Commons Sitting of 25 June 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
East Ham Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Dover Graving Dock Bill,
Order [25th March] that the Dover Graving Dock Bill be committed, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Barry Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group F),
Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That Mr. Flavin, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Private Bills (Group F),
Ordered, That Mr. Flavin do attend the Committee on Group F of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1909 (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to, and Proceedings of, the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 172.]
EAST INDIA (DELHI).
Copy presented of First Report of the Delhi Town Planning Committee on the choice of a site for the new Imperial Capital, with two maps [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Report on Administration of Sanatorium Benefit, 15th July, 1912 to 30th April, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
Copy presented of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 173.]
VAN BOYS AND WAREHOUSE BOYS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee on the Hours and Conditions of Employment of Van Boys and Warehouse Boys. Report and Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Eugene Wason to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A, and Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persian Gulf (Arms Traffic).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the total cost of suppressing the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf in 1912–13; what contribution was made by India; and what proportion £64,000, estimated as the Indian contribution in 1913–14, bears to the total cost estimated for the latter year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The whole of the cost of suppressing the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf has been borne by Indian revenues. The total cost in 1912–13, as far as is at present known, was £131,115. The estimate for 1913–14 is £166,700.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do the Government anticipate similar expensive measures will be necessary in the current year?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Estimates have been framed accordingly, but it is impossible to say how long it may be necessary to go on with the present arrangements.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services.
  Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how many members of His Majesty's Privy Council and how many Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions would, under the rules laid down by the Foreign Office, have been normally ineligible for the Foreign Office Diplomatic and Consular services; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the official Memoranda issued with respect to the nomination and examination of candidates for the Foreign Office Diplomatic and Consular services state that, except under circumstances of such a special nature as to justify a departure from the general rule, no candidate will be eligible, and no candidate will be nominated, unless he be not only a natural-born British subject, but more specifically born within the United Kingdom of parents also born therein, he will consider the possibility of abolishing a rule which would apparently normally disqualify all other born British subjects from these Imperial services?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The object of the rule is to exclude persons of foreign origin, and it was drawn so as to effect
  1050
  this but not to shut the door against British subjects not of foreign descent or extraction, and the rule is interpreted in this way.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War when the House will be informed what are the proposals for increasing the pay of officers of the Army, and when officers of the British regiments serving in India will receive an intimation on this subject?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): A Committee has been appointed to consider matters of detail connected with the scheme, but I am not in a position to say when it will report. The scheme will come into operation on 1st January next.

    GENERAL COUNT GLEICHEN.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for War (1) whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at a Lord Mayor's banquet, given in the City Hall, Belfast, on the 7th instant, by General Count Gleichen, K.C.V.O., commanding the 15th Infantry Brigade, in which he said that a good many people were of opinion that this campaign of Lord Roberts' was being run with a view to what they called a reprehensible militarism, and that he contradicted there flatly; that there were gentlemen who, like Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, and various peace presidents, who said that because they had a big Army they introduced militarism, and he concluded that people of that sort, however well-meaning they might be, could only be suffering from softening of the brain; whether such language contravenes the King's Regulations; whether it is in accordance with the rules of the permanent military and Civil services that a paid official should indulge in political invective of a partisan nature; what action is contemplated in the matter; and (2) whether his attention has been directed to the remarks by General Count Gleichen, in which he said he was delighted to see that the Government proposed to bring forward a Bill for the care of the feebleminded, and that he would commend to their first charge Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Carnegie, and that he was sorry, from a military point of view, that wars and rumours of wars had instead died down just now; and, having regard to the place, the time, and the circumstances of this

    1051
    speech and the position of the speaker, what steps he intends to take in this matter?
    Mr. BAKER: This officer has submitted a statement explaining that the published accounts of his remarks on the occasion referred to convey an erroneous impression of what he said. He has expressed regret for certain injudicious references. Appropriate action will be taken accordingly.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Can my hon. Friend say exactly what this officer did say. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this speech was delivered by him in his official capacity as general commanding at Belfast at a formal ceremonial banquet, and were these expressions justified, especially having regard to the place in which they were uttered and the insults to these gentlemen?
    Mr. BAKER: I can only tell the hon. Member that whatever this officer did say he has expressed his regret for it, and further action will be taken.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: If this gentleman had not been a German Count would he have been a British General.

