Commons Sitting of 12 February 1913

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

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order dated 10th February, 1913, made under Section 78 of the Act by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Navy and Army Insurance Fund Maternity Benefit) Order, 1913 [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Memorandum relative to Administration of Sanatorium Benefit [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 749 (Leeward Islands, Report for 1911–12) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Return order, "showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by Vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 80, of Session 1912)."— [Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    DESTROYERS IN HOME WATERS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the number of fully-manned, fully-commissioned modern large destroyers Stationed in British ports in January, 1914; and what will be the number of similar destroyers possessed by Germany at that time?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): By January, 1914, there will be 110 large modern destroyers in home waters, in-
    918
    cluding the "Swift," if the proper number of the "Dragon" class has been delivered. In January, 1914, it is anticipated that there will be seventy-seven German destroyers organised in flotillas, which, if not actually in commission, may be regarded as instantly ready, full crews being provided for them permanently.

    German Battleships.
    Mr. HUNTasked the number of men constituting the complement of a fully-commissioned German battleship and battle cruiser of the "Dreadnought" type; and what is the complement of fully-commissioned British ships of the same type?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on the 19th March last.

    Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock (Clerical Staff).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that payment for overtime worked by the clerical staff at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, was suspended in July last; that overtime was continuous throughout August and September, a total of 450 hours extra attendance being given by the clerical staff; whether applications have been made to the Admiralty for payment; and, if so, will he say when this will be sanctioned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are as stated, and payment is being sanctioned in the cases of individuals who have worked a considerable amount of overtime.

    Russo-Mongolian Treaty.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the terms of the Russo-Mongolian treaty interfere with the principle of equal opportunities in Chinese territory; whether this country derives benefit from the convention directly or indirectly; and whether, in regard to its ratification, the question of the integrity of China has been considered by the Powers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The terms of the treaty are at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to state whether British interests are in any way affected. As His Majesty's Government are not a

    919
    party to the treaty there can be no question of ratification as far as they are concerned.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CAVALRY HORSES.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if the Mounted Infantry cobs provided for the use of the 15th Hussars, at Longmoor camp, have gone through the school training which is given to all Cavalry horses; and, if not, whether there is any precedent for supplying a Cavalry regiment with horses which have not gone through Cavalry training, except in time of war; and (2) what are the names of the officers who reported to him that the Mounted Infantry cobs provided for the use of the 15th Hussars were fit for Cavalry purposes; and what regimental experience these officers had of Cavalry requirements?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): On the arrival of the 15th Hussars in England the following alternative courses were open to the Army Council: (1) To use Mounted Infantry cobs to mount the Hussars and render them immediately fit for service as divisional Cavalry; (2) to fill up the 15th Hussars with four-year-old remounts, in which circumstances the regiment would be unfit for war for two years; (3) to fill the 15th Hussars by drafts from other Hussar regiments of the Expeditionary Force. This would have resulted in the transfer of fifty aged horses from each of the six Hussar regiments, and the inclusion in their ranks of 140 remounts, thus interfering with the efficiency of the whole Cavalry Division. The Army Council decided on the first of these alternatives.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether there is any precedent for taking the action that was taken?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not say off-hand, but I should imagine that there are any number of precedents for taking the action we have taken. What we did was to do what we thought was in the best interests of the Army in order to keep this regiment in a fit state to take the field.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: Is it a fact that when this regiment arrived there were no suitable horses for them?
    Colonel SEELY: There were these horses which were suitable in every respect.
    Earl WINTERTON: Were they suitable for taking the field?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, that is exactly what they were fit for.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I suppose we are to understand that nothing but four-year-old horses were available in case of mobilisation?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must assume nothing of the kind. We took the course we considered best to make the 15th Hussars able to take the field if necessary at the first possible moment. I think the action that was taken was a very proper action.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Are they not untrained?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, they are very fully trained for all the purposes for which they will be required in war.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has seen the resolutions of Territorial Associations to the effect that they have never been able to get the necessary number of men, and that the numbers are likely to still further decrease; and whether, in view of this failure, he can say what steps he proposes to take to make the Territorial Force sufficient in numbers and efficient in training for the defence of the country?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth on 17th December. During the last four months the Territorial Force has shown a continued increase in recruiting.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not a fact that a representative of the Government said in the House of Lords that they were short of numbers, and that they were likely to get less? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to leave us in that position?
    Colonel SEELY: The Territorial Force showed continued increase in recruiting. It is constantly stated outside that the force is going down. It is not. It is going up.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War, if members are not joining the Territorials in the numbers hoped for and anticipated; and, if so, whether, seeing that employers who encourage their employés to join are placed

    921
    in considerable disadvantage with those employers who will give their men no extra leave, he will consider if the State could pay the contribution of both employers and employés under the National Insurance Act in respect of men serving in the Territorials?
    Colonel SEELY: At the present time recruiting is progressing satisfactorily; the figures for the December quarter of 1912 are considerably in excess of those for the same quarter in 1910 and 1911. The figures for re-engagements show a similar improvement. During January the net increase of non-commissioned officers and men amounted to 1,291. As regards the second part of the question which presumably refers to the contribution under the Insurance Act the suggestion will be carefully considered.

    BULLETS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the War Office in 1906 issued invitations to manufacturers and others to submit 303 light bullets for trial; whether it was in consequence of the official trials of the light bullets submitted in response to this invitation by Mr. Henry Holland that the present bullet was adopted; and in what particular, if any, does the present light bullet differ from the patent bullet submitted by Mr. Holland to the War Office in 1907 and officially tried by them?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative. As regards the third part of the question, the present light bullet differs in weight, shape, and material, from that submitted by Mr. Holland.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Secretary for War promised to see Mr. Holland on this matter, but was prevented from doing so owing to his elevation to the House of Lords? In view of that fact, and seeing that Mr. Holland has spent at least £1,000 for the War Office, could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange to see him? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see him, is it likely that other rifle manufacturers will spend money in this way?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know anything about the fact first stated. I am anxious that no injustice should be done to this or any other inventor.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that
    922
    Germany has five military airships of the rigid type of large size capable of being safely used at night and of carrying and of discharging quantities of high explosives on to our docks, ships, magazines, and stores; whether we have any airships of more than one-third of the size of the smallest of these five German airships; if he can say why the Government neglected to build large airships; and what steps he proposes to take to guard against the danger of our deficiency?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, it is not considered desirable to make public the steps that have been and are being taken.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not true that the Government have neglected to provide airships, that we are at an enormous disadvantage in comparison with Germany, and that there is danger in case of war that we might have our magazines, stores, and ships blasted with explosives from airships, as we have nothing to protect them?
    Mr. FARRELL: There are 127 questions on the Paper, and if we are to have many supplementary questions we shall not be able to get through half of them.
    Colonel SEELY: The fact that we have not supplied a large number of airships does not imply neglect.

    SOLDIERS PAY.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked what increase has been made in the rates of pay of private soldiers since 1st January, 1906; the amount per man; and the total yearly increase involved thereby?
    Colonel SEELY: No general alteration in the rates of pay of private soldiers has been made during the period in question.
    Mr. F. HALL: Was the late Ministerial Whip under a misapprehension when he stated recently that it had been done?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary of State cannot reply as to what the Whip said.

    ROYAL NORTHERN RESERVE.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether an official pamphlet was issued by the War Office in the year 1901 stating that men belonging to the Royal Northern Reserve might qualify for a pension by re-enlisting for periods of two years at a time until the

    923
    completion of fourteen years' colour service, and promising that if prevented from completing this period of colour service by reason of their attaining the age of forty-five years they should be transferred to a Special Reserve in order to complete twenty-one years of service from the date of their first enlisting, all previous periods of service being counted towards this; whether a subsequent Army Order made it necessary that in all cases fourteen years' colour service should be served in order to qualify for a pension, thus preventing certain soldiers from qualifying; and whether he can do anything to assist such men to obtain their pensions?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by him on 13th December last. I regret that I can add nothing to it.

    Imprisonment of Mr. Arnold (Burma).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government propose to take any steps to inquire into the administration of justice in Burma in connection with the sentence passed on Mr. Channing Arnold and the acquittal of Mr. Andrews by Mr. M'Cormick?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): A petition for leave to appeal has now been lodged on behalf of Mr. Arnold with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its hearing must, of course, be awaited. As regards the last words of the question, I may observe that Mr. Andrews was the acquitting magistrate and Mr. M'Cormick the accused.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask my hon. Friend whether Mr. Arnold is finding the expenses for the appeal, or whether the Government are assisting him, and further whether Mr. Andrews is finding the expenses for his defence, or whether the Government are defending him?
    Mr. BAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the special Grant-in-Aid for medical benefit will be made in respect of insured persons who after the age of seventy still remain entitled to medical benefit; and, if not
    924
    from what source will the extra cost of medical benefit in such cases be defrayed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The special Grant-in-Aid will be paid in respect of all insured persons entitled to medical benefit irrespective of age.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any part of the special Grant - in - Aid for medical benefit under the National Insurance Act will be paid in respect of the first three months after 15th January, 1913, or whether the whole benefits in respect of that period will be provided out of funds under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Grants to insurance committees out of the special Grant-in-Aid will go into the same general account as the moneys available under the Act for expenditure on medical benefit after the Grants have been made. Therefore it will be impossible to say whether any particular payment has been made out of moneys available under the Act or cut of the special Grant.
    Mr. CASSEL: Are not the Government departing from the answer given me by the Prime Minister on 9th January to the effect that none of this special Grant-in-Aid would be so applied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It goes into a common fund. We cannot trace the individual sovereigns that come from the Grant-in-Aid of the National Insurance Fund. There is money to pay the full amount of the contract with the doctors in the insurance fund at present, and this money will be paid into that fund.
    Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the Prime Minister gave me the answer that the special Grant would not be applied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure that I can discuss this matter by question and answer. If you give a Grant-in-Aid to a certain fund when that Grant is paid the amounts are amalgamated and you cannot trace the difference between one and the other.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it will be possible to ascertain the diseases from which any insured person has suffered or is suffering by comparing the records in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners with those in the hands of the insurance committees; and, if so, how far will such

    925
    records be kept secret; will privilege from production in any Court of Law be claimed; and has or will any information from such records be supplied to the Treasury or any other Government Department?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As I have stated in reply to previous questions, the arrangements for the keeping and furnishing of records secure that information which would connect the name of a patient with an entry as to a particular kind of disease could not be obtained by the Commissioners, the insurance committee, or the society. The particulars of illnesses and certain other particulars (but not anything by which the patient can be identified) will be used for statistical purposes.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the half of the form, filled up by the doctors containing the disease is sent to the Insurance Commissioners, and the other half containing the name of the patient suffering from the disease is sent to the insurance committees, and that they can be identified together by the numbers which are on them? If I can prove to the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case, will he take steps to see that proper secrecy is preserved?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the forms are so arranged that it is quite impossible to identify them even if they were kept together.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a maidservant in North Shropshire who has filled in her card and chosen her panel doctor there has been taken ill in Ludlow, South Shropshire, and cannot get any doctor to attend her; and can he say how she is to get a doctor for her serious illness?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend on the 28th January.
    Mr. HUNT: If the servant is kept several days waiting before she can get a doctor to attend her, what is she to do?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Immediately any insured person moves from one area into
    926
    another, he or she should give notice and a new doctor will be provided at once in the new district.
    Mr. HUNT: In this case she did give notice at once by applying for a doctor, and she could not get one.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Notice has to be given to the insurance committee. If that has been done, I shall certainly inquire into the matter.
    Mr. HUNTasked why the panel in the Bridgnorth area of Shropshire was closed from 15th January and is still to be closed for a period of three years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As the number of practitioners available for the panel system in the urban and rural areas of Bridgnorth was not adequate for treatment of insured persons, the Commissioners dispensed with the necessity for the adoption of the panel system for the period named, and authorised the insurance committee to make other arrangements under Section 15 (2) of the Act.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the Prime Minister say that all the panels were to be kept open? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Members of this insurance committee which settled this question were never given notice when this question came on?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not the information at my disposal. This was done by the local insurance committee after a request had been made to the Insurance Commissioners to declare the panel system at an end.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the number of insured persons under treatment for tuberculosis in Lincolnshire on 31st January; and will he give the numbers for Lindsey, Kesteven, and Holland separately?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have inquired of the insurance committees of the districts referred to and will inform the hon. Member of the result of those inquiries.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Huddersfield and Bradford Insurance Committees have issued circulars refusing free choice of doctor outside the panels unconditionally and without exception?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am communicating with the insurance committees concerned,

    927
    and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the difficulties which friendly societies are experiencing in supplying medical benefits out of their own funds to persons who are over sixty-five, and who are not insured under the National Insurance Act; whether such difficulties have arisen from the fact that in consequence of the passing of the Act the arrangements which the friendly societies have hitherto made for supplying medical benefits to their members have been disturbed, and that it is not now possible for the friendly societies to supply medical benefits to their members at the same cost as they did formerly, and that such cost has been increased by 3s. or 4s. a year; and whether he will state what steps the Government are prepared to take in order to enable friendly societies to provide medical benefits for their members who are over sixty-five and are not insured under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not in a position to say whether or to what extent societies have found it impossible to arrange with the doctors who are receiving a higher remuneration than hitherto for insured persons to continue to treat the small and diminishing number of their own aged and infirm patients who are not insured upon the same or approximately the same terms as before.

    EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any regulations have yet been made by the Insurance Commissioners as to the application of contributions paid by employers in respect of employés entitled to exemption; and, if not, whether he will see that such regulations are made as soon as possible and that provision is made for the application of such contributions, so far as possible, in the interests of those in respect of whom they are paid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the last two parts in the affirmative.
    Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea as to when this will be done?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot. There is no immediate urgency about it.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the case of an insured person in Upper Holloway, who was taken ill with pneumonia on 2nd December, 1912, and has since suffered from pleurisy, and who sent a claim for sick benefit to the approved society of which he is a member and received 15s., being ten days' payment from 13th to 22nd January, inclusive, but nothing further; is he aware that, since making the first claim, he has sent in three weekly medical certificates and forms of continued sickness, dated, respectively, 20th January, 27th January, and 3rd February, and has received no additional payment or any communication from the society to whose secretary he wrote, and has been obliged to apply to the guardians for assistance; that his health has suffered from the worry, inconvenience, and delay; and can he take any steps to secure a better administration of the system so as to safeguard sick persons from hardships, anxiety, and the deprivation of necessaries conducive to the restoration of health and strength, and prevent the growth of a lack of confidence in the smooth working of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of the payment of sickness benefit to a member of an approved society is one between himself and the society, subject to appeal to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are forwarding the hon. Member's question to the society.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the time the case has been reached the man may be either dead or in the workhouse?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should think that if this society is self-governing in character, and it is doing its work badly, no doubt. the members who have complete control over the society will see that the work is done well.

    GRATZE, LIMITED (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the remarks of the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court in regard to the prosecution of Gratze, Limited, engineers, for failing to pay the insurance contributions of certain workmen; if the Commissioners had declined to prosecute the workmen themselves, although they had refused to take the necessary action to comply with the

    929
    National Insurance Act; if he is aware that the magistrate stated that the Commissioners had shown great partiality in the matter; that counsel representing the Commissioners had questioned the propriety of the magistrate's decision; and if steps will be taken in future to ensure that the Commissioners shall not victimise employers for the default of their servants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My attention has been called to this case. It appeared in evidence that before proceedings were instituted Messrs. Gratze were given every opportunity of complying with the Act, but that their managing director, Mr. E. V. Gratze, informed the inspector that he had not the slightest intention of insuring his employés or of complying with the Act in any way. Mr. Gratze was himself a member of the council of a body calling itself the Insurance Tax Resisters' Defence Association, one of the declared objects of which is to "admit as members, employers who pledge themselves, not to work the Act," and to persuade others to do the same. In view of these facts the Commissioners felt that the responsibility for the non-payment of contributions in this case rested with the employers, and that in this case the employers must be held responsible for contributions not having been paid. I may add that it is the duty of an employer himself to obtain a card for the purposes of stamping where the employé omits to do so, and that neither Mr. Gratze nor any other person went into the witness box at the Police Court on behalf of the defendants.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is not the statement made now the opposite to that of the magistrate? And would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last few lines of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the statement I have given the actual facts of the case. If an employer wishes to comply with the Act, and employés of that employer persistently resist, action will be taken by proceedings against the employés; but I am profoundly distrustful on some grounds of evidence, of statements made by employers who do not want to pay that it is because the employés do not want the benefits.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: In what position. will the worker be in case the employer refuses to pay his contributions, and the man when he falls sick is in consequence in arrear? What protection will he get?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He can sue the employer for damages; for the amount of money that he would have received if the employer had paid.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it the duty of the Commissioners to prosecute in a case of the kind?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is the duty of the Commissioners to prosecute to obtain the contributions from the employers, and because we have done it in this case we have been subjected to criticism.
    Mr. LYELL: In view of the fact that the Act places the responsibility on the employer, is it not impossible for the Commissioners to victimise the employers for the default of their servants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners have to proceed for a definite specific violation of the Act against those employers who have not stamped the cards, which they are obliged to do under the Act quite apart from anything which the employés do.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the number of claims for maternity benefits for the first three weeks of the operation of the National Insurance Act in the three administrative counties of Lindsey, Kesteven, and Holland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It would be impossible to obtain Information as to the number of claims for maternity benefit in the three particular administrative counties referred to without calling for a return from each of all the societies operating in these counties; and this would entail a considerable amount of work for the societies, as they do not require to classify maternity claims under the counties in which the applicants happen to reside for any administrative purpose.

    INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the number of persons insured under the National Insurance Act in Lincolnshire; and will he give the numbers separately for Lindsey, Kesteven, and Holland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Information is not yet available as to the number of insured persons in the particular districts named by the hon. Member.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the number of insured contributors under Part I. and Part II. of the National Insur-

    931
    ance Act, respectively, within the county of Lanark, exclusive of burghs, in the burghs within the county, and within the burgh of Motherwell, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The approximate numbers of persons insured under Part I. of the National Insurance Act in the county of Lanark exclusive of burghs, in the burgh of Motherwell, and in other burghs within the county are respectively 16,427, 13,750, and 51,823. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the numbers of persons insured under Part II. of the Act who have applied for books at the Labour Exchanges and local agencies in the county of Lanark exclusive of burghs, in the burgh of Motherwell, and in other burghs within the county are 1,086, 6,532, and 130,247.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS (RESTAMPING).
    Mr. HENRY M`LARENasked whether, in the event of the destruction of insurance cards by the burning of the building in which they are kept, the Insurance Commissioners will be prepared to receive evidence of a reliable character showing the value of the stamps on such cards; and whether, in the event of such evidence being satisfactory, they will not require the fresh cards to be restamped?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Applications of the kind referred to must be dealt with on their merits. If my hon. Friend has any actual case in mind the Commissioners will give it sympathetic consideration.

    ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS.
    Colonel HICKMANasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the proposition statement of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (Board of Erin) Friendly Society, having some 130,000 members, in which a pledge is exacted and signed by any person wishing to join this society as an approved society for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, to the effect that he is prepared to use his influence on all occasions in opposition to the presentation of addresses of either welcome or loyalty to any English monarch or representatives of the English garrison until all religious disabilities shall be removed and the legislative independence of Ireland bestowed; and does he propose that a society exacting such a pledge from its members should continue to be an approved society under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. No such pledge is exacted in case of application for membership of any approved society or separate section conducting business under the National Insurance Act. The society named is not itself an approved society, and benefits, connection with its own objects and benefits, which are quite independent of those of the Act, it may have issued the "proposition statement" to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. A separate section has been formed in connection with this society and approved for conducting business under the Act; but its funds and objects and its proposal form does not require the applicant to take any such pledge as that referred to or to join the society itself.
    Colonel HICKMAN: Seeing that I sent to the Prime Minister copies in which these words were actually printed, and which each of these people joining the society under the Insurance Act is obliged to sign, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that these are proper words to employ?
    Mr. REDDY: What authority have you for putting in such a cowardly insinuation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mixing up two separate matters. I know nothing whatever about the proposal form in question, but that section of the association which becomes an approved society under the Insurance Act has nothing whatever to do with any such proposal.
    Mr. FARRELL: Inasmuch as I am a member of the society, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no such declaration is ever written or spoken by any member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to put in a preamble.
    Mr. FARRELL: I wish to ask, Sir, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for West Belfast read the only declaration made in connection with this society, whether it is right that an insinuation of this kind should be put upon the Paper?
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to use his position as a Member of this House to make a false statement which has already been repudiated by the hon. Member for West Belfast?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a false one. The hon. Member sent a copy of the proposition to the Prime Minister, and now it appears that it does not apply to that part of the Ancient Order of Hibernians which has applied to the Insurance Commissioners to become an approved society under the Insurance Act.
    Mr. FLAVIN: It does not apply to any part. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a false statement.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a statement; it is an inquiry.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not the fact that the portion of the Order which wishes to become an approved society has to send its rules previously to the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly; that is so.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is there any statement in the approved rules along the lines stated in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Nothing whatever, as I have already stated.
    Mr. CASSEL: It is only that part of the association which seeks to become an approved society which is dealt with by the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is exactly what I said. The rules of an approved society have to be approved by the Insurance Commissioners.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the number of applications for sanatorium benefit received by the county of Lanark Insurance Committee during the first six months of the operation of the National Insurance Act and the number of cases in which sanatorium benefit was granted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Sixty-three applications were received by the Insurance Committee referred to by my hon. Friend. In fifty-three of these sanatorium benefit was granted; eight other cases are under consideration; the remaining two being refused as the disease was not diagnosed as consumption.
    Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many sanatoria are being built for the purposes of the National Insurance Act; where such sanatoria are situated; what number of patients they
    934
    will hold when complete; and what will be the cost of the buildings?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCOL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My information goes to show that in England fresh provision is already being made for the reception of tubercular patients at Birmingham, Liverpool, Derby, Ford, Bolton, Sutton, Meathop, Wakefield, and Winsley. The number of patients to be provided for in this new accommodation is about 600. I cannot give the precise cost at the present time.
    Mr. WHELER: May I get an answer to my question, What sanatoria are being built, not new buildings?
    Mr. BURNS: The bulk of the new accommodation in the towns I have mentioned consists in substantial additions; and in one case, that of Birmingham, of new buildings.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a sanatorium is being built at Birmingham?
    Mr. BURNS: I suggest that a new pavilion, capable of holding from thirty to forty, is in process of building.
    Mr. WHELER: What will be the cost of those buildings?
    Mr. BURNS: I should be delighted to furnish the cost incurred and the cost per bed if the hon. Gentleman puts a question.

    GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY'S EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the supernumerary gas-lighters of the Gas Light and Coke Company are rightly deprived of 4d. a week, out of their wage of 5s. 6d. a week, for the purposes of National Insurance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Correspondence is still proceeding with the company, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it the fact that deductions are being made from the money of these people?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the correspondence largely concerns whether they are rightly insured under the Act, but I will let my hon. Friend know.

    REGISTRAR REPORTS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Registrar reports to the Insurance Commissioners cases in which actuarial accounts are sent in to him improperly audited; whether such irregularities have occurred; and whether, seeing that such irregularities must lead eventually to the detriment of insured persons, withdrawal of approval of a society has been made in any such case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know of any actuarial accounts requiring auditing. If the hon. Member's question refers to annual returns of registered societies relating to their private side which have not been properly audited, such returns are not reported by the Registrar to the Insurance Commissioners. The Registrar takes steps to see that such returns, which are occasionally received, secure a proper audit. The Insurance Commissioners are not in any way concerned with the auditing of accounts of societies on their private side, and a deficiency on that side could not detrimentally affect the benefits under the Act, as suggested by the hon. Member.

    MARRIED WOMEN (EMPLOYED).
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether two married women employed for two whole days every week and one married woman employed for three whole days every week at 1s. 3d. a day, and whose husbands are in regular work, are compulsorily insurable persons under the National Insurance Act; whether they may claim exemption; and, if exemption is granted, whether their employer must stamp exemption cards for a whole week's work, or for a part of a week, for each employed woman?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the women in question are employed within the meaning of the Act they will be insured as employed contributors unless they apply for and obtain certificates of exemption. Such certificates may be claimed by any persons who possess a pension or income of the annual value of £26 not dependent upon their personal exertions, or who are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood upon some other person. The weekly contribution of 3d. ordinarily payable in respect of an exempt woman remains payable although the woman may be employed for only a part of the week.

    LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTION.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, in the case of a person who at the commencement of the National Insurance Act is between sixty-five and seventy, and is employed, but who before attaining seventy retires from the service of his employer on a pension or otherwise, any contributions under Section 49 of the Act will have to be paid by him or his late employer after such retirement, and until he attains the age of seventy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: When a person to whom Section 49 applies ceases permanently to be employed, contributions at once cease to be payable by or in respect of him.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: In that case, then, if the contributions ceased the benefits would cease too?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He gets full benefits for all contributions he has given.

    MEDICAL PANEL.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if doctors on the insurance panels are permitted to employ assistants for the treatment of insured persons; if such assistants require to be approved by the insurance committees; and if the remuneration of the assistants is fixed by the committees or under regulations of the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A practitioner on the panel may depute an assistant to act on his behalf when he is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home, or other reasonable cause from giving personal attendance to an insured person under his care. It is the duty of the insurance committee to take any necessary steps to secure that the service provided by any assistants is satisfactory, but, subject to this, the remuneration of such assistants is a matter for their principals and themselves to determine.
    Mr. F. HALL: Considering that assistant doctors are allowed to practice, will he consider the advisability of allowing chemists who have practised for thirty years—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    HEALTH INSURANCE OFFICERS.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that

    937
    the travelling and outdoor duties of the staff of health insurance officers expose them to hardships during wet and cold weather; and can he, in view of their small salaries, take steps to provide them with suitable boots, leggings, and overcoats to ensure their work being done under conditions of greater comfort?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am satisfied that the normal duties of a health insurance officer are not of such a nature as to require the provision of special foot wear or overcoats at the public expense, or, indeed, of anything in the way of uniform.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that payments to some of those gentlemen only amounts to about thirty shillings per week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not quite sure, but they are paid a similar amount to officers doing similar work in other branches of the Government service.

    DISPENSERS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the position under the National Insurance Act of an unregistered druggist, duly apprenticed and in the trade for twenty-eight years, and in business for himself for fourteen years, during which time he has been dispensing prescriptions for customers in a colliery neighbourhood, where practically every customer comes under the National Insurance Act; and will he say how the pledge that no one who was qualified to dispense before the Act would be cut out by the Act applies in this case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot add anything to the answers which I have already given to similar questions, except that the Commissioners are this afternoon receiving a deputation from unqualified chemists.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee to inquire into the very numerous cases of hardship that have arisen in consequence of interpretations of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On first thought that seems to be quite a good idea, and I will consider it.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction that has
    938
    been caused amongst sub-postmasters and others by the inadequate remuneration which they have received in respect of the extra work and responsibility involved in connection with the working of the National Insurance Act during the last six months; whether he is aware that in many cases the insurance stamps sold at a single office during that period have amounted to several thousand pounds in value; and whether he will consider applications that may be made to him in such cases with a view to a revision of the scale?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The correspondence on this matter with the Treasury is now concluded, and I am in a position to communicate to the Sub-Postmasters' Federation the terms of remuneration which have been arranged. This is being done at once. As regards officers other than sub-postmasters, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given to similar questions on the 22nd of October and 16th January last.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that some postmasters are only receiving 10s. for six months' work?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Those are merely payments on account until the matter is settled.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Have the sub-postmasters been allowed to present their case to the Postmaster-General?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but before coming to a final decision I am communicating it to the Sub-postmasters' Federation, and that is why I refrained from giving a definite reply to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the correspondence with the Sub-postmasters' Federation be published?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If there is any official correspondence they will be at liberty to publish it, certainly.

    National Services (Costs to Rates).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the maintenance of national services of which the Government has undertaken to relieve the local authorities at present involves a rate of in the £ so far as regards London; and if he will state to what extent this charge will be increased by the

    939
    decision to throw upon county councils the burden of caring for tuberculous persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not certain to what services the hon. Member refers in the first part of the question, but I understand the Exchequer Grants made to London considerably exceed the produce of a 1s. rate. With regard to the latter part of the question the hon. Member will be aware that expenditure by county councils on tuberculous persons is optional. I could not estimate the cost to the rates in the event of this option being exercised in London, as it would depend on the nature of the scheme adopted and other circumstances.

    Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the fact that the Master Builders' Association of London has advanced the labourers' wages one halfpenny per hour; whether he is aware that the painters' labourers employed by contractors on Government buildings in London are not receiving the advance in wages; and can he explain why?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is informed by the Master Builders' Association of London that painters' labourers are not included in the classes of labour benefiting by the advance.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that master builders themselves have advanced the wages of their employés, and that this is simply a quibble to try to get out of the obligation?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member makes it clear that it is the same class of labour in this agreement, then it will be seen that the Fair-Wages Clause is properly observed.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Do these master builders suggest that the painters' labourers have been excluded from the labourers in the building trade?
    Mr. BENN: I have the correspondence, and their reply on the point is in the answer I have given.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Was this agreement before the labourers' council, to which these men are attached?
    Mr. BENN: It only remains for the hon. Member to show that the labour is of the same class as that referred to, and the Fair-Wages Clause will be obeyed.

    Board of Trade.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked whether the hon. Gentleman will consider the possibility of adopting the design made by Inigo Jones for Whitehall for the new buildings to take the place of the present offices of the Board of Trade; and whether he will cause these designs to be exhibited in the Tea Room so that these designs might be seen and utilised for the proposed new buildings?
    Mr. BENN: The First Commissioner proposes to invite competitive designs for the new buildings in question, but he will send for the plans referred to by my hon. Friend, though he cannot as at present informed expect to be able to make use of them.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no clerk in his Department is compelled either to forego the usual Saturday half-holiday or to sacrifice the pay for the first three hours of any overtime they may work, he will take the necessary steps to obtain the cancellation of a practice recently commenced in certain branches of his Department?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Owing to pressure of work, it is sometimes necessary for clerks to forego a half-holiday on Saturday, and in such cases they are not called upon to sacrifice the first three hours of overtime done on previous days of the week. I am not aware of any recent change of practice in the branches of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Might I supply the information?

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state why objection has been made three times to the claim of Patrick Brady, Esker, county Longford, for an old age pension; if he is aware that this man's claim was admitted twice by the Ballinalee sub-pension committee, and the pension was enjoyed also for a term; and why, therefore, the present difficulty has arisen?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiries in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of old age pensioners residing in workhouses in this country on 25th December last?
    Mr. BURNS: The latest complete information at present available on this subject relates to 1st January, 1912. Returns showed that there were on that date 2,191 old age pensioners in workhouses or other Poor Law establishments in England and Wales who were receiving relief which did not disqualify for an old age pension—i.e., medical or surgical assistance only. Similar Returns relating to 4th January, 1913, are at present being received.

    Navy and Army Estimates,
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the short period that will elapse between the opening of next Session and the close of the financial year, he will arrange that the Navy and Army Estimates be printed and circulated before the close of the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that it will not be possible to comply with the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic" (Inquiry— Legal Costs).
    Mr. MORTONasked when a complete account of the costs of the steamship "Titanic" Inquiry last year, with names and amounts of money paid to each person, can be given; and when this House will have an opportunity of considering the expenditure?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have been requested to answer tins question. A detailed statement of the costs of the "Titanic" Inquiry, giving the name of each person and the amount paid in each case is being prepared, and a copy of it will be sent to my hon. Friend this week. Copies will be distributed as soon as they can be printed. I am unable to say what, if any, further opportunity there will be for considering this expenditure.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Land Inquiry Committee have been asked to make a Report on the conditions existing in town and country relative to land tenure, or whether they have been
    942
    asked to also make recommendations to remedy those conditions by legislation or otherwise?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge of the proceedings of the Committee or of the form in which their conclusions will be presented.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the land valuation is to be kept secret for all time; and will no amending legislation be passed by His Majesty's Government with a view to making the valuation accessible to the public on completion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid that I cannot at present make any statement on these points.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it in consequence of statutory provisions that these valuations are kept secret, or is it merely a regulation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That I am afraid I cannot answer. I cannot answer anything about future legislation.
    Mr. BARNES: When will the valutions be completed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for notice.

    Licensing Act, 1904 (Statistics).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors that have been closed under the Act of 1904?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This question should have been addressed to the Home Office, but my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to it. I can at present only repeat the figures given to the hon. Member for North Fermanagh last December, namely, that in the seven years, 1905 to 1911, 7,318 licensed premises in England and Wales were closed with compensation. The figures for 1912 are now being compiled, but are not yet complete.

    Longford Post Office.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General the result of the inquiry into the dismissal of Messenger Feeny at Longford?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have made full inquiry into this case and am satisfied that Feeny has not been unfairly treated. He had no claim to a permanent appointment, and his services were dispensed

    943
    with, because no further work was available for him. I will send to the hon. Member a full statement of the case.

    Telephone Service (County Limerick).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General if he will grant an extension of the telephone service from Limerick and Adare to Rathkeale and Newcastle West, the same as is given to other towns in the county?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will have inquiry made and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Postal Collection (Kilmacow, County Limerick).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General whether, if the required guarantee of £5 per annum be given for the evening collection of letters at Kilmacow by the Kilfinny (county Limerick) Co-operative Dairy Society, Limited, and a profit be made by the post office there owing to the increased postal facilities, the society will be credited with any profits that may arise as a set-off against and in reduction of the amount of the guarantee?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the local services become self-supporting, no payment would be asked from the guarantors, and if the local loss were less than £5 the guarantee would be reduced proportionately.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not demand this guarantee in advance, because I understood the £5 yearly was to be paid in advance, and we will accept the guarantee on the conditions he has laid down?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that.

    Underground Telegraph Cables.
    Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the House any information in regard to the destruction of the aerial telegraph wires and the underground cables between London and Glasgow on the 8th February?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the 7th instant the underground telegraph cable between London and Glasgow was blown up maliciously in the neighbourhood of Hamilton, but it was repaired by the 9th. On the 8th some damage occurred to the serial wires between London and Glasgow
    944
    owing to stress of weather, but communication was at no time wholly interrupted. The maximum delay to messages was one hour and three-quarters.
    Captain MURRAY: Is there any reason to suppose that the persons who committed destruction were militant suffragettes?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is suspected that is the case.
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the frequent suspension, through stress of weather, of telegraphic communication between England and Ireland, he is prepared to lay down underground wires throughout the whole telegraphic routes or, in the alternative, in that part of such route as experience has proved the most trying weather conditions prevail?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Telegraphic communication between England and Ireland has only once been suspended since 1875, namely, in February, 1903. There are eleven cables between Great Britain and Ireland connecting with the main telegraphic system at four different points on the coasts of Wales or Scotland, so that the risk of a simultaneous breakdown of the services is small. The cost of underground routes would be very heavy and quite disproportionate to that risk.
    Mr. BRADY: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that there are existing wires at present between London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and other centres, it would be possible, and perhaps he might give favourable consideration to the suggestion, to connect the Island of Anglesey with the nearest point in England at which there are underground wires?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been considered, but there are several alternative routes. In case the route viâ Anglesey was interrupted by storm the other routes would at once be brought into operation with very small delay.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not the fact that the route viâ Anglesey is very frequently interrupted by stress of weather?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. I think not very frequently.

