint made on or before the 19th August, 1913." If no complaint is made by the 19th August, 1913, the trader is entirely out of court.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, no.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MOND: My hon. Friend says we shall go back to the old law. I am very doubtful on that point. I am advised by very competent legal authorities that his interpretation is incorrect. If we want to carry out the hon. Member's intentions, we had much better wait until we get to the Amendment which limits the duration of
    768
    the Bill. I think this Amendment is certainly detrimental to traders. I speak on behalf of the organisation of traders, whose legal adviser I have consulted, and that is their view. It will not be in any way to their advantage, nor will it carry out the object desired. The result of the Amendment, if carried, is rather absurd, for if any complaint made after August, 1913, comes under the old law, obviously no complaint will ever be entered under their present Bill at all, and it becomes so much waste paper.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear.
    Sir A. MOND: If that is what my hon. Friend wants, he ought to say so. The Amendment would destroy the chance of traders complaining under the Bill. I do not think that traders at the present time are desirous of doing either of these things, for one simple reason that it will keep alive for ever friction between the railway employés and the railway directors or managers, and there will be continual reference to the House of Commons to settle the dispute, either on behalf of the railway men or the companies. That would be a most unfortunate thing. I cannot understand anyone who represents labour interests supporting this Amendment. The point some hon. Members have in their minds does arise in the later Amendment limiting the duration of the Bill to a definite number of years. The whole question can then be discussed, and in these circumstances I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Some of the speeches and statements have been very interesting, but they have certainly not been germane to the Amendment we are discussing. If the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) is, as he says, speaking in the name of the men, I can quite conceive that he is doing his best, as he believes it to be, in the interests of the men, but I would respectfully suggest to him and to others that they should save their enthusiasm for some of the later Amendments which tend to improve the Bill in a genuine sense. The position appears to me to be that we are likely to have this Bill. That being so, I want to fashion it in the interests of the men. It is evident that the Amendment is not what the Mover intended it to be. We are not dealing with his speech, nor with the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke. We may agree with much that they have said, but they were not dealing with the

    769
    Amendment. As it appears on the Paper, the Amendment is absolutely the reverse of what his speech indicated that he intended it to be. That being so, it will be much better, in order to get on to the Amendments that do matter, for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir LUKE WHITE: I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. A good many Members on both sides of the Committee are in favour of limiting the duration of this measure, and I believe that the proper time for discussing it is when we come to the new Clause limiting the duration of the Bill to a certain number of years. I do not think the Amendment now before the Committee will carry out the intention of the hon. Member, or of those who have supported the Amendment, and it may have the result of putting in jeopardy the Amendments which will really limit the duration of the Bill. I hope the Committee will consider this question on the new Clause of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst), which is an Amendment agreeable to all sections of the House. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will agree to some limitation of the measure in the interests of everyone.
    Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I cannot profess to speak with the authority of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) on behalf of railway employés, but I do represent a good many of them in my Constituency, and they have been unanimous, so far as I can understand, in wishing this Bill not to proceed. Nor can I speak as the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) did on behalf of the people employed on the railways and traders who have dealings with railway companies. He must combine in himself a very extensive power if he can represent those elements at the same time. It seems to me that this Bill was introduced for a specific purpose—to deal with the settlement effected after the railway strike, and if that cannot be dealt with by August of this year, I do not see what the object of this Bill is at all.
    Mr. BARNES: I want, if possible, some statement made by the Government before we go to a vote on this matter. I can quite understand that the words suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) may not carry out exactly what he is aiming at. It is clear to my mind that the Bill as framed does for all time give to the Railway Commis-
    770
    sioners the power to grant increases to the railway directors. I do not want that. On the other hand, I think that the Amendment, if literally applied, would make nonsense of the Bill, because it limits the whole operation of the Bill. It has been suggested that it only limits the power of the trader to make a complaint. In doing that it limits the scope of application of the Bill until next August, and thereafter it becomes defunct, therefore the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) would be a better one to adopt. I only want to ask the Government if they will assent at some later stage, if this Amendment is withdrawn, to some limitation being put into the Bill. I would much rather vote for the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, but it is of no use disguising the fact that it is down a dozen pages later on the Amendment paper, and it is not very probable that we shall reach that point. At all events, we ought to have the application of this Bill limited to three or four years, or whatever time it may be, after which the railway directors shall not have the right of pleading, in justification of increased rates, that they have increased wages. Unless we have some statement from the Government as to their intention to put in some limitation of the duration of the Bill, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. BUXTON: It is quite clear from the discussion we have had that the question of the duration of this Bill does not really arise in regard to this Amendment. There are Amendments down later on limiting the duration of the Bill, which will undoubtedly be reached, and which the Committee will have an opportunity of considering. I shall then endeavour to show that limiting the duration of the Bill in these circumstances, in the first place, would not be carrying out the undertaking of the Government; and, in the second place, would be injurious to the whole objects of the Bill, to the men themselves, and to the other interests concerned. I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of that now, because I think we should have a better discussion when we get to that point rather than on this Amendment, which travels over a good deal of ground which is not germane to it. That is my answer to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). I am prepared to discuss the question on its merits.
    Mr. MORRELL: On a point of Order, Sir. In the event of this Amendment being negatived, shall we still be able to raise the question of the duration of the Bill upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Before you decide the point of Order, may I urge that the discussion of this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the discussion of the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division. This Amendment says that complaints made before a certain date shall come under this Bill, and that complaints made after that date shall come under the present law. It prevents the railway companies having any advantage in arguing with a trader after a certain date, and it leaves them after that date in exactly the same position they are in to-day. If the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division is moved, the discussion on that will be on quite a different point, namely, how long this Bill is to last, not how long before that date complaint is to be made, but how long the Bill is to be in operation. I submit that that is a totally different question. Although it is true that some of the speeches made on this Amendment have been germane to the other subject, yet on the actual facts of the case the Amendment he desires would be entirely different.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the hon. Member's own speech was more directed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) than to the Amendment he has moved, namely, the question whether the Bill should be limited or not. If the Debate proceeds any further on that line, I shall certainly be bound not to allow it to be raised again.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that when we come to discuss the question of the duration of this Bill, and whether it should be limited or not, the Government's attitude will be they will not agree to the Bill being limited?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that if we are going to deal with that question now it must be once and for all.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The point is an entirely different one.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can we have your ruling, Sir, on the question put by my hon. Friend?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that was the point I was endeavouring to answer namely, whether this Amendment would exclude the subsequent one on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division. Is that the point?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: We have been debating this matter for an hour, and almost every speech I have heard has been on the question whether the whole Bill should be limited in its duration. I am obliged to be guided by the nature of the Debate, as well as the actual words of the Amendment. I have already said that if the Debate proceeds on that line any further it will be my duty to exclude the other proposal.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I suggest that you, Sir, put the Committee in a perfectly impossible position. For instance, suppose I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment a single railway director can refuse leave, whereupon the Committee would be compelled to vote upon my Amendment, which is one in effect practically negativing the Bill, and they would be unable to discuss the subsequent Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I wish the hon. Member had made that clear at the beginning, because I should have ruled his Amendment out of order and we might have saved an hour. I think he had better withdraw it quickly.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: As the Amendment to which reference has been made stands in my name, I would ask your definite ruling as to whether if this discussion continues, it will be ruled out of order. I entirely agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) that his Amendment has no relevance whatever to the Amendment standing in my name to the effect that the operation of the Bill should last for three years only.
    Mr. MORRELL: Would not the simplest way out of the difficulty be that if any future speeches are made beyond the true limits of the present Amendment, they should be ruled out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: My difficulty was that I did not understand the purport of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood). If he had explained it at first as he explained it in a word just now, I should certainly have ruled it out at the beginning, but I am not always able to

    773
    apprehend what Members are attempting to achieve in their Amendments. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst), I have been endeavouring for the last few minutes to avoid a ruling that this would exclude the future Amendment, but I am bound to hold if the Debate proceeds that it must have a serious effect on the subsequent one.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: If the Amendment is withdrawn now, shall we still be able to discuss a limitation of time?
    The. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that is so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In these circumstances, would it not be better to rule my hon. Friend's Amendment out of order now?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I quite understand the position, but the fault is not entirely mine. It is largely due to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton). My Amendment is in effect one negativing the Bill—that is to say, the Bill will only be operative if complaints are made before a certain date, and naturally no trader would complain until after that date. In so far as it is an Amendment which will deprive this Bill of any sort of value to the railway companies, it is an Amendment negativing the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then I at once rule it out of order.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out that the hon. Member's construction is not the real meaning of the Amendment at all, and that, therefore, it is in order notwithstanding the view that my hon. Friend takes of it?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already given my ruling.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move to leave out the words "the maximum" ["any increase within the maximum"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any limit fixed by an Act of Parliament, or by a Provisional Order confirmed by an Act of Parliament."
    Mr. BUXTON: I accept that Amendment.
    Mr. HILLS: I should like to know what is the exact effect of changing the word "maximum" into the sentence which appears on the Order Paper, because if it is a mere case of drafting there is nothing to be said against it, but if it has got any
    774
    sort of practical effect I think the Committee ought to know what that practical effect is.
    Mr. BUXTON: This is only taking the words already in Clause 1. It is better to have it quite clear on the face of the Bill what maximum is intended.
    Mr. WARDLE: Are there any rates at all fixed by Provisional Order?
    Mr. BUXTON: Some of them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. George Terrell) I have a little doubt about. If it is within the scope of the Bill at all, there can be only a very limited discussion dealing entirely with the increase proposed in this Bill, and not entering into any general question as between the rates on agricultural produce at home and abroad.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, after the word "charge" ["of any rate or charge"] to insert the words "for the carriage of goods other than agricultural produce the products of the United Kingdom."
    I quite agree that the scope is limited. The object of the Amendment is that no alteration should be made in railway rates which would prejudice our farming industry. We are all at this moment full of sympathy with the labourer, because if you hit the farmer it stands to reason that you hit the labourer, and the surest way of attacking a man is to attack him through his job. We want to encourage our farming industry. It is heavily handicapped at present, and bears a heavy burden of taxation in various forms, and I am extremely anxious that if the Bill goes through in its present form it will seriously handicap the people. Last week I raised the question of the rates on milk coming from France to London, and according to the answer which I obtained—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point which can be raised on this Amendment. It must be confined solely to the question of this new suggested increase, and cannot deal with existing differential rates.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I was not raising the fiscal question in any shape. I wanted to show that there is a through rate from the Continent to London, and likewise a

    775
    through rate from most of our towns for milk. I think within a 100 mile radius, the rate is 1d. per gallon from most towns. By this Bill we give the Railway Commissioners power to increase the rate, and at the same time we do not raise the other rates. We increase the handicap which the English farmer already has. We can make it all fair as between the various farmers in our own country, but when we come to a through rate, which is partly a railway rate and partly a shipping rate, that would be continued, and some of our people would be put to a very great disadvantage. Of course, taking the case of the English farmer, there is no competition as between two railways. In most cases the farmer is served by a single railway station, and he cannot get a lower rate. It is arbitrarily fixed. But when it is a case for foreign produce, there is competition, and all the railway companies try to attract to their steamers or railways, and you get a totally different state of affairs. The present rate from Southampton to London is 1d., but when milk is consigned at a through rate from a French port to London, the through rate would not be increased. That would be a considerable increase in the difficulties which people already have to bear. One penny a gallon on milk is a matter of very great consequence. A very important dairy farmer told me the other day that if he could get an extra penny a gallon for his milk he would give everyone of his able-bodied labourers £1 a week. He would like to do it, and I take it we should all like to see him do it, and we do not want to whittle down the small margin of profit which he has by unconsciously increasing the importer's advantage. I hope what I have said will appeal to hon. Members opposite who profess to represent the working classes. To my mind, it is really a very shabby thing to attempt to recoup the railway companies at the expense of such a very poor, struggling, and deserving class as the agricultural labourer, because, as sure as you hit his job, however slightly, you will check the tendency to give him more money. We are all trying to get him more money. We are all thinking, on both sides of the House, how more money can he obtained for this deserving class, and I suggest to the Government that it is undesirable in any way to further burden what we all know is an industry which has been carried on under very struggling conditions.
    Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman gave reasons why it was disadvantageous that agriculture like other industries should pay high rates. With that we all agree and sympathise, but I do not know why under this particular Bill agriculture should be picked out and given separate treatment. If agriculture were to be put in a preferential position, there would be objections made on the part of those interested in other forms of traffic. I do not think the hon. Gentleman gave any valid reason why agriculture should be exempt from any increase put on the general rates charged by railway companies, which is due to increased cost of working and increased wages for labour. As conditions exist now, the rates charged are under the Act of 1894, and if this Amendment were carried, it would put other classes of traders in a very detrimental position, not only as regards this Bill, but also under the Bill of 1891. If agriculture is in such a position generally in regard to railway rates, and if it can be shown that agriculture should be treated differentially, that is not a matter to be dealt with under this Bill, though if the question were raised on a proper opportunity, it is one which ought to receive reasonable consideration. But there is no reason why agriculture should be selected for advantageous treatment, not only in regard to those increases of rates that may be made under this Bill, but put in a preferential position as regards the Act of 1894. I think that question ought to be dealt with under a general Act, and not in this Bill.
    Mr. BARNSTON: I must confess I am exceedingly disappointed with the answer the right hon. Gentleman has made. My opposition to this Bill, so far as it goes, is purely an agricultural one. I am chairman of the Labour Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and therefore I may claim to know how agriculturists feel with respect to this Bill. Although they are strongly against the Bill, and have passed resolutions against it, I think if this Amendment could have been accepted, it would have lessened their opposition to the measure. Agriculturists are in a hopeless position in these matters. It is impossible for the small farmer to take care of himself in regard to such proposals as are contained in the Bill. If my hon. Friend presses the Amendment to a Division, I will support him.
    Mr. MARTIN: I agree with all the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman who

    777
    moved the Amendment. It seemed to me that they were conclusive. It also seemed to me that an equally good case could have been made out for every other industry in the country as well as the agricultural industry. I shall certainly support the Amendment if it goes to a Division, because I am opposed to the whole Bill. I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I would like to see some Amendment introduced which would render it entirely inoperative. [An HON. MEMBER: "To knock the bottom out of it."] Yes, to knock the bottom out of it. There is no doubt that the agricultural community is going to be very much harassed under this Bill, but the working-class community in my Constituency will be very much harassed also if they have to pay more for milk and all kinds of agricultural produce that comes into London. The only chance they have of getting their supplies carried at cheap rates is to get them from foreign countries. Foreign importers have a chance of getting their goods carried cheaply on our railways. There is no chance of the home producer getting his goods hauled at a decent rate, but if goods come from California or Argentina the railway companies are prepared to carry them at a fifth or a tenth of the rate at which they carry home products to the great City of London. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I do hope the hon. Gentleman who moved it will go to a Division upon it. I am thoroughly satisfied that if such an Amendment were carried it would meet with the approval of the whole country. I am satisfied that no Bill has been discussed in this House—Home Rule Bill or Welsh Disestablishment Bill—that is so thoroughly detested as this one, and were it not for the fact that the Government inadvertently, and in a sort of panic, made a promise to the railway companies which hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on the other side, think they ought not to have made, the Bill would have been more strongly opposed.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member's speech would be more appropriate on the Second Reading than on this Amendment.
    Mr. MARTIN: Perhaps that is so. I had a speech prepared for the Second Reading, and was shut out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I think that argument can be adduced for speaking as I did when
    778
    supporting the Amendment. If we cannot discuss questions of this kind without the Closure, what kind of question can be discussed? It is almost necessary to transgress a little. I shall try not to do it again, but the temptation is very great. We had no Second Reading Debate at all. We had only a few perfunctory speeches, which did not deal adequately with the matters involved here.
    Mr. WHELER: With reference to the argument that we ought not to give a preference to agriculture, I would point out that every other trade is affected by that industry. Agriculture has the great defect that it suffers very much from the variations of weather. Those engaged in the industry, in the past year, suffered most serious losses on that account. Agriculture is an industry which is affected by weather in a way that other trades are not affected at all. I wish to say on behalf of the fruit trade especially that I do hope the Amendment will go to a Division. I think it is most important, so far as small traders are concerned, that the Amendment should be carried.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to ask whether the statement that appears in the "Times" to-day that the Government have agreed to eliminate the rates charged for the carriage of passengers is true or not. If that statement is true, it is going to have a material effect on this Amendment. The announcement in the "Times" is that the Government have given an undertaking that no rates are to be increased for passengers. If that is so, the extra cost for working the railways will have to fall on goods and mineral traffic, and therefore, on behalf of a poor and struggling industry, I would be inclined to leave out the word "agriculture" and insert the word "mineral." If that was done there would be nothing left to tax at all. I wish to know from the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have agreed to insert an Amendment that all charges are to fall upon goods and minerals, and not on passenger traffic?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have an Amendment on the Paper which would have exactly the opposite effect. The hon. Baronet will see that I am going to propose to exclude the cost of carrying passengers. I shall explain the Amendment later on when we come to it. I have obtained the assent of the railway companies to this proposition, and so far as the cost of

    779
    carrying passengers has increased owing to wages or conditions that part of the additional cost will be taken out of the Bill altogether, and instead of that addition falling on goods, as in other circumstances it would have done, the charge will disappear from the Bill, with the result that the burden on goods will be lighter than it would otherwise have been.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I would support the Amendment most heartily if the suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) could be carried out by extending it to the productions of the United Kingdom. I shall support the Amendment, because the conveyance of agricultural produce in this country is much more expensive than the conveyance of agricultural produce imported from abroad. I hold it is most unfair to the agricultural industry and the fruit-growing industry that they should be penalised in respect of produce coming from abroad. We find that railway charges are very much heavier on agricultural produce coming from the provinces to London than upon products coming from America or even further afield than that. Hence, any increase of the present charges would tell oppressively on the agricultural interest in this country, which is already handicapped and at great disadvantage. In fact, the difference in the charges on home agricultural produce as compared with foreign agricultural produce is so great that it amounts really to protection to the foreigner against the home producer. While I wish to support the Government in carrying out the promise made to the railway companies, I do contend that we have a right in the interests of the protection of trade and of producers in this country to see that a limit is put upon the powers placed in the hands of the railway companies, so that the trading community will not suffer in consequence of this Bill. I think we can support this Amendment without being unjust to other industries, although I would be glad to see this exception made in reference to all things produced in the United Kingdom.
    Colonel GREIG: The Constituency which I represent is agricultural and highly industrial. I intervene to draw attention to a point which I think fair and reasonable. If the House will look at the Memorandum published on this Bill they will see the undertaking in these words:—
    "The Government will propose to Parliament next Session legislation providing that any increase in the
    780
    cost of labour due to the improvement of conditions for the staff would he a valid justification for any reasonable general increase of charges within the legal maxima, if challenged under the Act of 1894."
    There is no suggestion there that there should be any exemption for any particular class or classification of traffic. We have had the agricultural interest asking for exemption and the hon. Member for Mansfield speaking for minerals. I think if we try to adhere to the spirit and intention of the undertaking given by the Government and given with the consent of all parties in this House we ought not to make any special exemption.
    Captain CLIVE: This is a Bill to enable railway directors to recoup their shareholders for any increase in wages to their staff, but I cannot think that those whose wages are increased would care to think that this was done at the expense of the agricultural labourers, who receive the lowest wages of anybody in the country. The railway men live side by side with the agricultural labourers in country districts and they are well aware of the fact that their wages are higher. I think that they would be as ready as anyone to agree that we should not put any increase on agriculture that would act even indirectly so as to burden the agricultural labourer. I think that is some answer to the President of the Board of Trade, who says that he can see no reason for differentiation. This House is always careful to avoid put-
    ting any new burden on the food of the people of this country, and it should remember that if the rates of agricultural produce are raised, it will tend to increase the cost of living. I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I am surprised that the party which is so strictly pledged to Imperial Preference should not have seized this opportunity of bringing it in, because it would have been quite easy to have restricted from the operation of this Bill the Dominions and various parts of the Empire. I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield, who said he would like to leave out—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I did not say so.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: With regard to the weak position of agriculture we should have a little more reassurance from the Government, because undoubtedly the heavier duties imposed under this Bill will probably affect agriculture. It is the most vulnerable industry because it is the

    781
    worst organised. Its labour is not organised, and has not been able to fight as other trades have. We should have some assurance that the produce of agriculture would not be unduly penalised.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am not quite sure how wide the scope of this discussion can properly be made, but if it is open to discuss the question whether imported produce can be given a preference in this Bill over produce raised in this country I think that the railway companies ought to be urged to put up the rates of Continental produce so that English agricultural produce should not suffer. If this applied solely to the rates upon agricultural produce as compared with the rates on manufactured produce, then, in answer to the President of the Board of Trade, I may point out that there is a clear line of demarcation between agricultural produce and other kinds of internal produce as affected by railway charges. First, agricultural produce is very largely perishable produce, and is always carried, unfortunately, at owners' risk rates, and very often nowadays it is subject to very considerable delay, which means that the owners or consigners of the produce suffer far more seriously from the delinquency of railway companies than any other body of traders in the country. The rates charged for agricultural produce are much more serious than those charged for minerals or any other kind of produce, and the strongest reason of all why this differentiation should be made is, as is common knowledge, the agricultural industry is comparatively unorganised as regards the producers themselves and their employés, and they are wholly unable not merely to put effective pressure on the Government of the day as railway employés are fortunately for themselves able to do, but they are unable to put effective pressure upon the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who alone are to consider the questions of increases under this Bill. We have the fact that these producers whose interests we are now considering are, comparatively speaking, poor producers, and the very fact that they are unorganised means that their complaints will never come at all before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. They will, in fact, receive no benefit under this Bill. If the rates are raised against them they will never complain, because the machinery which alone is at the service of traders, when they are penalised by the railway companies, will be of no use to
    782
    the agricultural producers. For these reasons I think there ought to be some differentiation made between the producers of agricultural produce and other producers in the country, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept, the Amendment.
    Mr. MORRELL: I have every sympathy with the agriculturists, with regard to this Bill. I think that they have made a very strong case, and I am perfectly certain that if this Bill is carried in its present form we shall see a rise of rates on our food supplies. And I am surprised that upon Second Reading so many of the hon. Gentlemen who now make their voices heard failed to go into the Lobby against it. With regard to my own position, I am bound to consider my own Constituency.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: All of us who have spoken against it on behalf of agricultural constituencies voted against this Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: A great many hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies did not vote. I sympathise with the agriculturists and with the views of hon. Members who have spoken on their behalf. But I must consider the case of my Constituents. They are not so much interested in the carriage of agricultural produce; they are interested in the carriage of raw cotton and of cotton goods. I would like therefore to move an Amendment to this Amendment to leave out the words "agricultural produce or," and to insert instead thereof the words "raw cotton or cotton goods manufactured within." The cotton trade is a highly artificial trade and works on a very narrow margin. if there is any serious rise in the cost of carriage we may lose a great part of our cotton trade in some of the neutral markets of the world. And not merely my own Constituency, but the whole population of Lancashire would be sufferers in consequence. I am sure that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) for the Amendment which I am moving.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: For the convenience of the Committee I think it would be much better to dispose of this Amendment first and then if the hon. Member has any Amendment with regard to any particular industry in which he is especially interested, he can move it.
    Mr. MORRELL: If this Amendment is carried it will directly penalise my Constituents.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want any discussion on a point of Order. I have just made an appeal to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MORRELL: I understand that I am entitled to move the Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member insists upon it I do not think that strictly it is out of order, but I think it is distinctly against the convenience of the Committee. It is almost impossible to follow the Amendment as the hon. Member has stated it. Perhaps he would hand it in at the Table.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'agricultural produce the products of' be left out, and that instead thereof the words 'raw cotton or cotton goods manufactured within' be inserted."
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: What is the purpose of the Amendment before the Committee, and I want to know whether, after it has been disposed of, I shall be in a position to move an Amendment exempting the articles produced by manufacturers in my own Constituency? It really seems to me that those who support this kind of Amendment are aiming at the destruction of the Bill. I would like to see the Bill destroyed, and I manifested my desire by voting against the Second Reading. In regard to the Amendment before us, I suppose we are bound to accept it as seriously proposed. The original Amendment relates to agricultural produce, and the Mover based it mainly on the fact that foreign produce has a preference in the English markets.
    Mr. MORRELL: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Member entitled to refer to agricultural produce on the Amendment before the House?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion, of course, has reference to the words of the Amendment relating to agricultural produce within the United Kingdom, and it is proposed to leave out those words in order to insert the words "raw cotton or cotton goods manufactured within," and the discussion, therefore, is
    784
    between agricultural produce and cotton goods.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am simply applying myself to the question of the Amendment, and the point I make is applicable to either agricultural produce or cotton goods. We hear a great deal about the pernicious principle of foreign produce having preferential rates to the home markets, and it is proposed to remedy that by giving certain industries preferential rates as against other industries. For example, if cotton goods or agricultural produce have exemption in this respect it must necessarily follow that they can only secure that exemption to the detriment of some other industry. If this Amendment were carried I am bound to say I should feel called upon to submit an Amendment in the interests of my own Constituency. I again respectfully submit that if the design is to destroy the Bill altogether, then all those who are in opposition to it should have given effect to that opposition on a Second Reading, for after all that would have been the proper occasion on which to raise these questions. For my own part, I should like to destroy the Bill, but, as the House has accepted the Second Reading, it is my duty to fashion the measure, as far as I possibly can, in the practical direction I desire.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do urge that if we are to continue this discussion the result of these Amendments must prove inconvenient, and the Debate must degenerate rather into a farce. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway said, quite rightly, if this Amendment were carried, then, as his constituents do not happen to be interested in cotton goods or cotton produce, he would be bound in the same way to move an Amendment in regard to manufactures in his constituency. In my case I should have to move an Amendment to exempt biscuits. In the constituency of each hon. Member there is some industry which would desire to be protected. Surely, once the Second Reading has been accepted, the Committee should endeavour to fashion the Bill in such a way as will best carry out the views of the House. I trust my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, so that we may dispose of the original Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think hon. Members ought to be particularly interested in the Debate we have just had. It is an example of what tariffs would introduce. I think anyone who has seen the log-rolling