    Clyffe Post Office, Dorsetshire.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether his atten-

    945
    tion has been called to the case of Mr. William Mitchell, the postmaster at the Clyffe Post Office, Tincleton, Dorsetshire, who is a retired Government official in receipt of a pension of 16s. a week, who was appointed to the position eleven years ago, and has since carried out his duties satisfactorily with the aid of his daughter; whether he is aware that they also conduct a small general shop which, with the post office appointment, constitutes their sole means of livelihood except for the said pension; whether he is aware that the post office is situate in a cottage belonging to a landlord who owns all the land and houses of the village, and who has given Mr. Mitchell notice to quit at the end of this week, and has refused either to withdraw the notice or provide another cottage or sell or lease land to enable another to be built; and whether, seeing that in consequence Mr. and Miss Mitchell have to leave the village and lose their livelihood, and that unpleasantness has been caused between the landlord's agent and Mr. Mitchell by reason of the latter refusing to open the mail-bags after being sealed to admit correspondence after posting hours from the former, and that a person to whom the cottage has been let, has been recommended to succeed Mr. Mitchell as postmaster is an employé of the landlord, and that a cottage is available at Pallington, one mile away, to which the post office could be moved, he will say what steps, under the circumstances, he proposes to take?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Mr. Mitchell has held the appointment of sub-postmaster at Clyffe for nearly nine years. I understand that he is a pensioned chief warder, but I have no information as to his private means. He has been given notice to quit his house on the 15th February, and is unable to secure other premises nearer than Pallington, one mile distant from Clyffe. I have made special inquiries, and have had two reports on the circumstances of this case. I am informed that Pallington, which is a hamlet with a population of only thirty persons, is not a suitable place for the post office, and that its removal there would be inconvenient to the district and would meet with local opposition. Sub-postmasters are required, as a condition of their appointment to provide suitable premises to carry on the business of the Department, and as Mr. Mitchell is no longer in a position to do so, I have no alternative but to transfer the appointment to some other applicant who is. I cannot enter into the
    946
    reasons that may have caused the landlord's agent to give Mr. Mitchell notice to quit, beyond saying that I am informed that the reasons have nothing to do with any personal complaint on his part as to the manner in which Mr. Mitchell has conducted the post office.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conduct of the post office by Mr. Mitchell was always satisfactory?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My officers have had no complaint to make of the way in which the post office was conducted; but some complaints have reached me indirectly from people in the village, not of anything done wrong by the postmaster, but as to the manner in which customers were treated.
    Mr. LYELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any compulsory powers for the acquisition of premises under such circumstances?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give the position to the nominee of the landlord who turned the other man out?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have to give the position to some person who is able to provide suitable premises, and I understand that this is the only applicant.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman thereby putting a premium on eviction? Would it not be fair that he should make it known that he would not allow the law to be strained in this way?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know that the law has been strained. There is another side of the case. [An: HON. MEMBER: "Let us have it all out."]
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the other side?"

    Educational Reform.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can indicate the character of the educational reforms which the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Education, announced on 10th January to be the most urgent of the social problems which the Government had to take up.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am afraid I must defer to next Session anything I have to say in regard to educational reforms?
    Sir W. ANSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to say whether the reforms will be legislative or administrative, or whether they extend to every branch of education or only to some; or are we to understand that the Lord Chancellor's speech merely expressed intentions and good wishes?
    Mr. PEASE: I have nothing to add to the statement already made by the Prime Minister in regard to the legislation of next Session.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the religious question will not be allowed to stand in the way of true educational reform?

    Women Teachers (Pensions).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the majority of the women teachers in the elementary schools are desirous of having the option of retiring with a suitable pension at an earlier age than sixty-five; that many who commenced class teaching at from fifteen to twenty years old, and are now upwards of fifty years old, are conscious of their inability, through physical or mental weakness, to perform their work in the most efficient manner, and yet are unable to claim a breakdown allowance, not being medically certified as permanently incapable owing to infirmity of mind and body; and whether, in fairness to these women and in the interests of the efficiency of their schools, he will consider the advisability of inaugurating a system of earlier optional retirement for women teachers?
    Mr. PEASE: I have received resolutions and representations have been made by deputations which have waited upon me advocating the course suggested in the hon. Member's question. As soon as the Departmental Committee, which I appointed last year, has considered whether and by what amount the total cost of the Amendments of the Superannuation Act of 1898 made by the Act of 1912 will fall short of the money at my disposal they will be prepared, if money is available, to receive evidence on various proposals for improving the existing system, among which is
    948
    included earlier optional retirement from service.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to accelerate the Report or obtain an interim Report from the Departmental Committee, as this is considered a matter of great urgency amongst women teachers?
    Mr. PEASE: I have represented to the Chairman the urgency of the matter, but I understand the delay is entirely due to the time required for actuarial investigations.

    Infected Milk.
    Mr. F. HALLasked how many epidemic outbreaks occurred in England and Wales in the years from 1906 to 1912, inclusive, from the consumption of infected milk, and the number of deaths arising therefrom?
    Mr. BURNS: A number of outbreaks of enteric fever, scarlet fever, and diphtheria have during the last six years been traced to the consumption of specifically infected milk. Perhaps the most important of these was an outbreak of scarlet fever in 1909, reported on by Dr. Hamer to the London County Council and Dr. H. Jones to the Surrey County Council. In several published reports by medical inspectors of my Department particulars have been given of outbreaks of enteric fever traced to milk. Though I have thus a certain amount of information, it is not sufficient to enable me to give a complete statement of the total number of outbreaks and of the deaths due to them.

    Vivisection.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the memorandum signed by three of the Royal Commissioners on Vivisection in which they state their opinion that the weight of evidence is opposed to the view that only administrative modifications are required in order to give effect to the changes which experience proves to be desirable in the law relating to experiments on living animals, and further express their doubt whether such modifications as are suggested in the Report signed by all the Commissioners can be adequately carried out without legislation; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation in the next Session of Parliament in order to give effect to such recommendations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have carefully considered the memorandum in question and the desirability of introducing legislation, and I am satisfied that no legislation is necessary for the purpose of giving substantial effect to the recommendations of the Commission mentioned in this memorandum.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that all the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Vivisection can be carried into effect without new legislation?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I am satisfied that no legislation is necessary for the purpose of giving substantial effect to the recommendations of the Commission.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is ready to take the undivided responsibility. Is not the responsibility now by statutory enactment—by the Act of 1876—divided between himself and certain learned authorities?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will look further into that point.
    Mr. G. GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, by statutory enactment divides the responsibility in regard to experiments on living animals, in the matter of the granting of licences and certificates to experimenters, between the Secretary of State and certain learned authorities, whereas the Royal Commissioners on Vivisection were unanimously of opinion that such responsibility should rest upon the Secretary of State alone, he will introduce legislation to amend the Act of 1876 in this respect?
    Mr. McKENNA: The majority of the Commission were of opinion that no change was necessary or desirable with regard to the present system of granting licences and certificates. I do not propose to introduce legislation on this matter. The Secretary of State has power to disallow or suspend any ceritficate, and the final responsibility therefore rests with him.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Did not the Commissioners unanimously recommend that the responsibility should be undivided upon the Secretary of State?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. That is the same question as my hon. Friend has already put. I will look further into that point.
    950
    I may remind him, from the answer I have just given, that the ultimate responsibility rests solely upon the Secretary of State now.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State has never suspended any certificate, and that vivisectionists have had a free hand?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. G. GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recommendation made in the memorandum signed by three of the Royal Commissioners on Vivisection, and attached to the Report, that a provision should be inserted in the Act regulating experiments upon living animals requiring all experimenters in every case in which obvious suffering of the animal has supervened forthwith painlessly to destroy such animal; and whether he will introduce legislation in order to give effect to such recommendation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the majority of the Commission were of opinion that the object in view could be sufficiently attained by means of the Secretary of State's power of attaching conditions to licences, and I am taking steps to carry out this recommendation. In the circumstances legislation appears to me to be unnecessary.
    Mr. G. GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether, in the appointment of inspectors of places registered for the performance of experiments upon living animals, he will have regard to the recommendation made in the memorandum attached to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, and signed by Colonel LockWood, Sir William Collins, and Dr. G. Wilson, to the effect that persons qualified in veterinary medicine and science ought not to be deemed ineligible for any of such inspectorships?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think this is a matter in which I ought to be generally guided by the advice of the majority of the Commission. I do not say that in no circumstances would I consider an application from a person qualified only in veterinary medicine and science, but I have invited applications from medical men, and I do not doubt that qualified candidates will be forthcoming.

    Coal Mines Act, 1911.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken in Scotland to provide rescue and ambulance appliances and to form and train rescue brigades under Section 85 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and whether, having regard to the risks to which miners are constantly exposed, he will take action, pending the final adjustment of the general regulations to be made under the Act, to secure that suitable provision is made for rescue and ambulance work in the Lanarkshire and other Scottish coalfields?
    Mr. McKENNA: The whole question will be considered when the returns from the mine owners as to provision made in pursuance of the Rescue and Aid Order have been received and examined. Meantime, I am not in a position to give full information on the subject, but I may say that one rescue station is established and in full working order at Cowdenbeath and another is in the course of erection at Kilmarnock. Two hundred and ninety men have already been trained at Cowdenbeath, and fifty-four more are in course of being trained there. I am informed by the Divisional Inspector of Mines for Scotland that the provision of ambulance appliances is satisfactory, each mine having installed what is required.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why no action has been taken in the rest of Scotland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Parish Councils (Mode of Election).
    Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that there are objections to the present method of election of parish councillors whereby, where the candidates are more in number than the persons to be elected, the voting is by show of hands in open meeting, he will take steps to alter the law in that respect so as to secure some more secret and freer mode of election in such cases?
    Mr. BURNS: The suggestion of my hon. Friend will receive my consideration when an opportunity occurs for issuing a new Election Order.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. JOWETTasked if the relatives and friends of prisoners recently sen-
    952
    tenced at Clerkenwell Sessions are being refused permission to visit them?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the question refers to the ordinary visits allowed to the friends of prisoners, the reply is in the negative. The prisoners in question will be entitled to a visit at the end of a month provided that their conduct continues to be good.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that complaints are being made by suffragists in regard to Vine Street, Rochester Row, and Cannon Row police stations that the cells in which prisoners are placed pending their trial in the Police Court are dirty, in-sanitary, and ill-ventilated, and that in case of women remand prisoners a male warder is in charge of the cells during the night, and that plank beds are supplied with very dirty rugs for bedding; and, if so, what steps he is taking to remove the cause of these complaints?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police reports that the cells at the stations named are not dirty, insanitary, or ill-ventilated. The beds are plank beds, which are supplied with clean and suitable bedding. A male warder is never in charge of female cells, a matron being always in attendance when women are detained. I may add that remand prisoners are never detained overnight at any police station.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of doing away with the plank bed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the complaints which are being made by suffragists that male and female prisoners are conveyed to and from their respective prisons together in prison vans which are overcrowded; and, if the complaints are justified, what steps he is taking to have this state of things altered?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the prison vans are not overcrowded. Female prisoners are always conveyed in closed compartments entirely separate from the males. Prisoners for whom there is not sufficient room in the van are conveyed to prison in cabs.
    Mr. JOWETTasked, concerning the conveyance of a suffragist from Holloway prison to Bow Street last Thursday, how many compartments were contained in the prison van in which she made the journey; the number and sex of the persons confined in each compartment; and the offences with which they were charged?
    Mr. McKENNA: The lady in question was conveyed in one van part of the way, and in another for the remainder of the journey. I cannot, in reply to a question, give full particulars of all the prisoners conveyed in the same van, but I may say that in the first van she was in a compartment by herself, and in the second van in a compartment with another woman. The charge against the latter was one of soliciting. The sexes are always separated in the prison vans.
    Earl WINTERTONasked if Miss Sylvia Pankhurst, when being charged with an offence at Rochester Row Police Court, Westminster, assaulted a police officer by throwing ink at him and striking him in the face that the police officer intimated that he did not intend to proceed against her for assault; and if there is any precedent for the police authorities refraining from prosecuting a prisoner for assaulting one of their officers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The facts are as stated. There are innumerable precedents of prosecutions not being taken for petty assaults on police officers.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it then intended in future to adopt this sort of procedure in the case of ordinary prisoners as it is with these wealthy disorderly agitators?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I have said, there are innumerable precedents for not prosecuting in cases of this sort in regard to offenders of all ranks and classes, and of both sexes.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is a trivial offence to throw ink at an inspector and hit him in the face?
    Mr. McKENNA: The offence in this case was a petty one; it is not worth the serious attention of the Noble Lord.

    Workmen's Compensation Act, 1908.
    Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary if he intends on an early date to ap-
    954
    point a Committee to hold an inquiry into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906?
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter has had my careful consideration, but in view of the possible effect of the National Insurance Act on the question of accident compensation, I have come to the conclusion that the inquiry would be premature if undertaken at the present time.

    Linen-Weaving Trade, Lurgan.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can ascertain if any of the linen-weaving firms involved in the Lurgan dispute, Ireland, hold any contracts under any of the various Government Departments, with a view to ascertaining whether such firms have been observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Board of Trade have no contracts for linen. I am unable to answer for other Departments, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should make inquiries of the War Office, Admiralty, and possibly the Prison Commissions of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the existence of a trade dispute for the past four weeks in the linen-weaving trade in Lurgan, Ireland, in which over 1,500 workpeople are concerned, and that the wages earned by men average between 10s. and 12s. a week; whether his Department has opened up communications with the patries involved in the dispute; whether there is any hope of the good offices of the Board being used to effect a settlement; and whether he will ascertain what were the average weekly wages paid to men by the firms involved in this dispute during the four weeks preceding the dispute?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware of the dispute referred to by my hon. Friend, which is one that has been receiving the attention of the Chief Industrial Commissioners' Department. I understand that negotiations with a view to a settlement of the dispute are in progress between the parties at the present moment. Pending these negotiations, it would, I think, be premature to make any further statement.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Departmental Committee on foot-and-mouth disease issued last summer and the recommendations contained therein in reference to the effective sterilisation of hides and other material infected with anthrax; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have nothing to add at present to the answer which I gave to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member on 7th January.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Are the Board of Trade taking cognisance of this matter—I addressed my question to the President?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; it lies in the purview of the Board of Agriculture.

    English and Russian Wheat.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wheat imported from Russia in 1912 and the wages of agricultural labourers in that country, and the amount raised in England in the same period and the average wages paid?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The quantity of wheat imported into the United Kingdom in 1912 from Russia was 2,101,423 imperial quarters, which compares with an estimated yield of 7,175,416 quarters in this country. Inclusive of the estimated value of allowances the average weekly earnings of all classes of men employed as agricultural labourers in England in 1907 was 18s. 4d., in Wales 18s., in Scotland 19s. 7d., and in Ireland 11s. 3d. Since that date there has been some slight increase in cash rates. I am unable to give comparable averages for the whole of Russia, but some information as to the wages of agricultural labourers in that country will be found on pages 22–25 of the fourth Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics (Cd. 5415).
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the average wage of agricultural labourers in Russia where this wheat is imported from, in the ordinary way is about 3s. per week?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am unable to get comparable averages for Russia.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Where these low wages are paid, is it a Protectionist country?

    Malta.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recommendation by the Royal Commission on Malta, in paragraph 285 of its Report, regarding the erection there of a large hotel of the first class, and the statement contained therein that the Government of Malta were willing to surrender on advantageous terms a site in a central and commanding position for such an hotel, and the applications and offers that were made in consequence for the construction of such an hotel, have now been finally considered by the Government of Malta; and what prospect there is of the recommendation in this respect made by the Royal Commission being carried into effect?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): There seems to have been some misunderstanding, as the site to which the Royal Commissioners alluded was not actually available owing to the possibility that the site might eventually be required for military purposes. No progress has, therefore, been made in the matter; but I am addressing a further dispatch to the Governor of Malta requesting him, if possible, to find a suitable site for an hotel, and to invite offers for its construction.

    Inshore Fisheries (Departmental Committee).
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is no representative of the port of Grimsby on the Departmental Committee that has been appointed to inquire into the condition of the inshore fisheries, although Grimsby is the largest fishery port in Great Britain and specially concerned in the proper preservation of those fisheries; and whether he will appoint some person of special knowledge from that port to serve on the Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No members of the Committee in question have been appointed to represent particular ports interested in the fishing industry, but I have no doubt that the Committee will be glad

    957
    to receive evidence from the port of Grimsby if it is offered to them.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. OUTH WAITEasked how many men were employed on the Skidby and East Heddon estates before they were acquired under the Small Holdings Act; and how many are now employed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that on the Skidby estate before it was acquired for small holdings there were nine men fully employed and two partly employed, and that now there are fourteen fully employed and eighteen partly employed. On the East Heddon estate there were formerly ten men employed as against thirty-five at the present time, with additional assistance at certain seasons in each case.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May we take it that there is more than twice as much wealth produced on the land now than previously, and that at the same time rates have been doubled?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say what the produce of the land was. But what we do know is that the rates on the land, apart from the buildings, have been doubled, and that the amount of labour employed has been increased by at least twice.

    Swine Fever (Administration).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a joint request from the county councils of Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire, after prolonged negotiations between such councils, to permit their counties to be treated as a single area for the purposes of swine fever administration; and, if so, whether he proposes to accede to such request?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Swine fever has been so much more prevalent recently in Gloucestershire than in either Worcestershire or Warwickshire that, in the opinion of the Board, the present is not an opportune time for making the arrangement proposed.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the farmers on the borders of the three counties are very anxious that this should be carried out, in order to facilitate their marketing arrangements?
    958
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I am aware; but there are serious local difficulties which, I am afraid, owing to the prevalence of disease in Gloucestershire at the present time, would mean that they would be unequally yoked with the other counties.

    Irish Cattle (Port of Heysham).
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is any prospect of the port of Heysham being opened for the reception of Irish cattle; whether he is aware that the delay in opening it is causing loss and inconvenience to shippers from the port of Londonderry; and has he received representations on the subject from those concerned, including the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the Midland Railway Company are considering whether it is preferable to adapt the existing landing place in conformity with the Board's requirements, or to provide entirely new accommodation. I have received representations on the subject from several interested bodies including a letter dated the 2nd October last from the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONARLAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Government hope to take any business to-night after the Railways (No. 2) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take the Committee stage of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions) Bill, and unless there is serious opposition to it, the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill—Committee.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed late with the Railways Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get through the Committee stage.

CAPTAIN SCOTT'S ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION.

  MESSAGE FROM NORWEGJAN STORTUING.
  Mr. SPEAKER informed the House (Members having uncovered), that he had received the following telegram relative to the death of Captain Scott, R.N., and other members of the Antarctic Expedition, from the President of the Norwegian Storthing:—
  Christiania Storthing,
  Feby. 12, 1913.
  The Norwegian nation has followed Scott and his companions with sincere interest during their hazardous expedition, and is now deeply snored by the news of the calamity that has befallen them after success had crowned their efforts. The Norwegian Storthing desires to express to the British Parliament their deep sympathy and regret for the grievous loss sustained by the British. Nation and the whole of mankind by the death of the heroic discoverers.
  LOEWLAND, President.
  The House will probably desire me to send a suitable answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED, AGREEMENT.

  REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed).
  Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
  Sir Albert Spicer reported that Mr. L. J. Masse, a Witness before this Committee, had refused to give information in his possession, and to produce letters asked for by the Committee which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be laid before them.
  He had, therefore, been instructed by the Committee to report the circumstance to the House, in order that the House may take such steps as may seem to the House proper and necessary.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 515.]

  FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS).
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Local Government Franchises and the Registration of Local Government Electors."
  The object is to make a very substantial addition to the women on the local government electorate. I believe there is sympathy with this object on both sides of the House, both in the ranks of the suffragists and the anti-suffragists. The Bill proposes to enfranchise the bulk of married women who do not enjoy the local government vote at present. It is well known this cannot be done by merely enfranchising women upon the same terms as men. You have to find a new qualification, and I desire to make my acknowledgment to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), because I followed in this Bill the method of his celebrated Amendment to the Deceased Franchise Bill, and I propose to enfranchise the wives of occupiers provided that they reside in the same premises. This proposal is put forward purely on its merits on the ground that married women have a natural interest in and great experience of matters with which local authorities chiefly deal, such as education, housing and sanitation, and also on the ground that it would be a great advantage to efficient local government to enlist the co-operation of married women.
  But I have also another object in view which will not necessarily command the agreement of all hon. Members who backed the Bill, and that is to provide a large and representative body of registered women

  995
  who can be consulted if and when a Referendum on Women Suffrage is taken. This Bill does not bring the Referendum any nearer. It can be supported by those strongly opposed to the Referendum for Women Suffrage or anything else, but the advantage is that if the desire to hold such a Referendum is ever carried, a great obstacle is removed. There is a general feeling that if such a Referendum is demanded, it would not be complete unless in some shape or form the women are consulted as to whether they should have the Parliamentary vote. At the present the local government female electorate is too small; it is only one million and a quarter; it is riot representative of the sex as a whole. But if you were, as this Bill proposes to do, to increase that electorate by large numbers, you would for the first time have a large body of registered women to whom this great and vexed question of Women Suffrage would, in the first instance, have to be submitted, and who could return an answer which could be properly said to be an answer representing the views of the sex.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Ward, Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Campion, Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Hills. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to he read a second time To-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 365.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In addressing you, Mr. Speaker, when addressing the House, we fulfil a mere formality, but on the present occasion I am going to make an appeal to you in a different capacity in reference to this Bill, and that will be that you should use the Act passed to reform the House of Lords in such a way as will preserve the liberties of the House of Commons. You, Sir, have a function in reference to this Bill which none of your predecessors ever had or ever could have exercised, and the way you will exercise that function concerns every Member of
  996
  this House and concerns the preservation of its ancient constitution, and also, I venture to think, concerns the honest working of the financial system under which we live. You have to give a certificate, if this Bill is to pass into law without the sanction of another place, that it is a Money Bill. I say that as regards the sum of £1,800,000 of Supply in this Bill that this Bill no more deserves the name of a Money Bill than a forged note of the Bank of England deserves the name of a money transaction. I say that this Bill is a forged note so far as its provisions affecting the Insurance Act are concerned. I say it is grossly and abominably illegal. and I arraign the Minister and through him the Cabinet, because I assume that what was done in this case was done on corporate Ministerial responsibility. I arraign the Minister and the Cabinet of being guilty of one of the greatest acts of illegality ever practised by a responsible Government, and I say that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the passing of this Bill. made an appeal to those who were opposed to it, as I was—I am happy to say I voted against the Third Reading of the measure—now that the Bill was law that it was our duty to obey it. As far as I am concerned, to every extent in my power I have done so, and never certainly made any protest against its enactment once it passed in this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was especially emphatic in appealing to the public in reference to the agitation which existed as to providing stamps and so forth, and he was most eloquent in appealing to the public that they should obey the law. It is now the law of the land, and it is the duty of every 4.0 P.M. good citizen to obey that law. If any person fails to put the necessary stamps upon the documents connected with insurance the right hon. Gentleman immediately has him prosecuted at Petty Sessions, and many persons have been sent to prison for refusing to obey this law. Who is the principal lawbreaker in connection with this measure Why the right hon. Gentleman who has appealed to the law of the land, because what has happened is, that while the entire Statute is governed by Section 3 which provides that Parliament has only to find two-ninths of the contribution, this Bill has been introduced for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Gentleman to repeal the Third Section by implication, and to do it without the knowledge of the House of Commons, and in this way sneak and

  997
  smuggle this Bill through the House without letting us know what the Bill is for, and when it has been passed unawares by this House we are told afterwards that we have thereby repealed the Third Section of the Act of 1911. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman has taken the most desperate gambler's course that has ever been taken by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. If everybody knew, as the right hon. Gentleman knew and must have known, that in regard to every contract made either with a doctor or anybody else before this Bill could pass into law he had no power to make any fresh contract, I should like to know in what position the persons were placed with whom those contracts purported to have been made. Until this Bill comes into law there is no more power to expend a single shilling beyond the two-ninths contribution than there is to take the money out of the pockets of private individuals.
  What was the excuse made last night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He said that this had often been done before and that he had armfuls of precedents, but he did not quote one. I do not think any precedent can be found, because no precedent exists for the repeal of the Statute by means of an Appropriation Act. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I had no knowledge of Treasury technicalities. I do not profess to possess that knowledge, because it is not my business or duty and I am paid no salary for understanding them. I come here as an ordinary individual to take up such Papers as the Government afford me. I am not supplied with information from the place behind Mr. Speaker's chair. I am not supplied with a prompter's box, in connection with which one may also remark that in previous Parliaments you would sometimes see an official sitting under the gallery where occasionally a furtive visit was paid by Ministers to consult him on some matter. That was done perhaps once in a night or once a week, but under the prompter's box system this Government have established a system of associating us directly with the officials whom they bring down in a group. We know it has always been asserted that it is beyond the power of the First Commissioner of Works even to take down the grille in the Ladies Gallery, but this Government has changed the whole method of the House of Commons, and I say that the ordinary Member who has not such assistance need have no shame and feel no particular sensitiveness if he is
  998
  charged with being without that knowledge which the receipt of £5,000 a year and the assistance of half a dozen secretaries is supposed to confer.
  The right hon. Gentleman says he has precedents. Will he oblige us by reading them? He said last night that this Grant is not made under any special Section of the Insurance Act. Am I correctly translating the observations of the right hon. Gentleman? If this Grant is not made under any special Section of the Insurance Act, what is the meaning of this provision in the Bill: "For Grants-in-Aid of National Health Insurance in addition to the sums payable under Section 3." In other words, whereas Section 3 provides that the whole of the expenses shall be found under that Section, including the expenses of administration, you now ask us for three months of the year alone for a sum of £1,800,000 outside the provisions of Section 3. How, then, can the right hon. Gentleman say that this is voted under the general provisions of the Act when, by his own enactments, he states that it is granted outside the provisions of Section 3, in addition to the sums payable under Section 3. If you have power to raise money outside the provisions of Section 3, as you claim to have, what is the Section that gives you that power? If this system of legislation is going to be continued in this House it must be continued not in the Appropriation Bill for the present Session, because we are only dealing with three months, and if for three months you want £1,800,000 for provisions outside of Section 3, what will you want for twelve months? If you have no extra legislative authority beyond What this confers, will it not be necessary that in every Appropriation Bill for all future time you will have to make provision for enabling money to be raised in addition to the provisions of Section 3? Therefore I say that this Bill is a repeal of the provisions of Section 3, and I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should not give to this Bill your certificate under the Parliament Act certifying that it is a Money Bill. This is not a Money Bill, but a Bill to repeal the provisions of the Insurance Act. There is no means by which a Member of this House can ascertain what certificates the Chair has given under the provisions of the Parliament Act, but no doubt the Chair will find time to place sonic memorial upon the journals of this House or its Library which will enable hon. Members interested in these questions to ascertain what is the view

  999
  of Mr. Speaker with regard to the provisions of the Parliament Act. I can quite conceive that a certificate might be given under Section 3 by the Chair.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that this Estimate was presented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget of 1911. He then stated that he would be able to give the doctors 4s. and he based his Act upon that figure. The doctors, through their trade union, as everybody else does, raised their price, which they were fully entitled to do, and I do not complain whether they got 8s. or 28s., because that is not the point of my complaint. My complaint is that contracts should not be illegally made either with doctors or anybody else. If the doctors are to get more money, let us have it stated in the Statute. Great care was taken last year with regard to the miners. The Prime Minister, in a pledge with which we all sympathise, because it was made under great and strong pressure, refused to put a minimum wage into the Miners' Bill. The minimum wage the doctors were to get in 1911, according to the view of the Government, was 4s., but owing to the operation of the doctors' trade union they have screwed up that wage to more than double that amount, and their insistence has thrown this Bill out of gear. That being so, I maintain that the two-ninths is now as dead as Queen Anne, because it is absurd to contend that this ninepence for four-pence, or this two-ninths as against seven-ninths, has not now gone the way of many other Ministerial professions. The two-ninths is dead, and the ninepence for four-pence is dead, because they have been killed by the doctors' agitation, and that being so, do not let the Government through the instrumentality of a Finance Bill, or by means of an Appropriation Act, hoodwink the House of Commons, because no statement was made when this Bill was introduced that it was intended as a supplementary measure to the finance of the Insurance Act. The Government are trying to throw dust in our eyes by the suggestion of Supplementary Estimates. True, we have beaten the doctors on one field of battle, but they have beaten us on another field. They have rendered the profession of two-ninths, and the nine-pence for fourpence, practically obsolete. Having done that, I ask, was it ever contemplated by Parliament at any time in its history that when such an Act was passed under such conditions, and had
  1000
  practically been repealed by the Minister of Finance, that Minister should then try to smuggle through an Estimate for the purpose of covering over his own glaring blunders.
  The right hon. Gentleman certainly enjoys an opportunity and a position and a faculty which no other Minister has. Supposing the Secretary to the Navy in a time of peace without warlike necessity and without threat and peril to these shores increased the Vote for "Dreadnoughts" from two capital ships to ten and then said, "I did it because I wanted to increase and enhance my popularity in the country," what would this House say? His object would be good; everybody would approve of his action as regards defence, but would anyone say he could subtract himself from the authority of this House and order ships according to his whim when Parliament had not sanctioned them? Let us take another illustration. Supposing the staff connected with any Government Office had been limited by Statute to a certain proportion, what would this House say if, without being told that invasion of the Statute was being made, an attempt were perpetrated under the cloak and cover of an Appropriation Bill to double or treble that staff contrary to Parliamentary authority? I respectfully say to you, Sir, that you should not give a. certificate simpliciter under this Bill, and I say it for this reason. If you withhold your certificate, Ministers will regularise their procedure, but, if you grant your certificate, you will have associated the Chair with the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will be able to boast not merely that he has had the sanction of this House in Committee and not merely that you had put it in a formal manner from the Chair, but that you had afterwards certified that this was a Finance Bill. We are now told these Finance Bills are so elastic that you can entirely change prior Statutes by means of the system of Votes in Supply, and my suggestion is that you should give a certificate of fact, and that you should not be tied merely to certifying that this is a Finance Bill. It is a Finance Bill coupled with the repeal of the Insurance Act, and I respectfully ask that you should certify accordingly. Your certificate under the Section is this:—
  "There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for Assent, the certificate

  1001
  of the Speaker of the House of Commons, signed by him, that it is a Money Bill."
  It is a Money Bill, but it is not a Money Bill in the sense of any Bill that has ever yet passed this House. It is a Money Bill with a hump to it; it is a Money Bill which repeals the provisions of the other Act, and it has been introduced by the Minister who alone controls this Department. No other Minister, no matter who he may be, would be allowed to bring in a measure without having the rampart of the Treasury to cross. We have heard of appeals from Philip drunk to Philip sober, but here the appeal is from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every other Minister, no matter what he wants, has to go hat in hand to the Treasury, but he apparently can launch programmes of his own, independent of his colleagues. We have found this in the Single Tax campaign. We do not know whether Estimates have yet been presented or are to be presented for the expenses of these inquiries for throwing all taxation upon the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] We do not know it. Nobody would have believed in December last when the right, hon. Gentleman was arguing with the doctors that he was going to go outside the two-ninths proportion. Nobody would have believed it was contended he could do it, but he has done it. Therefore, on these grounds I respectfully ask you not merely to certify simpliciter if you feel bound to give such certificate, but to give your certificate in such a form as would in future protect the House of Commons from outrages upon the Constitution which has always regulated the finances of this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would perhaps be convenient if I now made a reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman has read Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act:—
  "There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons—"
  and so on. Then Sub-section (2) describes what a Money Bill is:—
  "A Money Bill means a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contained only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely—"
  1002
  I leave out the unimportant words—
  "the Appropriation ….. of public money."
  Therefore, if in my judgment this Bill contains only the appropriation of public money, I shall be compelled to certify it is a Money Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me now to make an answer, and I can only say I will carefully consider everything he has said this evening before I give my certificate on the Bill. I do not think it is open to me to give anything but the certificate in the form set out in the Parliament Act. I can either give that certificate or none at all. It would not be competent for me to give a qualified certificate.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure the House will await with great interest the decision which you will have to take at a later stage of this Bill as to whether you should endorse it as a Money Bill or not. I do not rise to submit any further considerations to you on that subject, but to renew an appeal, this time to the Prime Minister, which I made last night, in the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Financial Secretary, and to which he did not think it necessary to respond in the course of that Debate.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I had no opportunity.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested that the House would have been willing to hear the right hon. Gentleman if he had been willing to make use of the opportunity. If he thought it not right to do so, I have no right to complain, but I take the opportunity of the Prime Minister being here to address to him a question which I should more naturally have addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but which is really one of sufficient consequence to justify me in putting it personally to one of the Treasury Ministers. Parliament, in the Insurance Act, specifically laid down in respect of certain expenses that they should be borne as to seven-ninths by the employer or employed and as to two-ninths by the Treasury. This Estimate is an additional Grant from the Treasury towards those expenses, and by making this additional Grant you destroy the proportions laid down by Statute. This Grant being paid, Section 3 of the Insurance Act is of no effect as regards the proportions of the payments. The amount to be raised from the employer

  1003
  and from the employed still remains fixed by that Statute, but the amount contributed by the State, instead of being two—ninths, becomes a considerably larger proportion of the total or enhanced sum. I do not challenge the additional payment to the doctors. I rise only for the purpose of challenging the procedure by which the Government seeks to give effect to it. By means of a Vote in Supply, followed by an appropriation in the Appropriation Bill, the Government are reversing the expressed statutory provisions of Section 3 of the Insurance Act, and that is not a light matter.
  When the Insurance Act was under discussion in Committee this proportion of seven-ninths and two-ninths was settled early in order to prevent the House of Commons requiring any larger contribution from the State funds. We complained again and again that the Chancellor's very insistence on fixing the contributions in those proportions prevented us from making the best use even of the particular sum which he was willing to allot. He admitted that was so, but he insisted upon fixing that proportion because at the same time it fixed the total contribution and protected him against any claims from other people. Accordingly, he fixed it by Statute and as early as the Third Section, and now, having done that to bind the House of Commons, he, in defiance of the Statute and without legislative authority, reverses the decision which he forced on the House of Commons. I can recall only two precedents, and only one before their own time, for the course which the Government are taking. I shall not dwell upon the one they made themselves, because a manufacturer may not plead his own past misdeeds in palliation of a repetition of them. The only other precedent I know is the attempt of Mr. Gladstone's Government in the early eighties to pay certain resident magistrates in Ireland at a higher rate than the Statute provided. It was alluded to last night by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy). The history of that precedent is instructive and conclusive. It was done, I think, two years running; and it was twice condemned by the Public Accounts Committee in very strong language. The Treasury itself concurred in the condemnation passed by the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Gladstone made an effort to secure legislative sanction for the course he pro-
  1004
  posed, and, failing through opposition and for want of time to get his legislative sanction, he abandoned the attempt; he abandoned the infringement of the Statute. That being the only precedent before the time of the present Government for such a course of action as this, and the case being as bad as I have shown it to be—I think it is very bad when the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately imposes this limitation on the House in the discussion on the Insurance Bill and then as deliberately breaks the law which he himself induced the House to pass—I repeat my appeal to the Prime Minister. My appeal is not that, at this period of a Session such as this, they should find time to regularise their action, but I ask that they should admit that this is not a precedent to be followed, and that they should underake that in the next Session, before a similar Vote conies round, they shall have presented to Parliament, and passed through Parliament, a law, it may be simply a one-Clause Act, varying Section 3 in such a sense as to authorise this payment. They should make their action regular to prevent this from being brought up as a precedent. I think it is a bad precedent. I am fully confident it is not a precedent that would be allowed in the case of any other Department than the Treasury. It is only because the Chancellor is at once—what shall I say?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Pooh Bah.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My comparison was not quite so strong as that. It was the case of two persons rolled into one. It is only because the Minister who wants to spend is the same Minister who has to guard the financial proprieties that this course is allowed in this case. I do not think it is a course that should be allowed, and I hope the Prime Minister will make the course which the Government have pursued regular in the future, if not in the present, and by taking such a step prevent their present action being brought up as a precedent.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I very much regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reason of which the House is aware. He could deal with it much more fully than I could possibly do now, bat I gladly respond to the appeal the right hon. Gentleman has made. I listened with a good deal of regret to some parts of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. M. Healy). I do not think it was quite