    785
    that we witnessed this afternoon must understand not only what a tariff would mean, but also—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that subject on this Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The point I want to make is that directly you introduce legislation giving power to one industry to penalise the rest of the community, you immediately give to the community who are going to be penalised an opportunity to make out an admirable case for the exemption of their own particular industry. Hon. Members opposite have spoken for the fruit industry and for the market garden industry with great ability. My hon. Friend near me has spoken equally well in favour of a special preference for the cotton industry. I do not propose to take part in this sort of Dutch auction, but I do ask the Committee to consider, not merely the vested interests of the producers, but also the vested interests of the consumers. In my Constituency they make pottery, or only some of them make pottery, whereas all of them eat. Is not this Amendment entirely on the question of foodstuffs? All my Constituents consume food stuffs, and I think therefore that there is a specially strong case to put forward in favour of exemption from this penalising tax on food stuffs. I am quite confident that the main penalising effect of this Bill will fall upon the agricultural industry. It seems to me that in connection with that industry this exemption, moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite, is required. I do not take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), that to exempt agriculture would be in effect protecting certain industries and thereby be disadvantageous.
    The ordinary railway company cannot raise the rates in most cases. It will not raise the rates further towards the maximum, because trade is already paying the highest rate that it can afford to bear; it is already paying the highest rate which is consistent with the particular railway carrying the goods.
    If the railway company shoves up the rates it is not the traders' complaint that it is afraid of. The railway company is afraid of losing traffic, and this fear of losing traffic does not apply to the poor small local farming industry. There there is no competition to fear; there the railway company is absolutely able to take
    786
    full advantage of this Bill, and full advantage it will take. In the case of my trade, the pot-making trade, I am quite certain they cannot raise the rates upon us, because traction along the roads and along the canals is there to compete. The railway companies are unable to beat the manufacturers and traders, but when it comes to deal with the market gardeners, the fruit growers, and the fishermen, and people of that description, then you will see the value which the railway companies put upon this Bill. If you make inquiry among railway directors you will find a very curious state of affairs at the present time. You will find that the directors of the big railway companies, whose railways run through the big manufacturing districts, like the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Midland, or the London and North Western, are saying quite frankly and openly that there is no value in this Bill for them; whereas, if you come to the directors of railway companies whose lines pass through agricultural districts, the South Eastern and Chatham and Dover, the South Western, and parts of the Great Western, you find that they are all for this Bill, because they are the only sort of railway companies which are in a position to take advantage of this measure. In Lancashire there are admirable waterways, canals, seaports, and so forth, which manage to check the railway companies in their endeavurs to put up the rates upon the cotton industry—
    The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that we are going into a general discussion upon the merits of the Bill—a Second Reading discussion. I think the Committee might come to a decision upon this Amendment and get to matters more closely concerning the details of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was trying to confine my argument strictly to the Amendment before the House, which, originally, is that special terms shall be granted to agriculture, and by Amendments to the proposed Amendment, that special terms should be granted to cotton spinners. I wanted to show why agriculture stands in a position by itself. In the first place, it is the food of the people which is concerned; and, in the second place, it is the agricultural industry which is most likely to suffer from the rise in rates threatened by the railway companies. I want to bring forward the point which is even more important

    787
    than all the others, that so far as as foreign food stuffs are concerned you have at present the keenest possible competition between the different railway companies, running sometimes their own steamship lines and owning their own ports, to import food from abroad. There is far more competition in the importation of foreign food stuff to places like Birmingham, the Potteries, or even London than in any other form of railway traffic in the country. Obviously, if that be so, the increased wages of our railway servants will not be used to raise the competitive freight rates of the different railway companies carrying the food products. They will be reserved for increasing the rates of the local traffic of the local food producer, so that you hit the local food producer in two ways. Not only can you not raise the through rate upon the foreign food products, but in order to recoup themselves the companies are able to plead, first, that the wages have risen, and, secondly, that they have not been able to get back that increase in wages out of the competitive through rates. Therefore the whole of the increase in wages is going to be thrown, not upon traders or manufactures, not upon the foreign food importer, but simply on the local food importer, the man who can be bled, and who cannot escape the railway companies' thrall. Agriculture, especially intensive agriculture, which is growing all over the country, suffers intensely from our present system of national rates. There you have every important effort to increase production penalised by your national or local rates. If in addition to that you are going to give the railway companies still further powers of increasing their penalising rates I think you must say good-bye to intensive cultivation, for which the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) has so ably argued over the length and breadth of the country for the last few years. We want to see more men on the land, and I know you do, too, and we go about bringing more men on the land in this way by putting special penalties upon those people who employ themselves on the land in producing that which is a necessity to us all, the food stuff of the country. I
    hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and I shall never give a vote with more satisfaction than for the Amendment.
    Mr. MORRELL: In response to the appeal of the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. SANDERSON: Having regard to the speech just delivered, I should like to say a few words. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that agricultural produce grown in this country is that which the railway companies are most likely to raise the rates on, and I should have thought it would be the very last thing, because after all railway managers are not fools altogether, and they know perfectly well that the agricultural produce which is grown in this country cannot afford to bear higher rates than it does at present. This Amendment can be supported on quite different grounds altogether. Agriculture in this country is even now the greatest industry in the country. It is not confined to one part of the country, but I am glad to say it is an industry which affects every part of England and of Ireland and Wales and Scotland. Although it is such a very large industry, yet, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is a very badly organised industry, and the individuals who are engaged in it are, as a rule, not rich men, and they are men who could not very well take advantage of the tribunal to which they would have to go under this Bill. Having regard to that fact, the agricultural industry is in a special position as contradistinguished from other industries, and also, having regard to the fact that I do not believe the railway companies in this country intended to increase the rates which are now imposed upon agricultural produce which is grown in this country, I should have thought those who represented the railway companies in this Committee might well accept this Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAMrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 595.]

    AYES.

    [6.21 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Alden, Percy

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Malley, William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

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

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

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hills, John Waller

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hogg, David C.

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Radford, G. H.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reddy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clough, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kerry, Earl of

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crooks, William

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roche, Augstine (Louth)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

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

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, M. Vaughan- Cardigan)

    Leach, Charles

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sbeehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Doris, William

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon Sir Albert

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Sutton, John E.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Falconer, James

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Thomas, James -Henry

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Furness, Stephen

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gill, A.H.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wadsworth, J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mason, David M.(Coventry)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meagher, Michael

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Webb, H.

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Gulland, John William

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hackett, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Morison, Hector

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Muldoon. John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, R.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Needham, Christopher T,

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

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Neilson, Francis

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Doherty, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Markham and Mr. Denman.

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Barnes, G. N.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Barnston, Harry

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Bird, Alfred

    790

    791

    Blair, Reginald

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Boyton, James

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bull, Sir William James

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rowlands, James

    Butcher, John George

    Hogge, James Myles

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Cator, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jewett, F. W.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Strauss. Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Swift, Rigby

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Morrell, Philip

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newton, Harry Nottingham

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    O'Grady, James

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

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, Sir George

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wedgwood and Mr. Beck.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 242.

    Division No. 596.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barrie, H. T.

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

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Rowlands, James

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rutherford, John(Lancs., Darwen)

    Bird, A.

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

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hinds, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'1, Walton)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Swift, Rigby

    Campion, W. R.

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cator, John

    Knight, Contain E. A.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cautley, H. S.

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

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Martin, Joseph

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks., E.R.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Newdegate, F, A.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Nield, Herbert

    G. Terrell and Mr. Barnston.

    Fell, Arthur

    O'Grady, James

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Dowd, John

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithness-shire)

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Malley, William

    Alden, Percy

    Harvey, T. E, (Leeds, West)

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

    Allen, Arthur A, (Dumbarton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hills, John Waller

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hodge, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hogg, David C.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hodge, James Myles

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

    Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M, R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Radford, G. H.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, M.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hughes, S. L.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Rushclifte)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Keating, Matthew

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Roch, Walter F.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Kilbrlde, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    King, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

    Sheehy, David

    Cotton, William Francis

    Leach, Charles

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Crooks, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Cullinan, J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    McGhee, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Doris, W.

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Wadsworth, J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wardle, George J.

    Falconer, J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Webb, H.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    France, G. A.

    Molloy, M.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Furness, Stephen

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gill, A. H.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Ginnell, L.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morison, Hector

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Muldoon, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, R.

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Neilson, Francis

    Hackett, J.

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon, L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Mr. PETOhad given notice of the following Amendment: After the word "Commissioners" ["Railway and Canal Commissioners"], to insert the words—
    "(a) that every rate which has been increased on account of the operation of this Section and which includes conveyance and station terminals has been shown in the book of rates kept by a company under Section fourteen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as a station to station rate, and that there has been included in the matters shown in the said hook of rates a statement setting out the separate amounts charged for the station accommodation provided and for each of the several services performed by the company as part of the increased rate; and."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (sir. Peto) is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: May I make one or two remarks on your ruling?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The hon. Member cannot do that.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, after the Word "Commissioners" ["Railway and Canal Commissioners"], to insert the words—
    "(a) that no adult person in the employment of the company is in receipt of a wage of less than one pound per week."
    I do not know what condition the Government are in, but I should think they feel a little uncomfortable in consequence of the discussion which has taken place to-night. I feel almost ashamed to move this Amendment, asking that the minimum wage paid to railway men shall not be less than 20s. per week. I am hoping that all the Members who are in favour of passing this Bill will vote for my Amendment, because I am absolutely certain that when the railway directors knew that this minimum had been inserted, they would at once run to the Government and ask them to withdraw the Bill. For some time the Labour party has been endeavouring to get a minimum wage recognised in Railway Bills, and I am very pleased that at last the Chairman has given us the privilege of moving this Amendment. I hope it will be the forerunner of other Amendments, if not at this stage, at any rate later on, so that railway men will
    796
    receive much better wages than they have at the present time. I understand that this Bill is being brought forward in order to give railway companies an opportunity of increasing the freightage not only upon agricultural produce, but upon minerals and other classes of goods. I think it could be proved without trouble that there is absolutely no need for this Bill at all. The "Standard" a fortnight ago published a statement purporting to give the sections of men to which increases had been given; I dare say the figures can be contradicted or corroborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). The same writer stated that in consequence of increased railway fares for week-end and excursion tickets, the companies had more than recouped themselves. If that is so, I think every Member will be justified in voting for this Amendment, which would no doubt cost the railway companies a considerable amount of money.
    I may be charged with inconsistency in moving this Amendment, because I say, on the one hand, that the railway companies have no right to increase the freightage on the ground that they have given an increase in wages, and, on the other hand, I ask the railway companies to give more wages, which will impose a greater burden on the companies, and in consequence, it will be said, they will be in duty hound to increase the freightage in some form or another. I believe the proposal is wrong in principle. Once the Labour party agree to recognise the principle that a company can claim a statutory right to increase freightage simply because they have given an increase in wages, the argument can be applied all round, and no doubt employers in other directions will do exactly the same. The other night the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) said that when they increase the wages of cotton operatives the employers are in a position to place the extra cost upon the commodities. I am not quite sure that that is true. Competition to a very great extent prevents it from being done. But in this case there is practically no competition at all. The railway companies have their monopoly, and can do very much as they like. In the debate on the Second Reading one Member asserted that there were something like 100,000 men working on the railways receiving less than 20s. per week. That is a very deplorable state of things if it is so. Therefore one recognises at once, if this

    797
    Amendment is carried, that it will be the means of increasing the wages of many thousands of working men over the railway system. One reason why I am in duty bound to vote for this Amendment, and against the Third Reading of the Bill, is because whatever anybody may say to the contrary, I do not believe the railway companies are going to put the extra charge upon agricultural produce at all. My own view is that they will put it on minerals. Placing the extra charge upon minerals is going to handicap all our manufactures in different parts of the country. The competition now is exceedingly keen. I know that when I am called upon to interview employers, blast-furnace managers, and so on, they will say at once to me, "You voted for a Bill to give the railway companies the absolute right to increase the freightage upon raw materials, upon coal, iron-stone, coke, and the other raw materials that go to make pig-iron." Then they will say that it is no good asking us for an increase of wages for the men when you recognise the principle of the railway companies doing certain things. I have pleasure in moving my Amendment. I hope it will be carried by a large majority. If it is, I feel sure that to-morrow morning the railway companies will withdraw this Bill.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am not sure that I quite follow the main argument of any hon. Friend who has just sat down. I understand him to argue that when wages have been raised in an industry that suffers from competition there is a difficulty in the way of raising the prices in that industry because of the competition. I suppose, if one wanted to state the whole economic facts, one would reply: If there is a rise over all the industry the rise would be assented to all over the industry. Then he argued that foreign competition might have the effect of preventing any rise in wages. He went on to say that in the case of a railway company, where there is a monopoly, there is no such difficulty. if I understood him it was that the railway company having a monopoly can do what they like in the matter of raising wages. Obviously, if the railway company can do what they like they have no occasion to ask for this Bill. My hon. Friend argued that the companies did not need any such power. So far as I followed his argument it seemed to me to destroy itself. But perhaps the better course is to turn
    798
    to the merits of this Amendment, and in doing so might I call attention to what is the real purpose of the Bill that we are engaged on. It is to encourage the railway companies to raise wages. It is only in so far as they raise wages that they can claim any relief—such as this Bill affords. If they do not raise their labour bill—that is not merely as regards the amount of wages paid but by paying more for a given amount of work—then the Bill does nothing at all for them. It is only where they have deserved well of the community by raising their payments for labour that they can claim any relief in the matter of raising rates.
    What does the hon. Gentleman's Amendment aim to do? It as good as says to the railway companies: "We will not encourage you to raise men's wages from 15s. to 18s., but we will encourage you to raise them from 19s. 6d. to 20s." An Amendment that operates in that way is not really conceived in the interests of the workers. We know that the conditions of railway labour include this: You may have in rural districts railway porters who perhaps only get 15s. per week, sometimes with a garden. As regards passenger porters their low wages are eked out with tips The effect of the Amendment in these cases would be to prevent altogether the operation of this Bill. If it can be shown that there is such a case, or that a man has 18s. or 19s. a week with a garden, then the Bill would not be allowed to operate to relieve the company of the matter of the rates. Let the hon. Member remember the main tendency of the Amendment would be to force back wages to the level that they were at before. I am sure this House is not desirous of seeing the railway industry thrown back into that state of acute strife in which it was, and which was brought to a conclusion by an arrangement and a pledge of which this Bill is the result. May I remind the hon. Member that there are a number of scattered employés under railway companies, men who have received accidents, men with one arm or one leg who do odd jobs such as attending to lavatories, crossings, and so on, and in these cases the labour is often quite light. These men are paid less than 20s. a week. Some of this employment the railway companies might really dispense with, but in some of these cases, or in one of them, it is obvious that if the Amendment is carried and put into force, it would be sufficient to prevent the Bill operating on behalf of the railway companies. The

    799
    purpose of the Bill, I repeat, is to encourage the railway companies to raise wages. The Government thought this was the best way to effect this, and I sincerely trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. BARNES: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not done himself full justice. He has put forward a view, and I think specious arguments against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. He first tells us that there are many men with wooden legs and one arm, and that therefore they are not entitled, I suppose—so I understand his argument—to a minimum wage. It seems to me that if the hon. Member had said that these men had wooden stomachs, there might have been something in his argument. But I fail to see that because a man has a wooden leg or one arm that he takes less food, or that it is less costly to maintain him—especially if he has a family—than it does to maintain the ordinary man who has two legs and two arms. We are told that this Amendment is to prevent the men with 15s. per week having that amount raised to £1, while it might raise a man from 19s. 6d. to £1.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: What I said was that it would not encourage the companies to raise the wages from 15s. to 18s., though it might raise the 19s. 6d. to £1.
    Mr. BARNES: It is the same thing, it seems to me. The Amendment is in perfectly explicit terms. It says that no man shall have a less wage than £1 per week. The literal interpretation of this Amendment is that a man with 15s., like the man with 19s. 6d., should be raised to £1 per week. I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend, though it seems to me we should be ashamed to put such an Amendment forward. Here we are in the twentieth century, with all the advantages of civilisation and the wonderful power that we have of producing wealth, and we put forward a miserable £1 a week as a living wage for a full-grown adult person. A few weeks ago Mr. Rowntree told us that 23s. 9d. was the lowest sum upon which it was possible to keep a family, yet we are, in this Amendment, asking the monopolistic companies, who are given immense power by this House, to pay 3s. 9d. below that sum. In seconding this Amendment, let me say that if anybody puts forward an Amendment for a minimum wage of 25s. per week, I shall
    800
    certainly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw in favour of that Amendment. This Amendment really seeks to give some definiteness to the Bill.
    What does the Bill say? It authorises the Railway Commissioners to give relief to a railway company by charging higher freights and fares if they can say that they have made some improvement in the conditions of the employment of their staff. That may mean anything or nothing. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the company had to give proof that they have increased the wages of their staff. It seems to me that they have to prove a general improvement in the general conditions of their staff. If they do that that is sufficient to comply with the conditions of this Bill. If the Amendment is passed—let me say it does not exclude any of these Sub-sections—they would still have to comply with the other heads, and (a), (b), (c) and (d) would only become (b), (c), (d) and (e). If this Amendment is passed, in addition to complying with the other conditions of the Bill, the companies would have to comply with this very definite condition that no man should have less than £1 per week. We are getting into the same controversy that we had when the Mines Bill was on. We asked for a minimum, I think, of 5s. and 2s. We did not get it. I take it the position of the Labour party is just exactly the same now as then. If we are going to pass a Bill of this character, like my Friends, I hope that those who vote for us will not be limited to those who want to kill the Bill. I appeal to all those, who want to kill the Bill or not, and those who want to give some definiteness to it, to vote for the Amendment, which would, I think, make a radical improvement in the Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: I was very sorry, like my hon. Friend below me, to hear that the Government were not prepared in any way to consider this Amendment. Surely this does not go outside the scope and object of this Bill? The Amendment is a very reasonable one. This is a Bill for giving certain relief to the railway companies if they improve the conditions of employment of their servants. But we want to be satisfied, when we are passing this Bill, that the improvements in the conditions of employment shall be adequate in the first place, and in the second place—and this is a point I want specially to press upon the Committee—that the improvement in the conditions is to go to the

    801
    right people—those who need them most. Supposing a railway company goes and shows to the Railway Commissioners that they have made the conditions of the employment of inspectors better! By means of this Amendment we shall do something to secure our object, and for this reason I would appeal to my hon. Friend who spoke on behalf of the Government once more whether he would not consider some Amendment of this sort. I am not now arguing specially whether 20s. a week is a right or a wrong minimum, or whether that minimum should be 35s. or 30s.; though the Amendment seems to me to put forward a reasonable minimum in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said. At any rate I do submit that we are carrying a very unbusinesslike Bill if we carry a Bill of this sort without any provision that the improvement that is contemplated should get to the people who need it most.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "one pound," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-five shillings."
    Mr. GLANVILLE: On a point of Order. I should like to ask the ruling of the Chair as to whether the Amendment of mine which is on the Paper for a minimum wage of 25s. per week does not deal with the point suggested by the hon. Member who has just risen?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is the same question, but it is quite competent to raise it on an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    7.0 P. M.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I submit that this is the only consistent Amendment, when we consider what were the circumstances responsible for the Bill we are now considering. This Bill is introduced ostensibly for the purpose, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman, of encouraging the railway companies to improve the conditions of their staffs. Surely that carries with it this further proposition, that the railway companies prior to this were not anxious to improve conditions, because we have got in this matter to differentiate as between one company and another. It is perfectly true that there are a number of railway companies that have never paid a copper in dividend. From our standpoint, we say that labour should be a first charge upon industry, but apart entirely from that
    802
    it is quite true to say that there are railway companies that have not only paid 5, 6, and 7 per cent. dividend, but have paid 10 and 12 per cent. dividends.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is opening up a wider question than his proposed Amendment suggests.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I was trying to show that when the promise of which this Bill is the result was made, it was natural to assume that it was not necessary for every railway company, because the promise was ostensibly made in order that railway companies could do something which they said their poverty did not enable them to do before; and surely if there were at that time railway companies paying such dividends as 10 per cent., I submit that I am justified in saying that that argument, so far as poverty is concerned, should not apply to them. Our experience has been that it is equally as difficult to get an advance of wages when they are paying 6 or 10 per cent. as it is from those who are paying nothing. Who are the men for whom we ask this wage? In the discussion on the Miners' Minimum Wage Act, it was clearly pointed out that the real object of legislation at that moment was because of the public service rendered by the miners. I think everyone will admit that the primary argument used in favour of the Minimum Wage Bill was because of the services to the public rendered by the miners. I submit we are dealing with men here who equally render public service. We are dealing with a class of men who not only render public service in the fact that they work the great arteries of the nation, but the death and accident mortality upon our railways prove conclusively what a tremendous risk these men run. At the time this promise of this legislation was made, there were I think 100,000 men getting less than £1 a week. I think at the present moment that number is reduced to 50,000. Under the proposal I am submitting, we are asking that the railway companies should increase this amount, and we are not simply saying that the railway companies by increasing the minimum to 25s. should bear the whole cost. They will be able to go before the Railway and Canal Commissioners and justify that increase, and get redress under this Act. Therefore I submit that not only is this a justifiable proposal to make, but having regard to the fact that we have already heard that the primary object of this Bill is to encourage the railway companies to increase wages,

    803
    I submit that the sum of 25s. a week is not too much to expect for a man performing public services who has to support a wife and family.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: When I entered the House this afternoon, I had no idea of addressing the Committee on the important subject under discussion, but in view of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I should like to say a few words. The first comment I have to make is one of criticism on the Amendment moved by the Labour party. I will take the Committee into my confidence at once, and say, I feel compelled to vote for the first Amendment for many reasons, sonic of which I should like to state briefly. Before doing so I venture to pass a measure of criticism on the Labour party in, after holding frequent meetings for the purpose of framing Amendments to this Bill, they come here with an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Ham, and they immediately follow that up by an Amendment to that Amendment, moved from their own benches. That surely lays the Labour party open to legitimate criticism. First of all, they are open to the criticism that they approach the consideration of this important Bill without knowing their own minds.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No, no.
    Mr. H. SMITH: The hon. Member says "No, no," but I say that if after the number of meetings they are known to have had they tabled an Amendment for a minimum wage of 20s., and then we find another Member rising in his place and proposing an Amendment to that Amendment for a minimum of 25s., it is not an unreasonable proposition to submit to the Committee that they are open to the criticism of not knowing their own minds. As a matter of practical politics, I put it to the Labour party arc they not by this Amendment to the Amendment running the risk, if I may say so without offence, of fouling their own nest? I believe there are many hon. Members in the House who would support the principle of increasing what I think is still a grossly inadequate wage for railway workers, but who would not be ready to go so far as to say that the House of Commons has at present the right to support a wage of 25s., which would undoubtedly put an enormously increased burden upon the railway companies. I urge the Labour party to fall
    804
    back upon the original Motion moved by the hon. Member for West Ham, with the idea of establishing this principle and getting it carried through the House, as we have done in connection with coal mines. If that is done I, for one, would follow the hon. Member for West Ham into the Division Lobby.
    I was not impressed—I am seldom impressed—by the arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I do not think there was any one of his objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Ham which could not be efficiently dealt with by his Department. Let me take one of his objections. He says that one of the objections to giving a minimum wage of 20s. is to be found in the fact that you could not deal with men who, for instance, had lost a limb and were employed by the railway company, that that would be impracticable, and that it was impossible to suggest that the railway company should pay to these men a minimum wage of £1, while able-bodied men only got the same amount. I say the natural answer to that criticism is that if this Amendment is passed and the principle is adopted, the Board of Trade would be well able to introduce on the Report stage some Clause which will make an exception in the case of these men, who are perhaps in the receipt of compensation and who are employed purely out of charity by the railway companies in whose services they were injured. If that policy is accepted it is quite evident that many Members would support the Government in what I think is a reasonable point of view, and, at any rate, that in beginning this legislation exception should be made in order to cover the cases of those men who have been kept on by the railway companies while they are in receipt of compensation because of injuries they sustained in the employment of the particular company.
    I would like to say one word about the principle of the Amendment. I do not know how many hon. Members in this House have during their experience been in the homes of some of our working-class labourers, and particularly those who work in railway districts. I am sure there is no Member of the House who has not had some experience of the homes of the very poorest of our working classes. I do not know how any hon. Member in this House who has an idea of the homes of working men employed in one of the great railways in a country which has always boasted as

    805
    being the greatest nation in the world could feel satisfied that these men, with a wife and family to keep, can possibly keep them as efficiently as they ought to be kept on a miserable pittance which we often find as low as 15s. a week. Though I may be open to criticism by those who do not know me, I assure the Committee I speak on this matter from experience and with the deepest sincerity, because I think it is tragic that men working on these railways should receive wages so low. I do not approach this matter from the point of view from which it is approached very often by Members of the
    Socialist party. I approach it from the point of view of one who can realise that when you place this burden upon our railway companies you run grave risk of increasing fares and increasing the cost of travelling facilities and freights on our railways. I do not believe that any of our great railway companies should be asked to work for charity. Let us face this matter rather than continue the present existing evil, whereby more than 50,000 men are paid less than £1 a week. It is the lesser of the two evils.
    After the last railway strike, when I went to the railway station to buy my week-end ticket, I found the fares were up, trains were less frequent, and the service was not so good. One grumbles, but one feels that that was part Of the price to be paid for a great reform, and I would infinitely prefer to see passenger rates raised higher and railways run more economically and less advantageously to the public, rather than see the perpetuation of what I think is a grave social scandal in our midst. I am not asking the railway companies to face this situation without foreseeing their application, and their legitimate application, for still further increased rates, and I think it would be better, whatever price is to be paid, that it should be paid by the upper middle class for the benefit of those who most require the assistance which this House has an opportunity of rendering by means of this Bill. Those, shortly, are the views which I hold, and I appeal to the Labour party, if they really want to get this principle established, to withdraw the last Amendment, because that will alienate my vote, not because I think 25s. is too much, but as a matter of practical politics it is an unpractical suggestion to make at the outset. Let us first establish the principle, and in order to do that I ask hon.
    806
    Members to allow the Committee to vote on that principle.
    Mr. GLANVILLE: I was very pleased, indeed, to hear the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I cannot see, having regard to the opinion he has expressed, why he should hesitate to vote for a 25s. minimum wage for workmen, because every one of the arguments he used went in that direction. He talked about the beggarly homes and the struggle for existence, and yet said he could not see his way to support a 25s. minimum wage. He pointed out that it was a disadvantage to the Mover of the 25s. minimum to press his point. If the 25s. minimum is not carried, may I point out that we shall still be able to vote on the 25s. minimum which the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed himself strongly in favour of. Such an opportunity will come just as well a few minutes after. The hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson) says that men with wooden legs and wooden arms would be out of employment. I may not understand the law, but I understand that when men are injured in the service of a railway company they are entitled to receive half of their ordinary wages, and, consequently, if they have been working for 16s. a week, they would be entitled to 8s. The railway companies would get their lavatory attendants for 12s. a week, and they could not get anything so cheap in the open market.
    We realise that the railway companies will reap advantages under the circumstances which have arisen. One advantage they reap is that of being exempt from paying any extra expense incurred in consequence of the natural increase in wages that would come along, especially having regard to the tendency of present and future legislation. They also reap the advantage of not having to pay the expense if they happen to be defeated in a strike instead of being victorious as they were on the last occasion. The Government has a responsibility, and I shall support them if they realise the position. The Government stepped in on behalf of the nation to settle the strike and they made pledges to the railway companies. But they have other responsibilities, and they cannot arrange with railway companies to settle a strike unless they realise that there is a responsibility devolving upon them to deal with other aspects of the question. The railway companies can, just as the humour suits them, either raise or not raise the wages of the men, but the