  1005
  necessary to impart so much heat into the matter as he did.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman was not here on Friday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather sorry that he adopted so remarkably controversial a tone in the discussion of what, after all, is a serious point of constitutional practice. He arraigned the whole of us on this bench in somewhat strong language. I do not think that language of that kind is altogether warranted by the circumstances of the case. I do not go into the question, which is entirely one for the Chair, whether or not under the provisions of the Parliament Act, this Bill falls within the category of a Money Bill. We are at present discussing the Second Reading. Now I may state my own view as an old Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters, and I believe one of the strictest purists in the House of Commons. I take, and have always taken, a very serious view of the importance of following custom and rules in our procedure. I do not think it is desirable, on the contrary I think it is very undesirable, that the Appropriation Act should be resorted to in a manner which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member so as to override the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He used the expression "subterfuge." I do not know what he meant by that. The Supplementary Estimate is presented to the House of Commons, which has the fullest opportunity of discussing it in Committee, and again upon Report, and again on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. To represent this as a subterranean action, to speak of an imperious Minister overriding the authority of Parliament for some purpose of his own is not to make a statement which is in accordance with the facts. The House of Commons has complete control over the whole matter. If it pleased, it could have rejected the Supplementary Estimate or reduced it. To say that this Estimate in any way impairs the authority of the House of Commons over the finance of the year is really not to represent but to caricature the facts of the situation. Let us see what the facts are. I turn to the Schedule in which this particular Vote is put down, Class 8. How is it described? It is described as a Vote for—
  "Grants-in-Aid to the National Health Insurance in addition to the sums payable under Section 3 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1911."
  1006
  Therefore it is described in the Estimate as an addition to the Grant which is made under Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, and there can be no suggestion of any concealment from the House. The very form of the Estimate negatives that. It says it is an addition to the sum which the Statute of 1911 provides. It cannot be said that the House is in any way taken by surprise, or that the contribution here suggested is not properly described as a contribution outside of and in addition to that which is provided by the Act itself. Any argument based upon the suggestion of some subterranean method is completely negatived by the form of the Estimate itself. At the same time I quite agree that when an Act of Parliament prescribes that a particular charge should be made in a particular way, whether it be in certain definite proportions as between individuals and the State, or whether it be in certain definite proportions as between the central and local authorities, whichever of those forms an Act of Parliament prescribes, it is not desirable, unless for special reasons to increase these proportions, or that, without very special need, the proportions so fixed should be altered by the Appropriation Act. But it has been done over and over again for special reasons. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to one case, a case which, I understand, was one which occurred under Mr. Gladstone's Government, and there was no more severe authority than Mr. Gladstone in those matters.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: He abandoned it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me, that was a case of a Grant in excess for the resident magistrates beyond the limit which have been imposed by Statute, and the Public Accounts Committee in their report upon that used this expression:—
  "Your Committee are not prepared to say that such payments in excess of a limit imposed by one Act are invalid if made after a vote in Parliament and the passing of the Appropriation Act. It is not perhaps quite correct to say that the Appropriation Act overrides the limits imposed by the preceding Act.' It only admits that special reasons have arisen which justify an addition to those limits. Should those masons cease, the limits imposed by the former Act would remain unaffected by the temporary addition to those limits."
  The reasons for the criticism which are there made by the Public Accounts Committee apply exactly to and, I think, cover the present case. They did not censure it. They carefully guarded themselves. They refrained expressly from censuring it. I will not say they approved it, but they

  1007
  guarded their condemnation by the limitations to which I have referred.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has not read the report. I know they declared that it was not invalid. But they declined to approve of it in quite unmistakeable terms.
  The PRIME MINISTER: They admitted that, for the temporary purpose.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was out and out condemnation.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If anybody has got the report they may quote it. I have got here those words, and I am sure they are accurate.
  "Your Committee arc of opinion that should the services continue to be paid by vote of Parliament, the existing Statute should be repealed."
  With that I quite agree. Well, now, take another case, which is a more remarkable case. It went on for forty years, and it also arose out of Irish expenditure. That was a Vote for the law charges for criminal prosecutions in Ireland. It was a case in which by Statute the local authority were made liable for the expenditure, and yet, notwithstanding that statutory imposition of the liability upon the local authority, the House of Commons year after year voted money out of Imperial funds, and it was included in an Appropriation Act of the year. Upon that the Committee said:—
  "Your Committee, after hearing the evidence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and of the representative of the Treasury, are of opinion that while it is undoubtedly within the discretion of Parliament to override the provisions of an existing Statute by a Vote in Supply confirmed by the Appropriation Act, it is desirable in the interests of financial regularity and constitutional consistency that such a procedure should he resorted to as rarely as possible, and only to meet a temporary emergency. In cases where such an emergency arises and there are reasons against the amendment Or repeal of the Statute governing the case, your Committee recommend that the fact that the proposed Vote overrides an existing Statute should be clearly stated on the face of the Estimate with the reason for adopting that course. so that no doubt can exist on the deliberate intention of Parliament. The exceptional nature of the Vote should also be indicated in the Appropriation Act."
  That is a case which applies to the present case exactly, but I do not want to fortify myself by authority. I could cite other cases to show that this has been done in certain circumstances, but in my own opinion the true rule is the rule laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. It is this. I think it really consists of three branches. In the first place, it ought not to be a surprise. The House of Commons should be clearly informed of what the
  1008
  character of the Vote is and what its relations to the Statute are. That condition is complied with by the very form of the present Estimate. Next, it should be a Vote necessitated, as I think it is admitted on all hands, excepting perhaps by the hon. and learned Member below the Gangway—the Vote in the present case is—by temporary emergency or by absolute necessity.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very important that we should follow the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid I do not quite understand him. Does he mean that this additional Supplementary Estimate is a purely temporary measure?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I quite agree. But what we are voting upon on this occasion is a temporary matter. If he will allow me to finish, he will see that in the third place, as I was going to say, if it is a matter which is not merely temporary but permanent, it should be regularised by Statute. When I say by Statute, I mean by Statute—otherwise and in addition to, the Appropriation Bill. I think that fairly represents the facts. I accept these propositions and I make that reply to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. I do think that even the hon. and learned Gentleman might agree that it would not be right to oppose this Grant-in-Aid on this occasion. On my part, I agree that it ought to be, and that in this case it shall be, by legislation expressly authorised in the future. I am speaking of it in substance. I think it ought to be. I take that view as strongly as anybody on either side of the House. May I appeal to the hon. and learned Member, if not to mitigate the rigour of his criticism, to assume that there was a necessity for the moment to make a Grant of this kind? The Government have not acted contrary to all precedent. They have not in any way concealed the matter from the House. They are now prepared to regularise by permanent legislation in future the course they propose.
  Mr. H. LAWSON: When?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In future I will not criticise the Government as a whole in this matter; I will confine my strictures to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government as a whole are responsible.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman, in the closing words of his speech, has really admitted everything for

  1009
  which we have been contending. We have felt from the first that this was not a case where we should oppose the Vote, because we admit that the arrangement, having been made with the doctors, it is necessary for the House of Commons to implement it. Therefore we have no desire to oppose the Vote. I could very easily go over the past history of the Insurance Act, but it is only necessary for me to say, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the majority of the House, that as the Insurance Act rested entirely on medical benefits, it was clearly the duty of the Government, before the Insurance Bill left the House of Commons, to have made arrangements by which, from the beginning, they could have been carried out. I do not wish to go into that, because it does not arise on this question. Our whole point was that if the system which has been adopted now was going to become a regular system, the practical result would be that whenever money was required the Government of the day could alter Acts as they pleased by coming to the House of Commons and getting it legalised by an Appropriation Act. That seemed to us to be the end of all financial control. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if, when the question was first raised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the speech he has just made, the difficulty would never have arisen, because we should have recognised the necessity, under existing conditions, of the position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. But what happened? When the point was raised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of recognising that it was an irregularity and saying that the Government meant to redress it at the earliest possible moment, said there were hundreds of precedents, and that this was a quite proper proceeding. That was his answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy).
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In justice to my right hon. Friend, who is not present, I must say that this specific point was not raised until last night. [Hex. MEMBERS: "Yes, it was."? The point raised by the hen. and learned Gentleman on Friday was a totally different point; it was whether we could give any money by Grants in an Estimate without a Statute behind it. That point my right hon. Friend answered.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: He never answered anything except by insults.
  Mr. MASTER MAN: It was only last night that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) made a definite challenge to me on the point. Until then no one had the least idea that this point was going to be raised.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot understand the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not hear but I have read the Friday's statement of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. The meaning of his statement was perfectly plain to me, as was the speech of my right hon. Friend, and I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman last night, and it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that that speech did not raise it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That was a perfectly clear and categorical challenge to me, asking whether I could promise legislation. I was not in a position to promise legislation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman will not understand what I said He said he did not understand that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork had raised this point. I listened to it. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the real point. in the speech of the hon. and learned Member had not been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply. I do not think there is anyone who has read Friday's Debate, or who was present last night, who doubts that the Government did not intend to take the course which the Prime Minister now says they intend to take. If they did intend to take it apart altogether from the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork or my right hon. Friend, why should they not have made it plain to the House? The importance of the matter has been recognised but not exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman, and I do say that no one in this House can doubt that this is another instance of a method of procedure to which we have become so accustomed, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having satisfied himself that his motives are good, and that what he means to do is for the benefit of the community, does not care twopence what method he takes, so long as he can carry it into effect. That is the criticism I make on this transaction. I am very glad for the sake of the regularity of our financial proceedings, which is the basis of the

  1011
  whole government of this country, that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the seriousness of this matter, and has promised to put it right by means of an appropriate Statute.
  Mr. BUTCHER: To anyone who, like myself, was in the House on Friday and heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and who heard the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury last night, the speech of the Prime Minister to-day has come as a very welcome change. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury maintained that their action in going forward with this Vote in the form they did was an absolutely normal and regular thing, for which there was no occasion to apologise, and they declared that there was nothing exceptional about it. Does not the Secretary to the Treasury now think it would have been better if he had qualified that speech? It would have been a little more informing on his part if he had told us that this was an entirely exceptional Vote, which would have to be regularised by legislation hereafter. When he was challenged as to whether legislation would not be necessary next Session, he made absolutely no reply. He did not even say he would consult his colleagues about it, but scouted the whole idea. It is gratifying that the Prime Minister has admitted that this is an entirely exceptional Vote, and that next Session legislation will have to be brought in to regularise the proceeding. I desire to call attention to a passage in Sir Erskine May's book, in which he defines the objects and purposes of an Appropriation Bill. He says:—
  "No grant of Supply is effected by the Bill; its provisions are solely administrative; the sole object of the Bill is to ensure the application of the Grants made by Parliament to the objects defined by the Resolutions of the Committee of Supply."
  It is now admitted that Grants of this sort in violation of a Statute cannot properly be made without legislation, except as mere temporary expedients, which have to be regularised hereafter by legislation. If this Vote had been allowed to go unchallenged, and the Appropriation Bill had been passed in this form without any protest, this House would have created a most dangerous precedent. The thanks of this House are due, in the interests of financial regularity and purity, to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, who introduced this subject on more than one occasion, and who has elicited from
  1012
  the Prime Minister a most important statement as to the practice of this House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Leader of the Opposition has stated that everybody understood what was intended by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork on Friday, and that the point which the hon. and learned Member raised was subsequently developed and amplified in the speeches he made last night and this afternoon. In these circumstances it is strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken did not so understand the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork on Friday, because if he will look at his speech made in the Debate on Friday, the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) will see that, in addition to this Grant to the doctors, he made another demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked not only that £1,800,000 should be given for extra medical benefits, but that there should be an additional Grant for the benefit of men over sixty-five years of age who were not provided with medical benefit under the Act.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I never referred to this question at all, because I regarded it as disposed of. I suggested that there should be some medical benefits given to old men over sixty-five who were not insured.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know in what way the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the question was disposed of.
  Mr. BUTCHER: By a very rude answer on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. PRINGLE: That is a reply which is worthy of a Chancery barrister. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he thought the question was disposed of by a rude reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he thought it was disposed of, it could only have been by a full and conclusive answer, otherwise it would have been open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue it further.
  Mr. PETO: Has the hon. Member seen—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interpose with questions in an argument; he should await his proper turn.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peto) was intervening for the

  1013
  protection of the hon. and learned Member for York with another red-herring. Returning to the position of the Opposition in this matter, it is evident that the hon. and learned Member for York, who is one of the most acute Gentlemen sitting opposite, either did not appreciate the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork or that he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had completely disposed of that point by his speech on Friday, because subsequently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply, the hon. and learned Member for York invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do exactly the same thing again, and to make a further Grant in the teeth of the National Insurance Act, because there is no provision in that Act for any Grant for medical benefit for men ever sixty-five years of age. The hon. and learned Gentleman holding, as he now does, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was committing a gross constitutional outrage, rose and invited him to commit a further constitutional outrage. The express question was raised by the Chairman whether it would be in order to do that in a Supplementary Estimate, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it could be done. He said:—
  "No legislation is necessary."—[OFPICIAT. REPORT, 7th February, col. 339.]
  5.0 P.M.
  That was the extra 2s. 6d., which is a further constitutional outrage. In these circumstances, I think we are entitled to claim that the Opposition all along have not appreciated this point, and that it is only due to the acuteness and ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork that we have secured this point. I frankly admit that I am glad he has succeeded in making this point, because I think everyone who wishes to see these matters regularised must be glad that one who is possessed of the erudition of the hon. and learned Gentleman should put that erudition at the service of the House, and so maintain its traditions for financial regularity.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think it is really necessary to reply at length to the speech we have just heard. If all that the hon. Member wishes to do is to pay a tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having called attention to the point and having successfully established that an irregularity was being practised, all Members of the Opposition will join with him in saying that the credit for that rests with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will
  1014
  not say there are not Members on this side of the House who had not seen that there was this irregularity, but the merit of having pointed it out and of having shown conclusively to the occupants of the Government Bench that they were bound to accede to his argument rests with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the hon. Member thinks he has made any score off the Opposition for having stated that, he is as welcome to it as he is to the taunt and sneer which he threw out against a member of his own profession. I will leave the hon. Member with that and come to certain important matters which arise with regard to the merits of this Grant. This is a Grant-in-Aid of 2s. 6d., intended as an addition to the 6s. originally contemplated for medical benefits, and in considering whether we ought to oppose the Bill under which that Grant is to be made we are bound to look at the conditions which the Government, through the insurance committees, is making with the doctors. At Question time to-day I raised a point of very great general importance, and that is whether the result of keeping these records in the form in which the doctors are required to keep them is not to have, in two Government offices, a complete record, which can be identified, of the diseases from which every insured person in the Kingdom is suffering. I agree that the result of the forms is that you have a record in two offices instead of one, but I think, by comparing the documents in the two offices, you are able to identify the persons and to say for certain what are the diseases from which they are suffering. I think the Government themselves recognise that it is undesirable that that should be the case.
  For instance, in a Court of Law, if you call for the production of the documents in the two offices, you could perfectly well establish what particular disease, even if only a cold or a minor disease, any workman in the country suffers from. The Government have issued to the doctors a form of day-book, in which there is perforation, and one part, I understand, goes to the Insurance Commission and the other to the insurance committee. The Insurance Commission keeps a record of the diseases, and the insurance committee gets a record of the names of the persons who are suffering from the diseases. If you put the two documents together it is perfectly easy to take any doctor's records for a month and to identify the persons. You could do it from the numbers on the pages of the day-book, and by comparing the

  1015
  total of the number of attendances and visits with the total number of attendances and visits in each of the two columns you could perfectly well fit these two things together in such a way that you could identify them. Supposing in future, in a case which arises in a Court of Law, the production is asked for of documents which have been sent in to both these offices by particular doctors would privilege be claimed in the same way as it is claimed in the case of the Income Tax? That is a very grave and important question, because to have everyone's disease recorded in a public office in such a form that it can be established is, I think, something which this House did not intend to give its assent to, and I do not think the Government themselves intended to do it. It should be possible to alter the way in which the forms are kept so that this would be impossible, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman and the Insurance Commissioners to see whether sonic method cannot be devised under which this undesirable result does not follow. I observe, moreover, that when the right hon. Gentleman wants to refer to the fact as to whether a person is suffering from a particular disease, or when it commences, he does not seem to have the least difficulty, and the chairmen of insurance committees who have spoken in this House have admitted as much. The hon. Member (Mr. Glyn-Jones) said that from these records he had been able in a certain case to obtain them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. Member give me an example of this particular charge? I do not understand it.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think it was in the Enfield case where the complete diagnosis of a disease was stated in this House.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: All I was able to say from the records was the number of visits which have been paid by the doctor to the patient arid the number of times the patient had been to the house. What I said about diagnosis came from the report of the inquest.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member told us on Friday that the doctor at first had not been able to diagnose what form of tuberculosis it was.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: That information I got from the coroner's depositions taken at the inquest.
  Mr. CASSEL: I understood the hon. Member to be giving us the facts from the record. If he did not do that, I withdraw what I said in regard to that case.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is a withdrawal due to me also, because there is rather a serious charge.
  Mr. CASSEL: So far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, he has produced all the details with regard to certain cases of tuberculosis in the House.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Really, if this went out that I was giving in the House of Commons the result of these records, it would be disastrous in connection with the Insurance Act. I have never given any information from any doctor's records in connection with this matter at all, and under these circumstances, as the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give an example, I will ask him to be good enough to withdraw the statement.
  Mr. CASSEL: The cases I had in mind were certain cases which had been given with regard to persons suffering from tuberculosis.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Sanatorium benefit.
  Mr. CASSEL: As far as sanatorium treatment is concerned, full details have been stated. I quite agree that where a case has already been raised by a Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman is justified in making a reply to it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On my assertion that no kind of information has ever been given to this House in any way in connection with the official record, will the hon. Gentleman then be good enough to withdraw the statement?
  Mr. CASSEL: If the right hon. Gentleman gives me an assurance that he has not made any statement in the House on the official records I certainly accept it. I did not desire to make any charge against him, but what I maintain is that it is perfectly possible to obtain full details from these records. I want him to tell us whether he will so alter it that in future it will not be possible to do so, and I should like him to tell us whether they will claim privilege for the production in a Court of Law of these records which are identifiable. I think it is a point to which the public will attach very great importance, whether it be in one Government office or in two, that the records of the disease from

  1017
  which every person is suffering remains recorded for all time.
  Let me pass from that to another point in connection with sanatorium benefit. The Government are now giving 6d. to the doctors for each person who is undergoing some domiciliary treatment, and that will be paid out of the 1s. 3d. which is paid to the insurance committee for administering that particular benefit. That only leaves 9d. a head for sanatorium treatment, apart from the payments made to the doctors, and that will be wholly insufficient for giving the benefit which has been promised under the Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. There is no provision in the Supplementary Estimate for 9d. for sanatorium benefit at all or for anything connected with sanatorium benefit. I am always willing to give answers if it is in order, but I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. CASSEL: On the point of Order. This Estimate is in order to enable the
  contract which has been made with the doctors to be carried out. The schedule to the contract provides that the doctor must undertake domiciliary treatment. of insured persons recommended for sanatorium benefits.
  "Arid it shall be undertaken by the practitioners by whom they are attended. For that purpose the practitioners shall receive remuneration out of a fund equivalent to a sum of per annum in respect of each person entitled to receive treatment from them."
  We are considering whether 2s. 6d. extra shall be paid for medical attendance, and in considering whether we ought to give our sanction to that,, we are bound to consider whether the form of contract which every doctor is asked to sign is such a form of contract as will lead to the proper administration of the Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The arrangements with respect to sanatorium benefits have been made already, is not that so?
  Mr. CASSEL: Under the contracts which are now being made with the doctors there is a provision that they shall receive 6d. That provision is made for the first time in the very contracts which are under consideration.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The point arose in Committee, and I had to take the same point of Order. The money set apart for sanatorium benefit in the Act includes sanatorium benefit, domiciliary and institutional. That money is paid to the doctors. It has nothing whatever to do
  1018
  with this extra Grant of half-a-crown for medical benefit or for sanatorium benefit, and no farthing of this money goes to sanatorium benefit.
  Mr. CASSEL: I put the point because the money is asked in order to implement these contracts made with the doctors. Therefore, I submit we are entitled to consider whether these are proper contracts to enter into, having regard to the fact that you are taking away 6d. which was intended for sanatorium benefit.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing for sanatorium benefit in the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish to ask information on another point, and that is in connection with persons who move from place to place—casual labourers, or persons who reside in one place and carry on their business in another. Supposing a person resides outside London and works in London—[An HON. MEMBER: "A waiter."] Yes, a waiter, for example; he may reside in the suburbs and carry on his work in London. Supposing he falls ill where he carries on his business, how does he get his medical benefit? I raised this point while the Bill was under consideration, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissed it with a wave of his hand, stating that it was a minor detail which need not be considered when dealing with an Act of Parliament. In fact, he seemed to indicate that it was absurd on my part to have raised the point. We have now to consider it in connection with the working of the Act. Take those persons who are continually travelling, and who may be only a week, or a fortnight, or a month in one place at a time. Let us assume that an insured person in that position has put himself on the books of the doctor where he resides, but he has an accident where he is actually at work. What doctor does he go to? I will assume that he calls in the medical practitioner who is as near as possible to the place where the accident happens. That practitioner says to him, "I will treat you if you pay me my ordinary fees as an ordinary patient." He cannot call upon that doctor to treat him under the Act if he is not on his list. If he has to pay for treatment, can he recover insurance money from the Commissioners? I think that is a point on which many people are in considerable anxiety and wish to be enlightened as to the real position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consider

  1019
  it a minor and unimportant detail, for I can assure him that it is a matter which vitally affects thousands of people in this country.
  Another question arises with respect to insurance committees and special arrangements. Insurance committees at present are all constituted illegally. When I say illegally I mean that they are only constituted under the power conferred upon the Commissioners under Section 78 of the Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that they are not constituted as provided for under the Act. They are at present the nominees of the Insurance Commissioners. I should like to ask what steps are being taken to get these committees regularly constituted. It seems to me to be very important that these committees should be left a little more discretion themselves. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury are taking upon them authority which they never were intended to possess. The insurance committees were intended to exercise their discretion as to whether they would allow special arrangements as they thought fit, and not according to orders given them from headquarters. In connection with these special arrangements certain insurance committees are throwing difficulties in the way of an insured person obtaining the rights which Parliament in tended them to have. I could give the right hon. Gentleman a whole sheaf of cases where persons from childhood have been attended by a doctor who knows their constitution; they have faith in him, and they wish to continue with that doctor. That doctor has not gone on the panel, and insurance committees are not allowing the insured persons to make arrangements to go to that doctor and to have their proper share of the contribution. That is a very important matter to a very large number of people. I think this action on the part of the insurance committees is largely owing to the attitude taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The insurance Committees are taking a line, which they would not take if they were really representative of the insured persons rather than, as at present, of the Insurance Commissioners, and if they were allowed a little more latitude, and on the contrary, I believe they would be ready to allow these arrangements to be made.
  I will state what happened in my own case. I was anxious that my servants
  1020
  should continue with the doctor they have always had, and who is my own doctor. I should have been perfectly willing to pay any difference between the contribution they received and the doctor's charges, whatever they might be. I would sooner that they had my doctor than any panel doctor. On my advice they all wrote to the London Insurance Committee. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to consider that as a matter for merriment. The servants wanted to be allowed to make their own arrangements which, under the circumstances, I thought was the best thing for them. They wrote three weeks ago, and none of them have received the courtesy of a reply. I should have thought in a case of that kind it was intended by the provision in the Act that they should have been able to go to a doctor not on the panel and to receive their contribution. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to disabuse the insurance committees of the idea that this Section is not to be exercised in such cases. I cannot help thinking this is part of the policy to force doctors on to the panel. The Government are sacrificing the insured for the purpose of forcing doctors to go on the panel. It is done simply in order that the panel doctors may get these cases. I say that the way in which the doctors have been treated by the Government in this matter is simply scandalous. They have been bullied in a way and, treated in a manner in which no great learned profession ought to be treated. Threats have been levelled against them by the Government that they would do things which, in my judgment, they have no power to do. The interests of the insured themselves have been sacrificed with the same object. The doctors are resisting from perfectly legitimate motives. They are entitled, whether right or wrong, to carry on their professional work in the way they think best in the interests of their patients. They do not, complain now of the remuneration paid to them, but they think it is in the interest of their profession and in the interest of the patients that they should be free from lay control. They think they should not be bound to give so much of their time as they are required to do in making out all those records, and filling up all those forms which are quite unnecessary.
  You go to this great profession and say, "unless you enter into arid accept a particular form of contract, verbatim et

  1021
  literatim, unless you agree to take the patients you accept and also a portion of the residue of those no other doctor will take, unless you agree to keep your books in the precise form sent to you, write your prescriptions in the way indicated in the forms sent to you, and make them out in triplicate, we shall see that the business goes to others." That is practically what the Government say to them. I quite admit that some of the requirements, from the Government point of view, may not be unreasonable for them to put forward, but it is inconsistent with any sentiment of liberty that a great profession should be treated in the way they are treated by the Government, and that they should have threats levelled against them. We find approved societies refusing to accept certificates of doctors who are not on the panel. I have a letter here from the secretary to the Order of Foresters written to a member of the lodge, in which he says:—
  "I cannot pay your husband's insurance sick pay unless I get a proper health insurance certificate front a doctor who is on the panel. I dare not do it."
  That is to say, if a certificate were given by Sir Frederick Treves, Professor Cheyne, or any of the greatest physicians in the Kingdom, who do not choose to go on the panel, even that would not be accepted as sufficient for paying sick benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I observe that hon. Members below the Gangway cheer that statement, and approve of that way of dealing with the matter. I understand that they will use their influence with the societies with which they are connected in favour of that course being followed. I say that is treating the doctors in a way it was never intended they should be treated. It is practically saying to them that sinless they come on the panel you are going to do all in your power to prevent them from carrying on their business or earning a livelihood at all. I think some explanation is necessary in regard to this matter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether that course of action on the part of approved societies in refusing to accept the certificate of a doctor who is not on the panel meets with the approval of the Insurance Commissioners. I think if the right hon. Gentleman gave us an authoritative statement on that matter it would help very largely to set it at rest one way or the other. Some societies seem to be bonâ fide under the impression that they are not entitled to accept any certificate except that of a doctor on the panel. I have raised these points for the
  1022
  purpose of settling some difficulties which have arisen in actual practice, and which affect a very large number of people.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to join in the criticism of the Insurance Act in which the hon. and learned Member has indulged. Whatever shortcomings there may be in the working of the Act in its early days, we ought on both sides of the House to be sincerely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who has been conducting the Act for the Government in this House. No Minister whom I have come across is more open to receive advice or to give help wherever asked, and it is a great pity that for purely partisan purposes he has been day after day for the last year and a half made the object of attack for every little detail that has gone wrong in the working of the Act. Details are bound to go wrong in the early stages of its working, and it is only experience that can put them right. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or his Department can be blamed for want of receptivity in the matter. They have an extremely difficult task to perform, and everyone who has had practical experience of working on the insurance committees in the country, or who is trying to solve the problems put before him by his Constituents, can say that the Department in very difficult circumstances, working an entirely new branch of Government work, have carried out their duties under the Insurance Act as satisfactorily as anyone could ever expect they would have done. I do not want to deal with the Insurance Act or with that portion of the Appropriation Bill, but I wish to call the attention of heads of various Departments to some items of which we complain, with a view to a possible future remedy of defects and, to a certain extent, of extravagance.
  The first point is in connection with the printing and sales of Government publications. On page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate additional money is voted for printing Government publications, and in a per contra account there is profit on sales made. I feel certain that this part of the work of the Government Stationery Department is not carried out on the most businesslike lines. When a Blue Book is published the Stationery Department estimate the number of copies that will be sold, and the cost of printing the Blue Book. Then they divide the cost of printing by the number of copies they think they will sell, and the quotient is the price

  1023
  charged for the Blue Book. But in many cases there is a very large demand which they did not anticipate, and the very method of estimating the price of these Blue Books is one which tends to restrict the circulation of Government information. I would say it is advisable to sell these Blue Books below cost price and let them get through the country into people's hands so that people may see the information collected with so much trouble and expense by Government Departments. The expense of printing a Blue Book is a mere flea bite compared with the expense of holding a Departmental Committee, and still more a Royal Commission. There are certain Reports of Committees, and there is evidence taken before Committees, as for instance the Committee now sitting on Imperial and Local Taxation, for which there is an abnormal demand, but it is almost impossible for the ordinary man to buy these reports owing to the prices put upon them by the Stationery Department. If the price was lower, the sale would be far greater, and in many cases by merely reducing the price of those publications a wide sale would be got and higher profits earned for the Stationery Department. Coming to the Public Record Office, the Government, I think quite rightly, appointed a Royal Commission to go into the question. The Commission issued its first report—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry to raise a point of Order after the introductory words of the hon. Member's speech, but my duty to the House compels me to point out that there is no Vote in this for anything connected with the Public Record Office.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If that is SO—and I am bound to assume that the right hon. Gentleman knows for what purposes this money is required—the hon. Member would not be entitled to go into it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman is probably incorrectly informed in this matter. The Public Record Office of course do sell those publications, patent rolls, close rolls, and a great many other publications, at what I consider to be the exorbitant price of 15s.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that those publications are not publications referred to in this Estimate for which the money is required.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: They must be. I will pass from that point, but I will raise
  1024
  it on the Adjournment or on some more suitable occasion later on. The next point to which I wish to refer is in connection with the Vote for Office of Works and Public Buildings, Class 2 on page 8 of the Supplementary Estimates. There we are voting an additional £600 for incidental expenses. We are merely told that the original provision has proved insufficient, and that a Supplementary Vote of £600 is required. I know one of the additional reasons why this Vote is required was in connection with the evidence taken by the Estimates Committee this year. The Estimates Committee went into the question of the expenditure of the Office of Works and Public Buildings, and took very valuable evidence. The Report has been published, but I do not think it possible for this House to get full value for the work of the Estimates Committee any more than it is possible for them to get full value for the work of the Public Accounts Committee unless there is on the Report of those Committees a full debate in order to bring before the attention of the Members of the Ministry and the offices of the Minister particularly concerned the shortcomings of any sort of the office for which he is concerned. The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, sat on that Committee day after day for about four months. A great deal of valuable work is embodied in their report, and I submit that if there is an additional charge upon the Office of Works to take up the time of Members of this House in that way is a waste of public money, unless at the same time we have a debate on the subject and some general improvement in the methods.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that is rather too far-fetched to appeal to me.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I may refer to the question of the Public Trustee which is raised on page 12. We are voting an additional sum of £1,000 a year for salaries in connection with the investments of the funds by the Trustee. I have personally so much confidence in the Public Trustee that I have made him my own trustee. But I do think that in the interests of the credit of the country it is necessary that some sort of check should be kept by the Treasury over the investments of the enormous funds which the Public Trustee has now in his control, and which will undoubtedly grow very rapidly as the years go on, and as people become

  1025
  accustomed to using the Public Trustee as the best possible trustee for all wills and settlements. The Public Trustee has a very wide range of security in which he can invest, and I would not for one moment suggest any restriction in the range of securities, but I do think we should look ahead a little and consider whether there ought not to be some careful supervision by Treasury officials of the manner in which those sums are invested. They have at the Treasury various clerks, who superintend each particular spending Department, whose business it is to cut down expenditure and to see that there is no waste going on in that spending Department. We submit that this public trustee business is growing to such an extent that it would be well if there were in the Treasury some official whose business it should be to supervise the investment of this money. I do not want to suggest at this moment that the Public Trustee is not in a position to invest these great sums of money, but I do think that public confidence in the office and in the finance of the Public Trustee would be increased, and ought to be increased, by the appointment of some such official at the Treasury as will act as a sort of check or guarantee of good faith for the benefit of the public.
  As this business of the Public Trustee has grown to this extent, so that year by year we have increased Estimates and increased Supplementary Estimates as well, which pay for themselves—because they come out of the fees, as the business is self-supporting—I think that the Government should consider the extension of the principle to Scotland as well as to England. I desire now to refer to the question of Somaliland. On page 15 we have the Supplemental Estimates for the Colonial Office. We ought to congratulate the Minister in charge of the Colonies on the very small Supplemental Estimate that there is this year for the Colonies. We have been accustomed to having Supplemental Grants-in-Aid on a very large scale for African Colonies. We have been accustomed to having little wars and expeditions, the Estimates for which did not work out, and to putting our hands in our pockets in the month of February in order to finance gross extravagances very often on the part of our Colonial administration. But in recent years there is a welcome reduction on the amount demanded from this country for the upkeep of our great possessions over the seas. The only item of this year is the Somaliland Grant. I think it is important that we
  1026
  should consider whether this Grant is advisable and whether the Colonial Office should not be urged to see that in future Somaliland becomes like our other Equatorial posssessions, a self-supporting item. Everyone knows that we have tried a variety of policies in Somaliland. We have annexed the whole country, we have cleared out of the country, we have had wars, and we have gone backwards and forwards, shilly-shallying, though I think the shilly-shallying occurred more under the Foreign Office, and has not been so great recently under the Colonial Office. About eighteen months ago we left our advanced positions in Somali, after due consideration, and we definitely said that it was not worth while spending British money on defending these arid wastes in the hinterland of Somaliland. We went back to the coast towns, and there was a considerable attack made on that policy, principally by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and some others. They made, I think, a very good case out, that in the interests of protecting the native tribes who had trusted themselves to our control, who had been called "friendlies," and who had thereby incurred the wrath and vengeance of the mad Mullah, we were wrong in deserting them.
  A good case could be made out either way. We took friendlies with us, in retiring, who wished to come; we supplied others with guns to fight their enemies; and I think the Government, in the circumstances, were justified in retiring from those advanced posts. What is the change which has now led to this enormous increase of expenditure? Are we again going back to the waste spots of Somaliland, to protect friendlies from the mad Mullah, and to arm friendlies, with the result that fresh tribal wars may be started? What is the object of this fresh expenditure? It does seem to me that we ought to be more definite in our policy, whether it be the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office which is in charge of this particular policy. The House ought to be informed, where a change of policy is to take place, on what grounds it has to take place; and we ought to know whether we may expect to spend these large sums of money on these desert Colonies or whether we should spend them in colonising our own country. And it is to colonising our own country that I wish to turn my attention. I should like to say one or two words on the Votes for additional assistance to fisheries and agriculture in this country. I do not say a single

  1027
  word of criticism as to the additional money provided for fisheries. I think the money that has been spent on steam motor boats for trawlers is an admirable departure on the part of the President of the Board of Agriculture—one that will probably revivify the fishing industry as well as supply us with cheap fish. I do not see that there is any possibility in the circumstances of the money found by the taxpayer going into the pockets of any vested interests. I think that the money is well spent, and probably has already led to a great extension of the fishing industry. I would only offer this hint of criticism, and that is to suggest that all fisheries and all fishing districts should be treated alike in this matter—that there should be no special preference for the Scotch fisheries, and that the Northumberland and South Coast fisheries should also receive assistance in the way of motor boats to get the trawlers to sea and to get their cargoes landed.
  It would be most undesirable if those valuable aids to one of our oldest industries were to cause jealousy between the various districts of the country. I think that those Members who are interested in the fishing districts ought to see that their parts of the country get their fair share of the money given to assist the-fishing industry. I want to criticise the action of the President of the Board of Agriculture in spending so much money on subsidising agriculture. I maintain that all industries in this country should stand on their own legs, and that none should be favoured above any other. My Constituents, and the constituents of all hon. Members, are interested in getting assistance for their own particular industries. They all like special legislation, they all like assistance for co-operation, and they all like that assistance should be provided for agriculture. Last year there was a Grant for breeding light horses, and there has been a Grant for the breeding of heavy horses, and these Grants, I think, could be far more valuably employed in horse breeding, which seems to me the worst side of agricultural development. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) has ably expounded to this House that the tendency of agriculture in recent years is to get away from large grazing and pasture lands and to get back to the use of the plough and intensive cultivation. But here you are devoting money to a further development of the great grazing farms, a form of agri
  1028
  culture which is certainly out of date, which employs very few hands upon the land, and which is thereby just that kind of agriculture which leads to overcrowding of the towns and lamentable increase of emigration to Australia and elsewhere. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Agriculture in devoting money to co-operation and education feels that he is thereby laying the foundation of and developing that side of agriculture which it is perhaps more advisable to develop than any other, and that is the cultivation of small farms—intensive cultivation, French gardening, and all that form of agriculture. I partly agree with him—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep to the question before the House. I have already twice told the hon. Gentleman to do so.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was referring to the £7,500 for assistance to intensive agriculture, co-operation and education.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A general discussion of intensive cultivation would not be in order.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: What I want to suggest with regard to particular agriculture is that it is a pity to spend this money on the development of co-operation or any form of small cultivation in agriculture unless you have got your foundation upon which to build; that the important thing is to first of all get the people upon the land whom you are going to educate—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing whatever to do with this matter. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat for continued irrelevance.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As I understand there are Members in the House who wish me to deal with the subject for which I am directly responsible in connection with the work of my right hon. Friend, and I think it will be for the general convenience if I deal at this moment with the special subject connected with my own Department of the Treasury, and with the insurance question as well.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I be allowed to ask one question before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds?
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I have also a question to ask.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have begun my speech, and I am afraid I cannot give way. Perhaps on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, or on the Motion for the

  1029
  Adjournment, hon. Members can raise any practical points, but so far, in dealing with the insurance questions, I am in order. I may say one word as a kind of personal explanation in regard to the Debate on the general question of these Grants-in-Aid, at the beginning of to-day's discussion, in which I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman opposite in order to make a personal explanation which I do not think was quite clear. What I wanted to say was this, in justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as to myself: There was a long discussion on a technical point of procedure in connection with this Grant-in-Aid last Friday. The special point as to possible future legislation was never put then, either by any Gentleman on the Front bench, or later on by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). The Member for North-East Cork last night indulged in a very lengthy speech, and a kind of broth of invective against myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we certainly never understood that the particular point of discussion this afternoon was put by him, and the first opportunity for replying on that particular point arose when the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) put it and was replied to by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I want to make it clear that there was never any suggestion by the Government of not giving an answer to a specific question, nor has the policy of the Government in the least degree varied during the course of the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates. We believe we were right, in the circumstances, in taking the Grant in the form of a Grant-in-Aid, and we never suggested that there should be a permanent Vote year by year, or a Grant-in-Aid under the Insurance Act to the extent of £2,000,000. If we had been asked: Do you intend later on at the proper time to produce legislation embodying the provision of this Grant within the Insurance Act itself, I should have given an affirmative answer to that effect.
  6.0 P.M.
  As to the specific point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) I am very sorry that he considered it his duty this afternoon to instil into the minds of those who will read his speech the idea that the medical records demanded in connection with the Insurance Act are demanded under such conditions that publicity may be given to the particular diseases of particular individuals. I believe that suggestion if it were spread about would have a
  1030
  profoundly adverse influence upon the working of the Act. It would not only be a violation of specific and definite promises made when the Act was passed, but it would be a violation of specific and definite promises made by me again and again from the Front Bench in the administration of the Act. In face of those promises, the hon. and learned Gentleman rises in the House and announces that I have given, from medical records sent in to the Insurance Commissioners, statements as to the diseases of insured persons. It is true the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew the statement when convinced that it was not so, but he did not so very graciously, and, perhaps, he will be more emphatic in his withdrawal when I tell him that not one single one of those records has reached the Insurance Commissioners, so that even if he wanted to obtain the information as to the specific diseases of specific persons, we could not do so as there is no record in the Insurance Commission by which I could obtain it, and no doctor has sent it in. "Oh," but he says, that "if the second part sent to the insurance committee was collated with the part sent to the Insurance Commission, then," in spite of the promise we made that no attempt would be made to do so, "it might be possible to find out from the two parts collated together the disease on one form attributable to an insured person on another form." I state definitely that even if that were desired it would be absolutely impossible to produce that result. There are at present 300,000 of these medical tables in operation. The medical daybooks consist of twenty sheets apiece, and the particulars are on the forms which are sent in with the record of the disease for something like thirty persons. In order to produce the result which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, out of 300,000 forms sent in, you would have to collate one number with one sheet, and you would have to hunt through the sheets in order to find a possibility against which you have 300,000 chances to one. I should have thought if that was ever to be done in any single case we would want a Grant-in-Aid of more than £2,000,000 for a clerical staff to do it in the one solitary case. The forms which are now issued do not contain that number at all. The portion of the form which is sent in for statistical purposes to the insurance committee which shows the list of the diseases, has no number at all upon it. Those are

  1031
  all sent in, and I know of no kind of ingenuity, human or otherwise, with those sheets sent in to the extent of 300,000 of records of diseases, by which that record could be collated with the lists which are necessary for the insurance committees.
  Mr. CASSEL: I assumed there were numbers on the forms. The right hon. Gentleman says the numbers are dropped. If the numbers are there, and the name of the doctor sent in is known, is it not possible, then, that they could be collated? I do not wish to suggest that that would be done intentionally, and I certainly did not wish to do so. What I wished to suggest was, assuming production were asked in a Court of law, would privilege apply?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I submit, even with the numbers and the names, there are 300,000 chances to one against striking the right number on one sheet with the right number on the other sheet; but with no numbers at all, the chances against it are just about the chances of the number of insured persons, that is about 14,000,000 persons. In any case, I think it is unfortunate, after the definite statements made both as to the nature of the forms and as to the policy, that any suggestion should be made that through the Insurance Act the private nature of diseases of persons should at some future time be able to be brought out against them. It has been stated outside, but this was the first time I think I heard it stated in this House. The next point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was the question of medical benefit for those who move from place to place. The question is a perfectly simple one in connection with movement of residence. As I have replied over and over again, full arrangements are made with the local insurance committee for dealing with changes of residence, even if those changes are of a temporary character. So long as notice is given to the insurance committee into whose district the insured person is moving the risk of medical attendance for him will be taken by the committee into whose district he is moving so long as he is in that district, and the portion of the amount that is paid for medical attendance will be credited in proportion to the risks which are taken by the different insurance committees in whose areas he may be in residence from time to time.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman put another point which up to now has
  1032
  never been met by trade anions and friendly societies in connection with the normal system of industrial insurance. He says, supposing a man works in any place and lives in another place, and changes from day to day, or during the day, how can he be sure, suppose for instance he comes into the City of London and lives, say, at Enfield, if he is taken ill in London that he will be able to obtain a free doctor, having already chosen an Enfield doctor on the panel? I agree that is a position of great difficulty, but I do tot think it is insuperable. That has neven been done by the friendly societies. The man in the friendly society chooses the doctor of his residence, and has to go to the doctor of the district in which he lives, the friendly society doctor. But it is perfectly possible, if this becomes a real case which it is necessary to meet, for the insurance committees of ally area to make arrangements in order to meet such cases. It is perfectly possible for them to distribute the payment given to the doctors in different areas in which men are part of the time in one area, and part of the time in another, in proportion to the risks taken by the different bodies, so that there may be a doctor taking the risk for the man in the district where the man works in proportion to the amount of the year in which he is at that particular place, and another doctor taking the risk of medical attendance in the district in which the man resides. I am not sure that that could be done in all cases, but it is certainly a possibility before the insurance committee where this transformation takes place on anything like a large scale.
  It is perfectly possible again, if you have a district like the London Insurance Committee where a large number of persons are in the city during a certain number of hours in their day's work, for the London Insurance Committee, in agreement with the panel doctors in London, to agree that special amount shall be paid to doctors with surgeries in the City of London specially to meet the cases which may arise during the hours of a man's work in the city. That could be done by arrangement between the panel doctor and the insurance committee. On the other hand, it is well for me to point out the policy which has been adopted by the hospitals in this country. After all in nine cases out of ten sudden cases which demand medical attendance, or accident cases under the conditions of a man's work, are cases which go to hospital, and for

  1033
  which the public subscribe to hospitals. In all the policy which has been adopted by the hospitals they always openly declared as an integral part of their policy that under no circumstances will they refuse treatment to an insured person when any ease of urgency is shown. I think under those three possibilities insured persons who happen to get those urgency cases of illness during hours of work will have no difficulty in getting the attendance they desire. The next point the hon. and learned Gentleman made was as to the question of the constitution of the insurance committees. He said they were illegal; he explained afterwards what he meant. Of course they are just as legal as any other part of the Act, and constituted under the Act as completely as any other part of the Act. He stated that the only legal insurance committees which could be constituted were committees elected by the insured person. That, of course, is not the Act. The Act, in Section 59, lays down conditions under which committees should be constituted. In no place does it state that the committee shall be elected by the insured person; the only statement regarding election is that two members of the committee shall be elected in manner provided by the Commissioners to represent the medical practitioners in any area, and the election on those committees of medical practitioners is proceeding at the present time, and will be completed in a very few days. What is stated in connection with the insurance committees is that three-fifths shall be appointed in the manner prescribed by the Commissioners so as to secure representation of the insured person resident in the district which the committee supervise.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly incorrect when he states that those committees are the result of casual or chance appointment by the Commissioners of certain persons whom they have selected to represent insured persons. What the Commissioners have done has been to ask all the societies and trade unions of insured persons in the districts to appoint men who may rightly represent them in those districts, and it is those men who have been appointed by the Commissioners, and no casual or chance selection by the Commissioners themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks when the fully constituted insurance committees will be arranged for. I hope the medical members will be appointed in a very few
  1034
  days. They would have been appointed long ago but for the policy adopted, for better or for worse, by the British Medical Association last summer, and encouraged, I am sorry to say, by men who could expect no public interest to gain by their encouragement of such a policy by the British Medical Association. It is a somewhat squalid story, and I do not want to enter into it on this occasion, but one is delighted to realise that now in every district in the country that the doctors of the country, following the advice of their own wisest leaders, are freely agreeing to come in to elect members on the medical committees, and I hope that is only a symbol of the increasing sympathy and friendliness with which the insurance committee and the doctors in every district are settling down to work the Insurance Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asks me about the certificates of doctors on the panel, and requests me to make a definite statement that every friendly society or every approved society must accept as evidence of specific disease the certificate of any doctor, whether he is on the panel or not.
  Mr. CASSEL: I did not say that. What I asked was whether the certificates of other doctors on the panel would be refused?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have answered that question again and again by question and answer. The sole duty of the representatives of the approved societies is to satisfy themselves, either by certificate or by any other means they choose to adopt, that the insured person is suffering from a specific disease which entitles him under the Act to sick pay. They are not obliged to accept a certificate at all; they can refuse the certificate of the doctor on the panel and they can refuse the certificate of a doctor who is not on the panel. They can adopt what method they think right to see whether the man really comes under the Act. The insured person, on the other hand, if he has reason to believe that he is suffering from a specific disease under the Act, and has a right to sick pay, and if he thinks the approved society representatives have refused proper evidence of his having this disease and this right, has redress in his hands in an appeal to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners have to prove not a question as to what doctor gave the certificate, but whether as a matter of fact the insured person was suffering from this specific disease within

  1035
  the meaning of the Act. They have to give a judicial decision. Speaking with the responsibility of one concerned with the working of the Act, I cannot recommend without any hesitation members of approved societies all over the country promiscuously to accept certificates of non-panel doctors, and for this reason, which has been very strongly put before me by leading members of friendly societies. They say that the doctors who come on the panel have done so with the definite intention of working the Act. They have come on the panel not only with the intention of working the Act, but with a two-fold limitation upon the amount of sick pay that they will grant under their certificates. First of all, there is the limitation of being on the panel, and therefore in touch through their local medical committee with the insurance committee; so that if there is any challenge as to their giving certificates too freely, it can be investigated by a mixed committee of doctors and representatives of the approved societies. In the second place, there is the limitation imposed by the fact that if they are giving certificates for sick pay too liberally or when certificates ought not to be given, they will also be under the obligation of giving very liberal visits to the persons who are supposed to be ill, and as they have no wish to multiply their attendances the tendency will be to deal only with real cases.
  Take the case of a doctor who does not wish to go on the panel. I am not suggesting that this is probable amongst 20,000 doctors, or even amongst 500 or fifty doctors. I take it as a case which makes it impossible for me to lay down a general rule. Take the case of a doctor who does not wish to go on the panel, but who wishes to get a working-class practice, and who is quite content to use the easy giving of certificates in order to get a working-class practice. It is worth the while of hundreds of men to pay a doctor 1s., 2s. 6d., or 5s. a week for medical attendance if they can get from him certificates for 10s. per week sick pay, which certificates another doctor would not give. There is no check upon him; he is not on the panel; he is not on the local medical committee, and his action can never be reviewed by a mixed tribunal representing the approved societies and the medical men of the district. It is because there is a possibility of that being done, which possibility is very real to the minds of approved societies, that I think approved
  1036
  societies in cases are justified in saying. "No, we will not accept without any right to make any kind of investigation as a certificate for sick pay a piece of paper handed to us over the counter from a doctor who has not put himself on the panel and does not wish to work the Insurance Act."
  The last point of the hon. Member was in connection with persons making their own arrangements. The hon. Gentleman gave us the sad and pitiful case of his own servants. We always intended, and still intend, that the insurance committees, if they wish to do so, when they have assured adequate medical attendance for all insured persons within their areas, should permit, under certain conditions, arrangements in connection with doctors who may not be on the panel. Take one prominent example, for instance, that of nurses in hospitals. I believe that the London Insurance Committee has granted or is granting a general exemption under Section 15 (3), allowing nurses at hospitals to make their own arrangements with doctors at the hospitals, who are not, and do not want to be on the panel, and do not wish to attend insured persons outside the hospitals. Similarly conditions might be laid down with regard to allowing doctors to go on the panel to attend only a limited number of persons. This practice in the working of any insurance committee must be qualified by one dominant consideration, namely, the duty of the insurance committee, in conjunction with the doctors on the panel, to see that every insured person within their area receives adequate medical attendance. I have had a number of questions put to me by Members of Parliament, and that is why I am taking up rather more time than I should otherwise have done in connection with this particular subject, which is one of great importance. Members of Parliament have been approached, as I have been, for example, by the medical man who attends me. He says. "I do riot want a large industrial practice; it is no advantage to me to have a thousand or two thousand insured patients. I have plenty of paying patients at the present time. But I am quite willing to go on attending, say, the servants in the houses where I have been attending up till now, and I am quite willing to attend them at the ordinary insurance rate. It seems to me, and it seems to them, rather hard if they do not want to be attended by another doctor, and if I am willing to attend them, that they should be forced to be attended by

  1037
  another doctor just because I do not want to have a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand panel patients." I think that is a fair statement of the case.
  I have been in consultation with the chairman of the London Insurance Committee on the subject, and he says, as we say, as Commissioners in conjunction with the insurance committee, that there is no kind of objection to these cases being met by insurance committees permitting doctors to go on the panel in order to attend a limited number of cases, so long as that is done in conjunction with an agreement with, the doctors en the panel, and so long as the system can be interwoven with a system whereby adequate medical attendance can be given to every insured person within the area. I have not the slightest doubt that that will be done. What the insurance committees have had to face was not a problem of that sort at all. What they have had to face, especially in London, was a definite, deliberate, and avowed attempt to break the Act to pieces, an attempt dismally encouraged by some persons connected with the party of the hon. Gentleman opposite, by using the special exemption Clause—
  Mr. FORSTER: By whom?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: By some prominent newspapers which give consistent support, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, very largely endorsed and supported by the continual pressure which I have had to face for several months—
  something like fifty questions to answer every day—to try and compel us to give way in order to allow people to use Section 15 (3), not to make special arrangements, but to break down the whole system devised by the National Insurance Act. I think the hon. Gentleman himself has engaged in that campaign, and it is with profound regret that I have found him changing from the policy which he adopted at the beginning. I maintain, therefore, that the insurance committees, when confronted with this avowed and organised conspiracy, were perfectly justified in saying, "Until we have assured medical attendance for all the insured persons in our areas, if possible, by the panel system, if not by some other system, we will not have the Act broken up by our own arrangements." The great bulk of applications for own arrangements which have come in to the insurance committees with which I have been in contact have not been bonâ-fide applications at all. They have come in on forms all in the
  1038
  same handwriting, evidently the result of a canvass, and probably the result of a canvass in which complete misapprehensions have been created in the minds of insured persons as to the real meaning of the Act. On the other hand, peace being restored, as I believe it is, the doctors, as I believe they will be found if only they are left alone, working the Act with ever-increasing enthusiasm, and, in friendly conjunction between the insurance committees and the panel doctors, arrangements being made to meet the needs of all the insured persons in the area, I see no reason at all why in certain special cases the use of Section 15 (3) should not be allowed where special circumstances are made out for it; or, what I think is better, if in friendly agreement with the doctors on the panel arrangements under some such conditions as those laid down in this Debate are made with doctors engaged normally in another class of practice, but who are willing to come on the panel for a limited number of patients who wish to have those doctors and no others, so that, at any rate, all the insured persons in the area are covered, those arrangements may be worked in amity and harmony.
  Mr. FORSTER: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the personal references which the right hon. Gentleman made to myself.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. FORSTER: I was asking for information. I do not object to the personal references, as I have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to be afraid of in the action I have taken either in this House or outside in connection with the Insurance Act. I have been animated all through by one consideration alone. From the time the measure was introduced, during its passage through the House, and now that it is in actual operation, I have looked upon it essentially as a matter of business. and I look upon it as a matter of business now. I say that you are bound, treating it, as you ought to treat it, as a matter of business, to see that you get full value for the contributions which you are taking from the people. The right hon. Gentleman spoke rather sharply about my having assisted the Press which is generally asociated with the party to which I belong, and of having assisted my hon. Friends—I do not know whether he referred to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans)—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I referred to the constant pressure of twenty or thirty questions a day put by a number of Members opposite.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Why should they not put questions?
  Mr. FORSTER: Let us understand the charge that we have to meet. If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not the charge, and that we are entitled to ask questions, what is the gravamen of his complaint?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to Enter into a personal controversy. Perhaps it would have been better if I had not responded to the hon. Gentleman's interruption. What I was saying was that attempts were made day after day in this House, by the use of Section 15 (3), to break down the arrangement made by the Commissioners and the insurance committees, in order that the whole system of the Insurance Act for the provision of medical benefit might be broken down.
  Mr. FORSTER: I will endeavour to pursue the topic with an absence of heat and with perfect good temper. I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a complete delusion as to the motives which my hon. Friends and I have had in advocating the right of insured persons to make their own arrangements. It is not because we wish to break down the machinery of the Act. It is not because we found fault with all the arrangements which the Insurance Commissioners and the insurance committees have made. My object, and I believe the object of my hon. Friends, was to give the insured persons in practice the right which was promised to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Lord Advocate in speeches in the country, and by other Ministers on the Treasury Bench, including the Chief Secretary for Ireland—the right, that is to say, of choosing their own doctors, whether the doctors were on the panel or not, and to make their own private arrangements—
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: How can they?
  Mr. FORSTER: The right promised to them not only by Members of the Government, but the right given to them by the Act. It is only, as we think, owing to the intolerable and unjustifiable pressure which has been brought to bear upon the Insurance Commissioners and the insurance committees by the Government that
  1040
  that right has been denied. The right hon. Gentleman does us less than justice when he attacks our motives. He is entitled to attack our actions, but he is not entitled to attribute to us motives we have never entertained.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: There is one point to which I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the question of the secrecy which he says, and I believe honestly, should be observed as to the diseases that people may have who come under the Insurance Act benefit. The Commissioners have issued a certificate to be given by the doctors when the insured person applies for sick benefit. That certificate has never been alluded to, so far as I am aware, this evening. It is, I think, No. C, 29, and it was issued after 14th January, when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement as to the necessity of secrecy. If the right hon. Gentleman gives his attention to the matter he will find that it is absolutely impossible for a doctor to give that certificate without disclosing the nature of the disease of the insured person. Beyond that, this certificate goes before the committee, or the friendly society, who, it appears, in sonic cases are insisting, whether the doctor is on the panel or not, and refuses a certificate, to have further reasons for allowing insured persons to receive benefit. If it is desirable that the doctor should observe secrecy, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to instruct the Commissioners as soon as possible to alter that certificate, so as not to necessitate the doctors giving reasons for the sickness. At present the doctor has not only to say that the man is ill, but to give the reasons for it. I have been spoken to by several doctors who have refused—and I think quite properly—to give the reasons asked for in order to maintain secrecy. Unless the right hon. Gentleman alters that certificate, or form, he will be not only not carrying out what he wishes to carry out, but he will be doing a great deal of harm, not only to the working of the Act, but to insured persons.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. FFRENCH: I desire to apologise to the House for having to refer to a matter that has been under consideration by the House on several previous occasions. My excuse for my action is that I represent an Irish agricultural constituency. I wish to call attention to the restrictions and the manner in which they prevent the working

  1041
  of the Irish cattle trade. I belong to the county of Wexford which is largely interested in the cattle trade. Not only do we rear our own cattle, but we buy all we can get from other counties and from the rearers of small cattle. My brother farmers and myself feel very keenly the restrictions that have been placed upon the Irish cattle trade. All the public bodies in my own county, the farmers' associations, and the branches of the United Irish League have passed resolutions condemning the action of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. I know his action has been approved by a narrow section of the British people, and I have heard in this House, recently, speeches on that side of the House, and on this side of the House, stating that suspicion and distrust in relation to Ireland exists in this country. The Irish farmers were suspected of cloaking the disease, and it has been implied that the Irish Department of Agriculture and their Veterinary Department were incompetent. The Irish farmers have given every facility that possibly could be given to the Board of Agriculture to stamp out the disease. The Irish Department of Agriculture and the Irish police are the best agents to be found in any country in the world to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease, or any other cattle disease. You have nothing like them in this country. I do not believe that anything exists like them in any other country. We have done everything that possibly could be done in Ireland to avoid the suspicion and distrust which we are told exists on this side of the Channel. What have you been doing? There is also suspicion and distrust on our side of the Channel of the President of the Board of Agriculture. There has, been scare-mongering in the Press of this country. There has been scare-making at farmers' clubs, and agricultural associations—yes, and in the House of Commons too. A certain section of the British people were seized with panic, and they carried the President of the Board of Agriculture along with them, so that restrictions were imposed upon the Irish cattle trade that the circumstances of the case did not seem to warrant.
  The Irish farmers claim to be British subjects. They claim the rights and the privileges that British subjects possess. The Irish peasant soldier has carried your flag to victory on many a hard-fought field. Irish farmers therefore claim the same right, freedom, privilege and facility
  1042
  to market their cattle that the British farmers possess. if there is an outbreak of cattle disease in this country a cordon is drawn around that neighbourhood at a distance of twelve or fifteen miles—I do not exactly know the number—and the rest of the cattle trade of the country goes on as if nothing had happened. What happens in Ireland? There is an outbreak of disease at Swords, a cordon is drawn around the whole of the island, and the whole of the Irish cattle trade is held up. It is not fair, right, or just to the Irish farmers who claim to be British citizens? There is no meaning in restricting cattle from Wexford county and other counties in the provinces of Munster and Connaught, and preventing these cattle being exported to this country because there is foot-and-mouth disease in some other part of the country several miles away—indeed, a great many miles away. Again, at the present time suppose we sell fat cattle in Wexford, and those cattle are consigned to someone in London, Manchester, or some other place, we consider that there is no meaning in detaining those cattle on this side of the Channel at the port of debarkation. We say that they should be trained immediately to their purchasers. We maintain also that store cattle purchased by British farmers who are feeders in a large way, guaranteed by the Irish veterinary inspectors as free from disease, and with a clean bill of health—and the same, of course, refers to fat cattle—should be allowed to go forward at once. Irish veterinary inspectors have, to say the least of it, proved themselves equally competent with English veterinary inspectors. Our inspectors have shown that they know the difference between foot-and-mouth disease and other cattle diseases of that nature. We cannot say so much for the English veterinary inspectors. There is no reason why, when cattle are certified on our side of the Channel to have a clean bill of health, that when they are disembarked they should not be sent immediately to their destination.
  There is another phase of the cattle trade that has not been referred to by anybody, and that is the dead meat trade. We have a dead meat trade in Ireland, but it is only in its infancy, and it is only a very small infant. If Ireland, however, is to be confronted with these vexatious restrictions this trade will grow and expand. When I was last at home I was told that in Wexford they were slaughtering about 200 head of cattle per week. Suppose every county in Ireland does the same thing—

  1043
  and they can do it if they like—that would mean a great many cattle. Continental countries, Germany and Austria, for instance, pay a higher price for their meat than the British people. The difference between the price, we are told, would pay the cost of transit. So that it would seem there is a great future before the dead meat trade of Ireland. I hope, however, there will be found another way round the difficulty; that we shall not be forced to all this expense and trouble of establishing on a large scale a dead meat trade, but that trade will flow freely and naturally in the usual course between the British and the Irish people. Both Irish and British Members of Parliament should d their best to allay the distrust and suspicion that exists on both sides of the Channel. It has been a curse to both countries. Feeling has run very high in Ireland on this matter. We have been requested over and over again to vote against the Government until these restrictions were removed. That, of course, is what we never thought of doing and what we do not think of doing now, and there are several reasons for that. The first is because we trust to the reasonableness and fair-mindedness of the British people to remove these restrictions when they come to grasp the situation and when they know the successful exertions made in Ireland to stamp out the disease. And another reason is that we were sent here to win Home Rule, and now that we are on the threshold of Home Rule we have no idea of turning out a Home Rule Government, and certainly we have no idea of putting in a Unionist Government which presumably would reduce the Irish representation and give us, perhaps, twenty years of coercion. We stand or fall by the present Government, and we trust to the reasonableness of the British people to remove unnecessary restrictions.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is the only one who gave me notice upon this subject I think perhaps I had better reply to him at once. For my part, I do not resent in the least the case from the Irish point of view having been brought to the notice of this House either in Committee of Supply or on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. I quite realise that feeling has run high in Ireland, and I know the loss to which Irish farmers and breeders have been put has been very con
  1044
  siderable throughout the whole of last summer and winter. But I do not think it is fully realised in Ireland that we have at the earliest possible moment been reducing the restrictions placed on the Irish cattle trade. When I took the first step in the way of reducing the restrictions in the first week of last October, there was a protest raised from organised agriculturists all over England and Wales. When I cut down the restrictions on store cattle to four days' detention at the English port it led at once to a very large increase in the number of Irish store cattle coming over here. I can justify that reduction by what happened since, for certainly as a result of that reduction there has been no introduction of disease into Great Britain, and we have gone through the whole of the winter and spring without any single case being traced to the reductions of the restrictions, embarked upon so long ago as last October. Now we have come down to the comparatively small limit of twelve hours. I must repeat what I said in Committee of Supply, that a detention for twelve hours is by no means a new departure. In many English ports far more than twelve hours' detention had been the practice. In Liverpool the bulk of the cattle arrived on a Sunday morning and were detained for at least twenty-four hours before being put upon the market. What we have done is to make the detention uniform and compulsory, but on a much smaller scale than obtained in Liverpool in the past, and I hope Irish public opinion will realise that a twelve hours' detention, so far from doing harm, has already restored British confidence in Irish cattle trade, which I suggest is to the interests of the Irish farmers and cattle breeders.
  The hon. Gentleman quite truly says there has been a good deal of resentment in Ireland against the steps taken over here. Rut let me assure him and his Friends whatever steps were taken were taken purely with the object of preventing the disease spreading to our flocks and herds. I am not casting any suspicion upon Irish farmers and stock owners when I say we were bound to take that precaution as against Irish cattle. In the same way Ireland in the past has been forced to take similar precautions against us, and I have not the least doubt if foot-and-mouth disease broke out here that the Irish Department would be bound, not because of panic or that they wanted to prevent the competition of British animals

  1045
  in the Irish market, but in order that there might be no chance of infection being introduced among Irish herds, to put on restrictions not less severe but more severe than we have imposed. The hon. Member and his Friends must realise that it was to the best interests of the Irish farmers and breeders, whether small or large, that there should be no infection coming into Ireland from England. Similarly we were bound here to take all necessary precautions. I hope there will be no further resentment at the steps we were compelled to take. The hon. Gentleman said that a good deal of the heated feeling in Ireland was due to exaggeration with regard to the disease. He said that the resentment against Irish cattle over here was due to what some of his hon. Friends described as slanderous statement with regard to Irish cattle. I never indulged in anything of the kind, and I have carefully stated in this House and outside that so far as the Irish Department could ascertain the Irish Department had done their duty to let us know fully of the infected districts in Ireland, and had taken strong steps to prevent the infection from spreading. He said that the suspicions aroused here had been due to rather groundless attacks made on the part of some Gentlemen.
  There was a tendency on the part of some hon. Members to declare that the cases of foot-and-mouth disease certified were not foot-and-mouth disease at all. That really is a great mistake, and only does harm here and creates the impression among people who have not followed the whole history of the case that in Ireland there has been a tendency, certainly represented by one hon. Member in Committee, as if the matter was of no account, but Irish Members have admitted that it is a serious matter for Ireland as well as England. We must face the facts that there were 300 cases suspected and very nearly eighty confirmed after the most careful examination. We have had even a larger number in England: we have had a large number of suspicious cases, some of which I am glad to say turned out not to be cases of foot-and-mouth disease, but it would be absurd to say that there had been no cases. One thing we can congratulate ourselves upon is that the disease, so far as we know at the present moment, has been completely stamped out, and that for about three months there has not been a single case either in Ireland or England. We now find England,
  1046
  Wales, Scotland, and Ireland freer from foot-and-mouth disease than for many a year past. Ireland, I am glad to think, had a very good record before these past years. I trust our own record may rival hers in the years to come. One consolation I can offer to hon. Members for Ireland is that the cattle accommodation over here in British ports is largely on the increase, and is far more than the requirements of the trade demands. I am now speaking of the landing stager. The railway companies and most of the shipping companies are co-operating gradually with us, and will in a short time have provided us in England, Scotland, and Wales, with all that is required, not only for the present flow of cattle from Ireland, but for a very large increase as the demand goes on. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that the nature of the trade had been modified owing to the tendency to send over dead meat instead of live cattle. I offer no comment upon that, but the necessity for the purchase of Irish stores has not diminished, and the demand is still great. One of the things we in this country would desire more than any other, is that we should have to make our purchases of store cattle in the market free from all disease. Ireland is free from suspicion at the present moment. Long may she remain so.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LARDNER: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not give me an opportunity of putting my views before him before he got up to reply, especially as he must have known I was one of the Irish Members who on Saturday wished to speak on this matter. I only want to deal with one point, and that is the question of the twelve hours' detention on this side. Speaking for the part of the country which I represent, the effect of the twelve hours' detention has been to practically paralyse the trade there. I made that statement before. The right hon. Gentleman controverted it, but I repeat it now in the light of further inquiry I have made. Let me make myself perfectly clear. I am not one of those who suggested that there has been no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. I do not say that the Departments were always absolutely justified in what they did, but I take it that on the whole they certainly succeeded in stamping the disease out. What I say is there is no justification now for the twelve hours' detention. I do not object to a period of rest for food and water and inspection, but I say you have no justification for a

  1047
  period of twelve hours' detention. The only light I derived from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Saturday was that he did not regard twelve hours as sacrosanct. I will tell him why I think he should reduce it. His argument is that twelve hours inspection has restored confidence here. I cannot see how that is so at all. He says four days is not enough to find out whether disease exists or not, neither is twelve hours. All the twelve hours does is to give a period of inspection. We do not object to the period of inspection, but we object to twelve hours. Why I say that the period of twelve hours paralyses the Irish northern trade is that the majority of cattle coming from the province of Ulster are raised by small farmers, who bring them into the fairs and markets, sell them to dealers and ship them here on the speculation of having them sold in the English market. What is the result of twelve hours' detention? They are bought in the northern fairs on Monday, they are shipped on Monday night, they are held up for twelve hours, and they are not upon the English market until Wednesday. The additional difficulty is owing to the system of lairage. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress on the fact that 36,000 cattle and sheep are shipped. What is the experience in Belfast? Cattle are being penned up in Belfast for as long as six days and why? Because they are advised they cannot get any room in the lairage over here. Cattle bought in the country have been kept, almost for a week in Belfast. I strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recollect who are the people at whom he is striking. They are the people less able to bear it—the small farmers and the small dealers. The result is this, that at the present moment you have got people depending upon their investments in cattle to realise the money for their rent and for their ordinary household budget. They have not been able to do it, and the right hon. Gentleman tries to console us by saying that the trade in store cattle has been maintained. That is true, but it has been done under very exceptional circumstances. In this country you have been clamouring for stores, and in Ireland we have been clamouring to get rid of our cattle. I am not in favour of doing anything that would shake confidence in the Irish cattle trade on this side of the Channel. It is all very well to say that
  1048
  one or two Members below the Gangway have said that there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, but they are very suspicious of the whole method which has been adopted. If confidence in the Irish cattle trade has been shaken over here, I have no hesitation in saying that Irish confidence in the English administration of these restrictions has been very seriously shaken in Ireland. If I could have it from the right hon. Gentleman that this restriction was merely a temporary provision, and that there was some meaning behind his statement that the figure 12 was not sacrosanct, I should be more contented. We are most anxious to keep up the good reputation of the Irish cattle trade. We have no foot-and-mouth disease, and we do not want it, and we will take all the necessary steps to stamp it out, but my contention is that you are practically choking the neck of the bottle by insisting on this twelve hours' quarantine after landing. You are preventing cattle getting through to the markets, and the result will he that you will absolutely kill the store cattle trade so far as that particular part of Ireland is concerned.
  Mr. O'DOWD: As the representative of a constituency in the West of Ireland and as a member of the Council of Agriculture who has taken some little trouble in regard to this question, I feel that I should be wanting in my duty to my Constituents if I did not enter my protest against the continuance of this vexatious protective quarantine of twelve hours, against which my hon. Friends on these benches have protested. I attended several meetings in the county of Sligo and elsewhere during the month of September in regard to this question of foot-and-mouth disease at which we considered the restrictions imposed by the English and Irish Departments, and I can assure this House that the universal feeling in the county from which I come, and the Constituency which I represent, is that the restrictions to a great extent are entirely unnecessary. I am one of those individuals who, whatever may have been the mistakes of the past, would wish to "let the dead past bury its dead." Ordinary individuals who have studied this matter will conclude that a continuance of this twelve hours' detention is a wholly unnecessary proceeding on the part of the Board of Agriculture. Those most competent to judge and most experienced in the trade will tell you that a rigid inspection at the port of embarkation would be sufficient.

  1049
  In any case, public opinion in Ireland is strongly formed from this point, and they do not believe there is any necessity whatever for twelve hours' detention on this side of the water As for a portion of the county which I represent, it is a fine store-raising county, and on the deputations on which I have served since this outbreak took place I have had the honour to be associated with the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and men of all classes and creeds, whose views on political matters are not my own, and we have all come to the conclusion that the twelve hours' detention is unnecessary. On this point we are all united. I would appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture even now to reconsider his decision in regard to this restriction. I think the right hon. Gentleman will get tired of this thing himself in a day or two, and I hope he will decide to remove this restriction. The majority of my Constituents are small farmers, and they have suffered considerably by these rules. Unfortunately, they have had a bad season owing to the overflowing of rivers in the county, and the fact that we had a wet season last summer and during the early autumn. From these occurrences they suffered terribly, and these restrictions came as a crushing blow, because when they had their stores ready for the market, which would have helped them to meet their losses, they found that the markets were closed against them. Consequently they could not pay the shopkeepers or the Estates Commissioners their annuities, and the situation became very grave, and it is very grave at the present time. One small farmer with whom I am acquainted, who is engaged in the rearing of store cattle and who owns about four acres of land a man who won the county cup from the aristocrats of the county for three years in succession, even he was shut out from selling his cattle at the fairs because they were closed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think over this matter, and see if he cannot remove this vexatious rule, which is such a stumbling block in the way of the Irish cattle trade.