    807
    onus rests on the Government to see that a proper reasonable living wage is paid to the men who turned out in that strike. The time has gone by when Governments can ignore their responsibilities in that respect. The Government accepted this responsibility; they stepped in and they cannot stop half way. A Government that could introduce a Sweated Industries Bill cannot stop now because they do not think this is a sweated industry.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into a large general question, much larger than the one which arises on this Amendment. I must remind the hon. Member and the Committee that the point we are discussing is whether it is desirable in this Bill as one of its conditions, to insert the proposal "that no adult persons in the employment of the company is in receipt of a wage of less than one pound per week." An Amendment has been moved to leave out "one pound" and insert "twenty-five shillings," and the arguments must be confined between those two sums.
    Mr. GLANVILLE: There are in my Constituency a considerable number of railway workers working for 22s. and 23s. per week, and they are not working ten hours but a good deal more, just as they happen to receive their orders from the company. There are porters working for £1 a week, many of them married men with families, and they receive 21s. at the end of one year, and a maximum of 22s. at the end of four years. [An HON. MEMBER: "And tips."] No; the workers I allude to do not get any tips, because they work in the goods yard. The onus is upon us to face this position, and I do not think we ought to leave this matter to the railway companies to deal with just as they feel disposed. I am rather ashamed to be standing here advocating a minimum wage of 25s. I have advocated a minimum wage of 30s. years ago, and it is in the hope of catching the vote of the hon. Member for Warrington that I am advocating this Amendment, although I think it fixes an absolutely inadequate wage. Parliament has discussed the wages question in recent years, and I am sure this process of education in the House of Commons will go on in the future. I shall be very pleased to support this Amendment.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not think the House is sufficiently informed to be able to decide between a minimum wage of
    808
    20s. and 25s. a week as an adequate wage for adult railway servants. I am bound to say that when you are dealing with a public utility service an adequate wage should be insured to the workers, and when you are dealing with a monopoly it becomes absolutely essential that such a wage should be safeguarded to those workers. Surely the proper way to deal with this matter is through the same machinery which this House has set up in the case of the minimum wage for miners. That is the only other great monopoly in the country, and in that case Parliament agreed that the proper course was to have a Wages Board, which should decide in each district and judge by the circumstances in those districts as to what was an adequate wage to give to the workers in that industry. These two great industries stand alone in the country and require exceptional treatment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The coal industry is not a monopoly, because anyone can sink a pit.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I have the privilege, or the misfortune, of being the chairman of a colliery company, and I say that the coal industry is the biggest monopoly of this country, with the possible exception of the railway industry. There is no outside foreign competition in regard to these two great industries, and therefore you can face the question of a minimum wage without seriously affecting the prosperity of these industries. When you deal with agriculture other factors have to be considered, and you may very easily endanger the prosperity of that industry. That would not be the effect in the case of the railway industry, because we should only be acting in consonance with what we have already decided in this House in regard to a similar industry if we agree that there should be some minimum wage, and we should allow the monopolistic industry to decide this question by the same machinery you have set up in the case of coal mines. I am prepared to support the suggestion on those lines, but I cannot see how this House is properly equipped to decide whether 20s. or 25s. a week is the proper wage to pay to those workmen.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Holding the views I do, I welcome the remarks of any hon. Gentleman opposite who is prepared to support the principle of a minimum wage. I am quite certain that more and more in the future this House will be forced to consider questions of this kind. We have

    809
    an opportunity in the Amendment we are now considering of declaring that for a great mass of workers in one of the most vital industries of this country it shall be made a condition that no man in that industry, taking risk to life and limb, shall be paid a lower wage than what we consider is necessary in order to secure physical efficiency. I am going to vote in favour of that principle, and, as between the two proposals, I shall first vote for the 25s. minimum, and if we are beaten, then I shall support 20s. I do not think this case has been adequately met from the Government Bench. The logical chopped straw with which this case was met was very dry and unnourishing food, and you have to meet it with something better than mere logical dilemmas. The Committee is asked to consider that you can adequately maintain the physical
    efficiency of a British workman—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the general question. The point before the Committee is if a rate is advanced complaint against it shall be held justified unless so-and-so happens. We are not now discussing, and we must not discuss, the question of a general minimum wage.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I certainly intend, Mr. Whitley, to keep within the limits you have laid down. If a railway company is not in a position to pay this wage of 25s., I say it ought to be in that position. I think it should be possible for the railway industry by economies to carry out this reform, without putting any undue burden on the trading classes. I voted in favour of a minimum wage to miners, and I shall certainly vote for a minimum wage for railway men.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I think it is time that some one reminded the Committee of the existing machinery for fixing the wages of railway men, which every speaker who has supported this Amendment seems to have studiously avoided. When the strike was finished in August, 1911, through the intervention of the Government, a bargain, or an understanding, was arrived at by which the railway companies undertook to accept the findings of a Royal Commission, which was to be immediately appointed to make such recommendations as they might think fit. The railway companies unhesitatingly said they would accept in toto any such recommendations, and in return the Government agreed to
    810
    bring in a measure such as the one we are now discussing. What did the Royal Commission recommend? They recommended a system of Conciliations Boards to be established by each company to regulate the rate of wages within that company.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I should like to know, Mr. Whitley, whether we are now discussing Conciliation Boards? You were pretty tight on some of my colleagues.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is quite in order. He is simply giving to the Committee a reason why the existing machinery should settle wages in the railway industry.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I was answering the argument of the hon. Member in regard to the fixing of the minimum wage. Those Conciliation Boards consist of men on one side, chosen by their fellows, and of directors and officers on the other; and in the event of their being unable to arrive at a common decision, the final decision is referred to an arbitrator. That system has worked in the most admirable manner, and has conduced, I am glad to say, to a large amount of conciliation between the boards, the chief officers, and the men they employ. As long as that system exists, it is surely premature to endeavour to introduce questions of the minimum wage. The only effect must inevitably be to smash up the whole structure of these Conciliation Boards. Do not let the Committee lightly undertake such a duty as that. Once you break up these Conciliation Boards, which are working for the benefit of the men, the companies, and the community at large, you will create a condition of chaos, the end of which no one is able to see, and I earnestly ask the Committee not to be led away by such a proposal, made no doubt in perfect good faith, but to carry on the system of Conciliation Boards until the period, some two and a half years hence, has come to an end.
    Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I am sure every hon. and right hon. Member of this House must be very sorry so many of our railway men are paid such low wages. I believe even railway directors sympathise in that respect, and are anxious to raise the wages of railway men. I was inclined when the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) moved his Amendment to go into the Lobby with him, because I am anxious that every railway

    811
    man should receive at least £1 per week in wages, but as the hon. Member went on with his argument I felt he was defeating the very object for which he was pleading, because he confessed, if this Amendment were carried, the Bill would be withdrawn, and, if the Bill is withdrawn, the £1 per week is, I take it, also gone. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) said this Bill is to encourage railway directors to give better wages to their employés—
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I took those words as being the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and I accepted them.
    Mr. S. COLLINS: It amounts to the same thing. If this Bill be defeated we shall not encourage railway directors. It is all very well to dream dreams and to see visions. I should like to see every working man have 30s. per week, but, if the Bill is going to be defeated we do not encourage railway directors, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment. It is confessed that the object of the Bill is to encourage the raising of wages. Let us pass the Bill and watch railway directors very narrowly to see if the men are put in a better position. Then if they are not, let the hon. Gentleman bring forward this proposal another time, and I will most gladly go into the Lobby in support of it.
    Mr. CLYNES: I would like to hear once more from the opposite side their opinion on the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith). There is at least one point of similarity between him and my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Warrington pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) has acted without the authority of the Labour party, and contrary to the first decision of the Labour party in respect of the Amendment that was to be moved to the Bill. The hon. Member for Warrington has announced that while he can support the first Amendment he cannot support the second. I would suggest that some responsible leader of the party opposite should get up and announce that if the second Amendment is withdrawn they will vote for the first. We do not ask them to vote for both, but I think we should have some assurance that if the way were made easy they would be quite prepared to vote for
    812
    the one. The Noble Lord who has just addressed the Committee (Lord Claud Hamilton) appears to have forgotten what has been frequently stated in this House and outside it by railway directors with respect to the wages of the lowly paid men on the railway. They have asserted that it was a gross exaggeration to state there were many men on the railways paid less than £1 per week. If it be true that there are only a few men on the railways in comparison with the total number employed who are in receipt of these low wages, why do they fear this Amendment? The acceptance of the Amendment would rid them of a charge that has been commonly made, and that has done something to damage the reputation of the railway directors of this country.
    The railway service, as far as directorships are concerned, is well represented at the moment on the benches opposite; indeed, it looks to me to be more like a directors' meeting than a sitting of the House of Commons. I claim that if this Amendment were passed, and £1 per week were guaranteed to the lowly paid men, it would interfere in no way with the continuous smooth working of the Conciliation Boards, which would be still required to regulate and deal with the working conditions and wages of hundreds of thousands of men who are already paid more than £1 per week. We have recently had suggestions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the low wages paid to workers in the country. Hon. Gentlemen who voted for the last Amendment did so to a large extent because wages are so low that an increase in the price of food is an intolerable strain for a large section of the community. If they wish to be consistent, they must now vote for raising the wages of the lowly-paid workers. The arguments they used in support of their previous Amendment can still be adduced in support of the one now before the Committee. It has been hinted that we may ultimately land at £1 per week for agricultural workers. The hon. Gentleman who very ingeniously spoke on behalf of the Government against this Amendment made an entirely unconvincing speech, and talked to us about men who are lamed and maimed in the railway service, and who might lose their occupation if the law compelled their employers to give them £1 per week. My own view is that there is not a man in railway employment who does not earn his money. No one, so far as I know, is employed on any basis of

    813
    charity, and surely men who have been maimed in the service have some title to consideration from the railway directors of this country.
    It is not porters in villages and at wayside railway stations and in the agricultural districts who are affected by this Amendment. There are men working under the hardest conditions on exceedingly dangerous work where accidents are frequent in goods yards and at railway sidings in large industrial centres, continually exposed to the very worst conditions of weather, summer and winter alike, who have less than £1 per week. Those are the men who would very largely profit if this Amendment were carried. The principle of this Amendment is already in force in the case of very many public bodies. A large number of city and town councils have by the decision of the ratepayers, or by the decision of the elected councils, resolved to pay, not £1 per week, but in many cases 26s. per week. In the city of Manchester, corporation employés, no matter at what labour they are engaged, must not be employed at less than 26s. per week, and I say there is not in all the branches of the railway service any class of labour worth less than £1 per week. These men employed at goods sidings, and following dangerous work, have no kitchen gardens, are not in receipt of tips, and do not enjoy any of those excuses which have been given to the House by the spokesman of the Government; and in the interests of this class of man who has not profited, and cannot profit by any operation of the Conciliation Boards, I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to show some consistency, and to show that the talk of their leaders and many of their followers on platforms in the country recently, has meant something. If they really are in favour of higher wages, let them give a vote in support of the first Amendment that the wages shall not be less than £1 per week.
    Mr. BUXTON: The idea of a minimum wage naturally appeals to all of us, and if it could be successfully applied, we should be in favour of its application, but it does not seem to me to be really germane to the particular proposal before us. It would, as far as I can make out from the speeches which have been made, render the Bill quite unworkable. It has already been well said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. S. Collins), that the object and desire of this Bill is to encourage railway companies to improve
    814
    the conditions of service and to remove the difficulties which are at present in the way of an improvement in the rates of wages. It would appear from one or two speeches that it was not absolutely obligatory on a company, in the first instance, to improve the rates of wages and conditions of labour on their system. Before they can go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners for any increased rate they have actually got to make an absolute increase in the rate of wages paid or to improve the conditions of service. They have to prove that up to the hilt before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The result is that this Bill is a real incentive to railway companies to improve the conditions of service of men on the railways. I would especially ask the attention of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to one fact, which is very germane to the question, whether the House at the present time and in connection with this Bill should lay down a minimum rate of wages. The House is in one difficulty, as has already been pointed out. One hon. Member proposes a minimum wage of 20s. and another hon. Member, one of his colleagues, immediately gets up and proposes a minimum wage of 25s. There is nothing to prevent others proposing 35s. or even 40s. I do not think the House of Commons, without much more information than is now in its possession, is in a position, even if they admit the principle of the minimum wage, to say this afternoon what that minimum wage should be.
    It is practically impossible to come to a conclusion. Exactly the same position arises as arose in connection with the fixing of a minimum wage under the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. There we had very largely, in fact almost, the same position. There was a desire in this House that there should be a minimum wage in connection with that industry. What did the House do? After discussion it came to the conclusion by a large majority that certain proposals were impracticable, that it was not in a position to decide for itself what the minimum wage should be, and that it ought to be referred to the Conciliation Boards, representing the two sides and having power to come to a decision on the facts and to settle what the wage should be. We are in practically the same position, I am glad to think, in regard to the railways of this country. We have the equivalent in the Conciliation Boards to deal with the question of wages and conditions. The House on both sides was

    815
    a party to these Conciliation Boards, on which the men are equally represented with the companies, and in addition to that, in the event of a dispute arising, they have an independent chairman to decide what the wage should be. We may well believe that even if the two sides cannot come to a conclusion and decide the matter, the independent chairman will fix a reasonable rate of wages. Having heard on the one side the company and the men on the other, he would be in a better position to say what the rate of wages should be than the House of Commons is to decide that question this afternoon. An hon. Member has said that this Bill leaves it to the companies to deal with the question of wages as they like. That is not so. Under the Conciliation Boards they have power to deal with it in the first instance, but it is left to be finally referred to the independent chairman of the Conciliation Board. I do appeal to the Committee, quite apart from the question of a minimum wage, and apart from the best method of arriving at what we all desire, which is to improve the conditions of service on the railways, to leave the matter, as it is at present, in the hands of the Conciliation Boards and not to endeavour to fix an arbitrary rate, as to which the House has not agreed and cannot very well agree. I hope the House will not insert this Amendment in the Bill, but will leave it to the Conciliation Board to do, as we all desire to do, what they can to improve the conditions of service.
    Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: It seems to me that everybody in every part of the House is agreed in the desire that a reasonable living wage should be paid not only to every employé of a railway company, but to every other person who has to earn his living in the country. It also seems to me that everybody recognises the difficulty of formulating a minimum wage for any class of industry in the country. The difficulty has been emphasised of dealing with the minimum wage in this particular Bill. I suggest that if ever there was an opportunity given to the Members of this House to deal with the question of the minimum wage that opportunity has been given by this Bill, because, as I understand it, this Bill is one which is to give to the railway companies of this country certain advantages, provided that they show that they have so far improved the conditions of the employés as to justify them in having those advantages, and I utterly fail to see
    816
    why, when this Committee is fixing other standards of advantage and improvement, it should not also fix a standard of wage improvement. The Committee is now discussing a Clause which provides for the point at which railway companies are to have the advantages which will be given to them by this Bill, and I do not see in a case of this kind any of the difficulties which are ordinarily associated with the question of interfering with the minimum wage. I fail to see the difficulty of saying to the railway companies, "You are not to have the advantages of this Bill unless the improvements which you have made in the conditions of the employment of your men amount, at any rate, to this standard," or "unless they approach to this particular standard you shall not have the advantages of this Bill." You are not by this Clause fixing a minimum wage, and it is a mistake to talk about the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway as fixing the principle of a minimum wage or fixing a minimum wage
    for railway servants. This is simply an Amendment which specifies that the railway companies, among the other improvements, must, at any rate, attain to this standard.
    We say to them, "You are not to come and ask the public to pay you money which you say you are paying for your improvements unless the public have got an assurance that you are not employing people at less than 25s. a week." I am not going to vote for this Amendment. I think the figure of 25s. is too high for this House to set as a standard at the commencement. When I am told that there are adult men earning 16s. and 18s. a week and many of them in large towns, I say I think it is wrong, and I shall vote for an Amendment which will refuse to give recognition to any railway rate, or to any demand by the companies from the public for repayment for something they have advanced to their working men, unless they have at least a standard of £1 a week. I do not think this House is in a position to fix a minimum wage. I do not think the Committee is in a position to judge between £1 and 25s., and whilst I voted in this House in favour of the principle of a minimum wage for coal miners, I always refused to put into it the 5s. 3d., or to specify the figure, because I thought this House was not justified in doing it. I cannot imagine any man in the House or outside who will really say that anything under £1 a week is sufficient to justify the

    817
    railway companies in going and asking the public to repay them. As I understand this Bill, you say to the railway companies, when they come to the public, "you must show that you do improve the conditions of the labour of your men before you ask us to give you back the amount which you have had to spend." I say that before the railway companies are entitled to go to the public, they ought to be able to assure the public that they are not paying less than £1 a week to anybody in their employment. Although I am not going to vote for the 25s. a week, which is in the Amendment, I shall very cheerfully go into the Lobby with those Members below the Gangway in supporting the principle that the railway company shall not have this right of getting this money from the public unless they are paying, at any rate, a wage of not less than £1 a week to those in their employment.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I do not think that anyone in this House can be surprised, after the fixing of a minimum wage for miners last year, that this question of fixing a minimum wage should be carried further, and especially in connection with low wage-paid labour. One of the greatest social evils we suffer from is that low wage-paid labour, especially in the towns. I think that is a question which will have to be considered. I do not think the House of Commons can fix a minimum wage by an Amendment to this Bill in the circumstances of this evening. I do not think that the proposals that have been made for a minimum wage are in the least, exaggerated; it is not possible for a man to keep a decent home and bring up a family upon a week. I believe we shall have to fix a minimum wage in the towns at something like. 25s. I think that what we have done already will bring us to that, and I believe that in the low wage-paid labour the fixing of a minimum wage is most required. I certainly think that in the payment of railway employés it would not be possible off-hand to fix a wage, because there is the element of the night employment to a large extent, and also the question of tips among other classes of railway employés. The whole subject would have to be gone thoroughly into, in the same way as the minimum wage was gone into in the case of miners; it would have to be gone into by an independent authority. I believe that we shall come to a minimum wage on the railways and other employments in the towns. I just
    818
    want to suggest one homely example of what I mean. In the district where I come from, the farm servant or labourer is paid £1 a week; lie has a free house and perquisites; that means a wage of 25s. When you compare that with the wages of 19s. and £1 a week in the towns, I believe it will be found impossible for that kind of wage to be paid. I am entirely in sympathy with the proposal, much more in sympathy with the proposal to raise the scale of pay of any low wage-paid labour than I was in favour of the minimum wage in the case of miners. I think it is a stronger case and one which will have to be met, but it will have to be met with much greater care and greater examination and consideration than we could possibly give to that subject this evening. On that ground, and in order to aid the Government to fulfil its pledge, I shall vote with the Government.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I agree with the last Member who spoke, that this is mainly a matter of fulfilling the pledge of the Government, and I hope the Committee will remember the circumstances in which that pledge was given. The circumstances were very acute. The Government asked the railway companies to make certain concessions in the course of an industrial dispute. The Government as a Government pledged themselves to the railway companies, to the extent of the loss which the railway companies incurred, a loss which otherwise they would not have undertaken, that the Government would introduce a Bill to recoup them. Anybody who has any regard for the dignity of government in a representative institution must feel a strong prejudice to support the Government which has given a pledge in these circumstances. When a Bill for the fulfilment of that pledge is introduced I do not think it is quite fair for sections on either side of the House to try to get an advantage out of the Bill which is simply a fulfilment of an elementary obligation. No matter what may be his political complexion, I believe that any Member who cares for representative institutions must feel, and the House ought to bear in mind, that the Government for the sake of the country at a particular crisis in the country's affairs gave this pledge. Whatever may be hon. Members' views on other matters, which may be promoted upon the Bill, which is introduced to fulfil that pledge, they must feel a sympathy with the Government in their endeavour to fulfil it.

    819
    I ask hon. Members below the Gangway opposite not to think for one moment that I am wholly rejecting their views as having no weight at all. I similarly think that the demands put forward by chambers of commerce and persons interested in every form of industry concerned in this particular measure are being made on an inappropriate occasion. Those demands might fairly be discussed by the House at any other time, but we stand in a very exceptional position to-day; the party in Opposition may be in power to-morrow, and those hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who are merely supporting the Government may find themselves in Opposition to-morrow. Wherever hon. Members sit they should remember that it is due to the dignity of the House, when the Government, for the sake of the country at a crisis in the country's affairs has given a pledge, that they should not, except on the strongest provocation, be the means of the Government's breaking their pledge. I fail to understand how my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Rigby Swift) can find it a matter of principle to vote for a minimum of 20s. and on principle be opposed to a minimum of 25s. I can understand it being a principle to object to a cash minimum being named, and that it is objectionable to have a minimum at all, but I cannot understand an hon. Member who says, in two successive sentences, that he thinks it is contrary to principle to vote for a minimum of 25s. but that he is wholly in favour of a minimum of 20s.
    8.0 P.M.
    We have had three definite examples or tendencies since 1909 of the introduction of the minimum wage into legislation. In the spring of 1909 we had the Fair-Wage Resolution. In the latter part of 1909 we had the Trade Boards Act, which, among a number of other provisions, made it possible for minimum wages to be established in notoriously sweated trades, and in such other trades as the Board of Trade by Provisional Order might bring within the purview of that Act. It is significant, as being indicate of public opinion, that from 1909 up to the present moment no other trade has been brought within that Act. Then in 1912 we had the Coal Mines Act, when the House did sanction the principle of the minimum wage, but it never went so far, in any of these instances, as to impose any minimum wage in figures. The conditions vary so much in different locali-
    820
    ties—the urban as against the rural locality is an elementary instance—that it is impossible to impose a minimum in one district which can approximate the proper minimum in another. The cash figure has never been named up till now, and I think it would be a great misfortune if this Committee were to commit themselves to it. I think they would be ill- advised in the interests of the workmen themselves. A minimum must always tend to be a maximum. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am expressing my own opinion, and hon. Members may disagree with it if they like.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a general discussion on the minimum wage. The hon. and learned Member should confine himself particularly to this Amendment, which is whether there shall be a sum of 25s. or 20s.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I will loyally accept your ruling, Sir. The tendency of fixing a minimum is to discourage the good worker in favour of the bad. By fixing a minimum of 20s. or 25s. you will not make the bad worker good, but you will be apt to discourage the good worker and raise the bad worker to the level of a good one. To make the workers all of one value is a bad principle. The whole of the prosperity of this country is based upon individual effort and the recognition of individual ability, skill, and industry, which can only be attained by leaving the price of labour to be determined by its results. I therefore think it would be a great misfortune if this Amendment were to be accepted. The House, while admitting the principle in an emergency, has never fixed the amount in any case. I strongly object to the introduction of this particular Amendment, because every hon. Member who remembers the circumstances in which this Bill was promised must recognise that the introduction of questions of this kind, which I agree in themselves are important, cannot be permitted.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: We have listened to an interesting discussion to-night, and I am one of those who hold the opinion that discussions of this character are entireiy in place in the House of Commons. It is amazing to listen to lawyers laying down the conditions that should attach to men who are earning a £1 or 25s. a week. We get in this House chunks of philosophy and delightfully interesting lectures from Members of the House who are following the legal profession, which would be far

    821
    more fitting for some literary and debating society than for people engaged in business, and who have knowledge of the subject. We have just been told that the minimum wage always tends to become a maximum. May I remind the hon. and learned Member that for 6s. 8d. you can get a solicitor, but you cannot get every solicitor to accept 6s. 8d. From the figures got out by the Board of Trade it appears that the purchasing power of one sovereign has, since 1895, dropped by 3s. 9d. When we consider that we have to deal with 50,000 people working on the railway systems who are receiving actually less than £1 a week, whose wages have varied little if any during the period I have mentioned, it is obvious to anybody in the Committee that the position of these people to-day must be deplorable. It is a matter we ought seriously to face. It is a matter of common knowledge to us. We cannot escape it, and we cannot pretend to be ignorant of the fact that these men, owing to the rise in the price of commodities, are in a three and ninepenny worse position than they were in in 1895. There is another important point, probably the most important we shall dig up during this Debate. I have seen figures obtained from different movements in this country giving the degree of danger in various industries and occupations. I have seen alarming figures regarding those connected with the drink trade, the brewing of beer and the selling of beer and spirits in public houses, but there is one thing that has always astounded me which is that if you take all the dangerous trades and avocations you will find that the people who are working for £1 a week or less have a death rate which is the most excessive of any section of the community of this country. Many years ago there was a Member of this House—Mr. Samuel Plimsoll—who was instrumental in fixing a load line for ships. He took strong action to bring that load line into operation, and there is no Member who will to-day dispute that that action has been instrumental in saving thousands of the lives of the men who go down to the sea in ships. It is the business of the President of the Board of Trade not only to see that the load line is on the ship, but, through his officers, to see that when the ship is loaded, the load line is not exceeded. The Amendment before the Committee is an endeavour to fix a load line below which human life shall not be depressed in this country.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member would undoubtedly be quite revelant to the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with a minimum wage, but I do not think he has touched upon the subject with which the Amendment before us deals, namely, to insert 25s. instead of 20s. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he must confine his remarks to that point.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing whether 20s. should be paid to the railway workers on this Bill, and surely, therefore, it is necessary to consider what will be the effect of this fixing of a minimum standard, not only on railway workers but on other people and on other grades of labour.
    Sir A. MOND: May I point out that the fact of inserting the Amendment, will not of itself give any human being a penny piece. It will depend on a complaint being made by a trader.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am very familiar with the operation of the Act which this Bill sets out to amend, and it is with that knowledge in my mind that I am directing the hon. Member's attention to the fact that there is a comparatively narrow point in connection with the minimum wage which is sought to be set up here. I regret that I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself strictly to that, and not to go into the general merits of the question of the minimum wage or otherwise.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I will do my best to keep within your ruling, but the point you have laid down seems to be rather obscure. The position, I take it, is that if Parliament passes this Bill with this Amendment, it will justify the railway company in obtaining increases in the rates which they charge for the carrying of goods. Without this Amendment I am against the Bill, and shall vote against it as religiously and diligently as anyone in the House. But my whole course of action will be changed entirely if this important Amendment is adopted. Most Members are compelled to take an interest in this question, especially after the country was faced with the recent dispute among the railway people. We are all concerned in that. We should all be affected by it because, if we were faced with a tremendous cessation of labour, we should be within a very few days or weeks of starvation. I see in this