  BARRACK ACCOMMODATION (EDINBURGH).
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I should be glad to hear from the representative of the War Office whether it is intended to proceed with the building of the Redford Barracks, near Edinburgh. These barracks have been a very long time building. The cavalry barracks are a magnificent shell, but I understand there is no pros-
  1050
  pect of troops going into them for some time to come. If there is a surplus on the Buildings Vote, I think some of it might be advantageously devoted towards the completion of those barracks. In Scotland we have to find a great number of recruits for the Regular regiments, and it is rather a curious policy that Scotland should remain denuded of Regular troops, for this has been long felt to be a grievance. We expected that these barracks would have been finished long before now, and as there seems to be plenty of money available, I do not see any reason why the building of these barracks should not be flushed on so as to be ready for immediate occupation. This matter excites considerable interest in Scotland and the War Office cannot rely on getting their Regular troops unless they can see their way to maintain some regiments in that country.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: We have had a number of promises from the Secretary for War with reference to the Redford Barracks, but so far nothing at all has been done. This is a matter of great urgency for various reasons, because we require at once some proper accommodation in Scotland for both the Cavalry and the Infantry. I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office will be able to tell us, in the first place, the building of these barracks is really being pushed on; and secondly, I should like to say why it is necessary that the £75,000 which has been saved should go back to the Treasury. It looks as though the Department had been told that this Vote had been underestimated, and that anything they could do to pair off expenditure in any way would be gratefully received. I know that already requests have been made for more money to be spent for different things. There is the question of the Soldiers' Home in regard to which the Secretary for War told us a few days ago that the matter has been put before him, and would have his consideration. I ask the Financial Secretary to pause before he gives back to the Treasury the £75,000, because if he does give it back he will never see it again. There are plenty of useful purposes upon which it could be spent, in Scotland if it, is not wanted in any other part of the Kingdom.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I think the Noble Lord opposite suggested that we had taken the £75,000 for other purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I

  1051
  explained only two days ago exactly how it was we came to have that saving. It is always an extremely difficult thing to make an accurate forecast of new works. I hope in future arrangements we shall get a closer approximation of the actual sum required. With regard to the Redford Barracks, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) has rather underestimated the amount of progress we have made there. We have made some progress, but if great progress is not being made now, it is not due to our failure to spend money. There are a number of difficulties connected with the matter which it is not advisable to discuss at present, but we are overcoming them, and we hope to push on with the work very speedily. I think the hon. Member is aware that when these barracks are completed, it is believed they will be probably the finest barracks in the world.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

  RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 11th February.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  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 1 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
  1052
  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.

  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "that," to insert the words "after making due allowance for any benefit derived by the company from any improvement or economy effected in the working of the railway, or in dealing with the traffic thereon."
  There has been a criticism of every Amendment except one which has so far been moved to this Bill, to the effect that if it were carried it would constitute a violation of the undertaking which the Government entered into in August, 1911, with the railway companies after the great railway strike. So far from this Amendment being in any sense a violation of that undertaking, the Bill will, if it is not accepted, have the effect not merely of going beyond the undertaking, but of upsetting and repealing the existing law as laid down by the Railway and Canal Commission. There is no question as to what is the law to-day, for there are plenty of authorities to confirm this statement, and there are absolutely none, so far as I can ascertain, on the other side. It is incumbent upon the Commissioners when considering whether an increase of rate or charge upon goods consigned over the railway is justifiable to take into account as a set off any economies which the railway company have been able to effect, and which have proved an increased source of revenue. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why under this Bill when an increase is made in consequence of an improvement in the conditions of labour on the railways these economies should not constitute a set off in favour of the trader as they have done in the past. The law on the subject is summed up in a judgment delivered in the case of Smith and Forest against the London and North Western Railway Company, and the essence of the judgment is contained in these words:—
  "If it is shown, after all the elements of cost and economy have been taken into consideration, that the necessary cost per ton carriage will, under uniform conditions, be increased without any compensating circum-

  1053
  stances, then it is primâ facie reasonable to increase the rate by the same sum."
  The judgment later on goes on to say:—
  "The Commissioners are not precluded from having regard to any circumstances, including economies effected by the company, which may tend to justify an increase of rate or prove it unreasonable."
  That is the ruling on the subject, and it has never been in any sense overruled, nor, so far as I can ascertain, has there been any case decided by the Railway and Canal Commission or by any higher Court that would tend to modify the judgment in this ease. What are these economies which we ask to be taken into account in judging whether an increase of rate or charge is justifiable or not? In the first place, the companies are effecting economies by using much larger locomotives and wagons, and being thereby able to carry at one time much larger quantities of produce, particularly mineral produce; and they are also using longer trains. There is, in addition to that, this process of transhipment, which, although it means considerable delay to the unfortunate consignee or consignor, as the case may be, enables them to separate out their produce at particular centres for the purpose of distributing it according to their own convenience as to time in the directions desired. Then the companies have to a greater extent, as we all know, running powers over each other's system; and there is a tendency for a greater development of amalgamation of the railways by what are nowadays euphemistically called "working agreements," but which, in effect, are only another name for amalgamation, and are intended to blind the public, and particularly the trading public, to the nature of the transaction. It is only fair the trader should, as in the past, have some credit on his side of the account in respect of the reduction in the cost of various raw materials. I think he ought to be credited also with the reduction which has taken place, and which is almost certain to continue to take place, in the amount of labour employed on the railway.
  It is all very well to say railway servants must receive additional remuneration. No one is more anxious to see them receive it than myself, but it would probably result in an acceleration of the pace at which labour employed on the railways is being reduced. That should be taken into account as one of the economies by which railway companies will derive additional revenue. I do not want to go into various other minor details where railway companies are able to effect economy, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  1054
  it is seriously intended to go beyond the agreement between the Government and the railway companies, and to say that traders generally and particularly the poorer traders—I speak especially for the farmers and small holders—shall in future be deprived of the most valuable claim they have yet been able to put forward when they have faced all the expenses and trouble of making an application to the Railway and Canal Commission, namely, that, if railway companies have to face increased charges, there shall also be taken into account on the other side of the balance-sheet their additional revenue consequent upon economies they have effected, they are effecting at the present time, and which they will, I think, effect at a greater rate in the future with the realisation—our English railway companies have been very slow in realising it—of the immense improvements in the working of railways and the great economies which can be effected by the adoption of modern scientific knowledge and modern scientific methods.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The hon. Member said that, if I did not accept his Amendment, the Bill would go beyond the undertaking of the Government. I do not agree with that view. On the contrary, I think, if the hon. Member's proposal were accepted, the undertaking of the Government would not be complete. He desires that, as at present, where there is an increase in rate various matters shall be taken into account by the Railway and Canal Commission. I would draw his attention to Sub-sections (c) and (d), and generally to the Clause as a whole. As regards the reasonableness of an increase, the Railway and Canal Commission will deal with it in a similar way as they deal with an increase under the existing law. They have complete discretion when they are considering any increase in rate and they will be able to deal with any matter germane to that interest. They will be entitled, therefore, under the Bill when considering the reasonableness of the rate to take into account such matters as they think relevant. They have wide and elastic powers at present with reference to the matters they may consider relevant, and we do not interfere with them. The hon. Member desires quite another thing. He wishes definitely to say there are certain circumstances they must take into account. He therefore proposes very seri-

  1055
  ously to fetter their discretion. I do not think that would be advisable. If their discretion were fettered in that way, it certainly would not put them in dealing with an increase due to conditions of labour in the same position as they are in with regard to an increase due to any other cause. I think the hon. Member ought to remember also it is a very well-known matter in connection with Statutes that if you specify certain things which ought to be taken into consideration, other matters not so specified are thought to be excluded from consideration. His words and other Amendments on the Paper show the difficulty of putting into a Statute points which the Commission are specifically directed to take into account. There are all sorts and conditions of Amendments on the Paper. The Clause would have to be half-a-yard long to include them all, and even then many important and material matters might be omitted, and by omission might cease to be efficacious.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand it is not intended by this Bill to fetter the existing discretion of the Commissioners in taking into account such economies?
  Mr. BUXTON: The words I used were that, as regards the "unreasonableness," which is the word in question under Subsections (c) and (d) of any increase, it shall be dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in a similar way they now deal with increases under the existing law. They will have complete discretion to take into account the various circumstances they consider germane to the reasonableness or otherwise of a proposed increase. I want to leave them in dealing with this increase with the elasticity of power they have at present. I do not think it would be fair from the point of view of the Bill to fetter their discretion, and I really think from the point of view of the hon. Member it would be inexpedient to do so. I hope what I have said may somewhat satisfy him as to the interpretation he has put upon the Bill and will show him that the position of the Commissioners with regard to this matter is that they will have full and complete discretion to take into account the various circumstances they consider germane to the question of the increase and among those circumstances will be many of the matters to which the hon. Member has referred.
  Mr. WARDLE: I support the Amendment. I should like to ask the President
  1056
  of the Board of Trade whether, if it were shown that an increase had taken place in the cost of wages and other conditions of labour and that, as a set off against that, there had been sonic considerable economies effected in other directions, the Commissioners could refuse to allow the railway company to raise its rate? That seems to me to be the whole point. It is all very well to say that they can take it into account, but this Bill is to give them power to raise rates if they increase wages, and therefore it seems to me it would have the effect of giving no offset on account of economies. There is another reason why these improvements should be taken into account. It is a well-known fact to anyone who has any connection with railways in recent years that large economies have been effected by amalgamations and working agreements, by speeding up of trains and heavier engines, by longer trains, and in many other ways. These economies, in addition to saving labour, also increased the burden upon labour, and therefore it seems to me to be right that they should have other effects and that rather than an increase in the total of wages there would be a reduction of the hours of labour, as a consequence of such speeding up. We have had during the last few years great economies which have resulted in large additions to the revenue of railway companies which have meant also increased burdens on the men and have also reduced the number of men employed. I believe that in the last four years not less than 12,000 men are employed upon the railways which are carrying an immensely additional burden of traffic. Therefore this matter ought to be taken into account when the Railway and Canal Commissioners come to fix their rates.
  Mr. PARKES: I think this is a very important point and it does not seem to me to be one which has been exactly explained by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton). The question is whether this Bill is based upon the principle that it limits the Commissioners to the question of wages only as regards any increase in the rates. If it limits the question to wages only, then I must say it limits the discretion of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment would limit the discretion of the Commissioners. I think the Bill does that. But what this Amendment would do would be to increase the area of the points which the Commissioners would take into consideration in saying whether or not there should be an

  1057
  increase of rates. That does not limit the discretion of the Commissioners and the whole point and a most important point is whether in their discretion a positive increase in wages only shall be taken into account in summing up the whole case upon the necessity of an increase of rates at the present time. I think they ought to take the whole question into consideration. It is quite possible that you may have a large increase of wages and at the same time great economy in other parts of the administration of the railway. It may be that owing to economies in administration and improvements in machinery, the net cost may be less than it was before. What we want to do is that the public shall be allowed to benefit by these economies, and that it should be recognised that there may be an increase of wages with no addition to the net cost of working. It may be possible under this Bill that the railway companies would be mounting up dividends in consequence of increased economy in administration, and at the same time the net increase in the cost of labour would not be large. In other words, the economies would be greater than the cost of labour. If that be so, I am bound to say the public ought to benefit.
  If this Bill does not allow the scope of the Commissioners to go above and beyond the question of wages, there ought to be a Bill brought in which does allow the whole matter to be taken into consideration. This important question affects the workman in two or three points, first, in the cost of his provisions and also in the cost of his employment. If you have these increased charges from time to time the tendency will be to throw men out of employment. I am speaking on behalf of the great manufacturing centres in this country, which will be affected more than any other class of the community by reason of their distance from the ports and any increase of wages or any increase of the charges of the railway companies would be looked upon with the greatest concern and almost with despair by the people who have to pay the increase. I certainly think this is an important Amendment. I believe that for the considerations mentioned by the Mover and by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that these matters should all be taken into account. I do not believe that the public will have justice done to them if we are to base these increases of rates mainly or solely on the wages' question.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: There is one view which arises on this Amendment and has been already dealt with, and I will only touch upon it briefly, whether it be possible to take into account the process which has been going on among The railway companies for a period of years. There has been a combination of economies effected by the railway companies, and these economies are certain to continue. Part of them consists of dispensing with competitive services, and thereby reducing the labour bills, not necessarily by the discharge of men. Obviously in a country of increasing population, while it may not be necessary to discharge men, it may not be necessary to engage as many men as would otherwise be engaged if the economies had not been effected. That process was in operation when the Government entered into this pledge. I was called out of the House and did not hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I want to be quite sure whether or not he covered that point. If this Amendment is not put into the Bill, will the railway companies be allowed to evade a proper set-off to economies simply because they have given an increase of wages. The next point is the economy, which, I think, most authorities are now agreed arises out of an increase in labour cost. We had on the Second Reading of this Bill a most interesting speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he seemed to ignore this point. He compared railway companies with private firms. He said, "Here is a private trader faced with the necessity for an increase of wages. He has his remedy, and he passes on the increase of wages to the general public." That supposes that the trader is always able to pass on to the public the increase of wages, but I venture to suggest that whilst he may do so at first, he is not able in the long run always to pass on to the public an increase in wages. I do not hesitate in saying that if I believed in that doctrine I should not have supported the National Insurance Act. It is true in many cases that the manufacturer or the trader is able immediately to pass on the whole or part of the increase of wages. But what happens eventually?
  In the first place, the efficiency of the worker must be increased by the increase of wages up to a certain point, which I do not believe has yet been reached in this country, the maximum increase possible in the efficiency of the worker. An increase of wages must give the producer better value for the wages paid. There-

  1059
  fore the increase in wages is not an increase in the labour cost. Not only is the labourer more efficient by reason of an increase of wages, but the producer himself is rendered more efficient by an increase of wages. An increase of wages is forced upon him by circumstances, and he immediately looks round to see from what sources of efficiency he can draw to compensate him for having to pay those increased wages. Anybody who knows the history of the Manchester cotton trade knows that the trade unions of Manchester, whilst forcing upon the cotton manufacturers higher wages, at the same time forced upon them an efficiency which has helped to put the cotton trade of this country into the proud possession which it occupies to-day. An increase in wages is not an increase in labour cost. I want to make quite sure that these points are covered by the law as it stands or by the present Bill, and especially that they will be taken into account by the Railway and Canal Commissioners on complaint being made in connection with this particular Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance, then the Amendment is unnecessary, as also are other Amendments Which I have put down with the same object. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make quite clear how the matter will stand in regard to these very important points.
  Sir A. MOND: I rise to mention a rather technical point which arises on the Amendment. The real discussion is on what is meant by "a rise in the cost of working" in paragraph (a). The President of the Board of Trade, on the Second Reading, said, "What the Bill provides for is the net cost of any burden upon the railway companies at the end of the year." What is meant by those words "net cost"? If the cost of working the railways is more than the entire cost in the previous year, can the set-off which the railway companies may make in other directions by economies be established before any increase of wages can he justified? Whether that is so or not, I am in doubt. Does "a rise in the cost of working" mean "less economies" and therefore that they must be deducted? Does it mean a total "rise in the cost working" of the railways or only a rise where it can be proved that. labour conditions are involved? Suppose the gross cost of working is actually less than it was owing to economies in electrification or in other
  1060
  directions, but the labour bill is higher than it was the year before, will the words "rise in the cost of working" mean that these economies are to be ignored? I ant afraid I could not follow the President of the Board of Trade in his explanation that this point arises under paragraph (c). He said that the discretion of the Railway Commissioners to take all these considerations into account will not be interfered with, but so far as I read paragraph (c) it seems to give the Commissioners only discretion with regard to a rise in the cost of working, and to see that the actual amount to be charged is not more than will cover the cost of working. That is not the point raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Under paragraph (c) the Railway Commissioners are not intended to inquire whether or not any economies have or have not been made as a set-off. It seems to me that all they are intended to inquire into under that paragraph is the rise in cost all round. It would be of value to traders to have a little further explanation from the Board of Trade on this important point. I cannot see how the Amendment or the idea underlying it can be said to go outside the pledge given by the Government, or beyond the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading. It cannot be intended that if a railway company saved—1,000,000 a year in economies or through amalgamation, and its labour Bill went up by £500,000, that it should be entitled to increase its rates to the traders, although being £500,000 better off. That could never be contended by the railway companies or the Government. What was obviously intended was that if the increase in cost to the railway companies was £500,000 owing to the increase in the cost of labour, the £500,000 could be recovered. I believe that is the way that the rise in the cost of working under paragraph (a) was intended to be read, and that there must be a net increase of the cost of working due to labour. What the Bill provides for is not the cost but the rise.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: It is very desirable that the Amendment should be accepted. I fail to see that it would interfere with the object the Government had in view in framing the Bill. We all recognise that the object of the Government is to fulfil a promise to prevent the railway companies suffering loss through increased wages, which were deemed last year on

  1061
  all hands to be desirable. In so far as the Bill accomplishes that object, we all heartily support it. On the other hand, we have to see that no machinery is set up whereby the traders will be unduly charged or penalised. We could not fail to see from the discussion yesterday that there is a feeling on both sides of the Committee in favour of better remuneration for some classes of railway employés, whether it be by a minimum wage or through the means of Conciliation Boards. The Government take the latter view, but anyhow I think it is clear that there will have to be an increase of wages. For that increase of wages I think there will be an increase of efficiency and despatch, and that indirectly the railway companies will increase their revenues. The Bill would go beyond the object we have in view if it is made the means whereby the railway companies should increase their revenues. We all stand to support the railway corn-panics in not suffering loss through their concessions during the settlement of last year. We appreciate their action, and we appreciate the services rendered by the railway companies generally in promoting the trade of the country. I believe in creased remuneration to the employés on the railway systems means increased efficiency and despatch. We owe much to the railway employés at present; they are always ready to serve the public, but we know that well-paid labour is the most economical. Under this measure there will be better conditions for the railway employés, resulting in increased revenue for the companies, and we have to ask the Government to safeguard traders from any imposition of increased charges which would mean an increased profit to the companies beyond the extent to which they are called upon to make any improvement in the condition of their employés. The incorporation of this Amendment will be a reasonable safeguard which the users of the railways have a right to expect, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. We hold that in considering the justice of the demands of the railway companies that economies should be considered and also the improvement of management, and that they should not be increased at the expense of additional charges on the public.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I desire to ask my right hon. Friend one definite question. I am advised that as the Bill is drafted it would be possible for there to be an actual reduction in the cost of working the
  1062
  traffic to the railway company, and yet for the rates to be increased. I am sure that is not the intention of the President of the Board of Trade; but if the Bill as drafted would permit such a thing, some limiting words are needed. I am afraid that, unless some limiting words are put in, the Bill is going to give the companies greater powers than the Board of Trade desire at the present time.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: The President of the Board made two points, with the first of which I thoroughly agree, namely, that the insertion of any limitation in a Bill is dangerous, as tending in the direction of excluding the consideration of other limitations which are desired. What we are anxious for is that this particular limitation and all other reasonable limitations may be equally considered by the Commissioners. We want to be. perfectly sure that under this Bill the Commissioners shall have full liberty of consideration, so that the net increased cost in regard to wages may be the deciding factor. We have heard what was said by the President of the Board of Trade, but this Bill, if passed, will not be construed by that speech, but according to its wording. For satisfaction on so vital a matter as this we want something more than we have had already, that is an absolutely authoritative statement whether under paragraphs (c) and (d) these other considerations may he regarded by the Commissioners, or that we may have a promise from the Government that on Report we shall have the Bill so altered as to meet the objections of my hon. Friends and myself.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir A. MARKHAM:I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether we are to understand that the Committee are in this position; that whatever Amendments are moved the President of the Board is under any honourable understanding or agreement with the railway companies to accept no substantial alteration. That is a general rumour in the House. Whether or not it is true I do not know. I should like to have an assurance as to whether the right hon. Getnleman is in a position to accept Amendments beyond those he has himself put down on the Paper. With reference to this Amendment I ask him to consider the desirability of accepting it. I cannot conceive that any railway company or board of directors can take exception to it. It has been pointed

  1063
  out by traders that under this Bill the cost of working the traffic may actually decrease, and yet the rates still be raised. Another question, equally important, in view of the constant amalgamations and working arrangements between railway companies, is that these working arrangements are to the detriment of the trader as a rule. Is the trader to get no advantage whatever out of all these economies? We understood from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, that the railway companies were to be able to recoup themselves only for the increased cost through the payment of labour. This Bill does not carry that out. It is a very important fact that large companies get facilities for reduced rates from railway companies. I have taken cases to the Railway Committee myself on the point. If any benefit which is being derived in that respect has to be taken into consideration, we might just as well say that the country is to have no advantage whatever of any scientific invention which may bring about economies and better management and effect a lowering of the actual cost of railway working. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. I am not hostile to the Bill; I dislike it very much; but the Government having given a pledge, I feel bound to support them. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept these words, I hope he will accept other words which will carry out what is the feeling on all sides of the House.
  Mr. PETO: I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet that this question of the set-off in economy against increase in the cost of working, due possibly to improvement in the conditions of railway work, is the most important question in the whole Bill. It is of vital moment to know whether this really is and can be taken into consideration by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in case of any complaint in future in cases brought specifically under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman relies upon paragraphs (c) and (d), which, in my opinion, are altogether too vague to meet this case at all, and he read into them practically the continuance of the existing law as it is administered by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I do not think, having regard to the title of this Bill, which is that it. is "in respect of an increase of rates and charges made for the
  1064
  purpose of meeting the rise in the cost of working the railways due to improved labour conditions," that there can be any doubt that it does limit the discretion of the Court, and that it is open to very great doubt as to whether economy can be taken as a set-off against the increased cost due to improvements in labour conditions. Some time ago I was one of a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman, and this very question was gone into at considerable length. I am surprised that the hon. Baronet. (Sir A. Mond) seems to have forgotten how completely it was gone into. The right hon. Gentleman then, and I gather his opinion remains unchanged, stated that he considered under the wording of the Bill that the onus would be on the railway companies to show that there was a net addition to their expenditure. Even limiting it there, when we quoted the case of improvements in locomotives as a mere example of a whole class of economy which has no direct relation to improvements in the conditions of labour, the President was perfectly clear that, as it would be impossible to prove any direct relation, they would have no bearing upon the matter at all.
  Therefore, unless he has changed his opinion as to the real meaning of the Bill, there is no doubt that questions of economy due to amalgamation, due to the march of science, due to improvements in handling traffic, or to improved traction, or anything of that kind, will not be reckoned at all. Therefore it is not a question of doubt, it is a question of certainty, that with the future development of railway companies, what will happen if you do not put in this Amend-meat, or the later one in a wider form, which I think is better, there will be enormous economies and reductions in the working cost of railways due to outside questions, which have no direct relation to labour, and that the smallest increase or improvement in the condition of labour will be treated as a reason for increasing rates in spite of vast economies made in other directions. But limiting it, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the question of those economies which have an absolutely direct relation to improvements in labour conditions and to the more efficient labour that has been referred to, I do not see anywhere in the Bill even that that is provided for. There is not even anything to show that it is to be a net rise in the cost, and the right hon. Gentleman at the deputation to which I have

  1065
  referred, used the word "net." Even that word is not put in the Bill, and if it were put in the Bill I still think it would not be clearly sufficiently definite to make it clear that there is not a completely new departure in the Bill in the case of the railway company, which has to justify the rise in rates which is objected to by the trader. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave what I consider practically a pledge that some such Amendment as this should be put in if we could make a case for it. He was disputing the question that the cost of labour had been taken into consideration in cases tried before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and he went on to say:—
  "The hon. Member for Swansea says there are five cases in which wages have been taken into account. If he has any experience of litigation, he must know that there are other cases on the other side."
  The hon. Member dissented, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he must not dissent, and went on:—
  "At any rate, unless there was a doubt about it, why on earth should or the Board of Trade, or the Government, or the railway companies, desire this power? If the power already exists, what possible hardship will it be to the trade to have an Act of Parliament which simply declares what my hon. Friend says is the law of the land?"
  That is our contention. This Bill does not declare what is the existing law, and will continue to be the law by any means. Then he goes on to say this very important thing:—
  "There is no intention to introduce any new element. If my hon. Friend says that element is already established by law, we only want it to be clearly set out in the Statute."
  No one can say that the question of taking into consideration the set-off of economy is clearly set out in this Bill. It is the general principle of the Court to take into consideration all relevant facts pro or con, and then sum the whole thing up and say whether the case has been justified on account of a net increase in the cost owing to certain factors, and among the factors they have taken into consideration in many cases is this very question of an increase in wages. I entirely agree that in all cases it can by no means be proved that it is an advantage, even to the companies themselves, to have low wages. There are enormous economies which can, and which will some day be effected by the railway companies, the incentive to adopt which is the direct result of paying higher wages to their men.
  I am as certain as I am here that some of these great economies, particularly in the handling at the goods termini of the
  1066
  railway, will not be put into force in this country until a considerable time after they have been adopted in America, because men in this country engaged in shunting—goods porters and so forth—are paid about 4d. an hour, whereas in the United States, the same men could not be got under a quarter of a dollar an hour. There is a direct incentive to put into operation a system which is already completely worked out, and which will effect gigantic economies, not only in the total labour bill, but undoubtedly in releasing a very large number of men who are unprofitably employed in hazardous and unpleasant employment in this country now for more profitable employment, which will be to their advantage and to the advantage of the trade of the country. I consider that the whole principle of this Bill, if we do not introduce this question of economy as a set-off, is thoroughly vicious. It will tend to perpetuate the extravagant use of hand labour in this country, because the railway companies will always be able to say, "It does not cost us any more. We can put it on to the traders. It is true we may have to pay a minute fraction an hour more, but because we employ 1,000 men where we need not employ any at all, we are not forced to consider the question because it will not mean any net diminution of the profits of the railway company."
  I want to refer to another matter in this connection, and that is, as to what extent in the past few years the railway companies have really got any case as to a net increase in cost. In some cases where there has been a net increase in cost, at any rate it cannot be alleged that they have had less traffic to handle, I find that the receipts per goods mile in 1901 were only 73d., whereas in 1910 they were 95d. The minerals carried in 1901 were only 416,000,000 tons, as against 515,000,000 tons last year. All these things are going in their direction, and it seems to me to be a monstrous thing that we should pass this Bill through, which will enable the railway companies to free their hands of all considerations of increased trade, and to throw a burden upon trade which would result in diminishing the volume of the trade of the company every time they gave the smallest concession to the labour they employ. Therefore, far from thinking of advising my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, I certainly should not consent to such a course, because I regard it as an absolutely vital principle. The President of the Board of Trade told us when

  1067
  we met him, that it was the intention of the Bill, as regards the direct relation between economy and extra cost, to recognise that, and leave it as part of the consideration that the Court would have to decide, and therefore it cannot be contrary to the interests of the wage earner, the trader, or the real interests of the railway companies themselves, to have it clearly set out in the Bill, as proposed by this Amendment, that it must be the net increase due to the improved conditions of labour, after taking into consideration every economy, and that only in this way can the charge for the net increase be passed on to the trader. If we adopted any other principle, we should be adopting a principle which would tend to diminish the traffic and the trade of the country, and which would injure the railway companies themselves in the long run. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to assure the Committee not only that the principle is in the Bill, but that he will offer no further objection to the words of the Amendment being put in.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I can only repeat what I have said before. I am anxious in this Sub-section to avoid limiting the discretion of the Commissioners, and what I feel chiefly in regard to the Amendment is that it would very largely diminish that discretion. If these particular words were put in, they would be read with the Act of 1894. Under that Act the Commissioners have full discretion in considering the reasonableness of an increase of rates to take into account any circumstances which they consider relevant to that matter. Nothing whatever precludes them from taking into account the various matters to which reference has been made by previous speakers. I wish to leave them that discretion, and under the Bill as drafted I am informed by my advisers that this discretion is left to the Commissioners. Indeed, that is the common-sense reading of what the Bill proposes. I think this particular Amendment. would be more relevant to paragraphs (c) or (d) than to paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) deals solely with the increase due to labour conditions, while paragraphs (c) and (d) deal with other matters. I wish to leave to the Commissioners the same discretion which they have in dealing with any other increase of rate to take into account the
  1068
  various circumstances that may arise when considering whether the increase is reasonable. To put into the Act of Parliament certain words which are mandatory on them to take into account certain circumstances would largely limit their discretion in taking into account other circumstances. I think the interests of those concerned are better served by leaving the Bill as it stands with full discretion to the Commissioners than to put in words which would make certain conditions mandatory, and therefore do exactly the contrary of what hon. Members desire. My position about the Bill is this: I feel bound, speaking on behalf of the Government, to carry the Bill through intact. In a few minutes on another Amendment I will make a statement on one or two Amendments to which, after negotiation with the railway companies, I have received their consent.
  Mr. JOWETT: Consent?
  Mr. BUXTON: To which they have agreed.
  Mr. JOWETT: There are two sides to the question.
  Mr. BUXTON: As regards the principle of the Bill, I feel bound to resist Amendments which are against the principle. That. is the whole position with regard to myself. I hope that will be satisfactory to the Committee. The suggestion which has been made is natural and attractive, and I am very glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing it, but I believe from the point of view of the trader, and also from the point of view expressed by various speakers, that to put in these words would be more likely to be injurious than otherwise.
  Mr. BARNES: I think, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman has missed one point, which is this: The Bill provides that the railway companies, following an increase in wages, shall make a charge. It provides that the trader shall only have an opportunity of complaining against that charge. I think that is a point which has not been considered by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not follow the point.
  Mr. BARNES: The point is that the Bill provides that a charge is to be made by the railway company in the event of that company increasing their labour cost. Therefore it is only after the charge has

  1069
  actually been made that the trader has an opportunity under this Bill of making a complaint. My point is this: I think there will have been prior to that date an absence of any stimulus on the part of the railway companies to make improvements or any increased efficiency in the working of the railways, and therefore, it is too late when the trader makes a complaint to have any advantage of the increased efficiency on the railways as a set-off against increased labour cost. I say that there must be in ordinary cases a saving to the railway companies in the event of the company improving the conditions of the men. There has been absolutely no answer made yet to the statement of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money), which is borne out in all industries where increased wages have been given or the hours of labour have been reduced. In the cotton trade, the engineering trade, and others that might be mentioned, these changes are invariably accompanied by increased efficiency on the part of the workers concerned. A railway company might not increase the wages of the men, but they might reduce the hours of labour under the provisions of this Bill. Take an extreme case—they might have a number of men working twelve hours a day, and they might reduce the number of hours to eight. The men might get the same wages for eight hours as for twelve. The railway companies would be under the necessity of employing some other men, but they would not employ other men in proportion to the reduction of the hours. There would be an immense increase of efficiency on the part of the men working eight hours, hour for hour, as compared with their efficiency when working twelve hours. There is nothing in this Bill to provide that a railway company shall only make a charge strictly proportionate to the increased cost. I think that is a point well worthy of consideration by the President of the Board of Trade.
  For my part, if the Amendment is put to a Division, I shall feel bound to vote for it. It has been assumed all through—the statement was made on the Second Reading of the Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was also made by the hon. Member for Bolton and taken as a matter for granted—that any increase of wages should be passed on by the employer. Nothing of the sort takes place. it occurred to me as I listened to the hon. Member for Wilts that there is an industry
  1070
  with which he has been associated, contract work, in which a job is sometimes undertaken that will last five years. In the event of the contractor having to pay an increased wage to his men during those five years—and it very often occurs—he gets no increased price in his contract.
  An HON. MEMBER: There may be extras.
  Mr. BARNES: If he gets any extras, that is a good argument for this Amendment. As a rule, increased wages or reduced hours means increased personal efficiency. Where it does not mean increased personal efficiency on the part of the men it means a stimulus to the employer to bring in some improved method. Therefore it is not true to say that the ordinary employer of labour can pass it on to his customers. This Bill makes a provision that a railway company can pass it on to its customers, and in that way it is going to encourage a continuation of the slovenliness that now characterises our railway system.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The speech of the hon. Member and those who preceded him satisfy me that in arriving at their decision the Commissioners will have to consider other things than the things mentioned in the Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Clause 1. They will have to consider all the circumstances of the case at the time the complaint is made to them. The President of the Board of Trade seemed to accept that view because he told us that the discretion given to the Commissioners under the Act of 1894 was in no way interfered with by this Bill, and in coming to a conclusion they would have to take into consideration a number of other circumstances besides those mentioned in the Sub-clauses of the Bill. If that is so, it is an answer to the speeches which have been made. But I do not feel convinced that as the Bill stands that discretion has been preserved. It might be argued that the conditions in a, b, c, and d are the only things that they have to consider. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will give an assurance that between this and the Report stage he will consider with his advisers whether the discretion of the Commissioners would be limited by the form of the Bill to the consideration of the four subjects mentioned, and, if so, whether it would not be advisable to put in another subhead somewhat to this effect, "and having regard to all the circumstances, whether the company's

  1071
  increase in rates and charges would be reasonable."
  Colonel GREIG: I desire to make a suggestion for carrying out what seems to be the general view of those who have taken part in the discussion. I agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member opposite as to the construction of this Clause. It is quite clear that under Section 1 of the 1894 Act the Railway and Canal Commissioners could take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. That being so, the insertion of these proposed words, and especially in the earliier portion of this Clause under Sub-section (a), would have a limiting effect when the Court came to construe the Act, because it would mean that those practically were the only considerations to be taken into account. I find in a well-known book on railway rates, that dealing with the raising of rates, a well-known author says:—
  "In saying that proof of a reasonableness of the amount of a rate is proof of the reasonableness of increasing a lower rate to such an amount, it is not intended to negative the view that reasonableness is intended to be read as meaning reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."
  What I think would meet the exigiences of the case is that the President of the Board of Trade should in Sub-section (c) of Clause accept this Amendment, which I shall be prepared to move if necessary, that after the words, "in the whole," the words, "having regard to all the circumstances." be inserted. So that it would read "(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 having regard to all the circumstances greater than is reasonably required for that purpose." You would bring in then all the circumstances of the case, not only any improvement or economy effected in the working, but any other circumstances which the Court or the Railway Commissioners, if it had been heard under the old Act, would have taken into consideration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is all very well to keep referring back to the parent Act and the emphasis laid on particular points in this Act. The fact is that by passing this Act and singling out from among all the circumstances of the case one particular element in the cost of working traffic, namely, wages, you instinctively compel the Railway Commissioners to single out that one item for consideration, and when the President of the
  1072
  Board of Trade says that the Railway Commissioners will continue to consider all complaints made to them on the general and reasonable grounds on which they consider them at present, I can only say that that is all altered by the emphasis upon the wages question. The President of the Board of Trade himself admitted that by singling out one particular item you made that item mandatory upon them and obscured all other elements of the question, because he complained that if the specific words were added, the words in the Amendment here, "after making due allowance for any benefit derived by the company from any improvement or economy affected in the working of the railway or in dealing with the traffic thereof," though those words ought to be taken into consideration, and though he believed they would be if this Act passed, yet the very fact of putting them into an Act of Parliament would lay too much emphasis on it and tie the hands of the Railway Commissioners in a way which they are not tied at present. if you single out any particular item, the Railway Commissioners have got to consider whether wages or economies, you thereby obscure all the other elements that go to make up the cost of carrying the traffic in order to make up the minds of the Railway Commissioners when they decide whether the rate should be increased or not.
  I am confident that anyone who looks through this Clause will agree with me when I say that the President of the Board of Trade must be at present in error in thinking that. this Amendment is already embodied in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Clause. What we ask for in this Amendment is that economies, whether from amalgamation or inventions, or the increased efficiency of labour employed at higher charges, should be taken into account by the Railway Commissioners in deciding whether the rate is reasonable or not Paragraph (c) refers specifically to the increased rates or charges to meet the rise in the cost of working. Obviously the paragraph is to guard against the danger that a rise in freight rates charged by the railway company should bring any more than the increased cost of the wages bill. That is the danger which the paragraph is to guard against. Paragraph (d) is "that the proportion of increased rates or wages allocated to particular traffic with respect to which the complaint is made is not unreasonable." In these two paragraphs