    823
    Amendment an opportunity of giving the railway companies power to obtain higher rates and at the same time taking away from them the disabilities they are labouring under to-day to justify the scandalously low wages that exist on the railway systems. I take it that that comes within the scope of the Amendment. It lays it down that great companies asking for powers and privileges shall receive them on certain conditions. There are, of course, many conditions covering the various Railway Bills to-day. This House is omnipotent in this matter, and it is within its power to extend those conditions which way it will, and so far as I have been able to discover, there is no power in this country to prevent the House putting those conditions to those who seek to run the railway systems of this country. The railway companies are to-day at a great disadvantage. They have things to defend that possibly they do not like. If the Amendment was carried, it would give them the chance to raise their rates and to pay a higher and better wage, and would not entail upon them endeavouring in any way to justify some of the conditions that exist to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary raised a point with regard to men who were injured on the line.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I did not say necessarily "on the line."
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that men were there with wooden legs, and I have yet to discover that railway or any other companies go out of their way specially to employ men with wooden legs. There is no preference for wooden legs in industry in this country, and I think we may take it that the great bulk of men who are fitted up in this way on the railway system, have met with railway accidents. The point I want to deal with is that the mere fact that a man has lost his leg is no justification for paying him less than the rate of wages mentioned in other Amendments before the House. Rather, it is an indication that he has been, in a sense, misused and abused. It is not a reason for reducing his wage or position, but rather an opportunity given to the railway company to deal fairly with the man, and see that he does not suffer in any way. There has been during the past eighteen months or two years a great movement of labour unrest. For the past twelve or four-
    824
    teen years of my life, I have been engaged in trade union work affecting men receiving less than £1 a week. We have succeeded. There can be no question about this. Any employer in this House will agree that there have been hundreds of thousands of workmen who, prior to this unrest, were receiving less than £1 a week, and I say it to the eternal credit of an overwhelming number of employers in this country, there has not been any very great difficulty in showing them that wages of less than £1 a week were unfair, and would not enable a man to maintain himself, his wife, and his family; and it has been one of the easiest things possible to raise the wages of hundreds of thousands of men from 17s. or 18s. a week to £1 a week. This is tremendously to the credit of the industry of this country, and it gives the men a chance such as they could not hope to have under the old and bad conditions. Imagine a man with a wife and two or three children, endeavouring to live on £1 a week! It is because I know they cannot do it that I am begging the House to give this matter serious attention.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will think for a moment, he will see that if I allow him to pursue that line of argument I must allow replies, and we shall be launched at once into a discussion of the minimum wage in general. I am sorry to interrupt his speech, but I really must ask him not to continue that line of argument any further. If he has any further remarks to make, he must confine himself strictly to the question of giving 20s. to the railway workers of the country.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I shall endeavour to keep within your ruling. I thought I was well within it in the remarks I was making. I am endeavouring in my own way to deal with some of the arguments which have already been used. For instance, we had one argument from the Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), who represents the railway companies in this House, and a constituency as well, I suppose. He said the Conciliation Boards which had been brought into operation were working very smoothly and doing very fine work, but this particular Noble Lord fought for all he was worth against the establishment of Conciliation Boards, and it is rather late in the day for Members of the House of this type to come here and make speeches in this way when we are proposing to give the House a chance to say whether the

    825
    House will give railway companies power to pay the wages the Amendment seeks to put in the Bill. It seems to me that the Noble Lord should have thanked the Mover of the Amendment and dealt with the position in the terms of the hon. Member for West Ham, because it would ease the minds of railway directors in the country when they have to defend the condition of a large number of their employés who are receiving less than the wage proposed by the Amendment. I hope the House will seriously consider the Amendment. It may be that some who cannot make up their minds will say this is not the time and that some other is the time for doing this. That is an argument we always hear—not this year, or next year, but never. We are asking the House to face the difficulty and realise that we are dealing with flesh and blood, and to see whether we cannot set a bottom limit, a sort of Plimsoll line, as to the wages of men engaged on railways. I do not see any reason, if this House is to make a start, why we should not start with the railway companies, which are the greatest and wealthiest monopolies in the country. If ever a case could be made out for carrying such an Amendment, it is the case before the House to-night.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. C. Duncan) that I entirely share with him the sympathy expressed for the under-paid railway workers of this country, and, indeed, his desire to improve their conditions. I was glad to hear that in his experinece among employers of labour in other industries a material increase in wages has been obtained by the employés—an increase up to a living wage.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: A pound a week.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Let me assure the Committee that whenever any well-considered and effective scheme is proposed for remedying the evils which undoubtedly exist at the present moment among the underpaid railway servants of the country it should have my entire support. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is now."] I was going to state why I cannot find it possible to support this Amendment. In the first place, I understand if the Amendment is carried it would kill the Bill. I was assured from the other side of the House that that would be the effect, and I think there is every probability that it would be. For my part, I do not wish to risk that, for I consider this Bill is in the interest of
    826
    railway servants. I think it will induce railway companies to raise the wages of their employés in cases where those wages are too low. Therefore I should be exceedingly sorry to vote for any Amendment which would endanger the safety of the Bill or prevent it from passing. There is another, and I think even a stronger, reason why I cannot support the Amendment. If we want to establish a minimum wage on the railway system of the country, I think this Amendment goes the wrong way about it. I think the only possible way in which you can establish a minimum wage in any great industry, like the railway or coal-mining industry, is the method adopted last year in regard to coal mining. You should put no fixed sum in the Bill, but establish local boards which will consider the different grades and interests of the workers in the different districts, and see what is the appropriate minimum wage for each district. It would be perfectly impossible for us, knowing the variety of conditions under which railway men are employed, to insert any definite wage in the Bill, and to say that is the minimum rate to be paid for all workers on the railways. Therefore, if we are to establish the principle of a minimum wage at all, I am satisfied that the only way to do it is to follow the precedent of the Coal Mines Act and establish local boards to say what the minimum wage shall be. For these reasons, while sympathising with the desire of hon. Members opposite to remove the cases of under pay on the railway system, I cannot support the Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think the speech we have listened to is typical of a good many other speeches by hon. Members who represent railway constituencies. They are all in favour of a minimum wage, and they think that 25s. is the very lowest a man ought to have, but they say, "This is not the proper time or method; these are not the ideas or principles upon which any real politician should work if he wants to get a minimum wage for railway workers." I do not think it is necessary for us to argue with that sort of speech. The question before the House is perfectly simple. It is simply whether we are to confine the benefits to those railway companies who already pay decent wages to their men. I, for one, should regard it as a premium on bad wages if we were to say to some railway companies in the country, those who pay the lowest wages, that they will get the biggest benefits out of the Bill, and to say at the same time

    827
    to those who are already paying good wages that they are to get the lowest possible benefits. This Amendment stops privilege being given to the worst railway companies, and says to them, "Before you get the advantages of this Act you must set your house in order, and when you are paying a decent living wage to your men you will have the benefits of the Act, and where rises of pay are given they will be taken into consideration." It seems to me that on this line the Amendment has strong ground for support. My hon. Friend (Mr. Robertson) was very much down on the logic and economics of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. It does not seem to me that the Government's position is any more sound than its economics.
    What was the argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? He rides two horses at once. First of all he says he cannot support the Amendment in its details, and then he says, "The Bill is to carry out a Government pledge. We must have the Clause line for line, and phrase for phrase it must go through." Then he rides off on another horse and says to the hon. Member for North-West Ham that, apart altogether from the question of pledge, this Bill, in the opinion of the Government is an admirable Bill and is going to be an inducement to all the railway companies to raise wages at the expense of the community. You cannot have it both ways. If this Bill has got to be saved in order to satisfy a Government pledge, let us leave it at that. Let us admit its faults and take it simply as a satisfaction of the Government pledge. On the other hand, if this Bill as it stands is only a bribe to the railway companies to give higher wages at the expense of all the workers of the country, then there is every argument for extending it far beyond the railway companies to all employers. We know very well that this is not a Bill which the Government support on account of its merits. We are asked to drop this Amendment and pass the Bill in its original form simply on account of the Government pledge and nothing else.
    The hon. Member for Thanet lectured those of us who voted against the Second Reading as if we were wanting in honour and as if because a pledge was given by the Government, therefore we must accept it as drafted by the Government. I protest in the name of the independence of
    828
    Members of this House against any such theory at that, because the Executive Government for the time being decide on a certain line of action and give a pledge, therefore every Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, whether he supports the Executive or not, should support the Government and see as a man of honour, that what the Government said went. That is the last argument of despotism, and if accepted by the House would put the seal upon all our liberties in this country. This Amendment does not enact a minimum wage at all. A lot of my hon. Friends hesitated about enacting a minimum wage. It merely says to the railway companies, "You shall not get the advantage of this Bill unless you happen to pay 20s. or 25s." It cannot by any twisting of words be made to be an enactment of a minimum wage merely to presuppose decent conditions before any privilege is given to the railway companies concerned. The hon. Member for Tyneside brought in the question of the old men and the lame men. That is not worthy of the hon. Member, because we have had it brought up over and over again. In the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Coal Mining Act, and the Minimum Wage Act, the case of the old men and cripples has been specially considered, and exception will always be made in special cases such as theirs. The only thing we have to consider is whether we ought to give railway companies who pay starvation wages this special privilege. I say we should not.
    If by passing this through in the amended form we thereby do get one or two railway companies raising the minimum wage to 20s. or 25s., very soon we shall find all other railway companies following suit. They will be compelled to do so by force of public opinion. I believe we should have, if we passed the Bill in its amended form, one or two companies taking advantage of it and seeing that their fully paid, whole-time men are given a reasonable minimum, and we should have other railway companies following suit, and no sooner would you get the whole of the railway companies paying a decent minimum wage than you would find the employers of the low-paid labour or the rest of the country almost compelled by comparison with the railway companies to raise their wages to the same level. You are raising the standard of comfort to the working classes in this way. The standard has risen, and it will take a

    829
    great deal of driving on the part of the employers to reduce that standard again. For all those reasons I hope that this Amendment will be carried. I hope it will be carried with the 25s. minimum. If it is not carried the House will have an opportunity of voting on the 20s. minimum, and those who consider 25s. too much will have an opportunity of voting for 20s. I think that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member who has brought this forward, and I hope they will see it, by hook or by crook, embodied in the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament, and that we shall see a real improvement in the standard of remuneration of the railway workers of the country.
    Mr. PARKES: I have always believed in workmen having good wages; 20s. or 25s. may not be excessive wages, and in some cases may be far too little for men on the railways, but that is not the point. The question is whether this House has the proper facilities and a proper understanding of the conditions to settle wages. The settlement of wages ought to be by boards of experts, and not by a miscellaneous body like the House of Commons. I have had a great deal to do with the settlement of wages myself during the last twenty years, and I should be very sorry indeed in the trade with which I am connected to ask the House of Commons to settle its wages, because I know that they would make a thorough muddle of it. I would ask the hon. Member whether there are any men who work for low wages in the potteries?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, far too many.
    Mr. PARKES: Would the hon. Member like the House of Commons to settle the various wages paid in the potteries?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, I would very much.
    Mr. PARKES: And also regulate the different rates of wages in that district? He would find it impossible to do anything of the kind.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I should refuse to give to any pottery manufacturer special privileges by Act of Parliament unless he paid a decent living wage.
    Mr. PARKES: It all depends on what you call a "decent living wage." If you admit the principle that this House ought
    830
    to settle the minimum rate of wages, you cannot apply it only to one community, like railways or mines. You should allow it to operate all over the country. If that is the case, it reduces it to an absurdity, because the time of this House would be taken up entirely, and more than taken up, in settling wages in different places in the country. I know a trade in which the wages have to be settled every two months, and if the House of Commons were called upon to settle wages, and to settle fluctuations in wages of that kind up and down the country, the whole thing would become absurd and ridiculous. A wages Board of masters and men would be much more likely to give working men increases than would be the case if the question were left to be settled by the House of Commons.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather into general questions, which I have already, in the case of one or two Members, ruled to be out of order.
    Mr. PARKES: The railway companies and the Government settled this question in 1911. The matter was submitted to arbitration and to a Commission, and I understood that the Labour party agreed that there should be Boards to settle the matter.
    Mr. WARDLE: We did not attempt to settle it, and it was in 1907 that certain Boards were set up. In August, 1911, we complained that those Boards were not working properly, and so the matter was submitted to a Commission. The Boards were set up in 1907.
    Mr. PARKES: I was referring to 1911, when the principle was established that these matters should be settled between the masters and the men, but now you are departing from that principle, which was decided by the Commission, and I submit that it is quite out of order to raise the question of a minimum wage in the House. I do not believe altogether in settling wages in this House; I believe it to be the wrong tribunal, and not qualified for the work at all. These questions are much better settled by a Board composed of masters and men who know all the conditions of the case.
    Mr. WARDLE: It is true that there are Conciliation Boards established for the settlement of wages, and we do not desire,

    831
    in moving these Amendments to the Bill, to depart from those Conciliation Boards. What is done in these Amendments is simply to fix a minimum upon which to raise the superstructure of wages. That, I hold, is quite a different principle, and quite a different matter entirely, from taking the question of the settlement of wages out of the hands of those Boards. Let me remind the hon. Member that the Board of Trade and the railway companies, in presenting this Bill to the House of Commons, are asking the House to agree that the rates shall be raised in order that improved wages may be given to the staff; and while they are about it, why do they not make a good job of it? Why do they not say so far as the men are concerned that they will raise the wages, and that nobody shall be paid less than a living wage? That would be some justification for this Bill; otherwise, so far as I am concerned, I do not see that there would be any justification for it. In many cases, where improvements of wages have been obtained, there has been observed by the Conciliation Boards no principle such as that which is sought to be established by these Amendments. Certain railway companies, I admit, have largely adopted the £1 a week minimum, but not in every instance. There are some isolated cases where they have not fixed it, while others have been trying to bring it up to the pound a week. It is, however, not general or universal. If the House of Commons were to insist that no adult person on the railways shall be employed for less than £1 a week, or, as I should prefer, 25s. a week, then I think there would be some justification for this Bill.
    Mr. JOHN WARDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
    Mr. GRETTON: The discussion we have had to-day certainly shows that the House of Commons is not the place for dealing with the settlement of wages. Undoubtedly it was decided between the Government and the representatives of men on occasion of the railway strike that the wages were to be settled by boards and not by the House of Commons. Equally, without doubt, this Amendment is going back on the understanding arrived at on the occasion of that settlement.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Hon. Members who
    832
    represent the Labour party in this House were parties to that settlement, and what is now occurring shows the House and the country the difficulty there is in dealing in these matters with the Labour party. In regard to the fixing of the minimum wage in this House, I submit that we are encroaching on a most dangerous principle which, if adopted, would ultimately destroy in the country the authority and influence of this House. The Amendment is for £1 a week; but even to-night there is the further suggested alternative of 25s. a week. Once the principle of the minimum wage was accepted, there would be constant proposals. You would have candidates of one party proposing 21s., and opposing candidates of another party proposing 22s.; so that in every industrial constituency great political questions would be lost sight of, and electors would be asked to vote for the candidate who offered to vote in the House of Commons for the higher wage. Such a cause would be a degradation of this House and destructive of its authority to deal with great national questions. The only way in which this House can intervene in any way whatever in industrial disputes is by establishing tribunals of arbitration to deal with them outside of the authority of this Assembly, and on the merits of the question submitted; those tribunals to be composed of persons well acquainted with the industries concerned, and of judicial mind to decide the cases placed before them. As one Member of this Assembly, I cannot support the principle of a minimum wage, because I believe that the House of Commons cannot properly deal with that subject, and if it attempts to deal with it, it will destroy its authority and power to engage in great national questions.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I fail to see why this Bill, which is to "amend Section (1) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, with respect to increases of rates or charges made for the purpose of meeting a rise in the cost of working a railway, due to improved labour conditions," is incompatible with the House of Commons laying down a minimum wage for the improvement of labour conditions. It seems to me that it is essentially within the province of this House to lay down such a minimum. There are many on the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Benches who are well acquainted with the conditions of labour on the railways of the

    833
    country. This does not apply, as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. E. Parkes) suggested, to all the trades in this country. We are not called on to give an opinion of all trades, but only as to this very important industry, which is more or less a monopoly, which derives its powers from Parliament, a fact which casts a responsibility on Parliament to see that the industry is carried on under fair and equitable and right conditions for those employed. We are shirking our responsibility continually by saying this does not come within our province, and is against economic principles. I fail to see why it is against economic principles. I have been a student of political economy all my life, and I do not see how it is incompatible with political economy to lay down a living minimum wage. If the trade of the country was not profitable or was impossible to carry on, then there would be some justification for saying that it would be a dangerous thing to lay down a minimum wage. We know that this is an abnormally rich country, with trade good, and for the House of Commons to refuse to accept a minimum of £1 or 25s. per week seems to me, for us men of business who are acquainted with the conditions, to show that the House has no courage to do what we believe to be right in the interests of the public. I think we ought to take our courage in both hands and say we will vote a living wage. It is absurd to say that a wage of £1 or 25s. would disorganise the railways or the whole working of industries. I hope the Government will, even at the eleventh hour, take this question into consideration. We had an eloquent example when we voted for the five and two minimum. The same arguments were applied then. The men in this instance are in the hands of those whom I call, with respect, monopolists, and in an industry which is more or less a monopoly. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) told us we must have regard to Conciliation Boards, and let the matter be settled by them. We all know the normal state of the industrial market, and that workmen often have difficulty in getting work. There is frequently a great surplus of labour and two or three men for a certain job. The result is the men have a great difficulty in getting a living wage, and that it is only by the House of Commons coming to their help that they have any real chance or possibility of advancing their economic position. When the men go
    834
    before a Conciliation Board they are content with a small advance in their wages. Why should we not come to the assistance of the men? We know the conditions of life in this country, and the conditions under which a great many of the people live, and we should therefore lend the people the powerful weight of the House of Commons to get a minimum wage. It has been argued that a minimum will become a maximum. Those who contend that are generally the most powerful advocates of the economic theory. They say wages are governed by the law of supply and demand, and that skilled labour commands a high price because it is highly skilled. You cannot argue that way and at the same time say that a minimum would become the maximum.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now referring to the general question.
    Mr. D. MASON: I do submit the point is one which should command the united support of all parties. We all wish that men should be able to live, and even from the economic point of view it is sound economically and financially that men should be adequately paid. It would be in the interests of the companies and of the men and of the industries generally since it would lead to a higher standard of living all round. If we pay the porters who are depending on tips a proper wage, they will be better men and more able to carry out their work, and benefit will accrue to the companies and the community and industries all round. I hope many other hon. Members will join in supporting the proposal to which I give my most hearty support.
    Mr. POINTER: I observe from the numerous speeches that it is rather a difficult matter to keep within the narrow limits which you have prescribed, not unwisely I think, as the course this Debate should take. I do not know whether I shall be more fortunate in treading the narrow path, but at least I will do my best. I have been very much struck by the argument used by the other side, that this House as a whole is a pack of noodles who cannot discover a way out of a difficulty which every social reformer and every social party has been pleased to acknowledge existed. I do not think we are doing anything out of the ordinary course in seeking to make the Committee

    835
    stage of this Bill an opportunity of bettering the conditions of labour for those working on our railways. Neither do I think we are guilty of any breach of past promises by using the present occasion in this way. We are not seeking to use this House as the proper body for fixing wages. Our attempt is something much simpler than that. We agree that this House is a most unsuitable body for fixing conflicting and varying rates of wages. All that we are attempting is to say to the railway companies, "You are asking us for a privilege. It may be that it is a privilege which you claim as a right in view of the pledges given to you. Nevertheless, it is a privilege, and we want some quid pro quo, which, as far as we are concerned, will take the shape of the condition that no railway company which does not give what we believe are rock bottom, decent conditions of labour shall have the privilege that this Bill is designed to grant." That, broadly, is the position that we are fighting for. We shall be asked presently to determine between the respective merits of a minimum wage of 20s. and one of 25s. To be perfectly frank, I shall vote for 25s., and if that is beaten I shall then vote for 20s. Let me give the reason why I shall vote for 25s. I think this argument ought to have some weight with the President of the Board of Trade. A distinguished Leader of his, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, once said that there were 12,000,000 of our fellow subjects living on the verge of hunger. How did he arrive at that figure? He based his calculation—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the general question.
    Mr. POINTER: I am sorry if I have strayed front the narrow path, but if you will hear me for a moment further you will see that the statement has a real bearing on the position. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman arrived at his conclusion on the authority of the work of Mr. Rowntree and Mr. Charles Booth, in which it was stated that a wage of 23s. 8d. per week
    was the lowest upon which a man could bring up a wife and family. We are asking for a little above that. On the other hand, 20s. is much below it. I do not pledge the Labour party, but I believe that every Member of it will be prepared to vote for 20s. if it is found impossible to get 25s. We certainly feel that the argument that the Amendment, if carried, would destroy the Bill ought not to carry much weight. I am personally sorry that my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) suggested that it probably would destroy the Bill. I am absolutely root and branch opposed to the Bill, and would not willingly let pass any opportunity to destroy it; but I hold the view that the proper time to defeat a Bill is on the Second or Third Reading, and that the Committee stage ought to be used for making the Bill a better measure. Notwithstanding my utter detestation of the Bill on the ground that it is wrong in principle and wrong in assumption, because it assumes that railway rates are not high enough, whereas every decent-minded man thinks they are much too high—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the general merits of the Bill.
    Mr. POINTER: I always thought that a passing reference was allowed even when an extended reference was not. I was simply passing in review one or two of the considerations which make me take up the position that, while I hold very strong views against the Bill, I shall be prepared to vote on the Amendment on its merits, altogether apart from the question whether or not it destroys the Bill. If it does destroy the Bill, all I can say is that it is such an utterly bad Bill that it deserves destruction.
    Mr. J. H. THOMASrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 597.]

    AYES.

    [9.12 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boland, John Pius

    Alden, Percy

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brady, P. J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Hughes, S. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Leif Stratton (Rushcliffe)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Crooks, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cullinan, J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    King, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rowntree, Arnold

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Doris, W.

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan. Mid.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M, (Falkirk Burghs)

    Stanier, Beville

    Falconer, J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ferens, Rt. Han. Thomas Robinson

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gill, A. H.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Ginnell, L.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Glanville, Harold James

    Meagher, Michael

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, M.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Molten-o, Percy Alport

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Mooney, J. J.

    Webb, H.

    Gulland, John William

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morrell, Philip

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

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

    Morison, Hector

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Muldoon, John

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, R.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Hailfax)

    Hills, John Waller

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Mr.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    J. H. Thomas and Mr. Wardle.

    Hogg, David C.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Baird, J. L.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Barnston, Harry

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Barrie, H. T.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Denis Fortescue

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Nolan, Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gilmour, Captain John

    O'Grady, James

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Malley, William

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down. E.)

    Hodge, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    838

    839

    Roch, Walter F.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Talbort, Lord E.

    Sanders, Robert A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Question, "That the words 'one pound' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words 'twenty - five shillings' be there inserted."
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH(seated and covered): On a point of Order, Mr. Maclean. It appears that hon. Members think you have put two distinct Questions. As a matter of procedure, may I ask if that is so, and whether it is not necessary that you should again put the second question that you have put?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite natural that some confusion should have resulted, and I am glad the hon. Member has asked me to make the point clear. The result of the last decision of the Committee is that the words "one pound" have gone out of the proposed Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Question I have now to put is "That the words 'twenty-five shillings' be there inserted." That is the Question which is now for the Committee to decide. Those who are in favour of the twenty-five shillings being inserted in the Amendment will vote "Aye," and those who are against it will vote "No."
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: It is pretty generally understood that some hon. Members have already gone past the clerks. Can you say, Mr. Maclean, whether a communication can be made to the clerks saying that a fresh Division would be taken.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are starting a perfectly fresh Division. I have already said, "Clear the Lobby" as distinctly and loudly as I possibly could, and I am now putting the Question, "That the words 'twenty-five shillings' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I desire to ask whether a vote can be taken on the £1 minimum as well as on the twenty-five shillings?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have just already said very distinctly and clearly that the words "one pound" have gone, and that at present there is a vacancy which it is proposed to fill by the insertion of "twenty-five shillings." Those in favour of twenty-five shillings will vote "Aye" and those against will vote "No."
    Mr. H. SMITH: May I submit to you, that when you put the Motion that "one pound stand part of the question," if it was not challenged it was due to the fact that I think nobody in the House had the desire to challenge or question it. I ask, under these circumstances, if you could see your way to put the Question again. If you do not see your way to put the Question again, hon. Members will be deprived of voting for 20s. and against 25s.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that that was not challenged at once, because we must go straight on with the business. I put the question distinctly.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 164.

    Division No. 598.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hinds, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hodge, John

    O'Grady, James

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Crooks, William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    De Forest, Baron

    Jowett, F. W.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Denman, Hon. R.D.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Snowden, Philip

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert. Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Leach, Charles

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Gill, A. H.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Thorne, W. (West Ham)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Wadsworth, J.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wllkie, Alexander

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    J. H. Thomas and Mr. Wardle.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Malley, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Shee, James John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boland, John Pius

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

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Hills, John Wailer

    Primrose, Hon. Neill James

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hogg, David C.

    Radford, G. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, Michael

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Chaloner, Col R. G. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    King, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavel

    Craig, Norman,(Kent, Thanet)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Crumley, Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, T.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, William

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Stainer, Beville

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Falconer, James

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fell, Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ffrench, Peter

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Molloy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir Luke (Yorke, E.R.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morison, Hector

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Muldoon, John

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Munro, R.

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Mr. W. THORNE: That is a swindle to start with.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a very improper phrase to use in this House.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to call your attention, Mr. Maclean, to the last Division. The Question you put from the Chair was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The question put was, "That the word
    842
    'twenty' stand part," and upon that the Committee divided.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry did not make it clear to the House, but I must point out to the hon. Baronet that that was not the Question put from the Chair. The Question I put was, "That the words 'twenty-five shillings' be there inserted."
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: As it is clear that there has been some misunderstand-

    843
    ing. I will move another Amendment. For the misunderstanding which has occurred, I am sure the Committee is to blame. In order to clear up this point and give hon Members an opportunity of voting, I would like to ask your permission, Mr. Maclean, to move an Amendment in the following form:—
    "That no adult person in the employment of the company is in receipt of a wage of less than 21s. per week."
    Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second that Amendment.
    An HON. MEMBERrose to a point of Order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to have any further points of Order raised. I will accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and I will put first the Question, "That the words 'twenty-one shillings" be inserted in the proposed Amendment." I would suggest that the Committee should agree to these words, and then a vote may be taken on the whole Amendment.
    Mr. BUXTON: Evidently there has been some confusion, but I am sure there is no desire by any side wind to avoid a decision upon this point. As the hon. and learned Member's proposal is giving us another opportunity of voting I suggest that we should allow "twenty-one shillings" to be inserted in the Amendment and then have a Division on the main Question.
    Words inserted in the proposed Amendment in lieu of the words "one pound" after the word "than" ["wage of less than"], insert the words "twenty-one shillings."—[Mr. H. Smith.]
    Proposed Amendment, as amended: After the word "Commissioners" ["Railway and Canal Commissioners"], insert the following Sub-section:—
    "(a) That no adult person in the employment of the company is in receipt of a wage of less than twenty-one shillings per week."
    Question put, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 164.