  1073
  the drafters of the Bill intended to guard against the increased cost of working passenger traffic being put off on the increased cost of working the goods traffic; or, again, the increased cost of working one part of the line being put on to increase the rates on another part of the railway. They are two specific dangers against which paragraphs (c) and (d) are intended to guard against, but they do not guard against those dangers against which we seek protection. When we come to the actual wording of the Amendment, I ant bound to say that I see certain difficulties, and it is possible that it might be more happily worded.
  The whole principle of the Bill is shown up in this way: Suppose the words proposed were adopted, and suppose the railway company were told that if they effected any economy out of the increase in wages that would not be a justification for raising the freight rate—if you were t o tell any railway company, or, say, any business man, that if he managed his business well and made economies he would not be able to increase his charges, or that if he did not effect economies in the management of his business, then he would be allowed to have the advantage of increasing his charges, you would be putting a premium on inefficiency. Therefore, it is very difficult to insert those Amendments in the Bill, but that is not the fault of the Amendment, it is the fault of the Bill itself. If you proceed on lines which are radically unsound you must expect to come up against difficulties like this. On the whole, and in the long run, I think it would be well to adopt this Amendment even if it has this effect. If you pass this Amendment I think it will act as a time limit to the operation of the Bill. As the years go on there will be new inventions and economies in the natural progress of science, which will save cost in working the railway. The Railway Commissioners in ten, twenty, or thirty years will come to the conclusion that there have been other economies in railway working which will decide any increase in general charges, and therefore they will ultimately cease to regard the plea of the railway company that a particular rate is so raised by reason of the increase of the Wages Bill.
  On the whole, this, or a similar Amendment, should be put into the Bill, and besides the wages element, the Railway Commissioners will be enabled to give due consideration to other elements of cost. I think also that in this Bill you are
  1074
  changing the principles on which the Railway Commissioners work—I mean that the Railway Commissioners at the present time when they come to consider the cost of working a big railway, do not consider the whole of its working, but consider the cost of the particular section on which the rate has been increased. They look at it from the point of view of a particular piece of line. In this Bill you have changed that system, and they are to consider the economy of a great railway like the Great Western, in determining what is reasonable, or is not reasonable, so far as one particular branch of the line is concerned. It is almost impossible for any Railway Commission or Court of Justice to determine what is the reasonable cost in connection with the varying rates and varying conditions and circumstances over a great railway system.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask the learned Attorney-General to consider whether the Amendment, where it is proposed to be inserted later, comes in its proper place, when he replies upon this proposal, to which some objection has been raised on this ground.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The words of the Amendment would have the effect, in my view, of limiting the discretion which is vested in the Court. It is very undesirable to use limiting words. As every lawyer knows, they have the effect of somewhat confining the discretion vested in the Court, which otherwise would take into account all the elements and circumstances of the case in deciding whether a particular increase was reasonable or not. Therefore I think it would be objectionable to insert these words. Undoubtedly the object of the Bill, as I now read it, is that the Commissioners should take into account all the various circumstances in order to determine whether or not a particular increase is needed. They are entitled to do it, and not only entitled to do it, but they ought to do it. In the whole Bill you cannot pick out a few particular words in regard to the point; you have got to take into account the law as it stands. The law as it stands is that where they arrive at the cost of working a railway resulting from the conditions of employment of the staff, they have got to determine first of all whether there is a rise in price, they have got to determine whether it is due to the improved conditions of the employés, and they have to take into consideration whether for the increased pay the com-

  1075
  pany get a greater efficiency and therefore have not got a rise in cost.
  The Commissioners in these matters have always had to consider all the circumstances in order to determine whether or not the proposed increase of rate is reasonable. The word "reasonable" always mean what is reasonable in the circumstances. My hon. Friend has suggested that a form of words well worthy of consideration later, when we will have an opportunity to hear an argument upon them. Some such words might be inserted, if they are necessary, in order to give effect to what I say is the meaning of the Bill, and the present Amendment or some other form of words might be inserted on the Report stage in order to show this, that the Bill is intended to operate to the extent only of saying that the Commissioners shall take into account all the circumstances of the case when they are dealing with the proposed increase of rate. That is what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said during the discussion today was the intention of the Bill, and I agree with him that that is the effect of the Bill as it stands. Nevertheless, in order to meet the views of hon. Members who may think it might be better to put in some such words, we shall see whether either the words proposed, or other words, can usefully be introduced so that there will be no doubt about the matter.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: If that is the understanding of the Government and of the railway companies it does not appear to me that there is any occasion for the Bill at all. I must confess, having had experience of a Departmental Committee, that neither the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade nor the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General is correctly reflecting the railway minds of this House. I remember a question arose as to whether railway companies intended to allow traders or their employés to share in the economies effected as the result of amalgamations and of new processes, and on every occasion the representatives of the railway companies denied that either of those sections had any claim on those economies thus effected. It is certainly a new reading of the 1894 Act to me to understand that the Railway and Canal Commission take into consideration all the circumstances when they are deciding as to whether an increased rate is justifiable or
  1076
  not. For my own part I recognise, with the Attorney-General, the undesirability of inserting words of the nature of this Amendment, because such insertion always has a limiting effect. At the same time I entirely agree with the spirit and purpose of this Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman can at a subsequent stage meet us on this point, as I understand he is willing to do, that will remove a great deal of my objection. I never understood that under the 1894 Act the Railway and Canal Commission did take into consideration all the results of the new economies which are being effected as the result of amalgamation, and I am certain traders throughout the country will be glad to have this brought to their notice. I think those who have promoted this Amendment, have fully justified themselves in this discussion, and I am hopeful that the words ultimately submitted will carry out fully the purposes of this Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Colonel Greig) to repeat the words he proposed to-day?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): We must wait until this Amendment is disposed of and until the other Amendment is proposed.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: On this Amendment being withdrawn if the words proposed are not acceptable would it be competent for the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) to move his Amendment?
  Mr. PETO: If the Amendment as now foreshadowed is not accepted by the House would it be in order for me to move my Amendment or the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton? We do not want to lose the substance for the shadow and would like to know definitely.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The answer to that point will come when we reach the actual lines where the Amendment comes in, but first let us dispose of the Amendment on the Paper, and the best course would be to withdraw it and leave the Committee free to deal with the matter.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the proposals that have been made from the Government Bench, and which, I understand, will largely have the effect of meeting our views in somewhat different language, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WEDGWOODrose to propose in paragraph (a), after the word "a" ["a rise"], to insert the word "net."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The principle of the hon. Member's Amendment is covered by the discussion we have already had, and I intended to call on him to move his subsequent Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think this is rather a different point. I submit that the insertion of this word "net" refers to the net rise in the cost of working due to changes in the conditions of the men. What we have been considering is the question of economies effected through amalgamation, or as the result of inventions. I mean by this proposed Amendment to deal simply with the question of the net rise in the conditions of the men. You may have a case where the wages of one grade of men are increased, and men of a lower grade are introduced, and pushed up to do the work at a lower rate than was paid to the previous grade. I do think that is a different point. Where the Railway Commissioners are only to consider those cases where wages are increased and hours shortened, I propose they should also take into account other cases which may exist where wages are decreased or hours lengthened.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting his point but in my judgment the whole principle of the point is substantially covered in the discussion we have already had, and I therefore call on him to move the next Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "working" ["cost of working"] to insert the words, "any particular section, branch, or commercial part of."
  I desire to raise the question as to whether the existing practice of the Railway Commissioners was not simply to consider a particular piece of railway and the grounds which made it reasonable or unreasonable that the freight rates for that particular piece of railway should be raised. As this Bill stands, suppose the South-Western gave a rise in pay to the men in the goods yard at Nine Elms, that rise in pay would be good ground for an increase in the freight rate between Barnstaple and Plymouth. I understand that that is not the ease now, and if they wanted to increase the carriage, say, of potatoes from Princetown to Plymouth,
  1078
  they would have to show that the cost of carrying goods over that particular section had increased and that wages had risen there. They would have to show that owing to various local conditions the cost had gone up over that short section. As I understand, when this Bill is passed, they will be in a very different position. They will be able to plead an increase of wages on any part of the system as a good excuse for increasing freight rates at some very distant part. In the first place, this is unfair to the smaller railway companies. Take a company such as the Cambrian or the Furness. It is true that they are able to raise their freight rates on account of a local increase in wages, but the conditions of competition may be such that it is not desirable for them to do so, because if they increased the rate they would lose the freight. But the London and North-Western Railway Company would be able to select a different part of their system where those conditions did not obtain. They would be able to raise their rates far away from the Cumberland and Westmoreland area on account of an increase of wages on the Cumberland and Westmoreland line; whereas the Furness Railway, since it operates only in Cumberland and Westmoreland, could not raise their rates in Cumberland and Westmoreland, and would not be able to recoup themselves in a far distant part of the country for that local increase. It seems to me that by this system you penalise the company which cannot widely distribute its losses, or place the increase of freight rates where that increase can be made.
  My second point is, that unless you tie down the railway companies, as they are tied at present, to proving their case in respect to the particular branch or section or point to point which is being considered, you make it far more difficult for the trader making a complaint to prove his complaint before the Railway Commissioners. If a man makes a complaint about some special increase in the freight rates, say, of pottery from Stoke-on-Trent to London, he has something to definite to work at; he can find out where the costs have gone up over that particular section, and thus make out his case before the Railway Commissioners. But directly you put him in the position of having to prove that there has not been, on some part of the North-Western Railway, an improvement in the conditions of the workmen for which he may have to pay, you put him in an impossible position, as he cannot prove any-

  1079
  thing of the sort. Without this Amendment the Bill will do away altogether with the possibility of any trader making complaints about rates, and you will throw the whole question of rates upon the Railway Commissioners themselves, who at the present time have no machinery whatever for objecting to rates unless complaint is made to them. It will be found absolutely necessary to provide the Railway Commissioners with some machinery, so that independently of any complaint and without being moved thereto by any particular person they may revise rates and demand to have put before them every increase in rates which the railway companies may make. At present, probably, only one in a hundred of such increases is brought before the Railway Commissioners. Complaints are rare, and rates are raised without their being brought before the Railway Commissioners at all.
  9.0 P.M.
  By the Bill as drafted it may ultimately become necessary for every variation of rates, up or down, to be brought before the Railway Commissioners and approved by them before it is allowed to come into operation. Possibly good may come out of evil in the long run. At present I beg the Committee to consider whether it would not be advisable to insert these modifying words. The hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) by his speech on the Second Reading convinced me that some such words as these ought to go in. Their insertion would not in the slightest degree vitiate the pledge given by the Prime Minister. It would be of the utmost value to the Committee if we could have read out the exact words of that pledge, so that we who consider ourselves bound by it might know exactly to what we are tied. The insertion of these words would preserve the existing condition of affairs so far as the relations between the railway companies and the Railway Commissioners are concerned, and they would not destroy the Prime Minister's pledge. But if the Bill is passed without these words, the Committee will be going far beyond that pledge, and giving the railway companies absolute power over the freight rates charged to traders all over the country.
  Mr. BUXTON: I endeavoured to explain on the Second Reading the object of the Bill as it stands. The main object is to enable an increase of rates to be made although it cannot be shown definitely I and absolutely that that particular in-
  1080
  crease of cost is due to the handling of particular traffic; but the general increase in wages and conditions has in some way or other to be allocated to the various branches of traffic. It cannot be allocated absolutely and entirely to a particular branch of traffic, and the Commissioners have sometimes allowed an increase of rates where such an allocation has not been made, while sometimes they have refused to do so. It is to clear up the doubt which exists that this Bill has been introduced, and that is the sole reason for the Bill. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would destroy the whole operation of the measure in that respect, and make it necessary that where an increase of wages or an improvement of conditions was made, that increase should be spread generally throughout all ranks. That is not a workable proposition. Therefore the only alternative is to allocate, as no doubt the Commissioners will do so far as they can. Under paragraph (d) the allocation shall not be an unreasonable one. That no doubt will also be taken into account by the Railway Commissioners. Short of that, it is not possible to allocate a definite amount to a definite branch of the traffic. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment, as the Bill would not work if this Amendment was carried.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that he cannot accept this Amendment. I am quite sure he is perfectly right in his contention that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to allocate the increased rate to a particular district with reference to particular increases of wages which had been given in that district. Not only does my hon. Friend in this Amendment propose that the rate should only be increased in a particular district, but later he has an Amendment which would say that the increase in wages must be in that particular district where the increase in the rate occurs. That would be obviously utterly against the interests of the employ—s of the railway, especially if everywhere they felt that an increase in wages was due.
  Mr. WHYTE: The conclusion that comes from the observations of the President of the Board of Trade seems to me to be that the railway may look to an improvement in their wages chiefly at the expense of those industries which can least bear any increase in their rates.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I did not understand that that was the object of the Bill. I thought that the object of the Bill was to allow wages to be taken into account when the Railway Commissioners were consulted at the present time, owing to a particular increase. It seems to me that we have had an absolutely new theory sprung upon us. Not only are wages to be taken into account, but conditions are to be considered generally, and not only wage conditions, but every other condition has to be considered, as in the case of the whole of the North-Western system.
  Mr. BUXTON: I was dealing solely with wages and conditions. I said that the general rise and improvement in wages and conditions will be taken into account, but that you cannot allocate. There are two alternatives to meet that. I said that that matter would come as to its reasonableness or unreasonableness under paragraph (d).
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am still not quite clear. Perhaps we may have this point cleared up. Suppose the railway is divided in two equal parts, and that on one part no increase in freight rates is possible. Suppose in the other part it was possible to increase the freight rates without losing so much trade that the company would suffer. Are we to understand that if this Bill pass an increase of wages, which Is due to the whole of the railway system, may be charged entirely against that part of the system where the freight rates can be increased, and that a half, or it may be one-fourth, or one-tenth, of the railway system over which the freight rates can be increased has got to pay for the whole increase in wages for the rest of the system?
  Mr. BUXTON: Look at paragraph (d).
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Paragraph (d) does not refer to that point. Take the paragraph. It says:—
  "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."
  As I understand, the President of the Board of Trade has stated that this allocation of the whole increase to some particular branch of trade is what the Bill intended to do, and, therefore, may be reasonable.
  Mr. BUXTON: No, no.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then, in that case, if the railway company cannot do it, how is it going to recoup itself for the increased wages bill? Either the railway company cannot recoup itself, or it must recoup itself unreasonably.
  Mr. BUXTON: That is not in the Bill. The conundrum that my hon. Friend has put to me is that the railway company may raise their rates in certain parts, and that therefore they would not raise them in other parts, and that the Commissioners will then have to consider whether under paragraph (d) that is reasonable; and, secondly, whether wages have been reasonably increased. Under certain circumstances the company would not be allowed to raise the rates at all.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Supposing, because of the increased wages of the men, the company increase their rates 10 per cent. taken all over the railway. Would the right hon. Gentleman, if he were one of the Railway Commissioners, say that an increase of 12 per cent. in freight rates in one particular branch of the railway was unreasonable, or reasonable. The whole question is, is it 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. that that part of the railway system has to bear?
  Mr. BUXTON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Unless we can get that decided, it will be necessary to go to a Division.
  Mr. BUXTON: Under paragraph (b) the Commissioners will have to take into account all the circumstances, and then consider whether the particular charge would be reasonable.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that the question that the House has to decide is one of the most important in the Bill, and that is whether the traders of the country are to have freight rates put up 10 per cent. or 20 per cent.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "railway" ["the cost of working the railway"], to insert the words "excluding the cost of carrying passengers."
  Perhaps I may be allowed to make a statement in respect of this. The Amendment is in consequence of various propositions that were brought to my attention

  1083
  on the Second Reading Debate. I gave these the fullest possible consideration to see how far it was possible to meet them, keeping in view the principle of the Bill. There were some of these matters of interest to traders. They appeared to me not to go contrary to the principle of the Bill, and therefore I hoped some concession might be given by the railway companies. I communicated with the representatives of the railway companies, and I am glad to say that they met me in a very reasonable spirit. The result of the negotiations with them is that I have on the Paper three Amendments. The first is this one I am now moving. It will make it quite clear that between goods and passengers the passengers will be taken out of the provisions of the Bill. It was represented on Second Reading and also by deputation that the additional cost of increased wages and the conditions of labour of those men engaged or partly engaged in the business of carrying passengers, would be considerable, and that the balance will be thrown upon the goods traffic. In other words, the increase in passenger rates will be thrown upon the goods traffic. That was a serious proposition, and it seemed to me it was one that might possibly be met, and I am glad to say that the companies have agreed to the proposition I put before them, and the result is that any question of balance of cost due to increased rates of wages of the men engaged in or carrying passengers, will not be put as an additional burden on the goods traffic, and will be taken out of the Bill altogether.
  If the Committee will allow me to deal with the three points together, although it may be a little out of order I think it is the better course. The second point is one put to me in the Debate, and at various times by deputations as to what the word "staff" means. It was suggested that that might include increased salaries and wages to managers, supervising staff, and others, whereas the House desired the additional powers given in the Bill to railway companies should be confined to the labour and clerical staff. I have put down words to that effect, making quite clear what is meant. The third point also is very important from the point of view of the trader. In my own ill-fated No. 1 Bill there was a Clause enabling the Commissioners under certain conditions to reopen and to reconsider the time at which the increased rate
  1084
  should be reopened and reconsidered at a subsequent date. It appeared to me not an unreasonable proposition that there should be opportunities for reconsideration. The railway companies accepted my view, and I have an Amendment down which will give an opportunity for reconsidering and revising these various increased rates, by which the Commissioners will be enabled, circumstances having altered, to take into account these altered circumstances and therefore to modify in some cases and possibly to reduce the rates altogether.
  These three points I think are material points in which the interests of those who represent the traders in this House are recognised. The railway companies in this matter have endeavoured to meet the views put before them, and I am glad also to think those representing the traders have met me in a conciliatory spirit. The first Amendment is the one which I have now moved. My hon. Friend behind me has a verbal Amendment which he is about to move. It was represented to me that the mere words "the cost of carrying passengers" might not include ticket collectors, booking clerks and others, and I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's word making it quite clear that the whole of the additional cost of the improved conditions of the men engaged in carrying passengers would be excluded from the Bill, and therefore the cost of them could in no sense possibly fall upon the goods traffic.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "carrying" ["the cost of carrying passengers"], to insert the words "and dealing with." This is purely a verbal Amendment.
  Question, "That the words 'and dealing with' be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the words "and dealing with" will cover hotels or not?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, including them, and docks and harbours. Hotels would come out; I think they would not be included in the Bill at all. Docks also would go out in so far as they are not in communication with terminal stations. Where they are subsidiary enterprises they would not come under the terms of the Act.
  Mr. HUDSON: I want to call attention to one very important thing, as I am alarmed at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. This is a Bill to give railway companies power to throw the cost on to the traders provided that the working conditions of the men have been improved. That would apply whether the improvement was in wages, in hours, or in any other conditions that would throw cost upon the companies. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, "Yes, but with regard to the passenger departments we cut them out altogether." What does that mean? It means that one part of the railway men are cut out of consideration under this Bill. I venture to say that if you take the locomotive men engaged in passenger work, the guards, and the passenger shunters, and the staffs at the stations out of the Bill, you have one-half of the railway men of the country engaged in dealing with the traffic taken out of consideration altogether, though the companies have power already to raise the charge for passenger fares, contract tickets, excursion tickets, week-end tickets, and so on, to recoup them, as it were. What is the use of that? It is Quite right, if this Bill is to go through, that the increase in the charges made since 1911 should be taken into account by the Railway and Canal Commission if they are considering the complaint of the traders against a rise in rates. Why should you specifically say that the cost of working for this particular class of traffic shall not be considered? This is really a serious matter. You will consider everything else but the cost in connection with the passenger traffic. Why not reverse the order and say that you will take into account the increased cost of tickets, either ordinary, excursion, contract, week-end, or other kinds? As a rule you generally take one grade covering the whole line in ratio the traffic, and you cannot segregate one lot from another if we are to have satisfactory conditions of improvement. It would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would reverse the order and say that this shall be taken into account instead of that class of men being excluded.
  Sir A. MOND: This Bill does not fix the rate of wages for railway men. May I point out that the Act of 1894 deals exclusively with goods traffic, and has nothing to do with passenger traffic. If these words had not been in, and if anybody had tried to introduce passenger traffic, he
  1086
  would have been ruled out of order on the ground that they had no jurisdiction. This Amendment only makes the present law applicable to the modification of it under this Bill. It is an extraordinary thing that we are so often told that railway companies cannot separate these costs, but I know that when they have appeared before the Railway and Canal Commissioners they show an extraordinary facility in regard to separating the costs in some things, and there is not so much difficulty as people imagine. Objection has been taken to this proposal that it affects in some way the interests of the workman, but, at any rate, it does not interfere with them getting any improvements of any kind either in their conditions of labour or their wages, and it merely brings this Bill into line with the practice of the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to know what is the exact meaning of the Amendment to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Swansea. The expression he desires to see incorporated is rather an unusual one. He speaks of railway servants dealing with passengers. If this were an Amendment relating to a Suffragist disturbance I could understand the meaning of the term, or if it were confined to a porter or a guard employed to remove a person travelling under the seat without a ticket, but I should like to ask whether they regard this expression in conjunction with their own Amendment as including the whole of the costs incidental to passenger traffic. If not, we ought to have some such expression as will cover the whole of the cost of working passenger traffic. I think that is what the hon. Member desires by his Amendment. I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the meaning and intention of this Bill. Surely it is limited to Section 1 of the Act of 1894, and if this Amendment had not been proposed by the Government and if the Commissioners had endeavoured to take passenger traffic into account it would be acting outside the title of this Bill which clearly confines it to goods traffic as affected by Section 1 of the Act of 1894. If my interpretation of the Commissioners' duty is an accurate one as to what will happen under this Bill there might be an improvement effected by the railway company in the conditions of those who are working their

  1087
  passenger traffic, and the whole cost of it might be thrown upon the traders.
  That is so manifestly unfair on the face of it that I am sure this Amendment must be accepted by all fair-minded persons. If the right hon. Gentleman has studied the case law as laid down by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, he would have found under that law at the present time the Commissioners have to look to the particular branch of traffic or branch of the railway service in which the improvement has occurred and impose the additional charges upon that class of traffic and that only. The leading case on this point is that of Black and Sons against the Caledonian Railway Company, and the judge laid down that in order to justify an increase of rates it is not sufficient to prove that the costs of working the traffic as a whole has increased, but it must be proved that there has been an increase in the cost of working a particular service or branch of traffic. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that they still have operating in their favour the decisions already given by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in connection with passenger traffic, that it is possible for them to make an increased charge in respect of passenger traffic if there has been an improvement in the conditions of those who have been working that traffic. That is the law, and nothing this Bill says can affect that Position. Why is it that these other matters arc not taken into account besides the passenger traffic?
  We have been told that if an improvement occurs in the condition of labour at the ports or docks controlled by the railway companies it will not be possible, except in connection with terminal traffic, to throw the additional charge upon the consignors of goods along the inland railways. I do not know what are the powers of this Bill apart from the decision I have referred to. I do not know what there is in the general law to ensure that safeguard to the traders. I understand that hotels will be cut out as a result of this Amendment, and that point ought to be made perfectly clear. I cannot see that the Amendment as amended would cover hotels. There are other matters about which I should like to have some information. How about the steamboats which are worked by various railway companies across the English Channel or the St. George's Channel, or other steamboats? If
  1088
  an improvement is made in the condition of the workers upon those steamboats, will an increased charge be thrown upon the consignors of goods? There are some railway companies which actually construct railway vehicles or locomotives where the improved conditions in those construction works will be taken into account as a reason for increasing the charges thrown upon goods traffic. I believe there are cases where railway companies actually construct locomotives or wagons and sell them to other companies. There is certainly one case, if not more. Surely, in a case like that, there is no legitimate excuse for throwing upon the traders the increased cost of improving the conditions of service of the men employed in those construction works, because another company gets the benefit of the product, possibly at less than cost price. I hope the Government will be able to reassure us on these matters. I cordially welcome this Amendment as, at any rate, an instalment of what is due to the trader under this Bill, and as what was the existing law prior to its introduction.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Of all the Amendments which have been moved on behalf of the trader, this, to my mind, is the most stupid. I put down an Instruction originally, asking that railway companies should separate their accounts, and time after time I have seen the President of the Board of Trade and have endeavoured to persuade him to put into this Bill some machinery by which traders could ascertain what was the cost to a railway company of any service performed by that company. The hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) says there have been only twenty-four cases taken before the Railway and Canal Commissioners altogether. I have taken two of them, so I ought to have some experience of the difficulties of proving a case before the Commissioners. When a trader meets the Commissioners he is faced with the difficulty of proving what is the cost of carrying any particular traffic. Under this Bill the onus is very rightly placed on the railway company to justify any particular rate. When a trader goes to the Court and seeks relief from the burden of any particular rate, no one can say, unless you have a distinct statutory provision compelling the railway companies to separate their accounts, what is the actual cost of the service performed by the railway company. Unless this separation of accounts takes place, the Amendment

  1089
  is a perfectly futile one. Unless they make this radical alteration in their system of keeping accounts, how are you going to show what is the cost of any particular service performed by them. You have all the different grades of men, engineers, signalmen, platelayers, and so on, engaged in different classes of work, and if this House places on the railway companies no obligation to separate their accounts, how is a trader to prove whether charges imposed by a railway company are satisfactory or not? He has no earthly chance of proving it. It is perfectly true the railway companies have produced before certain Departmental Committees series of papers showing what is the cost of particular services, but those particulars have never been printed in any Parliamentary paper, and the companies have always concealed what is the actual cost of any particular service which they perform.
  This House has, in its discretion, time after time, stipulated in what form railway companies shall keep their accounts, but it has never yet gone so far as to say there shall be this separation of accounts, which it is essential we should have from the business point of view. The consideration present in the mind of every trader who goes to the Court is to prove he is being unfairly handicapped in his business, and that, the rate he is being charged is too high. What are the facts with regard to passengers? For every passenger taken out of London on the main line there is a dead weight of four tons hauled by the railway companies, and, taking trains leaving from all parts of the country, and not only from the Metropolis, the dead weight hauled per person actually carried is no less than eight tons, whilst in the case of sleeping cars it is no less than ten tons. I am interested in the mineral traffic, and for my own part I say give them a halfpenny per ton on the 400,000,000 tons of minerals and it would produce nearly—1,000,000, which would be sufficient to provide a reasonable wage for a good many men. Many of the southern railways, however, have no mineral traffic to raise money in this way. The passenger service results in very little profit, the real profit of the railway companies being obtained from the conveyance of minerals. The total traffic carried is 500,000,000 tons, of which 100,000,000 tons consist of goods traffic, and 400,000,000 tons of minerals. The railway companies therefore make a substantial profit on the conveyance of coal and minerals, and the
  1090
  trader cannot dispute it because we have no separation of the accounts. If we had a business man at the Board of Trade instead of the amateurs we have there, from the President, clown to the lowest grade, the first thing he would have done would have been to say this, "Here we are producing a Bill asking Parliament to grant certain increases of rates in order that the railway companies may pay their men better wages." The railway company say, "We approve of the principle," and the Government give a pledge, and because they have given that pledge I have supported them on that main issue, but, the business men of the country have said, "If you are going to charge increased rates, we want to know what is the cost Of the service that is to be given." But the railway companies say, "We are not going to separate our accounts or to tell the Board of Trade or the traders what is the particular cost of the services we render. We throw these figures at your heads." The Commissioners will take them and arrive at the cost in the best way they can, but they cannot arrive at the actual cost of any service performed by the railway companies. That is actually impossible, as I know from the experience I have had in going before the Commissioners.
  Why have we not had these elementary business method from the Government in this matter? I have been in business all my life. In my engineering business I know the cost of everything I produce, big machinery and small machinery, and I say that if they would separate these accounts, we should be able to tell very approximately the cost of the services which they render. We have the Board of Trade, which in this country represents the largest commercial interest in the world, producing a Bill to us under which no trader, if he goes into Court, will be able to prove one way or the other what is the actual cost of a service, or what the justification is of any particular rate. Under this Amendment you are not going to compel the railway companies to separate their accounts. I have been pressing it upon the Board of Trade for weeks, and have told them that if they will compel the railway companies to separate their accounts, I will give them every assistance. They give us sympathy, but say, "We cannot do that." It is a slip shod sort of way to ask us to pass this Bill, which will be practically valueless unless the companies are forced to separate their accounts. They are not

  1091
  going to do it unless they are compelled. There is certain traffic on which a large profit is made, and they have not the slightest intention of allowing the general community or the traders to know what the cost of those services may be. The House of Commons and the Board of Trade seem to think that the railway companies are run by boards of directors. The railways of the country are run by general managers who are very able men and are able to separate their accounts. But they will take very good care that they do not give the information to the Board of Trade, and still less to the trader.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): It seems to me that the whole of the speech of the hon. Baronet in favour of separate accounts by the railway companies works out in justification of this Amendment.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Why do you not put it down in the Bill?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think I can show the hon. Baronet that the effect will be in the direction of the very separation of accounts for which he asks. He has argued that the trader cannot prove in regard to a given rate what is the cost of a particular service. May I call his attention to the words of the Bill, which say that the railway company must prove to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commissioners that there has been a rise in the cost of working? By this Amendment the railway company, in order that they may get the benefit of this Act, will have to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that there has been a rise in the cost of working the railway, excluding the cost of carrying passengers, and resulting from improvements made by the company after a certain date. It is not for me to say whether or not the hon. Baronet is correct in stating that the railway companies have separated their accounts for their own purposes. He paid a high tribute to the ability of the railway managers. If that tribute is deserved, I should think it is quite possible that they have separated their accounts and are in a position to give the approximate cost of a particular service. But if they have not done so, the effect of this Amendment is directly in favour of forcing them to separate their accounts. They will have to satisfy the Commis
  1092
  sioners that a given increase in the cost of labour and in the cost of working the railways under which they claim the benefit of this Act, has arisen in the goods traffic and not in connection with the carrying of passengers.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I have two cases before the Commission at present. Will the hon. Gentleman give me this undertaking on behalf of the law officers of the Crown, that, if the Bill, becomes law, when I go before them, I may have the cost of working the traffic as between passengers and goods.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Baronet has put a question in a somewhat obscure way. I think my proposition is perfectly clear. Under this Amendment, if it is carried, any railway company claiming the benefit of the Act will have to prove that a given rise of labour cost is in respect of goods traffic. They will have to exclude the cost of carrying passengers. I do not think it will give that perfection of bookkeeping which the hon. Baronet desires, but it will go very largely in the direction for which he is asking, and I hope he will reconsider the suggestion of dividing against the Amendment. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst), I am not sure whether I followed the whole of his argument. In regard to one point of policy, I may say that the title of the Bill was not such as to exclude from the purview of the Bill the cost of labour employed in attending passengers. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the natural fears of traders that a rise in the cost of handling or carrying passenger traffic might be put upon the books. I do not think anyone in the House will desire that that should take place. As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson), I think I can reassure him also that the effect of the Amendment will be that passenger traffic must stand on its own feet. Any improvement in the conditions of the men who are handling passenger traffic is to be met out of that passenger traffic.
  Mr. HUDSON: My point is this: So far as passenger traffic is concerned. Is it clear that a distinction will be made between passengers and between merchandise and minerals, and that passengers will be outside the purview of this Bill.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As the Bill stood, that was the argument of the traders, that

  1093
  it was possible that a rise in the cost of working the railways which was due to improvements in the wages or other conditions of the men working the passenger traffic might be put upon the books. This Amendment saves us from that. As regards further questions of the Member for the Wilton Division I may say that steamboats are clearly outside the Bill which refers to the cost of working the railways. Making and repairing of vehicles is obviously part of the cost of working railways, but where a railway company makes vehicles and sells them to other companies, that would not be dealt with under the Bill. It is outside of the cost of working the railways.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Has not the term "railway company" been interpreted in a legal sense to mean a railway undertaking, including steamboats as well as the ordinary inland railway traffic and hotels?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think it could be so rationally interpreted in this Bill. Hotels would certainly be in connection with the handling of passengers, and they will be excluded by the exclusion of passengers. The hon. Member put a question as to why the words "and dealing with" were put in. They were put in in order that booking clerks should also be considered as part of the passenger traffic. No part of the increased cost of handling or carrying passenger traffic is put upon the rates.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Dealing with passenger traffic is one thing; dealing with passengers is another. What you say is, dealing with passenger traffic, and not passengers.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I suppose a booking clerk would be said to be dealing with passengers?
  Mr. AINSWORTH: The whole of this discussion is thoroughly out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Perhaps I may then put the Question?
  Mr. PETO: I desire to support the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). I agree entirely with what he said, that by being rushed into this agreement with the railway companies the Board of Trade have, in fact, promised to do something to enable the railway companies to prove their case under circum-
  1094
  stances which will make it impossible for the trader to prove the contrary. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the railway companies will have to satisfy the Commissioners, and, therefore, it will be to their interest to divide their accounts, more or less in the method suggested by the Departmental Committee which considered this question and reported in 1909. There is nothing in that point whatever. That railway companies have to separate their accounts is no proof that traders will have the right to find out the contents of the accounts. There is no proof whatever they will have any inducement to produce accounts which will be open to the inspection of the trader, which will enable him to know anything about the case. I do not want the Committee to divide on this subject without realising that it is a question which has been gone into at great length by people well competent to deal with it, who have reported in a Blue Book on which no action has been taken by the Government.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of railway reform; it does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: With all respect, I am following the hon. Member for Mansfield. I only wanted to say that this very question was considered in advance by this Departmental Committee. If their Report had received attention, the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade would have been effective from the traders point of view, but as he has ignored the Report the Amendment, whether carried or not, will be of no practical value to the trading community of this country.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: According to the Preamble of this Bill, it is drawn to amend Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894. I have referred to that Act, and find that the Section referred to refers only to traffic. I understand the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade is proposed with a view to confining the Bill to goods traffic. I assume that the Amendment is quite in order, and I have great pleasure in supporting it.
  Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph (o) after the word "theit" ["conditions of employment of their staff"] insert the words "labour or clerical."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  In paragraph (b) after the word "increase" ["particular increase of rate"] insert the words "of rates or charges."—[Mr. Peto.]
  In paragraph (c) after the word "the" ["purpose of meeting the rise"] insert the word "said."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Colonel GREIG: I beg to move after the word "whole" ["is not, in the whole"] to insert the words "having regard to the circumstances."
  I handed in this Amendment in order to carry out what seems to be the general view of the House, which was agreed to more or less by the President of the Board of Trade when we were considering the first Amendment on the Paper. It was pointed out that that Amendment would limit the discretion of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Under the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1894 the Commissioners are to determine whether the increase of rate complained of is, or is not, reasonable, and they can take the whole of the circumstances into consideration. It is in order to preserve that discretion and make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill, although I believe myself that the Bill is perfectly clear, that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "to," to insert the word "all."
  Colonel GREIG: I have no objection to this, though I think my Amendment is preferable and would cover all the circumstances.
  Mr. BUXTON: We had a discussion on this some time ago on paragraph (a), and I think the House generally agreed that paragraphs (c) and (d) wanted some explanation in order to make it clear that the Commissioners would be able to take into account such circumstances as they considered advisable when considering the reasonableness or otherwise of the rates. The Attorney-General, in order to meet that view, suggested that the most suitable place was on paragraph (c). I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the various interests concerned.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, yes.
  Mr. BUXTON: Do I understand that my hon. Friend objects to some words making it clear what paragraph (c) and the other paragraphs mean?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, we object to the words "with regard to the circumstances."
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not know that these particular words are the best way of dealing with the matter. We have had to consider the best form of wording. What I think the Committee desires is to make it clear that the circumstances which can be taken into account at present in regard to other increases of rates should be able to be taken into account, but that the Commissioners in their discretion should be able to take them into account in regard to increases under this Bill. In discussing, this matter with the representatives of the railway companies I understood that that also was the view that they held. It is only a question, therefore, of getting clearly into the Bill what all those interested agree is the position. I am not going to suggest particular words. I want to know how far the view which I have put before the Committee is generally agreed to, namely, that under the Act of 1894 the Commissioners in considering the increase of rates can take into account such circumstances as they consider relevant to the question. It was pointed out by Members on both sides that the words in the Bill did not make that clear. In my opinion that is the position, and if it is not clear it ought to be made clear. If the hon. Gentleman representing the railway companies thinks that the words as they stand make it clear I shall be very glad to hear his observations in regard to it. I thought the Bill made it clear, but the Committee generally did not think so. The words suggested do not extend the operation of the Bill, but make clear what I understand all parties were agreed to.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The last thing that we representatives of the railway companies wish to do is to appear to claim that by giving or withholding our assent to Amendments we can decide the fate of this Bill, or that we are in a position to dictate to the House in regard to the future relations between railway companies and their traders; but we think we are entitled to say, for what it may be worth, whether we are advised or not that a particular Amendment would put us in a worse position than we were before the Bill passed; and, further, whether, in our opinion, it carries out the pledge which was given in August, 1911, by the Government to the railway companies. I regret to say that we are advised, and we think very well advised—and my own opinion agrees with the advice that is given to us