    Division No. 599.]

    AYES.

    [9.40 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Hughes, S. L.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Alden, Percy

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Snowden, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jones, J. Twyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Sutton, John E.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Leach, Charles

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Chancellor, H. G.

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Clynes, John R.

    Martin, Joseph

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Crooks, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wardle, George J.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Watt, Henry A.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Merrell, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    De Forest, Baron

    Morison, Hector

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Neilson, Francis

    Wiles, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    O'Grady, James

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gill, A. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pointer, Joseph

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hinds, John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hodge, John

    Roch, Walter F.

    Harold Smith and Mr. Rigby Swift.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rowlands, James

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Baker, H.T. (Accrington)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Boland, John Pius

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brady, P. J.

    Hayden, John

    Patrick O'Shee, James John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Burns, Rt. Hon, John

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

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

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

    Hills, John Waller

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hogg, David C.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    King, J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Robertson. John M. (Tyneside)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cullinan, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Salter, Arthur Clovell

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Doris, W.

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Marnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Falconer, J.

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Fell, Arthur

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Stanier, Beville

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Meagher, Michael

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Furness, Stephen

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ginnell, L.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Webb, H.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Muldoon, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow. Tradeston)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Munro, R.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Gretton, John

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Illingwerth and Mr. Gulland.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    An undertaking was given last night that the Report stage of certain Supplementary Estimates should be taken to-night at a reasonable hour, and I therefore now propose to report Progress and continue the Bill to-morrow.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: As first order?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, second order.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  SUPPLY.— [10th February.]—REPORT.
    ARMY AND CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
    Resolution Reported:

    Class VII.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for providing for an Increase in the Capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is an extremely important Estimate, inasmuch as it practically is a change of the policy which has been continuous for something like

    847
    fifty years. In 1861 a Committee was appointed to consider the Civil Contingency Fund which prior to that date had been used for a variety of purposes, some of which were to defray expenses which had been incurred by the Government. The Committee recommended that for the future the fund should only be used as one from which in the event of any error being made in the Estimates the Civil Service could borrow the necessary amount, it being understood that amount should be put back; and the sum to be kept continually to the credit of the Civil Contingency Fund was fixed at £120,000. This Supplementary Estimate increases that sum for the future to £300,000, and, in order to arrive at the reasons which have induced the Government to propose this change, we must go back to 1910. The Government then brought forward Votes on Account for six weeks instead of following the usual precedent of four months. It had been the custom ever since 1896 for both parties to bring forward Votes on Account for four months. Prior to that year Votes on Account were for a shorter period, it being held that by the shorter period the control and command of the House of Commons over finance was better maintained. In the year 1896, that custom was departed from, and Votes on Account for four months or some period of that sort, were taken up to 1910, by both parties. In 1910, there was a departure from that custom, and Votes on Account for six weeks were introduced. Owing to the bad Budgeting the Vote taken for the amount required for the six weeks for the Post Office service, and the payment of salaries of teachers in Ireland, was underestimated, and the Government, instead of coming down to the House for a further Vote on Account, took the money out of the Treasury Chest, The Public Accounts Committee in their second Report last years say this:—
    "The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports that in 1910–11, expenditure took place in two cases in anticipation of a Vote of Parliament."
    The first Vote, to put it shortly, was on account of Post Office expenses, and the second Vote on account of the payment of national school teachers in Ireland. They then go on to say that as only £91,089 2s. 8d. was available out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, the balance of £50,000 was likewise provided out of the Treasury Chest Fund, and they say, "Your
    848
    Committee are informed that this is the first time that the Treasury Chest Fund has been used for these services." The Committee go on to say:—
    "Your Committee adhere to the principle laid down by the Treasury in 1902, based upon the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee of 1861, that the Treasury Chest is a central banking fund which exists for the purpose of laying down funds abroad to carry on the public service generally, and they view with great jealousy any departure front that principle. In the case under review, the Treasury, not having the money to carry on the approved Parliamentary services, and there being no margin in the Civil Contingencies Fund, allowed an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, although there was no Vote of Parliament to guarantee that the sum borrowed would be repaid to the Fund. Your Committee recognise that an unforseen emergency had arisen and that the course adopted by the Treasury involved no ultimate loss of public funds, but they cannot admit that the emergency justified an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, which, in the words of the Treasury Minute of 1902, 'should only be employed for the legitimate banking operations of the Treasury Chest abroad, and for advances for public and colonial services, repayable out of Votes of Parliament or other funds applicable thereto.' Your Committee are strongly of opinion that to use the Treasury Chest Fund as an auxiliary reserve to the Civil Contingencies Fund is contrary to the wishes of Parliament, and they are glad to learn that the Treasury have no intention, in the event of future emergencies, of repeating the procedure in this case."
    I would like to call the attention of the House to these words:—
    "Your Committee greatly regret that the necessity should have arisen, from what they cannot but regard as a gross miscalculation in underestimating the amount required for the Vote on Account."
    They say that—
    "care ought always to be taken that the amount asked for is sufficient to cover the whole of the funds and the period for which the Vote is taken."
    What are the Government proposing to do? Instead of coming down to this House in a white sheet and stating they are very sorry that they did two things that were wrong, and used the banking Treasury Chest for a purpose for which it was never intended, consequent, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee, upon "making a gross miscalculation in underestimating the amount required for the Vote on Account," they put down a Supplementary Estimate, which looks an extremely innocent Estimate. I do not even know whether the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), whose vigilance with regard to the doings of the Treasury is proverbial, knew what was being done; at any rate, I call his attention to this procedure. Instead of saying that in future they will see that a proper calculation is made of the amount required for a Vote on Account, they come down with this innocent-looking Supplementary Estimate to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund from £120,000 to £300,000—that is

    849
    to say, they are going to provide a sum of money which they can use when they again make a gross miscalculation of the amount required for a Vote on Account. Whichever Government is in power, I strongly object to this course, and I believe a great number of Members on both sides of the House will do so. We do not want to leave a loophole for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—it is not a very large loophole, but it is a loophole. In order that they may have it, when they are in any future trouble with regard to these calculations, they have enlarged the whole fund by increasing it from £120,000 to £300,000.
    10.0 P.M.
    I know this is a dull subject, which is not as interesting to the House as it used to be, but I must remind the House that this is not the first time during the last three or four years that we have had to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the Government have endeavoured to evade the old regulations and customs which the wisdom of our ancestors have provided in order to obtain the control of the House of Commons over finance. I can quite understand that from the point of view of the Treasury this is a very harm less proceeding; £180,000 is not a very large sum, neither is £300,000 as amounts go at the present moment. But it is not a question of the amount; it is a question of the principle. Are we going to encourage the Government—because that is what the House will do if it sanctions this proposal—to be slack—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—to be careless, would be a better word—in the preparation of Estimates and Votes on Account? I do not want to go into the question why the Government thought it necessary to depart from the old custom of the four months' Vote on Account and go back to the six weeks' Vote. I think I have in my mind a reason for that which was not perhaps unconnected with a party emergency, but I do not want in any kind of way to put it on a party basis. I think the issue is all-important for the House generally, and I will content myself with appealing to the Government to reconsider, even at this hour, the proposal they have made, and allow it to be defeated.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Baronet has read into this proposal motives which are not exactly legitimate. I do not blame him for that. There may be some elements which may make him inclined to do so. I welcome his statement, which I desire to endorse, that this has nothing
    850
    whatever to do with a party question. It is the devotion of money to a certain purpose from which no kind of party capital in the ordinary sense can be gained at all. If any Minister had nearly £200,000 to spend, his natural impulse would be to spend it in a way which would get more popularity than in dealing with the Civil Contingencies Fund, which nine out of ten people have never heard of. He seemed to think it was somehow connected with the question of the shortening of the period of the Vote on Account in this historic year of 1910. I can assure him it is not so. It is perfectly true that the course adopted by the Treasury to meet the necessity at that time, was a course which led to the supplementing of the inadequate Civil Contingencies Fund out of the Treasury Fund. It is quite true also that the Public Accounts Committee, which represents the House of Commons, and whose work deserves all admiration by the House of Commons, very strongly objected to any such method of supplementing the Civil Contingencies Fund. If there had been no abnormal conditions in that year, if the normal Vote on Account had been taken, and if there had been no miscalculation of the six weeks' Vote on Account, nevertheless, I think I should still be standing now at this box proposing this addition to the capital amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund. There is one more statement made by the hon. Baronet which I wish to explain. He says that the Government or the Treasury used the Treasury Chest for the payment of services without coming to Parliament for authority.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is what the Public Accounts Committee said.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not so. The money was needed at once to pay pensions, and the money was paid for pensions, but within ten days the Government came to Parliament for authority and they obtained the authority for providing that out of an actual Vote. The whole transaction was confined within ten days, and at the earliest possible opportunity we came to Parliament for sanction. The real policy underlying this proposed change is something altogether apart from such questions as that. The Civil Contingencies Fund was provided for contingencies under totally different conditions, and is inadequate for the contingencies in these days. Let me give the hon. Baronet one or two figures on the subject. In 1862 when this fund was fixed at £120,000 by Mr. Gladstone, the total amount of the

    851
    Civil Service Votes was £13,500,000. The Government of that day regarded it as a legitimate amount to allow for possible variations. It was £120,000 on an expenditure of £13,500,000, or nearly, 1½ per cent. To-day the Civil Service Estimates are something like £78,000,000, but the Civil Contingencies Fund has not increased. Therefore, there is a far less proportion, something like one-sixth of the amount, which is now allowed for possible contingencies, against which neither Estimates nor prudence can guard. If we are to work on the standard fixed by what the hon. Baronet calls the wisdom of our ancestors, and were to ask that we should now establish the standard of 1862, namely, a standard of 1 per cent., we should be asking that the capital fund of the Civil Contingencies Fund, for whatever Government might be in power, should be something like £750,000. We are making no such request, but we say the amount must be increased, and we suggest an increase to something like half that amount, namely, £300,000. I will ask the House to remember—I know the hon. Baronet realises it—that this is capital expenditure, and not a recurring expenditure.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said so.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a Vote once and for all, of £180,000. If it is carried, the fund will year by year stand at £300,000, and any money paid out of it will also be paid into it under the Civil Contingency Estimate in July. Therefore I am not asking the House to vote a recurring liability of £180,000. The hon. Baronet said that the whole function of the Civil Contingencies Fund was to readjust at a later date wrong Estimates made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is not quite an accurate account. The Civil Contingencies Fund has two purposes. Hon. Members will remember that the Civil Service Votes, unlike the Army Votes and the Navy Votes, are not exchangeable. The House has always refused to accept in regard to Civil Service Votes the principle adopted in the case of the Navy and Army Votes, by which the excessive expenditure on one Vote can be met by the savings on other Votes. Each Civil Service Vote is perfectly isolated and separate. If you have only a Vote of £200,000, you cannot spend a £5 note in addition to the £200,000 without coming to Parliament for sanction.
    852
    Therefore it is not a case of wrong Estimates on big blocks of Votes. It is because of accurate Estimates of every single Vote which is given, and of providing a certain sum—a readjusting sum—in case any one of these enormous Estimates may be wrong, to carry on for a time until Parliamentary sanction is obtained. The Civil Contingencies Fund is not allowed to be used except at any time when Parliamentary sanction cannot be obtained. We have had Supplementary Estimates for quite trivial sums, and I have had to ask the House to vote those sums because the House has now an opportunity of meeting.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is why I object to the increase.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Never has the Civil Contingencies Fund been used to prevent Votes being brought before Parliament. As the hon. Baronet knows, there is no suggestion that the Government could be carried on by the use of this Fund without coming to Parliament. The whole of the Civil Contingencies Fund would not carry on the government of this country for one day if the ordinary Votes were exhausted. Therefore hon. Members may dismiss that suggestion from their minds. There is another purpose to which the Civil Contingencies Fund is devoted, which is equally important, that is, to deal with expenditure which must necessarily arise from time to time, often when Parliament is not sitting, of an urgent nature, which the Government has got to meet, and which it can only meet by giving money out of this Fund, and afterwards obtaining the sanction of Parliament to it. I agree that that ought not to be done on a large scale. It would be monstrous if any Government took upon itself the expenditure of, say, £1,000,000, and afterwards came to Parliament and said, "Well, we have spent this money, now give us your sanction." But it has to be done on a certain small scale, and I will give the Committee one or two examples how it has been done. In 1907–8, when Parliament was not sitting, and there was no Vote—I am not quite sure when a Parliament was sitting—the Government had to obtain a sum of £25,000 for the ransom of two Government servants, one the famous Kaid Maclean of Morocco, and the other Mr. Abbott, who was a Consul at Salonica. The lives of those gentlemen depended upon the payment of those ransoms. The sum was paid out of the Civil

    853
    Contingencies Fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you get it back?"] Later on the sum was recovered from the Governments which had let the Government into this expenditure. If the money had not been paid, no one knows what would have happened to these two Government servants. There is another case to which an allusion has been made to-day of a very mournful kind. In 1910 a sum of £20,000 had to be advanced towards the equipment of the expedition of Captain Scott to the South Pole, which has just had such a mournful and heroic ending. That money was advanced in May from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the Vote was
    passed by the House in July. This year, without any warning and without expectation, we have suddenly had an unanticipated incursion of foot-and-mouth disease both in England and in Ireland. Fortunately, it has been limited within very narrow dimensions, but within those dimensions we have had to pay out of the Civil Contingencies Fund £25,000 in compensation for cattle which have been slaughtered in connection with the working of the Act, and the House to-day, on the Report stage, is going to vote that money, the earliest possible occasion when we can bring the question before the House. It might have been £100,000, and we should still have to pay. You cannot slaughter the cattle of peasants in Ireland without paying the money. These are the kind of increases, unexpected, which cannot be realised in the Estimate which the Civil Contingencies Fund is supposed to meet. Every item has to be placed before the Public Accounts Committee, and is carefully scrutinised by them, and is afterwards endorsed when the Civil Contingencies Fund Vote is voted by Parliament.
    We therefore think that we are not suggesting any change of policy at all. For the last three years, quite apart from the question of altering the number of months for which we budgetted in the Vote on Account, the Civil Contingencies Fund has proved inadequate to the demands which necessarily had to be made upon it. Only this year the Treasury Chest Estimate, which I had to submit last night, contained an item of an advance to the Irish Local Government Board out of the Treasury Chest because there was no other fund from which it could be advanced, the Civil Contingencies Fund was exhausted and the King's Government had to be carried on. The Public Accounts Committee has told
    854
    us that they regard this as an unsuitable use of the Treasury Chest Fund. We have no wish to contest that statement, and I would ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to approve of the action which the Treasury is now taking in the matter. We want to carry out the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and this is the first possible opportunity on which we can carry it out. As our recommendation is that in such contingencies as now arise and have arisen for the last three years Treasury Chest money should not be used, we therefore have to come to Parliament and ask for an increase of the Civil Contingencies Fund to make it more adequate to the increase in the Civil Service Estimates, which has taken place in the last few years. But for the fact that the Appropriation Accounts have been taken earlier this year we should have been confronted with the difficulty we had last year or the year before, and we should have had expenditure that we should have been obliged to meet out of the Treasury Chest, having no other fund out of which we could meet it.
    Let me suggest to the hon. Baronet whether, after all, you may not be doing harm in dealing with public Estimates by making the fund for contingencies too small, just as you may be doing harm by making it too large. I entirely agree with him that if it is too large there is a danger of slipshod Estimates, and I should be the last to defend that. Certainly I should never dream of asking for such a large sum for civil contingencies as would allow people to say, "We will only have small Estimates. We will not Budget for much this year, and we will meet it out of the Civil Contingencies Fund." But there is equal danger if the fund is too small, for, if every £5 note they may spend above their Estimate there is nothing to meet it, undoubtedly you will have a tendency to overestimate in the Public Departments. They will say, "We will not take any risks, and although we are not quite sure that every farthing of this money will be wanted, yet so serious is the risk if we go over by £5 or £50 that we will put in that extra money." I think the hon. Baronet will agree that that is just as objectionable as the other.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What the Public Accounts Committee say is:—
    "Your Committee greatly regret that the necessity should have arisen through what they cannot but regard as a gross miscalculation in estimating the amount."

    855
    Their criticism is upon the gross miscalculation. They do not suggest that the Civil Contingencies Fund should be increased.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not dealing with the gross miscalculation, as it is called, which we discussed very fully last year. The Public Accounts Committee this March will have exactly similar use of the Treasury Chest owing to the inadequate Civil Contingencies Fund, and the thing that we have to face from the Treasury is the continually increasing inadequacy of the Civil Contingency Fund on the one hand, combined with the absolute desire of the Public Accounts Committee that under no circumstances should we approach the Treasury Chest on the other hand. Under these circumstances it is evidently our duty to come to Parliament, if we wish the Public Accounts Committee Report to be fully carried out, and say we cannot guarantee, with such a tiny Civil Contingency Fund, never to derive money from the Treasury Chest. If Parliament will grant us this increase of the capital amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund, we will certainly see to it that we do all in our power not to take the Treasury Chest Fund for what is appropriate to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I quite corroborate what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, namely, that the Public Accounts Committee last year came to the conclusion that the Civil Contingencies Fund was too small. Whether this particular increase is large enough or too large is a question which has never been before the Public Accounts Committee. It will come before the Committee in due course. What I wish to say at present is that the Public Accounts Committee felt that under no conditions whatever ought the Treasury Chest Fund to be encroached upon by the Government. It was not for that purpose it was created. It was a serious dereliction of financial duty to trench upon the Treasury Chest Fund. They ought to have come to Parliament for money instead of going to the Treasury Chest Fund. What has been done in this instance has never been done before, and I hope it will never be done again. It was in circumstances of financial distress—distress of their own creating—that the Government deliberately chose to transgress every Parliamentary rule, and, instead of facing Parliament openly, they encroached on the Treasury Chest Fund. As to this
    856
    special Vote, I am not prepared to say whether £180,000 is the correct amount. Personally I should have thought it rather more than was required. However, the Government have chosen on their responsibility to ask for that amount, and the question will come under review of the Public Accounts Committee in another year. It is quite certain that with the increased expenditure of the country the old Civil Contingencies Fund is not now large enough. I think the right hon. Gentleman will concur in that statement. Therefore, I am not prepared to dispute the increase in this special fund, while reserving the right to decide afterwards whether the Civil Contingencies Fund is increased to too large an amount, having regard to the general expenditure of the country.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: As one of the signatories of the Report which was read by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I should like to say a few words in regard to this matter. I hope I am not less a financial purist than the hon. Baronet. I think he laid down rather a counsel of perfection, as perhaps it is his duty to do, in suggesting that under no circumstances, or almost no circumstances should the Government have recourse to the Treasury Chest Fund. Of course, the ideal would be that everything should be on the Estimates of the year when they are introduced, that there should be no Supplementary Estimates, no raids on the Treasury Chest Fund, no drawings from the Civil Contingencies Fund required, no surpluses at the end of the year, and nothing to go to the Sinking Fund. That ideal state of things for a perfect world will never be attained while this or any other Government holds office in an imperfect world. There will always be unexpected expenditure which has to be met suddenly. It is not unreasonable that some margin should be asked for in the Civil Contingencies Fund having regard to the facts of the case. I understand that there is no intention on the part of the Government to vary the purposes for which the Fund exists. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1877 lays down very clearly the purposes for which the money in the Fund may properly be used. It gives the Treasury view of the Fund:—
    "That the use of this fund should be as limited as possible and confined to the two objects; enabling the Treasury to make a cash advance to any Department, which owing to unforeseen claims upon them have arrived at the limit of their Grant, and providing funds for new and utterly unforseen services."

    857
    Therefore the fund is intended to provide a margin for those Departments which unexpectedly reach the limit of their Grant, and to meet wholly unexpected charges which may arise during the year. But the House should remember that the use of this fund does not withdraw the matter from the consideration of the House, but only postpones it. Any sums withdrawn are repaid and must be voted in the Estimates of the following year. Consequently, all that happens is that the Department is enabled to deal with the emergency and the discussion is postponed for a time, usually a very short time, as shown by the instances given by the Financial Secretary, and no objection can be made to the use of the fund on the ground that the matter was withdrawn from the consideration of the House. The report of the Public Accounts Committee pointed to the enlargement of the Civil Contingencies Fund instead of making raids on the Treasury Chest. We were unanimous in that report and felt strongly how wrong a course it was to use the Treasury Chest for purposes for which it was not intended. Evidence was given before us that the Treasury had under consideration for some time the enlargement of the Civil Cintingencies Fund, as experience had shown that £120,000 was not sufficient. If the hon. Baronet looks at the report of the evidence he will see that Sir Thomas Heath, on behalf of the Treasury, stated that they were seriously considering the question of enlarging the amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and he pointed out how greatly the Estimates had grown since the amount was fixed at £120,000, and while I do not commit myself to the exact amount chosen by the Government, the action of the Government in enlarging the fund is really carrying out the spirit of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, instead of doing anything that was in any way condemned by that Report, as I think the hon. Baronet was rather inclined to lead the House to suppose.
    I have no reason to think, judging by analogy, that the sum fixed is too large considering what the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates are. The amount was fixed in 1861 at £120,000, and I make the Estimates for the Civil Service in that year £12,500,000, and the Secretary to the Treasury makes them £13,500,000. I took the year 1861–62, the year in which the Report was made, when the sum of £120,000 was fixed. Practically
    858
    that sum was 1 per cent. of the expenditure of the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates of the year. To-day the expenditure in respect of these services is £78,000,000. I am far from saying that the margin ought to be a percentage of the total. I do not think it follows. Still, the Sum fixed by the Government to-day is a good deal less than the 1 per cent. which the Committee in 1861 felt to be necessary. I cannot find anything to show that the Government is extravagant in asking for £300,000, and I feel that in enlarging the Civil Contingencies Fund they have added to the stability of our financial system.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the Secretary to the Treasury must have reasonable latitude to make up for unforeseen contingencies, but if the amount was not sufficient to effectually meet requirements, I submit that the manner in which the Supplementary Estimate was brought up was in the last degree unfortunate. It arose, it appears, from a miscalculation in 1907. It must be much more difficult to estimate when pressure will come in regard to particular items, it must be much more difficult to estimate what exact sum will be required in any six weeks of the financial year, than to estimate what will be required for the financial year as a whole, and it was unfortunate to take very short Votes on Account, which has led to the present difficulty. The Government say, "Because we have miscalculated in the past we now ask you to give us an increase of 150 per cent. on the former Estimate. Surely some good cause ought to have been shown in the first instance when the Vote was presented. It ought not to have been put quietly at the end of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, without any statement or explanation from the Treasury. The present figure of £120,000 arose after a very long and exhaustive inquiry by the very greatest financial authorities of the day. If hon. Members look at the Committee which sat in 1861 they will find some of the greatest names—Sir Tames Graham, who was Chairman, at any rate a member; Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Cobden, and others—and the Government only proposed a Civil Service Contingencies Fund of £120,000 in this Committee. The matter was threshed out in the most exhaustive way. If a change is required, then, in the first instance, the Public Accounts Committee ought to have been consulted. My hon. Friend the

    859
    Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee says that they will revise this matter afterwards, but I submit that is the wrong way to proceed. When you have a precedent going back fifty years you ought not suddenly to change it by putting in an extra figure involving an increase of 150 per cent. without any explanation at all. You ought to go back to the same authority which settled the figure in the first instance, namely, the Public Accounts Committee. I think there has been a very great tendency in recent years for the Executive to take too much upon themselves in the way of interpreting Acts
    of Parliament, and in the way of modifying all the financial conditions of the past, and we are bound to protest against the course the Government have taken on the present occasion. It is possible that the increase of 150 per cent. may be justified, but certainly it ought to have been taken on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee in the first instance. Therefore I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the matter.
    Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House diveded: Ayes, 212; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 600.]

    AYES.

    [10.36 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Adamson, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, R.

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Atherley-Jones Llewellyn A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hinds, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon, Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hodge, John

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shee, James John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Clough, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Crooks, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Cullinan, J.

    King, J.

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Ellis William (Ef on)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Doris, W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Falconer, J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon Dr. T. J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowlands, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Furness, Stephen

    Markham, Sir Arthur

    Basil Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gill, A. H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Ginnell, L.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sheehy, David

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, M.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Sutton, John E.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Winfrey, R.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Webb, H.

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Ure, Rt. Hon, Alexander

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wiles, Thomas

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon, Sir William R.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L.

    Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Forster, Henry William

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bean, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Stanier, Beville

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

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

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col, Dennis Fortescue

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Touche, George Alexander

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Wheler, Granville C. H,

    Cassel, Felix

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Chaloner, Col. R. G.W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Winterton, Earl

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Saliabury)

    Younger, Sir George

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1912–13.
    Resolutions reported:
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £248,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, namely:—

    £

    Vote 1.

    Pay, etc., of the Army

    215,000

    Vote 6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    68,000

    Vote 7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    95,000

    Vote 8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    45,000

    .

    423,000

    Less Surplus on Vote 10

    75,000

    348,000

    .

    Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid

    100,000

    £248,000"

    ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1912–13.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Service of the Ordnance Factories."

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.—Class II.
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the Public Service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,400, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

    Class III.
    6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries of the Office of Public Trustee."

    Class V.
    8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £47,418, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1911–12."

  SUPPLY [7th February].
  Resolution reported.
  Civil SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.—Class VIII.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,825,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Grants-in-Aid of National Health Insurance (United Kingdom), in addition to the sums payable under Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When, Mr. Speaker, eighteen months ago, we gave you authority of a judicial kind under the Parliament Act, even those of us who supported the measure must have felt that a very extraordinary and unusual step was being taken in the development of the Constitution. For the first time we made Mr. Speaker a judicial officer. We appointed him to construe what were Money Bills, and upon Mr. Speaker will depend whether the King's Majesty can place the Royal signature to a measure to seal the action of the House of Commons. Therefore, when in the future we are dealing with anything in the nature of a Money Bill, I think it is incumbent upon us to see that these measures fulfil the older functions of Money Bills, and that they do not go outside. If, for instance, they should become legislative Bills, or Bills to enable a Minister hard pressed by any political or social difficulty to use the money in his own control for the advancement of his own policy without any regard to statute: then if such Bills are promoted a very onerous, unpleasant, and delicate duty is cast upon the Speaker. Accordingly in future those of us who support the Parliament Act must take care that Estimates are presented and Appropriation Bills are drafted if we want these Bills to pass the House without the intervention of the House of Lords, to which the Speaker can, in accordance with the Constitution, give his assent under this Section of the Parliament Act. That is the new function that is cast upon Members of this House. The other function is the common function, namely, the necessity of economy, and to that function we have been bidden in connection with the Vote now before the House, and attention has been fastened on it in a special manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He begged the House of Commons in glowing and vivid language that when Estimates of this kind came before it the House has a special duty cast upon it of exercising a check upon the Departments and of exercising a check upon himself. He laid that down in May, 1911, when he was bringing in the Budget of that year in language which though perhaps familiar on the lips of every Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I think, of special significance in reference to the very offensive and wholly unfounded charges as regards statements, not one of which has one rag or tittle of foundation, which he made when I myself ventured to

    865
    ask a question on this subject on Friday last. Let me first call attention to the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is filling the dignified rôle of introducer of the Budget, and then let me contrast that with his language when he degenerates, as I think I will show he has done to the malignity of the corner-boy. I will first quote for the House the
    right hon. Gentleman in his robes. He spoke on the 16th May, 1911, and he asked this question:—
    "Can we finance insurance without fresh taxation? I will be perfectly frank with the Committee. The answer to that depends entirely upon the Departments and on the House of Commons. Can they keep down the expenditure? The Departments cannot keep down expenditure without the House of Commons, with which rests the primary—the first and the last—responsibility. The Exchequer is pressed from two quarters—it is pressed to spend more and to charge less. You cannot do both. If you raise more money for any purpose you must find it somewhere. More expenditure means more taxation, and if every man when he proposed an increase of expenditure had in his mind the necessity for finding the cash for the purpose, I am perfectly certain there are many proposals made in this House which would never be advanced. The Committee will forgive me for speaking very frankly."
    Then he deals with the facts of the case and says:—
    "There is too mach attention paid to the case and too little to the cash. I respectfully appeal to the House of Commons on this point. I do not suggest for a moment that one side is more to blame than the other. Whenever there is a demand of increased expenditure it is the duty of the House of Commons to review the whole financial position and not merely each separate item for which special taxation is asked."
    Then he goes on to say:—
    "It is really the House of Commons alone which is responsible, and I warn the House of Commons that any attempt to increase benefit must increase the extent of taxation. I appeal to Members, therefore, to assist the Government in resisting every inducement to place fresh burdens for this purpose upon the taxpayer in addition to the generous provision made for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1911, cols. 1868–70, Vol. XXV.]
    That is the right hon. Gentleman in his best form, which one very much likes to see him always retain. I now wish to show the right hon. Gentleman in another form. Acting on the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, I rose on Friday, and in language which anyone who reads it will consider moderate, I asked questions for the information of the Committee as to what this £1,800,000 is required for, and I was met in this spirit by the right hon. Gentleman with a series of statements as to one of which there is not an atom of foundation. The personal element in this question is extremely small and unimportant, but what is of importance is that it shows that a Minister who at a crisis of his fate when this Insurance Bill was in the balance, and when it was doubtful whether doctors could be found
    866
    to work it, and when a month ago this whole question was in flux, did not hesitate, in order to advance the interests of his own personal policy without Statute—if he did the Statute there is an end to the matter—dipped into the finances of this country, and drew from it a huge sum of money, and then, when brought to book, instead of stating upon what ground he had drawn the money, under what Section he had drawn it, or what was his authority for drawing it, ignores all these questions and attempts simply to drench those who question him with a flood of bilge water. Those who had the advantage of being in this House under the Chancellorship of Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and other famous financiers of the last thirty years, and I do not think anyone, however humble, will question that any person rising to ask a question with regard to a new Estimate brought forward in the disguise of a Supplementary Estimate, and affecting to be for a year, namely, the year 1913 ending in March, for which it is conceded no money whatever is required, especially any one like myself, who has in the main given his support to the Government—certainly I voted except on one occasion, upon every occasion upon the Welsh Church Bill, which is supposed to be the darling of the right hon. Gentleman's heart—whether one be for or against the Government, I think one may lay down the rule if one cannot have civility one is entitled to accuracy. I first asked: Under what Section of the Insurance Act is this money voted? I called attention to the fact that the Estimate distinctly declared that it is not voted under Section 3. Section 3 is the Section which provides that this House shall find two-ninths and the rest of the community shall find seven-ninths of the money. It is the "ninepence for fourpence" Section, and I should have thought if there was any one shibboleth as to which the Government might think themselves impregnable it was as regards this "ninepence for fourpence" Section. Accordingly, I say if this £1,800,000 is not required to implement this two-ninths, what is it for and under what Section is it voted? The original estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the doctors would cost 4s., and I said, "If you have, by reason of the doctors' demands,

    867
    to double that amount and thereby change the basis of taxation, you may thereby possibly alter the employers' and workmen's seven-ninths contribution, because if the State two-ninths be altered it may follow that some similar alteration may take place in the seven ninths." At all events, if there is one thing certain it is that the seven-ninths is fixed and constant, and, if it be fixed and constant, the two-ninths must depend upon the figure with which you start as the popular or taxpayers' contribution. That is an intelligible proposition. I said, "If you are not working under Section 3, and if this is not to provide medical and sanatoria benefit and the other benefits under the Act, what is it for?" I then went on to ask, "Could it be possible the Government were using an Appropriation Bill for legislation?" I especially call the attention of the Labour party to this. They are very anxious that the age for old age pensions should be reduced from seventy years to sixty years, and some of them are perhaps anxious to increase the pension from 5s. to 6s. or 7s. A Chancellor of the Exchequer, possibly a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeking popularity, might by means of an Estimate and the Appropriation Bill, and without more, provide that henceforth old age pensions shall be raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d., and the age reduced from seventy to sixty years. I am not arguing for one moment whether these be desirable changes or not. I only say that in view of the Parliament Act these are changes which must be made, not indirectly by the Appropriation Act, but by direct and decisive legislation. My argument went to that, and no further. It appears to me that when there is a special appeal made by the Government to this House, and to every Member of this House, to see that no reckless finance is tolerated, that the Treasury Departments should be kept strictly within their limits and legitimate bounds. I think it is no crime to ask the Government for information upon these subjects. I asked these questions, and the answers I got made me think he had mistaken me for the Colonial Secretary in a Suffrage Debate, or that perhaps I belonged to the Reform Club, which I do not. This is the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what, after all, was a constitutional question:—
    "I come to the objection that, not for the first time, has been put forward that this has never been done
    868
    before—that it is an outrage on constitutional precedent due entirely to the wicked people here, who want to extend these benefits to Ireland. It had never been done before! Well on the very occasion to which he refers he said exactly the same thing! What happened? He challenged precedents. He got one. He got many more precedents than he cared for. My right hon. Friend has a list as long as my arm, and he pelted and buffeted the hon. and learned Gentleman with them, and I think, for the first time, reduced him to a state in which he was left dizzy and speechless. It was the first time, I think, that I have found the hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely speechless. I will do him the credit to say that he is never dismayed by the badness of his case. But this time it was so hopelessly bad that he had not a word to say for himself. It has taken him twelve months to get over it. He has recovered, and here he is at it again. With tremendous truculence he puts forward his case. He has forgotten what took place, and he has relied upon the memory of everyone else being as bad as his own. Luckily it is not! I remember his questions: there was a very long string of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1913, cols. 335–6.]
    Of course, that is very small, but let me say that so far from being reduced to silence by the very powerful eloquence of the Secretary to the Treasury who buffeted me in this pitiless manner, I made three speeches in reply. My speeches may be good or bad, but at all events he suggested that I had made so wretched a case, and this, too, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, is the second person in the Ministry of the Empire, and who, by this, I should have supposed, should have long since sown his wild—shall we say, leeks. I suppose he is still sowing them now, as he is not here. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is ill."] I did not know that. Had I been informed I should not have said that. Nobody has a more sincere regard for the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, but the greater his ability the less one cares to see it exercised, not only in a bad case, but in attempting to say to those who are obeying his suggestion to challenge the Treasury in the interests of economy, "You have brought forward a bad point. You have no reply to make, and you are reduced to pitiable silence." For all that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, there is not one word of foundation. The right hon. Gentleman who was sitting beside him knew there was not a word of foundation for it, and should have reminded him that there was no foundation for it, because not merely did I endeavour to encounter the right hon. Gentleman upon one day, but I renewed the attack again and again. Whether my arguments were good, bad, or indifferent, for that suggestion there was not a word of foundation. The moral I wish to draw from it is this: When a finance Minister, pressed for information upon a substantial

    869
    point, is driven to take refuge in subterfuges of that kind, what are we to say of the finance Minister's accuracy upon that or upon any other matter?
    11.0 P.M.
    Let us now come to the substance of the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I suppose that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Closure immediately after his own speech on Friday—a very handsome thing for him to do—I suppose that others would like to see the Closure moved now, but I think they will find before grasp of this is relaxed that it has a much more serious aspect than perhaps some of them realise. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I brought this point forward before. That statement is equally incorrect. I would not have brought forward before a point that had never arisen in the British Constitution. I never would have brought forward a point that would not arise until this Estimate was presented. I said this was a Supplementary Estimate. That was also denied by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday, and when I held up the page before his eyes, he then, being contradicted by the statement which was signed by "C. F. G. Masterman," was not prepared to deny his statement signed by his own colleague. Let us now see where the money of the public is going, what it is going for, and what is the authority for this Vote. The sum in question is a large one. You would think you were most generous to Ireland by your Home Rule finance. You are to collect all her taxes, and you provide that in future she is to have £200,000 per annum. That is the handsome dowry with which you propose to start us upon our national career, plus any savings we can effect. This is a sum of £1,825,000, and my first question is under what Section of the Insurance Act is it voted. I put that question twice to the Government. I put it on Friday and I put it again yesterday, and the question is all the more urgent if you look at the Stationery Vote and find that by way of masking the additional expenses there is practically an entirely new service and a very large sum, £177,000, which they say is "required to meet unforeseen liabilities incurred for Departments administering the National Insurance Act, for the Post Office, Telephones, and for additional stocks of paper," and so on. We are invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep our eye on the Department. The first aid to keeping our eye on the Department would be for the Department to present one Estimate as a
    870
    whole, so that we should know exactly what was the sum that has been incurred under all this Insurance Vote. The second thing which would enable us greatly to check the Department's action would be that they should put in the Estimate, as they generally do in regard to all Estimates, the Section of the Act of Parliament under which the Vote is taken.
    Let me first call the attention of the House to the fact that this Section 3 includes not merely the expenses of the Insurance Act, the two-ninths and seven-ninths, but that it includes the expenses of the administration of the Act, because when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed his Budget and proposed the Insurance Act he informed the House of Commons that it would cost so much and no more. It would cost the employer and the employed seven-ninths and the State two-ninths of that amount. That that is so is, I think, shown by Section 3, and the Estimate says it is under this Section that this £1,800,000 is voted:—
    "Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the funds for providing the benefits conferred by this part of this Act and defraying the expenses of the administration of those benefits."
    That is to say, the benefits themselves; the administration falls under a Vote to be taken under Section 3—
    "shall be derived as to seven-ninths (or, in the case of women, three-fourths), thereof for contributions made by or in respect of the contributors, by themselves or their employers, and as to the remaining two-ninths (or, in the case of women, one quarter) thereof for monies provided by Parliament."
    One would naturally suppose, therefore, when a vote for so substantial a sum as £1,800,000 was being asked for, it was on the footing of these benefits, because the House knows that in the Estimates we voted last year—this will be the second Appropriation Act—sums for administrative expenses. Therefore we dealt with the administrative expenses in August last, and we are done with that. This Act only came into force on 1st January, and this is for service which will only be to 31st March, 1913. Therefore this is a service for three months only. If this £1,800,000 is a reasonable amount for one quarter, independent of Section 3 of the Act, what are the services under Section 3? Therefore I respectfully submit that this Vote is not in any sense a genuine Vote, that this is the Vote which covers the deal

    871
    with the doctors. Let it not be supposed that I am complaining of the amount amount given to the doctors. On the contrary, I think the Government were quite right to treat the medical men fairly. I have no complaint whatever with the Government for giving these sums to the doctors whose services are absolutely required. What I put to the House is this: Whenever any Minister unconnected with the Treasury goes to the Treasury for money the Treasury acts as the watchdog upon the other Departments, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to Mr. Lloyd George is it not a case of putting the cat to watch the cream? In putting him in that position—the Minister who ought to take charge of the taxing Departments of the realm—you gratify his ambition by putting him in charge—leaving out the Army and the Navy—of one of the greatest spending Departments of the State. The right hon. Gentleman has only to go to himself when he finds he has made a gross error in dealing with the doctors whose provision he had estimated at 4s. That provision was to have been part of the two-ninths, and then the right hon. Gentleman suddenly finds himself wrong. He has to go to the doctors either cap in hand or with a bludgeon, I care not which, he has either to coax or coerce them, coo them or kick them, and he says, "Oh, I cannot do this under my two-ninths system. It will not work, but I can keep the House of Commons from quite understanding what I am at. I do not want to let them see under which thimble the pea is. I will conceal from the House of Commons what is the scheme which I am engaged in, and I will take a Vote for £1,800,000 and declare that it is not taken back under Section 3 at all, but under one of the unstated Sections of the Act." If my suspicion on this point were unfounded, they were presented, I think, in moderate and guarded language. They were not met. The right hon. Gentleman made no answer on the subject. He simply took refuge in saying, "I cited this before and my Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, put you into a limp and speechless condition." I respectfully say that on Friday last when this point was raised I was entitled to an answer. Not one of the precedents cited deals with this case. On the 1st of August last year he gave an answer, and every precedent which he cited was a loan. Is this a loan? He
    872
    cited twelve cases. I had challenged the position then taken up that loans were a proper subject in the Appropriation Bill of that year, seeing that in a previous Budget he had dealt with a particular railway loan by Statute, by formal Act of Parliament, and not merely by allocation of the fund. Said the right. hon. Gentleman, "True it is we did pass a formal Statute last year for this railway loan, but there are precedents—I admit small precedents—for making loans in an Appropriation Bill," and he cited loans given to the Tycoon of Japan and some Chinese and Japanese departments. Is a loan an authority for a Grant? Was the Chancelleor of the Exchequer accurate when he said I had been replied to on this point? This is a case of a Grant, and except upon one occasion nothing of this kind has ever been done. May I point out the difference between this and the case of salaries to Members of Parliament. It is perfectly true that we voted ourselves £400 a year without Statute except in the Appropriation Act, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I suppose, for Cabinet reasons, increased the salaries of two of his Cabinet colleagues to £5,000 a year. The argument was that there was no Statute. It is one thing to act without Statute, except the Appropriation Act, and quite another thing to act against Statute. If I am right in my contention, that is what the Estimate does. I have gone through the various Sections of the Act, and I find that this two-ninths and seven-ninths are repeated in the soldiers and sailors, and repeated in many other ways, in which the proportion is to be two-ninths from the State and seven-ninths from the public.
    There is no provision that I can find except Section 3, which suggests that a Grant can be made for any effective purpose to which this Act can be applied. When you tried to raise the salaries of the resident magistrates, at the beginning of 1882–3, from £600 or £800 to £1,000, and said the Appropriation Act was sufficient, the Public Accounts Committee condemned it, and you had to drop it. But take the case of Ireland. It is provided in regard to Ireland that there shall be no medical benefit. That was due to the decision of Irish Members, who were not content to lay 1d. or 1½d. on the backs of their constituents for the sake of getting medical benefit. What does the Government do in regard to that? In the same Estimate they provide the sum of £50,000, and say the Grant-in-Aid will be paid to a

    873
    special account in the National Health Insurance Fund, and will be applied by the Irish Insurance Commissioners in grants in cases of medical certificates of sickness and for expenses of administration, owing to the absence of medical benefit in Ireland. I asked the right hon. Gentleman how this money was going to go, and certainly his statement was on a par with the other statements which I have quoted. He at once assumed his homely pathetic style, and he drew a picture of my ruthless hands preventing benefit from being brought to the sick consumptive. I do not know that he brought in the hectic flush, which I was increasing, or other matters of that kind, but so far as demeanour and manner were concerned, his remarks were very warmly taken up by some of my admirers on this side. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the first time in his experience that an Irish Member had raised a technical objection to a Grant of £50,000. Now comes this statement of the right hon. Gentleman:—
    "This sum is for the purpose of enabling sanatorium treatment to be given to poor consumptives."
    If that is true, why did you not state it in your Estimate? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies to my question of what the money was for, when he suddenly turns round and uses the case which most appeals to the public for sympathy; and when, having thrown down his Estimate to the House, he tries to suggest that anybody who asks him a question is endeavouring to tear away the cup of charity from the lips of the needy, or prevent those lips from tasting the "rare and refreshing fruit" which he was inclined to present, I can only say, if that is the position of the right hon. Gentleman, would it not have been honest of him, would it not have been manlier and franker of him to have stated that on the face of his Estimate? What he did was to turn the point against one who was only trying to see what the money was for. He in effect said, "You want to prevent the poor consumptive from getting relief; you want to have this white scourge continued in your country. You of all Irish Members want a continuation of this appalling malady." What are the facts? We have in Ireland, and it was upon that basis the Irish party decided not to ask for medical benefit, one of the most efficient systems of medical benefit in the world under the Poor Law system. There is no poor person since the Act of 1850, I think, in Ireland for the last sixty years, who could not get medical benefit. I agree they could
    874
    not get sanatorium benefit, but where are the sanatoria at present—where are they? As far as effective relief is concerned, the Poor Law medical system at present for which the taxpayers have to pay is an absolute answer to the right hon. Gentleman. It was upon the ground of the expense of that Poor Law relief that the Irish party decided that they would not have this system of medical relief for Ireland. What happened? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
    "I will give the facts, for while he was less than usually entertaining, he was more than usually inaccurate. There is a very considerable sum of money here due to the fact that owing to the great distance which had to be travelled by doctors in order to attend poor consumptives in some of the wilder districts of Ireland, the sum provided was not adequate."
    If that is true Papers ought to be laid upon this matter on the Table, because for sixty years you have had the guardians of the poor, and, as in olden times, the relief wardens, on the Dispensary Committees, and there is not a single district in Ireland without a dispensary, and not a single person in Ireland but is within a short distance of a dispensary. To suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that he was providing something we were trying to prevent is on a par with the rest of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The House might like to know who were the poor consumptives. The poor consumptives were the "Molly Maguires."
    By one of the most extraordinary manuœvres ever practised in this House the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) one day last week asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which he had given him private notice—it was extraordinarily urgent. What was the question? It was to ask the names of the Committee, a Committee that had never been heard of, to consider whether this system of medical benefits, which the whole Irish party had unanimously decided should not be extended to Ireland, should in future be extended to that country. Accordingly the right hon. Gentleman right off—the matter never having been debated in this House, never having been discussed in Ireland to any extent, never having been considered, so far as my information goes, at any meeting of the gentlemen of the party over which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford presides—appoints for this purpose the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Devlin) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Lardner), one of them the head of the modern

    875
    order of Hibernians and the other the head of the Foresters, which are the very bodies which need money. If this thing was done openly and frankly I should have nothing to say against it, but it is a system of obtaining money by false pretences, it is the poor consumptives that are pretended to want this money, and it is the Foresters and the Ancient Order to whom it is to be given. Another hole had been driven in this great Statute in regard to the benefit societies, who found that they could not get 9d. for 4d., and that the grant made by the State did not cover the medical certificates. They could not administer the relief unless the doctors were paid extra, and it is to provide that extra money for the benefit of these friendly societies that this £50,000 has been put on the Paper. That is what the Paper says. So that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is contradicted under the signature
    of his own colleague.
    "It will be applied by the Irish Insurance Commissioners in grants towards the cost of medical certificate of sickness and of the expenses of administration owing to the absence of medical benefit in Ireland."
    Sanatorium benefit, I understand, is provided for Ireland. Therefore the poor pallid hectic consumptives, which the right hon. Gentleman used as an argument against me, entirely disappear from this picturesque story. I have called the attention of the House to this system of Debate, because it is for the first time inaugurated by a great Minister of State in presenting Estimates of which the House has had no adequate explanation. The House has already voted in the year 1911 a sufficient sum. These Votes, including sums of £10 for the Public Trustee and £180 for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, really play no efficient part in these so-called Supplementary Estimates. This it not a Supplementary Estimate; it is a new Estimate which has been palmed off upon the House as a Supplementary Estimate. It was stated some time ago by the Prime Minister that time would be required for passing Supplementary Estimates. Did anyone imagine that a new Estimate dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's wrestling with his medical friends was the purpose for which that time was to be given? It is a new and novel Estimate, and an attempt illegally to legislate by means of the Appropriation Act. Having regard to your function, Mr. Speaker, under the Parliament Act, if we tolerated this without scrutiny, allowed it without suspicion, and are to be derided when we ask for infor-
    876
    mation, I submit that the greatest function belonging to this House, namely that of raising and spending judiciously the money of the taxpayer, will have been taken away from us by the whim of an ambitious Minister.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have listened carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, and I must confess that at the end of it I am at a loss to understand what it is to what I have to reply. The great bulk of the speech appears to have been animated by a sense of personal grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nine-tenths of the dissertation that he has given to us has dealt with statements made in a Debate between any right hon. Friend and himself on Friday last, with which personal matters I certainly have no concern. The hon. and learned Gentleman last Friday made a series of wild and unsupported statements, and as one who often listens with great pleasure to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must say whenever I hear him dealing with Treasury matters, he always seems to me to make wild and unsupported statements. I think I can show him to-night that Treasury officials, and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have had anything to do with Treasury matters, are simply amazed at what has fallen from the lips of a man so able as the hon. and learned Gentleman. What happened on Friday? The hon. and learned Gentleman made a speech in which was wild, violent, invective statements against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said he did not get a reply. He did—a very effective reply. What he ought to have stated was that he did not like the reply. He has been nursing the matter for three days and has come down with an elaborately prepared scheme of invective against my right hon. Friend.
    I express my sincere sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman because invective against an absent Minister is never so pleasant and effective as when that Minister is present, and in consequence that part of his speech fell more flat than it otherwise might have done. My right hon. Friend has remained indoors all day under doctor's orders, or the hon. and learned Gentleman would have received to-day from him as effective a reply as he did on Friday. What, if we come to analyse the speech and get behind the torrent of abuse, do we find? Just look at some of the state-

    877
    ments. He says that this is not a Supplementary Estimate; it is a new Estimate. Then he called your attention, Mr. Speaker, to your action in future under the Parliament Act. What are the facts about these Estimates? The Treasury presents Supplementary Estimates to the Civil Service Estimates, that is to say, Estimates supplementary to the expenditure which has already been voted, and which was included in the sum under the Appropriation Act, That Supplementary Estimate includes two classes of Estimates. It includes Estimates which are supplementary to the Votes which have already been voted, and it includes sums which are not supplementary to the Votes already voted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the various items as presented in detail he will see that they are set out under heads and subheads—Class II. (8) Board of Trade, and so on. He will see that under the heading of the Civil Contingency Fund an Estimate is required because it is not supplementary. There is no fraud in the matter. Not only in the White Paper is the thing set out, but in repeated Questions and Answers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and myself, in the explanations that we have already given, have tried to show that we have exercised economy.
    There is no concealment about the matter. The Grant-in-Aid that we propose to ask the House to pass for the National Insurance Fund for special expenses is in accordance with exactly the same procedure and governed exactly by the same conditions as all Grants-in-Aid that have been voted almost every year since the Estimates were voted by the House. Take another item that the hon. and learned Gentleman holds up to great scorn, the £10 Estimate for the Public Trustee. He says how grotesque to ask the House to vote £10. The hon. and learned Member knows, or he ought to know if he studied Parliamentary matters at all, that every one of those Votes of £10 brought forward is brought before the House under Statutory Authority and that each one represents transactions of thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds. The £10 is merely found by balancing on the one hand sums that have to be sanctioned against, on the other hand, the Appropriation in Aid, and if we omitted to bring forward those Votes of £10 we should be impeached, and ought to be impeached, before the tribunal of the House of Commons and the country, and he takes advantage, apparently of the fact
    878
    that every Member of the House does not know this particular fact, for I assume he does know it, to attempt to throw ridicule upon the Government for putting down sums of £10 in Supplementary Estimates, which every man who has to bring in Supplementary Estimates has to do.
    I tried with the utmost intelligence I could bring to bear upon the subject to find out exactly what his grievance was in connection with this Grant-in-Aid. He kept on repeating the expression, which I confess had no meaning at all for me, "Under what Section of the Act is this Vote taken?" He made great play with Section 3 and some others out of the hundred and ten Sections of the Act. Votes are not taken under any Sections of the Act. They are Aids granted to the Crown first by Estimates in Committee of Supply and approved on Report in the House, stating what the ground is for which they are desired by the Crown, and on which Parliament is willing to grant them to the Crown, and afterwards endorsed as far as the money is concerned by the operation of Ways and Means and later by the Appropriation Act. I should think that the great bulk of the money voted year by year to the Crown is voted without any relation to any Statute at all. I do not know whether the hon. Member is labouring under the apprehension that every Estimate has to have a corresponding Clause in a Statute passed by this House. If so I can only say it is the most amazing theory of government I ever heard. Votes are voted and Estimates are prepared in conformity with Regulations laid down by Statute. Estimates are prepared in conformity with Aids and Supply required apart from any Statute as Grants-in-Aid for certain specific purposes, and these Grants-in-Aid are asked, as other Grants-in-Aid are asked, for the specific purpose set out on the face of the Estimates and which were fully explained to the House in the Committee stage. Then the hon. and learned Member stated this was a belated attempt to get back money because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in connection with the Insurance Act.
    If any mistakes were made in connection with the Insurance Bill they were
    not made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government, but deliberately by this House in passing that measure. I doubt if any Bill in recent times ever received more elaborate deliberation and discussion. [AN HON. MEMBER: "More Closure."] What was the actual operation? When