  1097
  —that to add any such words as are proposed here would put us in a worse position than we should be in if the Bill did not pass. We have at present accepted the Bill as it stands, and said that we believe it is a fulfilment of the pledge given by the Government. Under the Bill as it stands we believe that the Commissioners will retain any existing power they may have of taking into consideration any relevant circumstances. It must be obvious to anyone familiar with the construction of statutes that if you, on the occasion of passing a Bill for dealing with an exceptional state of affairs, put in new words which are not in the parent Act, it would be absolutely necessary to find some construction to be put on these words. We might then find ourselves faced with the necessity, after having given an advantage to labour, of making a deduction in respect of economies that may have been made years before, and which are in no way connected with the conditions of labour at all. We would, therefore, be placed in a far worse position than if the Bill had not been passed. I am perfectly aware that that is a very serious statement to make to the House. I make it, and the right hon. Gentleman must take his own course. At the present stage I am bound to tell the House that we do not think the words proposed to be inserted will place us in a better position, and that, on the contrary, they will place us in a worse position.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not going to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to his point as to whether these particular words should be put in at this place. What I am concerned with is that the majority of the House do not think that the words of the Bill as it now stands make the position clear, namely, that in regard to the increase under this Bill the Commissioners will be entitled to take into account such circumstances as they consider relevant to the situation. As the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point, I feel bound on my own behalf to read what is in a memorandum given to me for the purpose of negotiation with the railway companies as to the position which they thought they should take up, and which they considered right in regard to this very proposal. The memorandum contains the following:—
  "With regard to the suggestion of the United Chambers of Commerce that the Bill should he amended by directing the Court to take into consideration, by way of setting off such matters as economies in
  1098
  working the railway companies would regard any such amendment as entirely inadmissible.
  "The companies have accepted the Bill, widely departing as it does from Clause 2 of the dropped Bill, out of a desire to meet the apprehension of the traders in regard to the burden of proof placed upon them by that Clause, and have themselves accepted the entire burden of proof. To whatever extent it may be reasonable that such matters should be taken into consideration, the Commissioners have full power to do so; but an amendment of the kind suggested would close the door to any argument open to the companies under the existing law."
  Therefore, the whole difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman as representing the railway companies and myself is this: I consider that the words of the Bill make it quite clear that the Commissioners have full power to consider the reasonableness of the rate and to take into account circumstances which are relevant. On the other hand, it has been pointed out by various Members of the House that the words of the Bill do not make that clear, and many of them feel that not only is there doubt, but that words should be inserted to make it clear that the Commissioners may not feel that they are ruled out front taking these circumstances into account. All we are asking is that the position be made quite clear in the Bill. I have had an opportunity of considering it since the Amendment was moved, and I do not think that those words would come best in here. I would suggest to the Committee that we should be allowed on the Report stage, which we will take to-morrow, to take the opportunity of considering the best method of carrying out what, I understand, we are agreed on, and what the House desires, and deciding what ought to be inserted in the Bill. Having been in charge of this Bill, the very last thing I should desire would be that the Government should do anything that could be in any way held to be a breach of faith. I have endeavoured—and the representatives of the railways in this House will admit that I had considerable difficulty in the matter—to carry out to the full the absolute pledge which the Government gave. If I considered for a moment that in suggesting this Amendment, which we may have to suggest to-morrow, we were departing from that, I would resist it to the best of my capacity, but I do not consider it a breach of the undertaking given to the companies.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: On behalf of the railway companies, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we give him every credit for endeavouring to treat us in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner, but, as in other questions, there

  1099
  are two sides to this matter. The Committee recollect that this is an agreed Bill between His Majesty's Government and the railway companies. I do not mean that it is an agreed Bill which has been decided hastily between them and the Government, but that it is a Bill which has been considered over and over again by those representing the railway companies and those representing the Board of Trade. It has been in consequence of those conferences, to use a vulgar expression, "boiled down," until it has assumed its present shape. We have informed the Board of Trade in the most unequivocal manner that this is the very minimum which we can accept as being a redemption of the solemn pledge given by His Majesty's Government in August, 1911. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the insertion of these words, "having regard to the circumstances," may be not only perfectly innocuous, but that they will tend to a better understanding of the meaning of the Clause. We have considered those words fully, not only to-night, but previously. Those words were originally, I am informed, submitted to us by the officials of the Board of Trade, and duly considered by the gentlemen who advise us in these matters. We also took the advice of counsel upon the possible meaning and interpretation of these words, and we felt that if we accepted them they would to a great extent nullify the very objects which we have in view. Therefore I am sorry to say that in no circumstances can we accept them—certainly not during the course of this Committee. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to reserve the question of their insertion until the Report stage to-morrow. Still I am bound to say, on behalf of the railway companies, that I fear we shall be unable ultimately to accept them.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that these words had better not be inserted in this particular place. It seems to me that they would be better in the form of a proviso giving the Commissioners power to take into account relevant circumstances. Therefore we propose to consider the words and bring them up on Report, after full consideration, so as to give effect to what we understand to be the view of the Rouse. I have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and to the Noble Lord, and I am at, a loss to under-
  1100
  stand why it is that they object to some such words. I had hoped that the Noble Lord, who had the benefit of skilled advice, would have thought that these words would not nullify the Bill to a great extent.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: We did not want legal subtleties which we did not a understand.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to fairly meet the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] The words of the Amendment certainly support what the railway companies wish, and they were proposed with a view to giving effect to it. What I should like to know from some Gentlemen speaking with any authority on behalf of the railway companies is what effect they think some such words as those proposed would have. Are the circumstances to be taken into account in determining what is reasonable? As my right hon. Friend said when he explained the Bill before, it was the intention that they should be taken into account—that is to say, the Commissioners should be entitled, in determining whether the increase of a particular rate was reasonable, to take into account the circumstances, and that they should not be strictly confined or limited. I certainly thought that what my right hon. Friend said and what he read was the general view not only of the House, but of the railway companies. They did not ask that more should be done. The companies were perfectly reasonable in the view put forward, that when they wanted to increase a particular rate they should be entitled to take into account the circumstances. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why there should be this strong opposition to the insertion of words which really make plain what appears to be the general intention of the Bill. We are anxious to introduce words which will not go beyond what is the generally accepted intention, except for what has been said by the last two speakers on behalf of the railway companies. We therefore want to consider the phraseology in order to present to the House words which will carry out what we understand is the general intention, not only of my right hon. Friend, but of the railway companies. and the Members of the House. I would like to know what is the objection.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not being a lawyer, I cannot tell the right hon. and learned

  1101
  Gentleman what is intended by these particular words, introduced into a Bill of this sort, amending a Section of another Act. The words do not appear in the old Section, and they will be held by the Court to have been put in for a particular reason, and therefore the railway companies have refused the words. These words are not new; they have been the subject of discussion between the right hon. Gentleman and the railway companies, and the agreement was arrived at that these words ought not to be inserted.
  Mr. BUXTON: The words were suggested to me and on consideration it appeared to me it ought to be made clearer what the words meant on the lines indicated. I had discussions with the railway companies and we did suggest words but the representatives of the companies declined to take them. I did not feel I was in a position to force the words upon them, but I did point out to them I thought they were required.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is all I said that there had been discussion with the railway companies, and that the railway companies after consideration had refused to accept. Now the right hon. Gentleman has given his version that the railway companies declined, and that he refused to force it upon them.
  Mr. HILLS: I think it would have been only fair if the Mover of this Amendment explained the real meaning of the Amendment. It is perfectly clear that the Amendment means far more than the Attorney-General said. It is agreed between all parties that the Commission is a judicial body, and they have got power to take into account all relevant considerations, and this Bill makes no change. They have got to hear the case, and all considerations which are relevant to the issue they are bound to hear and give weight to. All that this Bill says is, where a complaint is made of an increased rate it shall be a valid answer to that complaint that the increase is due entirely to improved conditions of the staff. With what object is this moved? Of course it is plain the only object is to reintroduce by a side-wind the same Amendment that was moved in an earlier part of the afternoon. Instead of the Commissioners being entitled as one of the considerations to give credit for the increased cost occasioned by increased wages, all that they would be entitled to give credit for would be the net
  1102
  balance after all sorts of different circumstances had been brought into account. The Bill, as it stands, is perfectly plain, and I should have thought that the Government's pledge was equally plain. The Government's pledge was:—
  "The Government will propose to Parliament next Session legislation providing that, an increase in the cost of labour due to improvements of conditions of the staff would be a valid Justification for a reasonable increase of charges within the legal maxima if challenged under the Act of 1894."
  That surely means, if English means anything, if a rate is challenged it shall be an answer to that challenge that the increase is caused by increased charges due to improved conditions of the staff. It is perfectly well known this is no new matter. The hon. Gentleman on the third bench from the Government Bench moved the Amendment with a very innocent face. I do not know whether his intention was quite as innocent. It is perfectly well known that it was put forward by the chambers of commerce and was discussed at some length, and the effect of it is to reduce the Bill to a nullity, and to put the railway companies, in so far as the Railway Commissioners are concerned, in a much worse position than before. I do hope that the Members on the Labour Benches who honestly wish improved conditions will resist this Amendment, for if you carry an Amendment of this sort, in the first place, the Bill, in our judgment, would not redeem the Government's pledge, and could not be accepted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and it would remove the inducement which this Bill proposes to give to increase the wages and improve the conditions of the staff. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman wants to carry out the pledge of the Government. I assure him that this is not the innocent Amendment that the words would suggest; it has a meaning quite different, and, if carried, would place the railway companies in a worse position than they are in at present.
  Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hills) would hardly have made the observations he has just delivered if he had been present during the whole Debate. He comes in at a late hour, I presume on behalf of his clients, the railway companies—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to an observation that he has just made.
  Colonel GREIG: I withdraw that, and I think the hon. Member might withdraw the observations he made about me.
  Mr. HILLS: If anything that I said is offensive to the hon. Member I withdraw it entirely. I had not the least intention to offend by any words that in my clumsy way I may have used.
  Colonel GREIG: I do not agree with the fears expressed on behalf of the railway companies. We cannot amend Section 1 of the Act of 1894, because the words there are not appropriate to the words of this Bill. Under the Act of 1894, when complaint of an increased rate is made, it has to be proved that the rate or charge is "unreasonable." Under this Bill it has to be proved 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. "In the whole" means not in the whole of the rate, but in the whole of the circumstances. That imports into this Bill the whole of the construction put by the Railway Commissioners upon Section 1 of the Act of 1894. All that we are asking is that the words should be made a little clearer. In view of the undertaking given by the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have an Amendment to the Amendment. We had better dispose of that first. Does the hon. Member for Devizes wish to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment?
  Mr. PETO: I cannot without calling attention to two points, one in the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton), and the other in the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills). The Noble Lord said that if these words, which we contend are necessary to explain the intention of the Bill, are inserted, they will nullify the whole object we have in view. If that statement is a correct interpretation of the view of the railway companies, I ask what becomes of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading? He said there was no intention of introducing any new principle whatever by the passing of the Bill. Then the hon. Member for Durham City commenced his speech by saying that it was perfectly unnecessary to introduce these words: that it was all quite clear in the Bill. He concluded by saying that if these words were imported, the whole Bill would be reduced to a nullity. If we have to put these two statements together from the railway companies' point of view, it is perfectly impossible for me to withdraw the Amendment. If we had not had these
  1104
  speeches from representatives of the railway companies, I would have been pleased to leave my case, and the case of the traders whom I have tried to represent, to the careful attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, after what the President of the Board of Trade has said.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any room for division. I have some words here, which I will read so that the House may see what we propose on Report—
  "Provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing the Commissioners from taking into account any circumstances that appear to them to be relevant in determining whether an increase of rates or charges is or is not greater than is reasonably required."
  These words are exactly what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade read as coming from the railway companies, and they are what the House wishes. That is simply this: that the Railway Commissioners, when determining this one question, shall take into account all relevant circumstances. I really do not understand how it can be suggested that in some way the Bill is nullified by doing the very thing which I thought the railway companies liked.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Surely the President of the Board of Trade will remember the whole of the circumstances that surrounded the arguments over those very words. I cannot say any more than my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Your advisers can.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: You are now producing words that we hear for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we argued before him, and we,—or, rather, those skilled men who were with us—discussed and reasoned the case. If you once begin to alter this Clause we should be landed in difficulties. The President of the Board of Trade read a memorandum. I do not quite know the circumstances under which that memorandum was given to him, but I think he knows perfectly well there were various circumstances connected with it that render the whole matter extremely difficult to discuss on the floor of the House. I decline, on the part of the railway companies to associate myself with this.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Committee that the words of the Attorney-General are not before the Committee. I understand it is suggested that they should be brought up to-morrow. Under those circumstances the hon. Member may feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: On one condition, that the learned Attorney-General will agree to insert the words the President of the Board of Trade indicated as necessary and that hon. Members who specially represent railway interests in this House will agree to accept these words as reasonable.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss these words now. They are to be introduced at a further stage when the hon. Member will have the right to discuss them or, if he likes, to move his Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in paragraph (d) to leave out the words "not unreasonable" ["complaint is made is not unreasonable"], and to insert instead thereof the word "reasonable."
  In the previous paragraph (c) the words are "greater than is reasonably required for the purpose." I see no reason why one Sub-section should introduce the word "reasonable" and the other introduce a negative form of words "not unreasonable," except that the words "not unreasonable" are much more favourable to the railway companies than the word "reasonable." What does paragraph (d) endeavour to do? It deals with the very difficult question of the allocation of the cost of the increase of the charge to the particular traffic for which the claim is made. It was pointed out earlier by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) that it, is almost impossible now for a trader in present circumstances to go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners' Court to ascertain whether an increase of rate is reasonable or not. Under this Bill when it becomes law this difficulty will be immensely increased. I do not think traders in the country in the least understand what this Bill is going to do, and if they did we should not be discussing it now. What it is going to do is that, instead
  1106
  of the railway companies having to prove that any particular traffic is increasingly more costly to handle, all they have to show is that the cost has gone up and that they have made an allocation of some kind no trader can understand. When this additional burden is cast upon the trader it is surely only right that the proof that the allocation is reasonable should be made as severe as possible upon the railway company. The word "reasonable" would be more properly used than the phrase "not unreasonable." How are you going to prove that a thing is not unreasonable? It is difficult enough to prove that a thing is reasonable, but to have in this Bill a double negative is introducing unnecessary difficulties. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This is a small matter, and it simply amounts to the difference between proving that a thing is not reasonable and proving that it is reasonable. It is a question of phraseology. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that these words give the railway companies the benefit of the phrase, although it is a little better for them than using the word "reasonable." Sub-section (b) was no part of the pledge that was given, but it was accepted by the railway companies as a limitation inserted to safeguard traders. I hope the Committee will not press this point. It is rather difficult to explain what the effect is. It is just as if a man says, "I am willing to go to the theatre to-morrow night" and saying, "I am not unwilling." One phrase expresses the meaning a little more positively. I hope we shall accept the words in the form in which they stand in the Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman admits that this is an advantage to the railway companies. I read it as a definite instruction to the Railway Commissioners to vary the discretion they have exercised in the past under Section 1 of the Act of 1894, and naturally the railway companies have to, prove in all these cases that the charge is reasonable. The effect is that as regards a part of the Commissioners' discretion they are to be satisfied that the charge is not unreasonable instead of having to be satisfied that it is reasonable. The railway companies are getting immense advantages under this Bill, and the interests of the traders are being very much over-

  1107
  looked and their grievances are being postponed until the Greek Kalends. I think we should insist that they should at least prove the same measure of reasonableness in the future as in the past in order to justify any additional charge levied upon the traders of the country. The traders have only the Board of Trade to look to for protection, and we ask that the discretion of the Railway Commissioners should not be whittled down in the way which is suggested in the Bill. I desire to support the Amendment, and I for one shall go into the Lobby whatever the Government may choose to say on the matter.
  Mr. MORRELL: I certainly agree with all that has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the importance of standing by the Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division in support of it. The attitude which is taken up by the Government with regard to this Bill certainly seems amazing to me. The Attorney-General suggested that because this particular Sub-section was not within the precise terms of the pledge the House ought not to vary it in any way. Why bring the Bill before the House of Commons at all if we are to be treated like that? It is perfectly clear it is much more businesslike and reasonable to have the word "reasonable" than the words "not unreasonable." I think it is very unreasonable to stand by the words in the Bill. I am perfectly certain if the House of Commons has got any sense of independence left they will, after the way in which we were met by the railway directors in the last Amendment, be very chary of giving way either to the Government or to the railway directors in this Amendment. They seemed to consider they were to be the Court before which the House of Commons was to go, and that, I suppose, would again be their attitude with regard to this Amendment if the Government were to say they would accept it. The change is a very small one, as the Attorney-General admits, but certain people who represent traders and agriculturists think it of importance, and therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. PETO: After the Debate on the last Amendment, I cannot help asking two questions. If it is such a small matter, why in the preceding paragraph did not the right hon. Gentleman say, "The rise in the cost of working is not, on the whole,
  1108
  greater than is not unreasonably required for the purpose." Surely if "reasonable" is a reasonable word in paragraph (c), it might be considered to be a reasonable word in paragraph (d). I would like to enforce what my hon. Frined has said with regard to the Act of 1894, Section 1, which this Bill purports to amend. The exact words in the Section are these:—
  "If any complaint is made that a rate or charge is unreasonable, it shall lie with the company to prove that the rate or charge is unreasonable."
  Not that it is "not unreasonable." Therefore, if I find words which are introduced to make the purport of the Bill plain in accordance with what we are told by the Board of Trade and the Government are its real intentions, are held by certain hon. Members to nullify the whole value of the Bill, and the object they have in view, I cannot help suspecting there is some deep-laid plot in this extraordinary wording of this final paragraph. Perhaps there were negotiations of which we have heard nothing. As paragraph (a) was not exactly in the original pledge given to the Government the railway companies may have been advised that if they could whittle down the paragraph by using the words "not unreasonable," they would be able to instruct counsel who are skilled in railway law to make up some sort of a case which they could not make if the words were perfectly simple, as we want to make them. I do not doubt for one moment that the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment will press it to a Division. If he had any doubt I would desire to do so myself.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to press the Attorney-General to accept this Amendment. The fact that he indicated that the word "reasonable" would be a little tighter than if the Amendment were not carried is a distinction which is quite sufficient for me. I have had some experience of the Act of 1894. The traders know perfectly well that the increased charges resulting from that Act were greater than anything they anticipated. I am quite sure the result of this Bill will be an increase of the charges which will be much more than is warranted by the increase of wages. As there is this admitted distinction between the two forms of words, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GRETTON: I do not often find myself in agreement with the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), but on this occa-

  1109
  sion I must support the Amendment which he has proposed. I suggest that the effect of the words in the Bill is to reverse the onus of proof and to place it on the traders instead of the railway companies. If the word "reasonable" were inserted, the railway companies would have to show cause why the increases in the circumstances stated in paragraph (d) were reasonable. But if the question to be decided is that they are "not unreasonable" the onus of proof will be on the trader, who will have to prove that under these circumstances the rate is "unreasonable," and the railway companies will not have to prove that it is "reasonable."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: They would have to prove that it is "not unreasonable."
  Mr. GRETTON: They would have to prove nothing at all. They will merely have to show that the trader has not made out his case. The trader would have to prove it was unreasonable, but if you follow the previous Acts, the railway companies would have to prove that increased rates were reasonable. The traders have great difficulty in those matters which are highly technical. I think that railway companies should not be relieved from the ordinary obligation or from the onus of proof that their charges are reasonable.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think that the discussion on the last Amendment revealed the
  importance to be attached to phraseology. The hon. Gentleman who spoke as representing the railway companies would on no account accept words differing from the phrase in the Act of 1894. He said that if in any way you varied the phraseology of the Act, the Act of 1894, it was a dangerous thing from the point of view of the companies. In that case they stood by the phraseology of the Act of 1894 in their own interest. The Attorney-General tried to propitiate them by saying it made very little difference. If they were not propitiated on that case, I think we have an equal right to be sceptical as to the assurances we have received on this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will persist in his Amendment. In the Act of 1894 the word used in relation to rates and charges is "reasonable." The Railway and Canal Commissioners have been interpreting that word. If this Bill is passed they will find a new word, and will argue that the intention of Parliament is to import a new meaning with the new phrase, a meaning which is to be given in the interest of the railway companies. In these circumstances the Commissioners will be well advised to adhere to the word which has a well established meaning in the practice of the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 93.

  Division No. 601.]

  AYES.

  [11.7 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Denelan, Captain A.

  Hills, J. W.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Doris, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keating, Mathew

  Brady, P. J.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Butcher, J. G.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  King, J.

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

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Clough, William

  Hackett, J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Clyde, James Avon

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  McGhee, Richard

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Meagher, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Molloy, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Reddy, Michael

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Morison, Hector

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Munro, Robert

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Richardson. Albion (Peckham)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Webb, H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roch, Walter F.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Dowd, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Malley, William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

  Sanders. Robert A.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baird, J. L.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harvey. T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barnes, George N.

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

  Pringle. William M. R.

  Barrie, Hugh T.

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hinds, John

  Rowlands, James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hodge, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Bird, Alfred

  Hogee, James Myles

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothlan)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brace, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hughes. Spencer Leigh

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hunter. Sir Charles Rodk.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bryce, John Annan

  John, Edward Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutherland. J. E.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sutton. John E.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cassel, Felix

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Wadsworth, J.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wardle, George J.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Goldstone. Frank

  Parkes. Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Mond and Mr. Peto.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Mr. HIGHAM: I beg to move, after paragraph (d), to insert the following paragraph:—
  "(e) that the increase of rates or charges, or the particular increase of rate or charge, does not amount to an undue preference under section two of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and section twenty-seven of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888."
  Under the law as it at present stands a trader can appear before the Commissioners and object to a railway company giving an undue preference. Our advisers say that when this Act comes into force
  1112
  and a rate is advanced by a railway company upon a trader because of improved conditions of labour that trader will be estopped from raising the plea of undue preference, and that the Commissioners will give the answer immediately, "We have nothing to do with undue preference. under this Act. The question for us is 'Have the company proved that the-increase of the rate is due to improving the conditions of labour?' If so, then the increase is fair." In that way the trader would be estopped from pleading that an undue preference was being given.
  The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that this point is already met by the Acts re-

  1113
  ferred to in the Amendment and also by what we have already passed dealing with the words "reasonable" or "not reasonable." I would like to hear legal opinion on that point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think my hon. Friend need be under any apprehension on the point. The present law is quite untouched by this Bill in regard to that point. The question of undue preference will be dealt with by the Commissioners in the same way as at present.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is my view on the point. The Amendment, therefore, is not in order.
  Mr. PETOhad given notice to move, after paragraph (d), to insert the following paragraph:—
  "(e) that every rate which has been increased under section one of this Act 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 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."
  The CHAIRMAN: We have already dealt with this at an earlier period in another form. The Amendment is clearly outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. MORRELL: What about my Amendment in Sub-section (d), after the word "unreasonable" to insert the words
  "(e) that when any improvement has been made in the conditions of employment of the higher grades of their staff a corresponding improvement has also been made in the conditions of employment of the lower grades"?
  The CHAIRMAN: That has already been covered twice over.
  Mr. MORRELL: This is quite a different point—that the men with the worst conditions of employment shall receive an improvement whenever there is an improvement in the higher grades.
  The CHAIRMAN: In that sense it is going outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
  Mr. MORRELL: If the Amendment providing for a minimum wage was in order, surely this would be in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: No. This is bringing in a consideration which is entirely outside the purview of the Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This does not suggest that we should enact that whenever a railway company raise the scale of pay of higher employés it should raise the scale of the lowest paid employés. It merely says that they shall not get the benefits of this Act unless they do act in that way. It does seem to me that if it was in order to Debate the Question whether those railway companies paying less than £1 a week should get the benefit of this Act it is not out of order to discuss this Amendment here.
  The CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the Bill as it stands is to provide that a rise in the wages of the labour and clerical staff shall be a justification in certain cases for increased rates or charges. This Amendment proposes a wholly irrelevant condition. With reference to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea to leave out "shall" and insert "may"—
  Sir A. MOND: I do not propose to move that Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the following words:—
  "Where it appears to the Commissioners that the increase of the rate or charge of which complaint is made should for the time being be treated as justified in pursuance of this Act, but that an opportunity should be given after a limited time for reconsidering the increase, they may in making an Order declaring the increase to be justified add to their Order a provision that the question may after a period to be fixed by the Commissioners be reopened in accordance with the conditions (if any) made by the Order.
  "Where any such Order is made a complaint may be made as to the increase of the rate or charge under The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, in accordance with the Order of the Commissioners, notwithstanding that the matter

  1115
  has already been determined by the Commissioners."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to reconsider, if they think fit, the rate they have fixed in view of altered conditions.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "question" ["the question may after a period"] to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  We have just passed an Amendment providing, as far as the Commissioners are concerned, that the Bill shall be permissive, but I propose that the Commissioners "shall" in certain circumstances treat such an increase as justified. Therefore they would have no discretion whatever as to what they could do under certain circumstances. I think it absolutely essential that there should be power beyond what is proposed to be put into the Bill by the Amendment, to consider whether the whole circumstances are altered in regard to the particular increase of rates. It is right, in this Bill, in effect to tell the Railway Commissioners that they shall do what I venture to say is certainly desired—and the principle is admitted—namely, that an increase in the rates should be perfectly justifiable, or, as I prefer to say, "is found to be justified," in the words of the Bill, and ought to be reopened, say, in the year 1913—I say must be reopened—so as to give all the parties to the action—for that is what it means—the opportunity to justify a particular increase in the rates and charges, if the circumstances are entirely altered.
  If the Commissioners think the circumstances are likely to alter as to the particular rates and charges in two, three, or five years, or whatever they may decide in their discretion, then the case shall be reopened and they shall have an opportunity of showing that the whole of the circumstances have altered. I really think the word "may" overrides the whole value of the Amendment, which I am glad to say the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to propose. We do not want to admit that the circumstances of to-day, even under the present railway management, are going to be the circumstances of all time. We believe that, with the words to be introduced on the Report stage, and when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament there will be such changes in the railway management of this country as to
  1116
  absolutely ensure that the conditions of to-day, both with regard to the payment of labour and the cost of transit of the goods of traders, will be entirely altered by a not very distant date. Therefore, I say, to have any value, the Amendment should direct that the Commissioners shall if the circumstances are likely to alter, direct that the case be reheard after a reasonable period. That change of circumstance I believe to be absolutely certain, and it should be the invariable rule for the Court where they think there is good reason to suppose, which I believe will be in every case; that they "shall" direct a rehearing.
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is absolutely valueless without the word "shall," but I would point out that the Clause he had on the Paper, and on which this is more or less founded, contained the word "may," as this does. The matter must be left to the discretion of the Commissioners.
  Mr. J. WARD: I suggest that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has not disposed of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is only proper to consider this matter when we are introducing new rights and giving the companies special privileges. It is true they are only rights which other classes of industries have. I admit that when the wages in the collieries were low that the colliery proprietors when they raised them made millions of money out of the matter. These companies are in a slightly different position. but at the same time there is not the slightest doubt we are giving them privileges by this Bill which they never had before, and that is of meeting the claims of the trader directly if they can show that the increase in labour conditions justifies the company in making the extra charges. That is a decided change in the circumstances under which the companies could meet the traders' complaints against rates levied on their goods. Suppose a great slump in trade occurred and the railway companies in the course of a few months reduced wages by 10 per cent.
  I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Lockwood) would not reduce them if he had his way, but he does not control the railway companies. Some of his fellow railway directors sitting behind him are animated by quite different motives. This Amendment might be a protection to workmen. If a railway company knew that a verdict justifying an increase of rates could be immediately

  1117
  reversed if the company reduced the wages, that would be a strong point in favour of the Bill. The matter should not be optional. When the Commissioners have given a verdict on the ground that wages had been increased, that verdict ought to be almost automatically reversed if the wages are reduced. This is one of the most, important Amendments yet moved, and if the hon. Member for Devizes goes to a Division I will "tell" with him, even though we get nobody to vote with us.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I think the Committee ought to take note that there are two "may's" in the Amendment. If the hon. Member had proposed that the first "may" should be altered to "shall" I could have understood the object of the railway directors; but the alteration of the second "may" does not compel the Commissioners to reopen the question. Surely the proper meaning to be attached to the Amendment is that the Commissioners "may" make an Order that the question "shall" be considered. Therefore I cannot see the slightest objection to allowing the Commissioners to have the option. There arc other considerations besides that of wages. Suppose by a reversal of the ordinary history of the case the price of fuel was to go down very much. Is that to be no consideration? Are the traders in this country to be saddled for ever with the cost of fuel, and the cost of running, based on the present cost?
  Mr. DENMAN: As the Clause stands, the Commissioners are empowered to make an Order declaring that the question
  "may" be reopened. The proposal is that the Commissioners "shall" reopen the matter five years hence if desired, but as a trader I should object to have my figures subjected to this vexatious Order.
  Mr. HIGHAM: It is the trader who is, the aggrieved party, and not the company. I would point out they would have to come to the Commissioners for the revision. The "shall" would mean that he would have to come whether he wanted it or not.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: As a matter of fact, in order to have the case reopened it would not be necessary for the trader to go before the Commissioners. It would only be necessary for the Commissioners to reconsider the evidence given before—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by the traders themselves. The Commissioners have the power to call evidence. The Amendment only means that they "may" make an Order at the end of five years, say, to reconsider the case. I maintain, in spite of the interruption of hon. Members who ought to be in bed—
  Mr. PRINGLErose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee is quite willing and ready to come to a decision.
  Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 51.

  Division No. 602.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chaloner, Col. R. G, W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Agar Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Gilmour Captain John

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clancy John Joseph

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Greene, W. R.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Griffith. Ellis Jones

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hackett, J.

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

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cullinan, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale),

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Doris, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Butcher, John George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Cassel, Felix

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Cawley, H. T, (Heywood)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hills, John Waller

  Hogge, James Myles

  Mooney, John J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rowlands, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morison, Hector

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Muldoon, John

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Munro, R.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Keating Matthew

  O'Dowd, John

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  King, J.

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Shee, James John

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Parry. Thomas H.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Wardle, George J.

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  London, T.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Lynch, A. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Webb, H.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

  Molloy, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Robinson, Sidney

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Baird, J. L.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Barnes, George N,

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hancock John George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Bird, A.

  Hodge, John

  Sutton, John E.

  Bowerman, C, W.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Brace, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Wadsworth, J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Grady, James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Peto and Mr. Wedgwood.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle)—to insert a new Sub-section (e)—is outside the scope of the Bill. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Hudson) providing that "This Act shall not apply to Ireland" should come either as an addition to Clause 2, or else should be proposed as a new Clause.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (d) to add the following words:—
  1120
  "Provided that the improvements made shall be published by the Commissioners, giving the rates of wages which had been paid to the different sections of the staff and the increase which had been held to justify the increased rate or charge."
  My object is to limit the discretion of the Commissioners giving relief only after they have published a list of the improvements made. It also requires the companies to give particulars in regard to the rises in wages which have been made to the different sections of the staff instead of simply making a general statement which would be held to justify the increased rate or charge. I also wish some

  1121
  provision to be made that the public should be informed as to the rates of wages actually paid by the railway companies. There has been a great deal of discussion on this point both in this House and outside. Two years ago on the occasion of the railway strike statements were made which were indignantly denied by the railway directors, and I think this Bill affords a convenient opportunity for getting authentic information as to what the wages of railway servants really are and have been.
  Then, in the fourth place, I want in this Amendment to pillory some of the railway companies who have not been paying as good wages as other railway companies. Prior to the strike there were certain railway companies that were paying comparatively good rates of wages. I use the word "comparatively" because, as a matter of fact, none of the railway companies have paid good wages, but some of them have paid better wages than others. This Bill, as one of its incidental results, penalises those railway companies who have paid good wages as compared with those companies who have paid bad wages. It makes no difference as between one and the other. I have knowledge of some in Scotland where even now they are not paying per week to surfacemen employed in dangerous occupations. I mentioned last week that a public authority at Kirkintilloch had had put upon them the responsibility of feeding the children of railway men whose wages were so small that they could not afford to keep their own children. These railway companies who paid these miserably low wages prior to 1911 will, under this Bill, be able to relieve themselves of the burden of any increase by placing it on the shoulders of the trading public, but, if the Amendment is carried, it will impose upon the Commissioners the duty of publishing the facts and pillorying those companies.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's speech is less in order than his Amendment. This has nothing to do with the pillorying of railway companies, and if the Amendment had been moved solely for that purpose I should have ruled it outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. BUXTON: The Railway and Canal Commissioners are an official body, and it is a little difficult to instruct them that they shall necessarily publish certain particulars. Their judgments are given in open court. They give full ground on which they base their judgments, and they
  1122
  can give such particulars as they think right and proper. It would be impossible to instruct a judicial body of that sort to give certain particulars. It would not be germane, except so far as they were given in the judgment, to give them in the form suggested. We have particulars in the Return moved for by an hon. Member which would be of value in the direction which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) desires. But this is going beyond the scope of the Bill. The reasons for the judgment which are given in open court would meet the case, and you cannot ask them for particulars which go outside of these reasons.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I think publicity in these matters is most desirable in the interests of the traders of the country and I should like to see these particulars given by the companies as well as by the Commissioners. Only very few cases come before the Commissioners. I think the public should know in every case where an increase is made what is the corresponding increase in the remuneration of the railway company which is held to justify it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Move that."] I shall be very glad to move it.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to propose that. There are other Amendments of the kind, which I have already intimated are not in order. We cannot in this Bill impose a duty of that kind upon the companies.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am sorry I cannot move it. One thing we all desire to see, in order that this Act is faithfully carried out, is the publication to the public generally of the respective increases of the remuneration of the railway companies on the one side and the traders' charges on the other. Failing the whole hog, I shall gladly agree to support this small instalment, and I shall certainly vote with the hon. Member if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. HUDSON: I think this Amendment is entirely within the spirit and intention of this short Bill which is intended, I think to give powers to the companies to raise rates whenever, owing to increase of wages, shorter hours, less overtime or Sunday duty, or anything like that, the cost of working has been increased in that particular traffic. We want to be sure that such increases in the cost are real and not, imaginary, and that there is no holding back in order to come within a certain limit, and so secure money which they would not otherwise be entitled to receive.