    879
    the Bill was first of all introduced into this House there were ample supplies in the scheme laid down under Section 3 to provide for a large margin which might have been available for the additional payment to the doctors which is now being suggested. During the whole time the Bill was being passed—sometimes deliberately, but more often quite recklessly—Amendment after Amendment was proposed enormously extending the expenditure under the National Insurance Act. Some of them we managed to resist, and the fact that we resisted them has been the subject matter of complaint at almost every by-election since. With the utmost effort in the world we were unable to resist some of them. During the discussions on the National Insurance Bill the House of Commons carried such increased obligations upon the National Insurance Fund that they almost completely ate up the balance in reserve for additional payment to the doctors. The Insurance Bill was passed in December and at the first meeting addressed by my right hon. Friend in January he announced to everyone concerned that the margin provided had been eaten up by additional commitments, and that additional provision would have to be submitted to Parliament for the amount that might have otherwise been provided by the margin allowed. That additional provision is being submitted to Parliament in this Estimate. Let me now turn to the special controversy raised by the hon. and learned Member about the Grant to Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Do you say that this £1,800,000 is embraced in the two-ninths?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, it has nothing whatever to do with the two-ninths. It is a grant to assist people in Ireland obtaining medical benefit, and it has no more to do with the two-ninths than any other Statute of the realm. As to the £50,000 the hon. and learned Member says it is directly against the Statute. Even if it were against the Statute it would be a legitimate Vote for this House to make and there are many precedents in the past for doing it. As a matter of fact it is not voted against the Statute, but it is voted for purposes definitely set out under the sub-head which describes the purpose of this Vote, and those which are not purposes of this Vote which would be included if medical benefit were in the Act. This is not a Vote for medical benefit, but it is
    880
    a Vote specially given for expenses which, in Great Britain, where medical benefit does exist, would not be required owing to the general provision of medical benefit. Let me give an example. For sick pay certificates are required. Where medical benefit certificates are given in the ordinary course of medical benefit the patient goes to his doctor through the National Insurance Act and receives a certificate to show he is sick and that puts him on the fund. In Ireland there is no money to provide that he shall go to his doctor and if the doctor requires to be paid for a certificate that money must be found, and it will be found by this Vote. That is not money for medical benefit or treatment but to supply a purpose which will be covered by a medical benefit when that benefit is established in Ireland.
    Take the question of Sanatorium benefit and the treatment of consumption. He seemed to suggest my right hon. Friend had invented the answer concerning consumption as a means of putting him in the wrong. If he thinks so, I can only tell him he is absolutely mistaken. This £50,000 limn the very beginning was calculated on the assumption that it would cover those methods of dealing with consumption in Ireland, which are covered in England by medical benefit but which cannot be so covered in Ireland because there is no medical benefit there. Under medical benefit in England sixpence is provided for every insured person for the domiciliary treatment of consumption, and that is possible because the doctor who is attending a large number of persons is quite ready on his round to take a case of consumption in conjunction with all the other cases. In Ireland we are not paying the doctors anything, and therefore if a doctor has to go five or six miles to one case of tuberculosis he cannot take it in the course of his round of visits. Therefore, until such medical benefit is provided as would enable him to take these cases in the ordinary course of his work, we had a right to ask that this special money should be provided for these tuberculosis cases. I think I have shown the hon. Gentleman that so far as his contentions against the Treasury are concerned he has invented a series of mare's nests. The hon. Gentleman says the precedents of August last were no precedents at all. They were precedents of Grants-in-Aid given as this is given, under exactly similar conditions without Statute, as Parliament has always given Grants-in-Aid

    881
    without Statute when it has considered there was a case in which a Grant-in-Aid should be given. Everyone of those cases was exactly similar and the fact that some of the Grants were to be repaid and some were not makes not the slightest difference. They were Grants-in-Aid given like this without Statute. Every step in this transaction has been explained in the fullest possible manner for the passing of the National Insurance Act to this moment. Again and again in the Debates during the summer the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself stated that when a case was made out by the doctors as to how much they were legitimately entitled we would present an Estimate to the House in order that the House might have an opportunity of discussing the matter. Hon. Gentlemen have accused us of keeping back this Vote and giving the doctors money without the sanction of Parliament. We have paid no money without the sanction of Parliament. We have brought this Vote before Parliament at the earliest possible moment, and we have no doubt Parliament will endorse our action.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: All of us regret when a Minister is prevented from being present, above all by illness, at a Debate in which his Department or administration is concerned, and I particularly regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have been present to-night to listen to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) and to reply to him. But I will assure the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that, having been frequently and intimately associated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he too, has become a past-master in the special Parliamentary gifts of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the chief exponent. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech of considerable length. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Twenty minutes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was twenty-five minutes.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am told it was eighteen minutes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech of sufficient length to enable him to answer the really serious case which has been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member
    882
    (Mr. T. M. Healy) if he had an answer to it. But knowing he had no answer he followed the tactics of his more distinguished chief and he almost succeeded in addressing the House for eighteen minutes without referring to the matter at all. I am not here to challenge the propriety, or the amount, of the payment which it is proposed to make to the doctors for their services, but I am here to support the challenge made by the hon. and learned Member to-night as I supported another challenge on the same subject on Friday, against the propriety of the method by which the Government are carrying out their policy. The point that was raised on Friday was as to whether we ought to vote money this year which was only required for the service of next year. The right hon. Gentleman defended that proposal and said it was perfectly normal and that the House was bound to do it because the money was required at the beginning of the calendar year. He had no statutory authority. If the money was required at the beginning of the calendar year provision should have been made in the Estimates which were presented last year and not in the Supplementary Estimate which is now before the House.
    We now come to another point. It is the serious feature of the case which is raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He complains that not merely, as the Financial Secretary said in his finishing sentences, is this Vote made without statutory authority, for it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, that the bulk of these Votes have no pre-existing statutory authority; the complaint of the hon. and learned Member is that this is made in defiance of statutory authority. That is the point the right hon. Gentleman had to answer and which he carefully refrained from answering. Section (3) of the Act lays down that the expenses are to be met as to seven-ninths by the payments of the employer and the insured person and two-ninths by payments by the State. What are you doing now? You are varying Section (3) of the Act. It may be that Section (3) is wrong. If that be so I ask the right hon. Gentleman on whom the blame lies in that case? Not on the House of Commons. It rests with the Government, which had never thought this question out. Though I make no complaint of the arrangement they have come to with the doctors, I think they have failed in their duty. The taxpayers

    883
    are now paying for the blundering way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues took up this question.
    First they tried to cajole the doctors. Then they made a promise which they broke in spirit on the next day if not in actual language. They then tried to bully them, and at last, finding themselves face to face with the failure of the Act, they had to bribe them, and we have got to pay the bribe. That is the history of the matter, and not a credible one in any sense. The point the hon. and learned Gentleman makes now is that if you want to vary the Statute you ought to have statutory authority for the variation; if you are to proceed in the ordinary regular course. But if you are going to vary the Statute by a Vote which is subsequently grouped in the Appropriation Act, and the Appropriation Act is the only legislative authority for varying the express provisions of a Statute, I say you are denaturing the Appropriation Act, and making it impossible to follow the procedure in regard to the Appropriation Act which has been pursued by this House in the past. I believe I am right in saying that if this Vote is passed to-night, and if it is grouped in the Appropriation Act, it will not be in the power of any Member to move an Amendment in Committee on the Appropriation Act, excluding this particular sum, and accordingly, although it will be the only statutory authority, it will not be possible to object to this particular sum, or to deal with it by rejecting the Appropriation Act altogether. Accordingly the only statutory authority for the payment will be one which no Member of this House has had at any time any opportunity of challenging, and that statutory authority is held to be sufficient for varying the express provisions of a Statute which was discussed, I cannot say in the ordinary way, but in the way which has become ordinary under the present administration.
    That is the grievance against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knew that. He is not so obtuse as not to have seen it, but he never said one word in defence of it. What have we a right to claim? I do not challenge the settlement you have come to with the doctors now. I think you have no alternative. You have got to get their services. You were pledged to give them to the insured. I do not challenge the payment of this money. But I do say that you ought to
    884
    regularise that payment. You have on record the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee—I think it was alluded to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy)—sitting on a similar procedure undertaken by Mr. Gladstone's Government in the early 'eighties. If I remember rightly, twice Mr. Gladstone's Government followed, in reference to an Irish matter, the procedure which the right, hon. Gentleman is following now. Twice the Comptroller and Auditor-General condemned that. Twice the Public Accounts Committee endorsed his condemnation, and the Treasury supported the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Mr. Gladstone sought legislative authority for the payment, and, failing to get legislative authority, I believe I am right in saying that he abandoned the payment. Are you going to set that precedent at defiance?
    Are you going to break down all the safeguards by which the expenditure of public money is being guarded? I venture to say that this would never have been allowed to happen if the Treasury had not been, as has been said before, allowed to become itself a great spending Department. If any other colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone to him and asked for this, he would have been told that he must do it in a regular way or it would not be done. As Mrs. Poyser said, I am not one of those who see the cat in the dairy and wonder what she has come for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the first to break down the barriers he ought to protect. What have we a right to demand? That the Government should regularise their
    procedure at the first opportunity. You may say it is too late to get your statutory authority in the closing days of this already far too prolonged Session, but we have a right to ask of the Government that early next Session they shall get statutory authority for the variation of an Act passed only last year, which expressly limits the contribution of the State to two-ninths. If the House does not insist upon that on the next occasion this Vote comes before it, they must understand that they are parting with their control over finance, that they are allowing a latitude to a spending Minister such as has never been allowed to pass unchallenged before, and that they are really making it ridiculous for us to lay down any provisions regarding the spending of public money by Statute at all. The right hon. Gentleman

    885
    can only speak again by the leave of the House. I am sure the House will give him that leave, and I hope he will say whether he will take the course I suggest, and early next Session, or before such a Vote is again put before Parliament next Session, he will take steps by the introduction of a Bill to regularise the departure from the Statute which is committed in this Vote.
    Mr. BOOTH: I had expected from the front Opposition Bench that at this time of day there would have been a little more sympathetic consideration for the insured persons. What expression has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in the slightest way sympathetic to the fifteen millions of people who will receive benefits under the Act? I really would ask the Opposition, if the time has not passed for eternally indulging in these technical and legal quibbles? I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman in his criticism of our Front Bench spokesman by reminding him that I think any independent man in the House would consider that the speech from the Front Bench faithfully followed the lines of the opener of the Debate. I was amazed when he claimed that the answer had not been direct. I should myself have thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) was considering it a little too direct. The hon. and learned Gentleman I hope feels better now that he has got rid of his speech, and I hope in future he will be able to treat the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same generous way which has characterised his utterances in the past. But what is his position? He criticised the Vote because he could not find in it anything to support the idea that consumptives were to receive benefit. I would ask him to forget his own profession for a moment and ask himself how any injured person who is entitled either to sanatorium treatment in an institution or special treatment at home can obtain it except under medical advice. If he is not prepared for medical examination clearly he cannot have sanatorium treatment. The hon. and learned Gentleman is much more concerned to knock down some imaginary person called a Molly Maguire than to help the poor consumptive. He certainly gives us the impression—I cannot think he really means it—that he would far sooner even that some of his countrymen under what appears to be a sentence of death should be neglected than that they should be brought back to health by
    886
    the agency of the National Insurance Act. I really cannot understand that position.
    With regard to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, I am connected with societies which are affiliated to the Hibernians and which regard them with special favour. The fact that a large number of insured persons wish to avail themselves of the services of that approved society is no reason why it should be continually held up to ridicule and contempt. The leading manager of the Order of Hibernians has distinguished himself in past years in the realm of insurance. I know of no more capable man throughout Ireland for this particular purpose. It was a loss to the industrial insurance world and the organisation with which I have long been connected when he left it. I would appeal to the hon and learned Gentleman that he is not impressing English Members at all favourably when he seems to show such continual spite against this approved society. Suppose it appeals to a particular faith, to which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman claims to belong, and to which I do not belong, surely that is no reason for wishing it ill, particularly when it involves the health and strength of such a large number of people sadly in need of the benefits of the Insurance Act.
    The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced rather a novel attitude into the consideration of this Bill. He charges the Government with having bribed the doctors. When bribes are given bribes are received, and I ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to go through the length and breadth of the country charging the doctors with being the receivers of bribes. That is the position. I thought the claim of the doctors was generally supported on the other side of the House. I would ask hon. Members opposite to pause. They have already set large sections of the community against them by their attacks on the Insurance Act. I would ask them to pause before they attack the great medical profession by charging them with being the receivers of bribes. I think the additional money voted to the medical profession is a handsome sum. It is larger than I thought would be necessary, but I would never be guilty of insinuating that the members of the medical profession were not perfectly honest in asking this, or of saying that in taking it they have been guilty of

    887
    receiving bribes. The right hon. Gentleman has made charges against the Government which he ought to have had the courage to make when the Bill was brought in. He says that the Bill was not thought out. The right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the only critic of the Bill when it was brought in was myself. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forster) is going to impute motives to me, I wish he would have the courage to get on his feet.
    Mr. FORSTER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read his own speeches.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to quote anything I said which would support the charge he has made. My criticism was largely on this very point. On the First Reading of the Bill the Opposition came slobbering the Chancellor of the Exchequer with praise. They did not oppose it on the Second Reading. The hon. Member (Mr. Forster) made one speech of his life, which gave him a reputation in this House when he said he would never be guilty of making party capital out of the Bill. He endorsed the entire scheme when he saw it in print. When the Bill was introduced my criticism was that I did not think the money was sufficient, and that there would have to be a further claim on the Exchequer.
    The hon. Member mentioned something about collecting societies. I never named them, and, as a matter of fact, I pointed out that a further grant would be needed from the Exchequer in order to carry out this huge and important scheme. Time has shown that I was right, but that necessity never dawned on the watch dogs on the Opposition Benches, and they never criticised the Bill from that point of view in its progress through the House. On the other hand, hon. Members opposite were continually bringing forward proposals which they knew would endanger its finance, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to point out again and again that, while some of the things proposed were very desirable, he did not think the finance of the Bill would stand it. The right hon. Gentleman made many concessions. Even the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was dumb during the passage of the Insurance Bill. Never did there come from him a word of caution in the interest of the taxpayers of this country. The whole pressure put on the Govern-
    888
    ment was to grant more benefits in order that hon. Members might go down to their Constituents and say that they had wrung them from an unwilling Radical Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a general objection to what was being done by stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to be the guardian of the Treasury, was now the head of a spending Department.
    Is that something that has only been found out now? Those criticisms should have been made on the First or Second Reading. The whole basis of this Bill was that it was to be put under Treasury control and not a single Member of the Opposition learned or unlearned got up to complain that this Bill was brought in under the ægis of the Treasury and that this was an unconstitutional position. There was no Debate on the First or Second Reading, and there was no party division on the Third Reading. Even when it passed the party opposite did not know whether they wanted it repealed or not. They do not know now. They have not the slightest idea what they would do if the responsibility was thrust upon them. They say they must get on the Treasury Bench before we can wring the secret from their unwilling breasts. Surely this elementary point that the Treasury should be the watchdog of the public purse is rather belated. Surely it equally applied when the predecessor of the present Chancellor brought in the Old Age Pensions Bill. The objection should have been taken then, but the record of the Conservative party was so bad on old age pensions that they did not dare to do it. Again they could have taken objection on the First or Second Reading but they did not do so. The hon. and learned Member is about to say that during the Passage of the Bill there were some complaints of this kind made. Certainly after they had been down to by-elections and were beginning to make a party use of the difficulties of the Act.
    I am not going to say that the Conservative party cannot claim credit for criticising the finances at that stage, but even then they had not the courage to vote against the Third Reading, and it comes with an exceedingly bad grace from them to raise points of this kind on a supplementary Vote which is definitely to enable the doctors to be handsomely remunerated. What is the meaning of it? Do they or do they not want the doctors to receive this extra remuneration? One may gather that they dare not vote against it. Their

    889
    real grievance is that we are doing it. They want the quarrel between the doctors and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue. It was a great political asset to them. As long as it lasted they thought they had some chance at by-elections. But now that has gone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the courage to come to the House and ask for the full amount of money and pledge himself as a Free Trade Chancellor to raise it without taxing the people's food and immediately the Opposition are angry. But I do not mind the Opposition making a party point or hammering me or even hammering my leaders upon the Insurance Act. That does not trouble me because we ought to take a line independent of party as I always have done, and I believe some Members of the Opposition have done, and I am exceedingly sorry as the month goes over we are driven more and more into bitter party conflict with regard to this great Insurance Act which unless it is carried out by a great deal of voluntary labour both by Liberals and Conservatives alike will never be a success. It is with exceeding pain and regret that I notice a tone in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which has been absent before in all his other references to this great question of the healing of the nation.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I have listened with a good deal of interest to what the hon. Member for Pontefract said. The hon. Member seemed to think that this is a question of the working of the National Insurance Act. He spoke a good deal about the acts of the Opposition during the passage of the Bill through this House. He also complained that all the Opposition did was to try and increase the amount which is necessary to be spent under the Bill. Well, this estimate justifies that attitude, and proves that more ought to be spent, and that the Opposition were perfectly right in saying that more ought to be spent, and that enough money was not given under the Bill, or under the estimates of the Bill, to carry it out. The hon. Member for Pontefract spoke as though this House was simply an eleemosynary institution, for the benefit of the poor people. I agree that it is our purpose and duty to look after that class of people, but our complaint, on this particular item is that, the House having deliberately sanctioned on the advice of the Ministry of the day, a certain amount of money, to be spent for this purpose, the Govern-
    890
    ment now comes down and says, "The money is not enough after all, and we want more." The hon. Member who has just spoken said the money was going to benefit the doctors. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, or, if he cannot speak again, the ex-Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who knows a great deal about it, whether this money is going to be spent on the doctors or not? The Financial Secretary said the £50,000 was going to be spent on sanatorium benefit for the people of Ireland. I do not find that in the Estimates. The words of the Supplementary Estimate are that it is to be spent in regard to any certificates of sickness, and for expenses of administration. Administration! That has nothing to do with providing sanatoria or consumptive benefit.
    As I make it out, the £50,000 additional moneys, spread over the 4,000,000 of people in Ireland, comes to nearly 3d. per head for the administration of the Act. That seems to me to be a very large amount, and the Financial Secretary says it is going to be spent on consumptive benefit for the people in Ireland; but there is not a word about that in the purpose for which the Vote is asked. That is, so far, dealing with the words of the Supplementary Estimate itself; but it is very unsatisfactory to ask for a Supplementary Estimate on this point, particularly for a Grant-in-Aid. A Grant-in-Aid is usually asked for for a particular and specific purpose, which is fully explained, and the amount of that Grant-in-Aid is voted by this House. But to come down afterwards and ask for a Supplementary Estimate for a Grant-in-Aid, and a Grant-in-Aid of a most peculiar character—my experience goes back a good many years, but I do not think I can recollect a Grant-in-Aid that has been asked for under these particular conditions. In the foot-note on the first page of this Class VIII. Vote, it is said that this is a Grant-in-Aid, and therefore, of course, the balance need not be surrendered at the end of the year. But it is added that any balances will be taken into account in determining the amount of the Grant for the subsequent year. It really becomes a Grant-in-Aid of the Estimate of this year, and of the Estimate of next year, as well, and it seems to me that that is not fulfilling the true purpose of a Grant-in-Aid.

    891
    The right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that this Estimate was brought forward in order to carry out the wishes of the House. Perhaps, if he is going to speak again, he will tell us when the wishes of the House were expressed which are carried out by this particular Estimate. I am not sure that the wishes of the House have been expressed, as regards the extra half-a-crown for insured persons, or the extra 1½d. for the cost of administration, or as regards the cost of certificates for sickness in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell me any Resolution, or even any expression of the House, which this Estimate carries out, I shall be very much obliged to him. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman again, or the ex-Financial Secretary, who perhaps will answer for him, that question about the two-ninths, because, if I understand rightly, the total cost of the Act will come to about £13,000,000 a year. And, if I work it out rightly, two-ninths of £13,000,000 comes to something very like £2,900,000 a year. That is what is provided for under the Act, which will be the contribution of the taxpayer towards this benefit for the sick poor. But this is asking for £1,800,000 more, in fact, it is more than fifty per cent. in excess of the two-ninths. Yet the "9d. for 4d." mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was founded on the fact of that two-ninths—4d. for 9d. is, in fact, two-ninths—and he will have to alter his next picturesque phrase when he uses it, and say; not that it would be 9d. for 4d., but that, by some expenditure or other, the 4d. has grown to 7d.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: But it is for 4d. now.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: The other way about. I am dealing with the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were two-ninths, as I understand it, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said meant 4d. for 9d. Surely, if you add to that two-ninths, which was represented by £2,900,000, the £1,800,000, it makes the 4d. very nearly into 60. I should be very glad if anybody would get up and contradict that arithmetic, because we are dealing with the contribution of the tax-payer, we are not dealing with the contribution of anybody else, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right, that the tax-payer was
    892
    going to contribute two-ninths, and that amounted to £2,900,000, then he is now deliberately putting on £1,800,000 in addition. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Pontefract to come down and accuse us of not doing what we can for the benefit of the sick poor. He says himself that all we did was to try and get more money for the sick poor.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: The hon. Member now says "No," but he just now said that we tried to put on a greater charge, and to increase the expenses of the Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: To kill the Bill. I said that the Amendments that came from that side were all in the nature of granting increased benefits, which endangered the safety of the finances of the Bill.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: But the finances of the Bill, according to the hon. Member, does not count, if only we can give more benefits to the sick poor. You cannot have it both ways. You may be a financial purist, and you may be a sympathiser with the poor, and you may want to give them more money, but you cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member complains of us, because we tried to put more money at the disposal of the sick poor under this Act. If that is blameworthy, I am very glad to accept the blame. That money would upset the finance of the Bill I quite agree. But that proves out of his own mouth that the finance of the Bill was quite rotten, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never thought out the finance of the Bill. What they wanted to do was to increase the share of the taxpayer by more than fifty per cent. of what they said. Now they come down at the fag-end of the Session for an Account-in-Aid. It is a multiplication of bungle from first to end.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think the Government owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Pontefract. Whenever there is a likelihood that they may not be in a majority, the hon. Member rises to make observations rather more or less remote from the subject under discussion. But whenever the Government are in a tight corner and a vital point is concerned, the hon. Member for Pontefract tries to draw the House off the track. He tries to do so. Even by inviting the House to consider what are his reasons for changing his own opinions. But we decline to be diverted from that point.

    893
    The hon. Member asked us, "Do you want the doctors to have this extra money, or do you not?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you?"] Well, I will give you my answer. I do. But by regular means, and in accordance with the proper procedure of this House. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member is whether it is proper to do this by estimate and the Appropriation Bill, or whether there ought to be an Act for the purpose. That is a very important constitutional question. To try and mix it up with all questions of prejudice is a very futile purpose. We say this is contrary to the provisions of the Statute, and that there are proportions laid down by the statute.
    It may be right to vary the proportions. I do not say it is not right to vary them. What I say is that constitutionally we should do it by an Act. That is the whole point raised. All that I am insisting on is that the proper legal, constitutional method ought to be employed and that this would be an exception for all time for dealing with the question in this way. So far as I can find there is only one precedent, in 1907, of the Supplementary Estimate to the Education Grant. When it was done then, the Speaker, when he was appealed to, said he could not rule it out of order but he thought it was illegal and unconstitutional. What he said on that occasion was that it might be a question for the Public Accounts Committee to consider thereafter, or it might be a legal question as to whether the Appropriation Act in these circumstances really could have the effect of repealing a Statute. He said the matter therefore seemed to be a constitutional one and entirely for the House to decide for itself. "Putting the matter as shortly as possible the two questions would seem to be these—Can the House of Commons disobey an Act of Parliament, and ought the House of Commons to disobey an Act of Parliament? In regard to the first question I think it is obvious the House of Commons can disobey an Act of Parliament; with regard to the second, I think it is a question which ought to be left to the conscience of the House of Commons." That was a clear intimation to the House that Mr. Speaker considered that this was not a legal or constitutional method of procedure.
    I submit it is a most dangerous method of procedure. The House has got a really legal and constitutional question to deal
    894
    with and it ought to separate from it all these questions of prejudice to which the hon. Member for Pontefract referred. It is all the more important owing to the fact that the Government proceeded with this matter without bringing it before the House at all so far as the first three months are concerned. They actually entered into binding contracts with the doctors. Before these contracts were entered into I asked questions again and again. I say it was interfering with the control of this House over finance to make these binding contracts without first giving the House an opportunity of discussing them. Now the right hon. Gentleman says I was inconsistent because the other day I objected to these Estimates being for the whole year. Where the inconsistency comes in I have yet been unable to see. My contention throughout was that the matter ought to have been brought fairly before the House before any such steps as entering into these legal binding contracts was made. In conclusion I would invite the Government—I see there is an ex-Secretary to the Treasury seated on the Treasury Bench—to deal with this extremely important legal and constitutional question, and to say whether in future it is to be treated as a precedent, and that the express provisions of a Statute may be departed from simply in a Supplementary Estimate and not by an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am not quite sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is made of cast-iron or elastic. At any rate, every argument used by every Member who has spoken on this subject bears out the position taken up by certain Members of the Labour Party when the Insurance Act, was before the House of Commons, namely, that it ought to have been a non-contributory scheme. The hon. and learned Member said that when the Government got into a difficulty the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) got up and helped them out of it by appealing to Members of the House to support the Government. I say without any hesitation whatever, that when the hon. Member for Pontefract gets up I always look with suspicion upon him, and am extremely suspicious of his arguments, for I know perfectly well that all the time the Insurance Bill was before the House of Commons he was manœuvring with the object of getting as far as possible the administration of the Act in the hands of the great insurance

    895
    companies. That may be by the way, but he referred to the 15,000,000 persons who, he hoped, would get the benefit of the Act.
    I hope these 15,000,000 will not get the benefit of the Act. If they do, then the Act is financially unsound. It is only the fact that a very large proportion of insured persons never require the benefits that the Act is financially sound, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member for Pontefract is wrong in the argument that he has used. He must know perfectly well that any company that insures against sickness, or any friendly society, could not possibly pay the whole benefits to every one of their members, and that their benefits are based on the assumption that a very large number of members will be healthy and able to keep at their work. I said just now that the arguments used by every Member of the House who has spoken was in favour of the position taken up by the Labour party in favour of a non-contributory scheme.
    Mr. PRINGLE: When did the Labour party say that?
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: If the hon. Member will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find Amendments down in the name of Members of the Labour party in favour of a non-contributory scheme.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The only Amendment in favour of a non-contributory scheme was proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and was not supported by the Labour party.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: We were in favour of a non-contributory scheme, and we also favoured, if I may say so, the administration of the Act so far as doctors are concerned being left in the hands of the friendly societies, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted the suggestions of the Labour party he would never have had the trouble he had. I want to say we fully recognise that if the Act is to be administered successfully the money asked for must be granted. That being so I think it comes with ill-grace from Members of the Opposition to criticise the Government for asking for this additional sum. They have agitated and argued that doctors should have a larger amount granted them than was foreshadowed in the speeches addressed by the Government to the House when the Bill was going through the House. We recognise that if the Act is to be of any benefit whatever
    896
    we must have the doctors, and, so far as we are concerned, we are going to support the Government in this Supplementary Vote for which they are asking.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: There is one aspect of the matter I want to bring to the notice of the House. The necessity for this Supplementary Estimate is explained by the Financial
    Secretary as being due to the fact that the balance for increased payment to the doctors has been eaten up because of Amendments proposed on this side of the House. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that when he originally brought in his actuarial calculation for the doctors he brought it in below the amount he knew would be required? Does he mean he kept a balance up his sleeve? Does he mean that balance has been withdrawn because other benefits have been created? Does he mean that he consciously put forward what was inadequate for the doctors? Does he mean that this Supplementary Estimate is necessary because the nest-egg which he put by and kept out of sight is required for other purposes? The doctors would be interested, the public would be interested, and I think this House would be interested to know whether that is the case or not.
    1.0 A.M.
    I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has spoken on this side in the view he has taken about 9d. for 4d. The accurate view of this I take to be 10½d. for 4d., if 9d. for 4d. was ever true. I think my hon. and gallant Friend has made some mistake about that, and as regards the hon. Member for Pontefract, whose services are proving so valuable that he is in some peril of going to another place, I do not think he need be distressed because Amendments put forward from this side of the House upset the finances of the Bill. It does not matter if the finance of the Bill is upset. You can bring forward Supplementary Estimates of this character and restore the balance, no matter what the upset has been. You are asking here for a Supplementary Estimate which is in complete conflict with the basis of the Act. The whole basis of the Act is that a certain proportion shall be contributed by a certain body of persons, another proportion by another body of persons, and a third proportion by the taxpayers out of the Imperial Exchequer. If this Supplementary Estimate is passed, you are going totally to upset the whole basis of proportion on which the finance

    897
    of the Act is based, and it cannot be regularised this Session. As I understand it—I do not pretend to be an expert in the finances administered by this House—it is a mere matter of administrative extravagance, and the thing will go forward without any sort of really legal or constitutional sanction. Whether it is in order or not may be in question, but it is a matter of conscience, if not one of obligation, to this House that in spending you should have some sort of regard to the basis on which the House passed the Act. Now by a Supplementary Estimate taken at the fag end of a long Session, you are going to upset its finance and make it bear some 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. more than when it was first put forward. I cannot believe that that is in accordance either with sound finance or Parliamentary practice.
    Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask a simple question. I notice that under (d) there is a grant for £50,000 for National Health Insurance funds in Ireland. If hon. Gentlemen will look at (c) they will find that the reasons of the Treasury there for making a grant of £214,000 to Scotland, or higher up, at (a), a grant to England, is the increased cost of medical benefit. The doctors are getting an extra half-a-crown, and necessarily there is a large sum of money required, but if anyone looks at (d), which applies to Ireland, he will see that it says this money is to be granted to Ireland for this extraordinary reason, the absence of medical benefit in Ireland. In the one case, then, it is because medical benefit is to be granted that a large sum is necessary, and in the other because there is no medical benefit at all. I wish to ask how this sum of £50,000 is to be expended. It will be within the memory of this House that when the announcement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who leads the Nationalist party, and is always squaring the sextant, was up like a shot to know what Ireland was to get out of it, if the doctors were to benefit. I do not know what this £50,000 is for unless it is to go into the pockets of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. That is the only possible explanation I can see for such a large sum being granted. At any rate the House ought to have some explanation, and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is, by the rules of the House, not allowed to
    898
    speak again perhaps he will ask a Nationalist Member to speak for him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to raise this point of order on this Vote, Mr. Speaker. The Government have now admitted that this is not a casual or intermittent Vote which might have been said of previous Votes. It is now admitted that the two-ninths basis of the Statute has gone and that this present Vote is one which practically exceeds that amount and therefore disturbs the entire basis on which Parliamentary sanction was given to the Act. It must be evident that unless some Amendment of the Act is provided this must come up for a further implementing of the sum year after year in the Estimates, and I ask therefore, if that in that case is not in the nature of a casual Supplementary Vote and that it is practically suggested that by an annual Vote of Parliament we can repeal a Statute in its entirety so far as its financial basis is concerned?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is really a question for me to rule upon. The matter has been very clearly put in the debate we have had. I think it must be evident that this procedure does vary Section 3 of the Insurance Act. The question then arises, does it vary it to such an extent as to become illegal? That would be a question of law—as to whether the Appropriation Act, when it appropriates this sum will over-rule the Insurance Act or not, and upon that the House will receive the report and advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the officer appointed by the House to consider and to see whether all sums paid out are paid out under proper authority. The House would be advised by him in due course. I think it was well put when it was said that it was a constitutional question for the House itself, and the House must decide it. I do not think I can do so.

    SUPPLY [6th February].
    Resolutions reported:

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.—(Class II.)
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,136, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

    899
    on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

    CLASS III.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £180, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

    SUPPLY [8th February.]
    Resolutions reported:

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATES, 1912–13.—(Class II.)
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £63,572, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. LYNCH: Even at this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I propose to say a few words on the important question of research; for this is the one opportunity which we have during the year. In the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Runciman) on Saturday, he certainly did refer to research, but in a somewhat perfunctory way, and we are face to face with the striking fact that during the whole course of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, involving an expenditure, and perhaps a loss, of hundreds of thousands of pounds, no steps were taken to discover the origin of this disease and its progress, and no attempt was made to regard the whole question from the point of view of research. I would endeavour to observe to the House, in a few words, that this is not any academic question at all, but is one of
    900
    very great practical importance, and I will endeavour to finish with a practical proposition. In fact, I will venture it now, and it is this: In June, 1912, the Royal Commission, appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture, terminated its labours, and that termination synchronised almost exactly with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. My suggestion is that that Commission should be reappointed, and that fuller powers to order experiments, and to deal actively with research, and to call in the services of eminent bacteriologists outside the Department, and even, if necessary, from foreign countries, should be given to it.
    Although the evidence was given under great disadvantages, in the fact with regard to the purposes of the Commission, that there had been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in these Islands for a great number of years, even then the outcome of the Royal Commission was not altogether useless. The fact that the evidence of the Royal Commission has not been considered was nowhere better brought out than in the Debate on Saturday, where eminent agriculturists, men recognised in the House as experts, again and again committed such serious errors in regard to this matter as to show they had not consulted, much less studied, the evidence of that Commission. For instance, it was mentioned again and again—and this has a bearing on the very important point of twelve hours' detention—that the period of incubation might be as short as one day, and might extend as long as twelve days. As a matter of fact, it was laid down by the best authorities during the Royal Commission that the period of incubation was about five days, and it is absolutely inconceivable that a disease of this character should vary in its period of incubation from such a great period as from one to twelve days.
    In regard to the outbreak in Antrim, although the disease was well characterised, and although, as a consequence of that outbreak, the whole county was put under a ban, and the cattle trade held up for a number of days, it appeared on investigation that the disease was not foot-and-mouth disease at all. If the knowledge of this disease had been brought to an efficient state, such a gross error would not have occurred, and this period, during which the whole county was under the ban, and suffered a great loss of money, would never have occurred. Then again,

    901
    with regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Kildare. It was said again and again, and apparently accepted by the President of the Board of Agriculture, that this outbreak was traced to foreign straw, but no evidence whatever had been adduced as to the origin of the outbreak. It is rather a singular thing, and one gathers it from the Royal Commission itself, that whereas the most experienced bacteriologists and veterinary surgeons—such as Professor Bang, of Copenhagen—put a restriction on the importation of hides, hair, horns, and hooves. They allow a free importation of hay. Yet, as showing that these apparently technical and scientific matters have a very great practical bearing, pressed hay was one of the commodities which the President of the Board of Agriculture put under a ban to the great detriment of the export trade in my own Constituency, although of all the subjects mentioned, according to the opinion of the best bacteriologists, that would be the one least liable to suspicion.
    I certainly grant that the difficulties are very great in regard to the investigation of this subject because, as the President of the Board himself said, the microbe seems to be ultra-microscopic. It is so small, in fact, that Professor Loeffler says it must be less than one to 125,000ths of an inch, and apparently it escapes even the finest filter, yet it is so virulent that the same authority declared that one 300th part is sufficient to infect an animal, and so give a start to the disease which may spread through the entire herd. We also can draw some guidance from another very important point, and that is that dryness and light appear to destroy the disease. Under these conditions the germs are incapable of living for more than a week, so that it would be absolutely impossible, for instance, that in these circumstances, the germs could be preserved for months from the period of the outbreak in Ireland, which has now terminated, thus proving clearly, moreover, that the disease was brought to Ireland from outside sources.
    I will conclude with this important proposition, which I hope the President will consider carefully. In regard to the whole outbreak, I am inclined to think he regarded the matter too much from the point of view of the ordinary administration, and of the perfunctory routine of his office, even although working at high pressure. Although perhaps his Department is above reproach in the
    902
    ordinary way, and they followed the routine adopted by precedent, yet of the President, who came with fresh energies, new ideas, and great ability, we expected something more. I venture to say that, from the very beginning of this outbreak, he should have regarded it much more from the point of view of the bacteriology of the matter than from the actual administration of his office, and should have put not only the whole force of the scientific skill of his own Department to the work of investigation, but should have invited outside help, from a great many bacteriologists in this country, and even, if necessary, from distinguished bacteriologists abroad, who have spent many years in investigating this disease, such as Professor Loeffler, Professor de Jong, or Professor Bang, of Copenhagen.
    If the necessary funds were not at his disposal, he should have gone, without hesitation to the Treasury, and demanded a sort of blank cheque for any amount he required. The importance of this is that we might now have known the etiology of the disease, and we might have been able to identify—if not the individual microbe—at any rate its cultures. We should have known the sources of the disease, the manner of its incubation, and the course of its progress, and had we known these in the early stages, we might have been able to stamp it out, and so save the country and Ireland the expense of many thousands of pounds. I therefore suggest that the President should reappoint this Royal Commission, and should secure that it should have much more specific powers than it appears to have enjoyed in the past; that he should not be content merely with those investigations which have been carried out in India—because the cattle of India are of a rather different breed, and there may be many points in the incidence of the disease in India which are not comparable to those prevalent in this country. He should regard the entire question of foot-and-mouth disease from the most important standpoint, that of the bacteriology of the disease, and should put on the full working power of his Department, under his own guidance, so that the greatest efforts of the whole scientific ability of this country may be directed to the investigation of the disease, the discovery of its causes, and finally its entire elimination.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am not going to detain the House more than a minute. What I would like to know is whether

    903
    any of the extra sum required is due to an increase of the wages of labourers at Kew Gardens. Some few years ago the President of the Board of Agriculture promised that these men's wages would be increased. Each year since then they have petitioned for that.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): That arises on the original Estimate. There is no reference whatever to Kew Gardens in the Supplementary Estimate we are now considering.
    Mr. GINNELL: No one could regret more than I do the necessity for prolonging the Debate at this late hour, but the necessity is due not to me but to t he President of the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman listened patiently last Saturday to speeches, mostly laudatory of himself. At their conclusion he complacently acknowledged the compliments with the air of one who thought that he had deserved them. As soon as a speech of real criticism was delivered, instead of answering it, the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the action of the House cannot be criticised.
    Mr. GINNELL: We were given to understand last Saturday that we should be given two further occasions for considering this matter—on Report and on the Appropriation Bill. Might I be allowed to proceed on that question. The plea that the President of the Board of Agriculture could not answer the particularly critical speech to which I refer, because he had already spoken really did not apply in Committee at all, and if it did it provokes the pertinent inquiry—why had he already spoken? That is our first ground of complaint. Why did he assume the air of a man answering the case against his Department before that case had been made.
    Did not the President of the Board of Agriculture know that the flattering compliments which he was in such a hurry to acknowledge were not a case against his Department. Did he not know that there were men of serious purpose in this House, and that the wasting of a Saturday meeting of the House in lavish compliments to him, could be no part of their business here. Practically he assumed that there was really no case at all against his Depart-
    904
    ment. His whole speech was based on that erroneous assumption, and therefore amounted to so much waste air. If there were serious and well-founded complaints against his Department, as there certainly were and are, he was by that fact placed on the defensive, and it was not for him but for those who made these complaints to determine whether they had or had not made their case. Having come here on a Saturday we wanted to do the work for which we had come. We were prepared to sit here for whatever time was necessary, and it was no business of the President of the Board of Agriculture to prevent us doing it. By preventing us he rendered the present intervention necessary. The President of the Board, in his gracious speech last Saturday, did not answer even the points made before he spoke. He had been pressed by both English and Irish Members to relax the twelve hours' quarantine in those cases in which a rigid enforcement of it would, owing to train arrangements, result in extending the period to twenty-four or thirty-six hours. Without denying that there were such cases, and while admitting that there was no special virtue in twelve hours, the right hon. Gentleman did not consent to relax that period. His silence amounts to an admission that the rigid twelve hours' period is indefensible. He was asked to explain why the cordon of fifteen miles radius which satisfied him in England did not satisfy him in Ireland, whether it was more rigorously enforced owing to the superiority of the police force there. All he condescended to tell us on that point was that he had often answered it. He certainly never answered it intelligibly. On this point I find that English Members helped him to obscure the issue by saying that the schedules and cordons in Ireland are the work of the Irish Department. That is not wholly correct. It is the English Board of Agriculture that closes the British ports and tells the Irish Department that unless certain areas are scheduled and restricted, the British ports will be closed against the whole country. That has been done over and over again during the last six months of 1912. The President of the Board did not utter one word of recognition of the losses imposed, even quite needlessly by his instructions upon the inarticulate peasants who have not been in a position to send deputations to him, and to whose representatives in this House he has not been

    905
    over courteous. He did not make any attempt whatever to deal with the argument that his Board had no legal warrant for some of the things it did. In fact in his speech he confined himself to the stale platitudes of mocking sympathy, of which we are so tired. Even that sympathy was confined to the inconvenience which he was good enough to admit some people had suffered. Inconvenience may be an adequate description of the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease in England. We are here to represent people who have suffered much more than inconvenience, whom his restrictions have ruined, to whom this matter is not a mere question of finance, but one of life and death. There is an impression in this House, and in this country, and the President of the Board of Agriculture contributes towards its propagation, that in every case of direct loss, full compensation is paid.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to read the whole of his long speech?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought I saw the hon. Member glancing up frequently. I did not know he was reading it entirely.
    Mr. GINNELL: The suggestion that, in every case of direct loss in connection with these restrictions, full compensation is paid is wholly inaccurate, as I desire to prove by a concrete case. A Constituent of mine, named Edward Sheridan, and a few other men of small means, deal jointly in mulch cows, in which trade they had last summer all their money invested. At the end of June, before any case of foot-and-mouth disease was known to exist in Ireland, these men shipped to England in the usual way their entire stock, consisting of 111 cows immediately after calving. While they were on the voyage the disease was discovered in Ireland and a restrictive order was issued. On arriving at Heysham the cows were delayed some twelve hours at the landing place, and then packed into railway trucks, taken out of them again, hustled back into a ship, and returned to Dublin, where they were detained in quaratine for three weeks. Talk of humanity! This treatment would have been bad for any cattle, but for cows fresh after calving it was a refinement of cruelty.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I have observed the hon. Member a little more closely, and it does seem to me he is en-
    906
    tirely reading his speech now. I must direct his attention to the fact that that is not in accordance with the traditions of the House.
    An HON. MEMBER: He is only consulting a chart.
    Mr. GINNELL: These beasts were detained in Dublin for three weeks, with the result that their value was reduced £11 per head, or £1,221 in all. Their owners spent in various ways, apart from the loss of trade, a sum of £60, making a total loss of £1,281. I submit to the House that in the case of men of this class, whose whole property was invested in these beasts, "inconvenience" is a wholly inadequate word to describe that loss. During all that period not one of these beasts showed a single trace of foot-and-mouth disease, or of any other contagious disease. When I brought this matter to the notice of the Government in this House, the answer was that to compensate the owners of these cows would require legislation. I respectfully deny that. I say it is not the only instance in which the Law Officers of the Crown have been wrong, and I say that in this particular case they were wrong, because they based their opinion on the assumption that a claim in this case would come under the Diseases of Animals Acts, but no claim could have been made under those Acts for the simple reason that the animals in question never had any contagious disease. The whole loss was caused not by disease, for there was none, but by a mistake, if you will, of a Government Department, and should, therefore, be paid in full as part of the expenses of that Department, and for that reason embodied in this Estimate.
    We do not for a moment admit the pretention of the Board of Agriculture that it is more anxious than we are for the suppression and the stamping-out of this disease. Neither the Board of Agriculture nor anyone in this country has a greater desire to be rid of this disease than we have in Ireland, and none have better means of vigilance on account of the number and efficiency of police; but what we do claim is that in a case of this sort, where heavy loss has been caused to men whose sole property these beasts were, not by disease, but by the maladministration or mistake of the Government Department, it was clearly the duty of the President of the Board of Agriculture to represent to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the Treasury, that

    907
    this loss should have been made good to the sufferers, and that, as it was caused by him as the head of his Department, it would be his duty, unless it was so made good, to resign his position. Let the right hon. Gentleman come to any court of any class of the people of that country and test their views on this point. I submit that if the Prime Minister were made aware of the loss occasioned to industrious people in this way by the mistakes of a Department, and if it were represented to him by the President of the Department, he would himself embody the amount lost in this Estimate or have it embodied by the President of the Board, or would put another President at the head of this Department who would do it.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Representing, as I do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a large grazing and dairy country in the South of Ireland, I rise for the purpose of joining with my colleagues in asking the President of the Board of Agriculture to take off the twelve hours detention, at least in the case of fat cattle coming into this country. It undoubtedly is a great hardship on the resources of the cattle breeders in Ireland, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman what real good can this period of detention do? None; in the first place, twelve hours detention is not long enough for any inspectors appointed to trace disease in cattle when it is in the period of incubation. That must be an acknowledged fact by anyone possessing common sense. Then, with regard to the trouble and expense caused by the delay of getting these cattle into the lairages for this long period and feeding them, and say that if they are put into a strange place with cattle they do not know those cattle will begin to horn each other, and so instead of doing them good it will do them harm.
    What I want to put before the President of the Board of Agriculture is that instead of detaining the cattle he should adopt the system in use in other countries, and that he should make provision for the feeding of those cattle in the transport boats while they are going from one place to another. It is the practice in America, and in sending cattle to this country from Canada, to make provision by which the animals are watered and fed in the boats. That, I think, is a practical step to take, instead of keeping the cattle at the ports at great cost
    908
    and expense to the purchasers. That cost, undoubtedly, you must take from the farmers in Ireland in the first instance, because we all know that when buyers come down to the fairs in the south of Ireland they must take into consideration the cost of transit and the period of detention, and consequently they give a smaller amount for the cattle than they otherwise would do.
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture must know from reading the papers that we in the south of Ireland, where no foot-and-mouth disease was traced amongst our cattle, have suffered a tremendous amount from his restrictions, and we complain that, where there has been no foot-and-mouth disease for thirty years and over, we should be placed on the same footing as those counties where the disease undoubtedly existed. We have suffered a great deal. I know for a fact that when I was at home during the last recess on my holidays there were several farmers in my constituency and no beast could be sold. There were no shippers in the fairs, though there were plenty of cattle. We all know that when the time for the payment of the annuity comes the farmers in the south of Ireland have to sell their cattle for whatever price they can get. I know farmers who have about twenty acres of land and who keep dairy cows, and who instead of selling their calves young put them out to grass for about six or eleven months. They put them out from May to October and when October comes round they have to sell these yearlings, as they then are, for whatever price they can get for them. The result is that they have suffered tremendous loss.
    HON. MEMBERS: Divide! divide.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I think this is a very important matter. I did not know this question was coming on. I only just came into the House and when I found that the hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. Ginnell) was raising this question and I had not had an opportunity of raising it before I said to myself—I must have a go at the President of the Board of Agriculture and tell him what we think. We are tired of passing resolutions condemning him for keeping on this twelve hours detention and I daresay he has a good many of those resolutions. My point is that the small farmers in my constituency and those all over Ireland have suffered tremendously, and I want to impress upon the right hon.

    909
    Gentleman that he ought to take that into account now, and act in a generous spirit by taking off these restrictions, at any rate in the case of fat cattle. Store cattle may require feeding because they are younger. I would impress on the President of the Board of Agriculture the point I have made, that he will find that twelve hours' detention is practically no use whatever. Unquestionably, as he knows, there has been no disease, except in a few cases in isolated counties which have been traced to other causes. In the interests of the farmers of Ireland, we ask him to take off the twelve hours' detention, and to consult his advisers about this matter.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I can assure the hon. Member for Westmeath that I am by no means unsympathetic to his constituents. The case he has brought to the notice of the House this evening has already received my consideration. I am afraid his constituents are not the only people who suffered by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and I hope the action taken by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and by myself here, will not necessitate any further disturbance of the trade between the two countries. In reply to the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion, I would say we have lost no opportunity, since the outbreak of this disease, in accumulating a large amount of data on which scientific men can work. Scientists abroad, either in America or in Europe, have not been able to ascertain very much about the nature of foot-and-mouth disease, but whatever they do learn, that knowledge will be of value to us here, although I agree that the conditions of India are different from those at home. I think, however, on this occasion that I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lynch) that we are at work on the very problems of which he spoke this evening, and we shall base our administration in future on the knowledge which will naturally result from the work of our scientists.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £38,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the
    910
    Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the Services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolution reported,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, the sum of £2,618,516 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Masterman.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To apply a Sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed.
    AERIAL NAVIGATION BILL.
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Harcourt.]
    SHOPS ACT (1912) AMENDMENT BILL.
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—Special Provisions as to persons Engaged in the Sale of Refreshments.
    (1) The provisions of Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, shall not apply to shop assistants employed in any premises

    911
    for the sale of refreshments, whether licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor or not, if their employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors or refreshments for consumption on the premises, and if the occupier of the premises, and majority of the assistants employed thereon, by such a notice as is hereinafter mentioned, signify that they elect that instead of those provisions the following provisions shall apply: Provided that no assistant shall be employed for more than sixty-five hours in any week exclusive of meal times:—
    (a) Provision shall be made for securing to every such assistant one day's rest in seven, made up as follows:

    (i) forty whole holidays on a week day in every year, of which at least two shall be given within the currency of each month;

    (ii) twenty-six whole holidays on Sunday in every year, so distributed that at least one out of every three consecutive Sundays shall be a whole holiday:

    Provided that two half-holidays on a week day shall be deemed equivalent to one whole holiday on a week day:
    (b) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to every such assistant amounting on a half-holiday to not less than one hour, and on every other day to not less than two hours, and no assistant shall be employed for more than six hours without being allowed an interval of at least thirty minutes:
    Provided that this provision shall not apply if the only persons employed as such shop assistants are members of the family of the occupier of the premises maintained by him and dwelling in his house, nor to an assistant on any day on which his employment commences not earlier than nine in the morning and terminates not later than three in the afternoon if an interval of three-quarters of an hour is allowed between those hours:
    (c) The occupier shall affix and constantly maintain in a conspicuous position in the premises a notice in the prescribed form referring to the provisions of this Section, and stating the steps taken with a view to compliance therewith.
    (2) Where the occupier of any premises, and such majority of assistants aforesaid, have signified as aforesaid that they elect that the foregoing provisions shall apply, and any of those provisions are not complied with, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence against the Shops Act, 1912, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding—

    (a) in the case of a first offence, one pound;

    (b) in the case of a second offence, five pounds; and

    (c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, ten pounds.

    (3) For the purposes of this Section the expression "half-holiday" means a-day on which the employment of an assistant ceases not later than three o'clock in the afternoon and on which he is not employed for more than six hours including mealtime.
    Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "and majority of the assistants employed thereon."
    Leave out the words "signify that they elect," and insert instead thereof the words "signifies that he elects."
    Leave out the words "Provided that."
    After the word "no" ["no assistant shall be employed"] insert the word "such."
    In Sub-section (1) paragraph (a) leave out the words "one day's rest in seven made up as follows."
    Leave out the word "forty" ["forty whole holidays on a week-day in every year"] and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-two."—[Sir W. Bull.]
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I beg to move to leave out the words "of which at least two shall be given within the currency of each month."
    2.0 A.M.
    The Amendment raises a very short point, but one which deeply interests a good many of my Constituents and which I have undertaken on their behalf. The House will notice that these words I propose to leave out put upon keepers of all establishments of the kind with which the Bill deals, the obligation that two at least of these holidays shall be within the currency of the month. There are in towns, such as Eton, a considerable number of shops which in common with other shops in educational centres, cater for the

    913
    confectionery feeding of young gentlemen who frequent these shops. Many of these shops are extremely busy during the term, but during the holidays they have very little business, and are ready to give considerable holidays to their assistants. They think it reasonable, therefore, that the Bill should be modified in the direction I suggest. It is a small concession which these people demand, but it is one of very material importance to them.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I thoroughly realise the point the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. Of course a Bill of this kind might in some cases accidently inflict a hardship, but I think the hon. Member, if he considers it, will see that his Amendment ought not to be inserted in the Bill. We think it a great safeguard that two holidays should be given during currency of each month, otherwise if a man was engaged for six months he might not have a holiday at all. I would remind the hon. Member that unless the Bill is an agreed Bill it cannot pass.
    Sir W. BULL: I should also like to appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. It really only affects a very small class. If the Amendment is made it will, however, affect a great many other classes. After lengthy consideration this is really an agreed Bill.
    Mr. J. MASON: In response to the appeal which has been made, I do not desire to wreck the Bill, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: At end of paragraph (a) (1), insert the words "and which shall comprise a holiday on full pay of not less than six consecutive days."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the word "one" ["not less than one hour"], and insert instead thereof the words "three-quarters of an."
    Leave out the words "thirty minutes," and insert instead thereof the words "half an hour."
    Leave out the words "nor to an assistant on any day on which his employment commences not earlier than nine in the morning and terminates not later than
    914
    three in the afternoon if an interval of three-quarters of an hour is allowed between those hours."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words, "and such majority of assistants aforesaid, have signified."
    Leave out the words, "they elect," and insert instead thereof the words "he elects."
    At end of the Clause add the following Sub-sections:—
    "(4) A notice under this Section may be withdrawn by the occupier of the shop at the expiration of a year from the date when it was given, and thereafter at the expiration of any succeeding year, and upon any such withdrawal Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, shall apply to the shop in like manner as before the notice was given.
    "(5) The Shops Act, 1912, as amended by this Act, shall, in its application to any premises in respect to which a notice under this Section is in force, have effect as though the definition of 'shop assistant' included all persons wholly or mainly employed in any capacity at the premises in connection with the business there carried on."—[Sir W. Bull.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Ascertainment of Majority.)
    A majority of assistants for the purposes of this Act shall be ascertained in the prescribed manner.
    Amendment made: Leave out the Clause.—(Sir W. Bull.]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title and Extent.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Shops Act (1912) (Amendment) Act, 1912; and shall be construed as one with the Shops Act, 1912; and the Shops Act, 1912, and this Act may be cited together as the Shops Acts, 1912.
    (2) This Act shall not extend to shops in Ireland in which the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors is carried on.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["may be cited as the Shops Act (1912)"]. Leave out the words "(1912) (Amendment) Act, 1912," and insert instead thereof "1913."
    In Sub-section (1), at end insert "and 1913."—[Sir W. Bull.]
    The orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEARER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. HUNT: Yesterday I raised a question as to the number of ships of the "Dreadnought" type, which are to be ready for war on 1stApril, 1914, and I wish to
    916
    show from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, that we have a smaller number of these ships ready for immediate war and the protection of the country from invasion, than Germany alone will have for the purpose of attack.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present—
    The House was adjourned at a Quarter after Two a.m., Wednesday, 12th February, 1913.