  1123
  The Bill says it shall be an increase incurred since August, 1911. Take, for instance, an actual case. The Great Central Railway Company give their checkers a sixty-hour week and they enjoy that in 1911. The Midland Company settle new conditions in 1913 and they settle that the same class of men, checkers, shall only have a sixty-three hours' week, which is three hours longer. These are points of great value, not only to the traders but to the community generally. Some way ought to be found of tabulating the findings of the Railway and Canal Commission in all these cases, and having them published in Blue-book form, so that they can be available every year, in addition to the Return which the right hon. Gentleman said I was successful in securing from the companies. May I say, incidentally, that the Return for 1911 is not even yet to hand owing to the delay of the companies. They are very slow to give the information they ought to give. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find a way to publish the results of all the inquiries in some suitable form which will be useful in future to the traders and the rest of the community.
  Mr. BUXTON: If that is the suggestion that is made, I will consider it very carefully. I understand it is that the various judgments should appear in a form accessible to the traders and others. I should like to consider that. That is a different thing from putting a Clause in the Statute requiring it to be done. I should like to communicate with my hon. Friend and see in what form and in what way it can best be done.
  Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give in the returns the reason for raising the particular rate, arid what was the altered condition in the work, the alteration of hours, the extra charge for overtime, the advance of wages, and so forth? That would all be in the judgment.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to support the Amendment. The general view taken of this Bill outside the House is that it is one to enable the transportation companies to blackmail the public—
  The CHAIRMAN: That certainly does not come in on this Amendment.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was going to say that I regard it myself as not so much for the purpose of enabling higher wages to be paid as to enable dividends to be increased. If these figures are published it will be some satisfaction to the public.
  Mr. PETO: I am not satisfied with the way in which the President of the Board of Trade has met the suggestion. It is not Members of this House who are specially interested in knowing precisely the details. If they are going to be published in the form of White Papers or Blue Books they will never reach anybody outside. I understand from your ruling, Sir, that we cannot impose on the companies the duty of publishing the Return, but you have ruled that this Amendment is in order. Would not this meet the case
  If so I should like to move it as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. to omit the words from "provided" to "giving" and insert "Commissioners shall cause returns to be published of the improvements." If the Commissioners can, as part of their judgment, make it an order that the terms shad be published they will be published in some public form which will give the traders the satisfaction of knowing, if they are to pay increased rates and charges, at any rate what, if any, adequate remuneration has been paid is held by the Court to justify those increased rates and charges, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman gave the mover of the Amendment any satisfaction whatever. I do not think we want any more Returns or Blue Books or White Papers. What we want is that in some public place where the rates are generally made public, in the railway station, when the rate is altered the increased rates and the improvements in the conditions should be set forth and then the trading public will know that if they are paying more they have something for their money. I should like therefore to move the Amendment as avoiding the difficulty of putting an absolute command on the railway companies.
  The CHAIRMAN: In so far as that is any alteration of the Amendment it will certainly make it out of order.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) will adhere to the Amendment. The proposed Amendment to it would not in any way alter the spirit and purport of the demand. The situation after all is this. In 1911 the railway workers made a demand for higher wages. That demand was admitted by the Government to be irresistible. They said to the railway companies, "In our opinion you ought to make these concessions," and the railway companies pleaded inability to make them, but they say now, "If you suggest or insist that they should be made

  1125
  we must have power to pass the increased liability that we arc incurring on to the trading public." As the trading public are now compelled to bear this increased cost they have a right to know how far it has been met by the railway companies, and that the increased charges placed upon them do go in the direction that the railway companies agree they should go. Furthermore, there is a great desirability of adequate statistics being placed at the disposal of Members of the House and the public generally. I have made statements sometimes in the House and in the country which have been questioned by representatives of the railway companies. If the Amendment is accepted it will afford us reliable information and will remove the possibility of the statements being questioned. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman at any rate shows a disposition to meet us. I wonder whether he cannot go a little further. He tells us the judgments of the Commissioners are published. Surely there is no reason whatever why the evidence should not be placed at the disposal of the parties interested. We anxiously desire to have authoritative information that the workmen get the benefit of the increased rates before any further liability is placed on the traders.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I took part in a Debate on this subject about six months ago and I pointed out what I thought were the wages which were being paid by certain railway companies in Liverpool. I was immediately contradicted in the Press by an hon. Member of this House who is a railway director. He said my figures were entirely wrong. I made an investigation then into the subjert and found that it was practically impossible for any member of the public or any employé to find out the actual wages which were being paid. Therefore, I think we are entitled to know, whenever rates are being put up, in respect of what particular increased expenses the increased rates are being charged. This is a very important matter. I do not think the House realises what paltry wages railway men have been always getting. It is in the interest of the trading community who are going to be charged more rates, and it is also in the interest of the railway companies who are really going to carry out the meaning and spirit of this Bill when it becomes an Act that we should have two sets of figures before us, as rates have been raised so much in consequence of certain other additions to expenses besides wages.
  1126
  If we do not pass the Amendment it will be impossible for traders to understand why rates are being raised, and it will be impossible for the men to understand why, if rates are so raised, they do not get a corresponding rise in wages. I think we ought to insist on this information being given in the interest of the workers, the traders, and the companies who intend honestly to carry out the Act.
  Mr. WARDLE: So far as the Amendment goes it is good, but it does not go very far, and it certainly will not have the effect of obtaining the information which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Watson Rutherford) desires. I am sorry that an Amendment standing in my name later, which would have had the result of producing these particulars in a proper form, is to be ruled out of order. It seems to me that until some such information is given the railway companies themselves will always be under the suspicion that they are making a good thing out of this Bill, the men will assume that they are not getting the return the companies have received from the traders, and the traders will always be saying that the companies are not giving the wages they have got out of them. Therefore it seems to me that we do really require some statistics of an elaborate kind which will give to the public, the railway companies, the traders, and the men, the information that is absolutely necessary to satisfy them that they area having a square deal all round. That to me is the most vital part of the question with regard to information. The Amendment now before the Committee directs the Commissioners to publish certain particular cases, and I hope therefore it will be accepted as a step towards the end we all desire to reach.
  Mr. HAMERSLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am entirely in accord with the view that we want as far as we can, to have information on these matters so that everyone may know how far this Act affects the various interests. I cannot give any undertaking at present as to the best method of doing that, but I can communicate with the Railway Commissioners and see how far, without putting any pressure on them, they would be prepared to give the information which we all desire. As far as the Board of Trade are

  1127
  concerned we shall desire to add to that information such information as we have in regard to actual results of working in pounds, shillings, and pence, of the Conciliation Boards, and in this way we may get the amount of knowledge which we all desire. But I could not possibly accept this Amendment which would give mandatory instructions to the Commissioners.
  Mr. WARDLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of bringing in any other Bill dealing with railways? If so will he be able to include in the Bill mandatory instructions to the railway companies to give the information?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department got all the figures? Why does he not publish the information?
  Mr. BUXTON: We have the information of the working of the various Conciliation Boards as from time to time they give decisions, and that information we intend to publish. What I suggest to the Committee is that they should endeavour to obtain similar information which will arise after the Bill comes into force.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: We must contemplate not merely cases of freight rates being increased immediately after the increase in wages rates is granted, but that an increase in wages granted last year may be a reason for an increase in the freights of a railway company twenty years hence. It is therefore important that we should know that successive increases of freight rates have not been granted by the Commissioners on one increase in the wages rate. The judgment should state clearly what is the increase of wages rate on which they base their decision that a certain increase of freight rates should be granted. Then everyone can see when the concession to the railway company has been granted and be quite certain that it is not granted twice over at the expense of only one increase in wages. If the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade is carried out, and the judgment of the Commissioners is amplified so as to clearly state what increase of wages has been taken into account so that it cannot be taken into account again, I think that would meet the case. I should urge my hon. Friend to a Division on this question in order to get the best possible publicity, both in the interests of the traders and workmen, and
  1128
  also of the public as a whole, in regard to this give-and-take business which is going on under this Bill.
  Mr. BARNES: I quite appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not want to put into an Act of Parliament what gives discretion to the Commissioners. On the other hand I want information, and I am not going to withdraw the Amendment unless I have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in some way the information will be obtained and made public. Can the President of the Board of Trade promise some further statement to-morrow on Report, and can he undertake to tabulate the decisions, and publish them with the reasons for giving the rise of wages? If that could be done I should not go to a Division.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I cannot understand the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. As a matter of fact this Amendment simply says that the Commissioners act in the capacity of arbitrators on certain questions of increase of wages, and surely they should, in accordance with the ordinary practice of arbitrators, give their judgments and their reasons for their decisions. If that is not done the general public will want to know the reason why, and the railway companies will be constantly under suspicion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will simply carry out the usual practice by accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: I have already said that I am anxious to give any information in regard to this matter from the point of view of the railway companies, the traders, and the men. As far as I can obtain information I will certainly make it public.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Mr. HUDSONhad on the Paper the following Amendment: After the word "working" ["rise in the cost of working"? to insert the words "providing such employés have previously enjoyed the best existing conditions known upon railways."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment is out of order. Its effect appears to be to exclude a number of the railway companies.
  Mr. HUDSON: What I wish to move is the Amendment standing in my name as a proviso, at the end of the Sub-section, which would then read—
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I had better put my view to the hon. Member. Then he can say what he has to say with reference to my provisional Ruling. The Amendment he proposes is, to add on to the end of the Section, the following words: "Providing such employés have previously enjoyed the best existing conditions known upon railways." That appears to me to be out of the question, for two or three reasons: It proposes a new duty upon the Railway and Canal Commissioners, at present unknown to them, of inquiring which is the best railway company, and excluding from the purview of the Bill the other companies. The Bill was read a second time on the understanding that it would deal with railway companies generally, and the Amendment would defeat that object. The Bill provides means by which the companies can raise the conditions of the men, and this proposal would limit the operation of the Bill to one or two of the best companies.
  Mr. HUDSON: With great respect, Mr. Whitley, I think that my proposal is within the purview of the Bill. May just put one reason forward? The object of the Bill is to give a company a source from which to get the reasonable cost of making a reasonable improvement in the conditions of service, but where those reasonable improvements have been neglected and have not been given for a number of years which ought to have been given and which might justly have been given, it would be unfair for the company to take the opportunity to increase the charges in order to recoup themselves. Let me give an illustration—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will deal solely with the point of Order. What he has already said confirms my view that the very object of the Amendment is to exclude a number of the railway companies.
  Mr. JOWETT: Will not the effect of the Amendment, in excluding from the purview of the Bill sweating railway companies be to make them into fair companies?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is an adjective which does not occur in the Bill; I cannot express an opinion upon that.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1912, and shall be read with the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1873 to 1894.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out "1912" ["Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1912"], and to insert instead thereof "1913."

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)
  This Act shall continue in force for three years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I do not propose, at this time of night, to take up the time of the Committee on this Amendment, in view of the fact that we had at an earlier period of the Session another Bill, which attempted to deal, in a small way, with a long standing grievance, or some of the more salient grievances, of the traders. We have now before us a Railway Bill, and only a Railway Bill produced in order to satisfy the railway companies. What I do ask in my Amendment is that this Bill, which has been introduced into the House in a great hurry in an overcrowded Session, and which is a very one-sided Bill, giving the traders no quid pro quo whatever, should be only in operation for a limited time, namely, three years. I ask that during that interval the Government will take the opportunity of introducing a Bill which will deal with such questions as owners' risks, and the lack of a cheaper tribunal than the Railway and Canal Commissioners. About these matters the traders feel very strongly. I will not take further time, because I think the Committee is fully cognisant of the point. I do not intend to withdraw my Amendment unless I get some assurance from the Government that in the course of next Session they will introduce some sort of Bill dealing with the more serious grievances of the traders, even if it be but a one-Clause Bill which shall deal with the most serious of all the complaints of unfairness—that of owners' risks rates, especially as they affect the consignment of agricultural produce.
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member appears only to have raised this point in order to get from me some assurance with reference to the future. He desires that I should say somthing as regards the possibility of a future Railway Bill. I very much regret that I was unable to proceed with the Railways (No. 1) Bill, for then all these various points might have been adequately discussed, and dealt with. I attach very great importance to many parts of that Bill, and I very much desire at some future time to have an opportunity of reintroducing it, more or less in the same form as last year, but I cannot promise to give an undertaking for next Session. Everybody desires that that Session should be a short on. The time is already heavily mortgaged, and it would be idle for me to give any promise that a Bill, of a complicated and controversial nature, could possibly be introduced next Session. The hon. Member makes a practical suggestion that a Bill dealing only with owners' risks might be introduced. I believe that was the subject of a previous Bill, founded on the report of a Departmental Committee. I should be willing to endeavour to see how far such a Bill could be made non-controversial.
  But the difficulty about the point is this, that it does raise a large number of other questions, and it is quite hopeless to expect that larger questions can be raised if that Bill is to be proceeded with. But I will endeavour to see, in negotiation with the hon. Member (Mr. Bathurst) and the other interests concerned, if it is possible to introduce a Bill which will be of a more or less non-controversial nature, and I shall be very glad to place my services at the disposal of the House. To meet the views of the hon. Gentleman to some extent, I shall be very glad to do what I have said.
  Mr. WALSH: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not hear a single word that he said why this Clause should not be accepted. He spoke about some possible negotiations, that might take place between the hon. Gentleman on the other side (Mr. C. Bathurst), and himself, at a little later date, but he did not say a single word against this Clause. Now, in the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, which admittedly embodied a new principle, these words are continued, namely: "That it shall exist for three years, and no longer, unless continued by Parliament." Here, admittedly, we have a Bill contain
  1132
  ing a new principle. Will that principle justify itself or not within three years? Surely, if it has justified itself in three years' time, Parliament, in all probability, will continue it. If it has not justified itself within three years, ought it not to be within the competence of Parliament to put an end to it? There is not the slightest doubt that, rightly or wrongly, the public do feel some serious alarm about the principle that is contained in this Bill. Now, three years' probation will be at least sufficient in which either to justify or to remove the fears of the public. After all, the inclusion of the words "unless continued by Parliament," can do no possible harm. If the Bill proves to be a good one, and if the fears of the public prove to be unfounded; if no real harm has arisen; if the men's wages have risen, in accordance with the general desire, and if the railway companies prove, to the satisfaction of the Railway Commissioners, that they are entitled to the increased rates—if all these matters are proved—undoubtedly Parliament would exercise its power, and continue the measure.
  But, in the meantime, surely three years is a sufficiently long period for what is admittedly a quite new experiment in the trading life of the country. I would be very glad to hear why that which is good enough under a Minimum Wage Act for miners is not to be good enough under a Bill of this character? Surely, there is no difference in the principle! This Bill is a bad Bill, from beginning to end. I should not be in order in debating it at all, and I do not intend to say another word about that, but I think it must be patent to everybody in this House that, however slight the improvements that have been sought to be effected, every one has been resisted by the Treasury Bench. This proposal is a slight improvement; it does, at least, go to modify, if not entirely to remove, the genuine alarm which is felt by the trading public, and at the very least, we are entitled to ask, either that the Treasury Bench should accept this Clause, or that they should give us sufficient reasons why they reject it. At present, not a single word has been said as to the merits of the Clause itself. The only thing was a very kindly Debate with the hon. Member for Wilton, as to some possible thing that may happen in the future, or that may not happen. I think the Committee is entitled to a better reply on a Clause of this character, and that that which was good enough for the

  1133
  Minimum Wage Act is good enough for a Bill like this.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has censured my right hon. Friend because, in reply to the hon. Member for Wilton, he did not discuss this Clause. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division did not press the Clause.
  Mr. C. BATH URST: The Chairman particularly asked me not to discuss it.
  Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member said he would take it to a Division.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If he did not get a satisfactory assurance. I understood the hon. Member for Wilton to put the ease in this way—that his Clause was a kind of safeguard, and his object was to secure the bringing before Parliament, in the next two or three years, of another Railway Bill, dealing with the grievances of traders. I understood him to say that unless he got sufficient assurances as to the introduction of a fresh Railway Bill some time ahead—
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I specifically said next Session.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Of course, if he is dealing with that point of view. My right hon. Friend explained the difficulty of promising it for next Session, but expressed his great desire to introduce it as early as possible; the difficulty of next Session being practically unanswerable. Therefore, the protest against the non-discussion of the Clause does not appear to hold. The hope was that the Clause need not be discussed, especially as there was—as the Chairman pointed out—an hon. Member's discussion before, on the question of the time limit. The main arguments are these: That the promise given was not a promise applying merely to one set of increases of wages. As the object of the pledge was to induce the railway companies to raise wages, surely the limitation of time must be a limitation on the inducement to the companies to increase the wages. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) argued that the Bill is bad from beginning to end.
  Mr. WALSH: I did not argue it. I said it was. I simply made the assertion.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member characterised the Bill as bad from beginning to end. Even from his point of view, I do not know, after he puts in a three years' limit, that be ought to seek
  1134
  to negative the measure. It is for those who think that the encouragement of railway companies to raise wages is a good thing to support the Bill. If such a limit is introduced, you will simply stimulate the companies to make hay while the sun shines, and to raise their rates as far as possible, and you practically will make of no effect the Clause for revision which has been introduced.
  Mr. WALSH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Minimum Wage Act was to establish a, minimum wage for miners. Is he under the impression that this House wanted that minimum wage to cease after three years? Yet here the same Clause is suggested, and the House might want to revise the whole machinery for settlement.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not oppose Conciliation Boards in the case of railway companies. The whole scheme turns round the machinery for conciliation. I am afraid some hon. Members of the House, perhaps, have forgotten the situation under which the pledge was given, in regard to this Bill. We were faced by a most dangerous and disastrous dispute, and the object was to save the country, on the one hand, from intense anxiety, and on the other hand from actual loss, and we wished to set up machinery to avert such strikes in future. We wanted, not merely to avert them for three years but in perpetuity. But the hon. Member must remember that no railway company can get any benefit under this Bill at all, except as the result of raising wages. So that the benefit to the railway company is absolutely dependent on the improvement in the condition of the workers. Surely, the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, should not object to the continuity of the measure. I hope the Committee will not carry this Clause.
  Mr. MORRELL: I do not want to continue this argument at any length, because I quite realise that it has been discussed before, but the arguments in favour of a limiting period of this sort seem to me overwhelming, especially considering the circumstances under which the House is being pressed to pass this Bill, and the way in whch all Amendments have been resisted by the Government. But I only want now to bring forward one special point with regard to what was said upon the Second Reading of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade has

  1135
  said he cannot promise to introduce legislation, but I should rather like to know how the Government stands with regard to a promise, or a sort of promise, they gave that there would be an inquiry into railway management. I have here a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said it was extremely desirable to have an inquiry as soon as possible. That was in answer to a request made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think an inquiry by Royal Commission was desirable, but that he thought there should be a committee of some sort upon it. He said he did not think an inquiry by Royal Commission would be desirable, but that he thought a committee of some sort should be appointed. He then said:
  "When I was at the Board Of Trade my hon. Friend was a member of a Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. It was a Committee on which railway managers were present, and I ant sure it did excellent work. I am sure it would be possible to have come inquiry of that kind again. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the matter, and he is hopeful of being able to make an announcement at no distant date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January. 1913, col 1642, Vol. XLVII.].
  What I want to know is, is that a promise for an inquiry or not? I should like to know how the Government stands in this matter? It seems to me that I hose of us who think this is an unsatisfactory Bill being carried in an unsatisfactory way, would be a good deal reassured if we knew the whole question of railway management was going to be properly investigated at no distant date. I think there is nothing which has been more conspicuous in these debates than the distrust which has been shown in all quarters of the House of the existing railway management. That is what makes us unwilling to give a sort of blank cheque, which we are asked to give by this Bill to railway companies. That is why we want to have a limiting period, and my own attitude towards this Amendment certainly would be considerably influenced if I knew for certain what the Government meant by the sort of promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. JOWETT: I think any Member who has listened to most of the speeches on this Bill will agree that no more unpopular Bill has ever been introduced into this Chamber, and, if that is agreed, it goes without saying surely that a strict limit should be placed upon the operations of
  1136
  the Bill in order to limit its mischief, if it proves to be a mischief, as Members generally seem to think it will. We have been told to-night that the reason for this Bill is to encourage the railway companies to pay better wages, but neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has added the words that should have followed, namely, at the public expense. The railway men of this country did not conic out on strike and suffer week after week all that a strike entails for the sake of throwing the expense involved in their demands on to the public. There is money enough in the railways, and if ever there were a good reason for limiting the period of operation of a Bill it is to be found here. The trail of the serpent is over every line of the Bill, and the House would be acting in accordance with public opinion if it limited the period, not to three years, but even to one year.
  Mr. KING: I venture to give to the Committee one or two reasons against adopting this new Clause. First of all, if it were introduced it would really have no effect, because the Government would put it into the Schedule of Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  Mr. JOWETT: We could have a discussion on it.
  Mr. KING: At what time of the morning?—three or four o'clock. Really hon. Members who think that by carrying this Clause they are going to have this discussion again in three years' time, must have very little knowledge of this House, and very little knowledge of the possibilities of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There is another reason why I strongly object to this Clause. I do not want to have the speeches in the last few days over again in three years or even in ten years. We shall have the same hon. Gentlemen who have been speaking very often on this Bill or whatever the subject is before the House, and I think they will have a better effect on other subjects than on this.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do think that before we have a Division we ought to press the Front Bench for an explanation as to what was exactly the Prime Minister's pledge, because I, certainly in common with many others, thought that that pledge was given in order to meet the increased wages due to the strike, and those of us,—I am not one—who feel bound by this pledge to vote for this Bill have a

  1137
  right to know whether this Bill as it stands without this Amendment, is not going a great deal beyond the pledge. Under this Bill we are building up conciliation courts and practically compelling the public to bear for all future time the charge for every increase in rates.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's arguments should be addressed on the Third Reading of the Bill. We have nor yet reached that.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I submit that when we are discussing whether the Bill should be temporary or not it is of the utmost importance that we should take the Prime Minister's pledge into account because anything that comes up after three years can have nothing whatever to do with the great strike of 1911, but would be due to some subsequent arrangements between the railway companies and their men. Therefore, on this point it does strike one that the actual wording of this pledge is essential. Of course if the Prime Minister said to the railway companies we will give the right for all time to raise rates when raising wages, that would have some effect on the Committee, but if it were made simply for the strike of 1911 I do not think we have any right to vote against this Amendment under the impression that we are doing what we are bound to do by that pledge. The public, I feel quite certain, will make their voice heard in connection with this Bill during the next three years, and will say some pretty forcible things to those who voted for this Bill. I believe, apart altogether from the fact that this is entirely outside the pledge given by the Prime Minister, we have a right to demand that every three years this matter should come up for rediscussion, just in the same way as the Agricultural Rates Bill and other doles to vested interests come up.
  1.0 A.M.
  There is one other thing would like to say. I think that the speech made by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) in reply to the Under-Secretary to the Board of
  Trade was a very valuable one. I feel quite sure that the Government in introducing this Bill underestimated the Labour party. I am sure they were mistaken in the idea that they could catch the
  Labour party.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a general statement.
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman has asked me what were the terms of the Government pledge. It has already been published twice as a public document. I should have thought the hon. Member would have taken the trouble to see what the words of the pledge were. They were
  as follows:—
  "The Government will propose to Parliament next Session legislation providing that an increase in the cost of labour due to the improvement of conditions for the staff would be a valid justification for a reasonable general increase of charges within the legal maxima, if challenged under the of 1894."
  With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, all I can say is that I am in consultation with the Prime Minister on the matter. The Prime Minister is ready after the Recess to discuss the matter with them. Therefore, I am not in a position at the present moment to
  make any statement. We do desire, I agree, that some of these questions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred should be inquired into in order to see what can be done in the matter. But, as I say, the Prime Minister has the matter in hand between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that for the moment that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MORRELL: I want to understand whether we are discussing the methods of the inquiry, or whether the investigation is to be held or not. Is an investigation promised? Is that understood or not?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot at present say more than I have said.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 139.

  Division No. 603.]

  AYES.

  [1.5 a.m.

  Adamson, William

  Grafton, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Baird, J. L.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morrell, Philip

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, James

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hogge, James M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hope, Major J. A, (Midlothian)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bowerman, Charles W,

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brace, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Courthope, George Lloyd

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goldstone, Frank (Sunderland)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowlands, James

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Peto and Mr. Stephen Walsh.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hackett, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Dowd, John

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bigland, Alfred

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Parry, Thomas Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Phillips, John (Longord, S.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hills, John Waller

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerry, Earl of

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  King, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Clough, William Law.

  Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Cullinan, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lynch, A. A.

  Talbot, Lard E.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duffy, William J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meagher, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Flumes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, James Dondas (Glasgow)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molloy, Michael

  White, Patcick (Meath, North)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Moorley, J. J.

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gladstone, W.G. C

  Morison, Hector

  Wortley, Rt. Hen. C. B. Stuart

  Greene, W. R.

  Muldoon, John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Munro Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

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

  O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Hudson to move a new Clause.
  Mr. PETO: Mr. Whitley, have you debarred the Clauses standing in my name on the Paper before that of the hon. Member?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the objects of these Clauses have already been dealt with. The second one proposes to introduce a provision with regard to rates, including books of rates. That is introducing matter for the general reform of the railway law, and is not relevant to this Bill. It is true that the hon. Member has ingeniously attempted to bring it in by putting at the beginning the words, "In respect of every increased rate which has been increased for the purposes mentioned in Section 1 of this Act" and so on; but
  1140
  there are others besides he who have attempted in that way to bring in extraneous matter.
  Mr. PETO. I should not rise, even to put a point of Order before you, Mr. Whitley, if it were not that this particular Amendment is one which has the support of practically the whole trading community.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is part of the hon. Member's speech on the Clause. It is distinctly not a point of Order, but a comment on my ruling.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application.)
  This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
  Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move," That the Clause be read a second time."
  I regret that as yet the Irish railway companies have failed to fulfil their obliga-

  1141
  tions in accordance with the finding of the Royal Commission, 1911. I would much rather not move this Clause and see the railway companies desirous of coming in to fulfil the duty which really devolves upon them as parties to that Commission. It would be much more pleasing to see the Irish railway companies having whatever opportunities there are under this Bill of a fair and adequate share of the benefits, provided, of course, that they complied with its provisions. But in the circumstances, unless there is some assurance that can be given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that these companies can at least be persuaded to fulfil their duty, I do not think they should come in. They are neglecting their part of the bargain, as long as they do not comply with the finding of the Royal Commission and adopt the conciliation scheme. It is no excuse for them to say that they are working the scheme of 6th November, 1907. Indeed, they have never worked that scheme fairly and honestly with the men. There has been a series of complaints ever since there was an attempt to set up either sectional boards or a central board under that scheme. Unless there is some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade, I think this House at this stage, would be doing only what is fair and just if they went to the extent of excluding Ireland from the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. BUXTON: The position about the Irish railways is that when the settlement took place in August, 1911, these railways at that time had no opportunity of being consulted. They subsequently declined to come in under the agreement that was come to. They therefore are not parties to that agreement, and have no claim under this Bill to the consideration which was given to the other railway companies. I very much regret that they have stood out of the scheme. I think it would have been better if they had come in like the other railway companies. I thought, however, that it was fair to include them in the Bill as introduced, for I was pretty certain that an Amendment would be moved to exclude Ireland from its operation. The Irish railways were approached on the matter and were informed that, so far as I was concerned, I should be unable to press the House of Commons to include them in the Bill if they seriously opposed such inclusion. I was informed that they preferred to stand out of the Bill. That is the position so far as I am concerned.
  1142
  This Bill as it stands includes all the railways in the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend takes the responsibility on himself of moving the exclusion of the Irish railways I cannot resist him. I have no ground on which I can resist him. The Bill cannot be held to apply to those who did not come into the scheme. I will not say, however, whether it is wise to leave them out of the scheme, the only object of which is to induce the railway companies to give better conditions to their men. Therefore, if they are left out, so far as that is effective in any other railways, it will cease to be effective in regard to the Irish railways. That is the only statement I wish to make to the Committee. If my hon. Friend presses the Amendment I cannot refuse it.
  Mr. CLANCY: As the representative of probably the largest railway works in Ireland, I desire to say that I have heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle. The only argument for the Bill that I have heard is a rumour that the railway companies are in favour of it. But there is no case at all for including the Irish railways. They have been the most stiff-backed and stiff-necked companies during the whole matter; they make no sort of concession, unless under force, and under pressure of some physical force, and amongst the very worst of the lot is the very largest, the Great Southern and Western Railway. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment.
  Question, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application.)
  "This Act shall not apply to Scotland."
  Mr. WATT: I beg to move, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second tune."
  At this late hour, I shall take up a very little of the time of the Committee. The reception which the Government gave to the last Amendment moved, namely, the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill, gives me sonic hope of this Motion. I cannot see how the President of the Board of Trade can refuse to Scotland the advantage which he has just given to Ireland. If he does so. I think we must infer from

  1143
  it that the Irish hon. Members must be a very stiff-backed body, and the Scottish hon. Members must be something of the dead jelly-fish order, because they cannot force their will on the Government like the Irish hon. Members. The arguments for the exclusion of Scotland are: that the strike did not extend to Scotland; that the advance of wages was not given in Scotland; and that therefore, the promise of the Government did not apply to the Scottish railways, and that there is absolutely no necessity for it there. Unfortunately, it is the method of the House, and of the Government, that when a Bill is objectionable and burdensome, Scotland is always included; if it is intended in the way of a boon and a blessing to men, Scotland is carefully left out. I venture to think that this is a burdensome and objectionable Bill, and I plead that the Government should leave Scotland out, as they left Ireland out; otherwise I fear that most of the Scottish hon. Members will have to get the backbone to act together, to get some measure of relief.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I trust the hon. Member will not press this Clause. The Scottish railways are obviously on an entirely different footing in the matter from the Irish railways. They did come within the Conciliation Scheme. The hon. Member is mistaken in saying that no rise of wages was there made. There was a rise of wages. But even if it were accurate that no rise of wages had been given, then the railways would not have come under the operation of the Bill. They can only come forward and gain the benefit of the Bill as regards rates if there has been an improvement in the conditions of the labour staff. As the rise of wages has actually been given, and as the companies are within the scheme, and as no such objection can be light in this case, as has been brought in the case of Ireland, I trust the hon. Member will not press the Clause. I believe there is some specially hostile feeling on the subject of the Scottish railway companies, based on the ground that some facilities have been withdrawn. I do not know if that is what is in the mind of the hon. Member who moved this Clause, but the withdrawal of the facilities would be one of the matters to be considered by the Railway Commissioners under Section (C) of the Bill. Under Bill (No. 1), it was actually provided that the withdrawal of facilities
  1144
  should be treated as a raising of rates, and would have to be justified, or it would come within the Act of 1894. That is one-of the benefits that has been lost by the unfortunate forcing of the Government back on to the One-clause Bill. In view of the circumstances, I do not think there is any case for the withdrawal, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Clause.
  Mr. HUDSON: I speak on behalf of railway men, and with the intimate knowledge that all the railway companies in Scotland have complied with the findings of the Commission, and also with the findings of the joint meeting which was authorised to deal with some portion of the Commission's Report. A number of them have also worked the scheme, up to the point of having cases decided by independent chairmen, and so forth, and a large number of them are going on with the new conditions, following on the cessation of the old terms in June, 1912. Under those circumstances, I will take no responsibility at all for opposing Scotland coming into the Bill.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I wish to make just a few remarks with regard to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said about the remarks which have reached him as to the withdrawal of facilities for Scotland. I only wish to say, in reference to that, that we do feel that we have suffered very considerable inconvenience through the action of the railway companies in regard to enabling passengers to get the usual facilities to the southern parts, and we did represent those views, as strongly as we could, to the President of the Board of Trade. I am one whose constituents have suffered very considerably by the action of the companies, but I am, at the same time, not prepared to support the hon. Member for Glasgow in asking for the exclusion of Scotland. But I think that should be accounted to us for righteousness in the eyes of the Board of Trade.
  Question, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday); and to be printed. [Bill 365.]

  FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [Lords],
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MEDICAL BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).
  TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Part I. of 8 Edw. 7, c. 56.)
  From and after the commencement of this Act the provisions of Part I. of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall extend to the whole of Ireland, and section three of the principal Act shall cease to have effect.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  Mr. BARRIE: I have no desire to delay the Bill, but, having received an intimation that the Government propose to drop what we regard as the most important Clauses in the Bill, and the Chief Secretary has accepted the responsibility, I have done all that I need do in making my protest.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c. 56, s. 1.)
  (1) Where a dispensary is established by a county council under the principal Act,
  1146
  for the treatment of inhabitants of the county suffering from tuberculosis, Section one of the principal Act shall, as respects that county, have effect with the following modifications (that is to say):—
  (a) Any certificate with respect to a person in the county suffering from tuberculosis which under that section is required to be sent to the medical officer of health shall, instead of being sent to that officer, be sent to the medical superintendent of the dispensary, or a there is more than one such dispensary, established by the county council, to the medical superintendent of the dispensary nearest to the place where the person is, and accordingly for references to the medical officer of health there shall be substituted references to such medical superintendent, and for references to the sanitary authority there shall be substituted references to the county council, or where the dispensary is a common dispensary established by the county council in combination with any other county council or councils, to the joint committee of management:
  (b) It shall be the duty of the medical superintendent of the dispensary, when he considers it necessary that steps should be taken by the sanitary authority of any sanitary district in the county under Section two of the principal Act, for the purpose of preventing the spread of infection in connection with any case of tuberculosis notified to him, to send a report to the sanitary authority, stating the steps which ought in his opinion to be taken.
  (2) This Section shall not apply to a county borough.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Expenses of County Councils.)
  (1) The provisions of Part II. of the principal Act, with respect to the classification of expenses of county councils as establishment expenses and patients' expenses shall cease to have effect, and all expenses of a county council under the principal Act or this Act shall be raised by means of the Poor Rate, and as respects

  1147
  the expenses of the council of any county other than a county borough as a county-at-large charge.
  (2) A county council, for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred by them in the execution of the principal Act or this Act in the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen, for the payment of which provision was not made in their estimates for that year, may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, borrow money temporarily as for the purposes of Section 4 of the principal Act, or otherwise as the Local Government Board may sanction.
  (3) Sections 7 and 10 of the principal Act shall cease to have effect.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words, "principal Act" ["Part II. of the principal Act "], and insert instead thereof the words, "Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908 (in this Act referred to as the 'principal Act')."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer to County Councils of Hospitals Provided under the Public Health Acts.)
  (1) Any joint board constituted under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, for the provision of a hospital for the treatment of consumptives, may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, enter into and carry into effect an agreement for the transfer of the hospital and the property held or used in connection therewith to the council of any county for the purposes of Part II. of the principal Act, and the Local Government Board may, after due inquiry, make under their seal such orders as may be necessary to enable the agreement to be carried into effect.
  (2) An Order of the Local Government Board under this Section may amongst other things provide for the dissolution of the joint board, and the repeal or amendment of any Provisional Order relating to that Board, and may apportion and adjust any property, income, debts, liabilities, and expenses of any area or authority affected by the transfer, and shall contain such consequential provisions with respect to the settlement of differences, payment of sums and otherwise as to the Local Government Board may seem necessary.
  (3) For the purpose of paying any sum in pursuance of an Order under this Section a local authority may borrow in the case of a county council as for the purposes of Section four of the principal Act, and in the case of the council of any county district as for the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907.
  (4) The provisions of any Order made under this Section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "county" ["to the council of any county for the purposes of"], insert the words "or to the councils of any two or more counties jointly."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 7.—(Sites for Dispensaries.)
  The Local Government Board may place any land vested in them at the disposal of a county council as a site for a dispensary to be provided under Part II of the Principal Act, and may convey the land to the county council for that purpose upon such terms and conditions as they think proper.
  Amendment made: After the word "a" ["site for a dispensary"] insert the word "hospital or."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Mr. BARRIE: I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), to insert at the end of the Clause:
  "(2) Before any land is dealt with under this Section the Local Government Board shall give public notice by advertisement in the locality in which the land is situate, and if objection in writing is made to the proposal by any person interested in the land the land shall not be placed at the disposal of a county council unless a public inquiry has been held in the locality in which the land is situate and the person holding such inquiry reports to the Local Government Board in favour of the land being so dealt with."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I accept this Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Repeal, Commencement, Short Title, and Construction.)
  (1) The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
  (2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen.
  (3) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and may be cited as the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1912; and this Act and the principal Act may be cited together as the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Acts, 1908 and 1912.
  Amendments made:
  Leave out Sub-section (2).
  Leave out "1912" ["Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1912"], and insert instead thereof "1913."
  Leave out "1912" [Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Acts, 1908 and 1912"], and insert instead thereof "1913."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  8 Edw. 7, c. 56.

  The Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908.

  In Sub-section (1) of Section on the words "within any district to which this part of this part of this Act extends."

  Section three. Section seven. Sub-section (2) of Section eight. Section nine. Section ten. In Section thirteen, paragraph (b). Sub-section (3) of Section fifteen.

  Amendment made: Leave out the words "In Sub-section (1) of Section one the words within any district to which this part of this Act extends.' Section three."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  The orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should like to ask for a statement of the business likely to be taken to-morrow (Thursday).
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I think the first Order will be the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and then the Motion with regard to Indian Finance, the Third Reading of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions) Bill, and one or two Charity Bills on the Paper, I believe. The Report and Third Reading of the Railways Bill will be taken, I should say, after the Indian Insurance discussion; then, I think, the Employment of Children Bill.
  Mr. KING: Is not the Betting Inducements [Lords] Bill to be taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: A certain amount of opposition to this Bill has developed, which renders it quite hopeless at this stage of the Session. I regret the loss as much as does the hon. Member.
  Mr. KING: Can I appeal to hon. Members, at any rate, not to press their opposition to such an extent that a really admirable Bill will not even come before the House? May I also appeal to the Government to keep the Bill, at any rate, on the Paper?
  Mr. McKENNA: That we shall do.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty - one minutes before Two a.m., Thursday, 13th February.