    PETROL CONTRACTS.
    Mr. GRANTasked the price per gallon paid by the War Office for petrol; and if the price paid is in excess of the price paid by the Admiralty and greatly in excess of the price paid by the London General Omnibus Company?
    Mr. BAKER: Prices at which Army contracts are placed are invariably treated as confidential and I cannot therefore give the hon. Gentleman the information he requires.

    SECOND WESSEX HOWITZER BRIGADE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary for War whether, in the year 1911, the annual camp of the Second Wessex Howitzer Brigade, Royal Field Artillery (Territorial Force), took place at West Down, Salisbury Plain, without gun practice; whether, in 1912, the annual camp was at Okehampton and gun practice took place; whether this brigade is to train at Larkhill, Salisbury Plain, again without gun practice this year; and, if so, will he explain why this brigade is to be allowed only one opportunity of firing in three years?
    Mr. BAKER: Range accommodation is allotted first to all brigades which have not practised the previous year, and such accommodation as may be available, after these brigades have been provided for, is allotted to those brigades for whom application is made. No application was received for the 2nd Wessex Brigade to carry out practice, either in 1911 or 1913.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of this question?
    Mr. BAKER: The brigade made no application.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Seeing that the Secretary for War at first denied that the brigade had only one opportunity of firing in three years, does he now admit it?
    Mr. BAKER: They had firing practice in camp in 1912, but in 1911 and 1913 they failed to send in the ordinary application.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a question: he is arguing.

    MONMOUTH TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary for War if non-commissioned officers belonging to the Monmouthshire Territorial Force have, under the influence of the National Service League, been dissuading young men in the county of Monmouth from joining the above force; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the names of such non-commissioned officers?
    Mr. BAKER: I am making inquiries into this matter.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether no ammunition is being issued this year to the Royal Monmouthshire Special Reserve for the musketry training of their recruits; and, if so, what is the reason?
    Mr. BAKER: Ammunition will be issued as usual, in accordance with the Regulations.

    Indian Companies Act, 1913.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware

    1053
    that the Bill to amend the Indian Companies Act, 1913, introduced into the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, closely concerns the interests of business firms partly or wholly domiciled in England; that certain of its provisions are, in the opinion of business men, likely to have injurious effects both in India and in this country, particularly those relating to the appointment of directors; whether the Report of the Select Committee has been before the Secretary of State in Council; and whether he will inform himself of the opinion held in England upon the Bill, and suggest to the Governor-General in Council that its passage into law may in the meanwhile, with advantage, be postponed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been introduced into the Imperial Legislative Council, and will not be proceeded with until the winter. Meanwhile, its preliminary publication will give firms in this country whose interests may be affected ample opportunity of studying its provisions and of representing their views to the Government of India. The Select Committee in reporting the Bill which has become law as the Indian Companies Act recommended supplementary legislation of the kind now proposed.
    Sir J. D. REES: Must representations on this subject be made to the Secretary of State in Council or must they be addressed to the Government of India directly? It makes a difference.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think they had better be addressed to the Government of India, and if the hon. Member desires to bring before that Government any views he may have, I shall be only too glad to assist him by forwarding them.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any claims for Increment Value Duty have been made since the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herbert and others; if so, from what datum line increment in such cases is being calculated, and on what value the statutory allowance of 10 per cent. is being made; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that minus site values have been held by the House of Lords to be legal and that no claim for Undeveloped Land Duty can arise in respect
    1054
    of such sites, which comprise in Scotland a considerable area of land, he will introduce legislation to put undeveloped land in England on the same footing as in Scotland?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Claims for Increment Value Duty have been made since the decision referred to. Increment value is being calculated from the datum line of the original assessable site value or substituted site value, as the case may be. The allowance of 10 per cent. is made, where the occasion is the first occasion for the collection of the duty, on the original assessable site value or the substituted site value. The whole question of minus site values is under consideration, and I fear my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which he gave on the 7th ultimo to the questions of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
    Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, when the question has been finally resolved, persons who have been charged will have the money returned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot possibly make a statement as to that.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the average yield of Increment Value Duty on 497,148 occasions was rather less than 1s. 3¼d. per occasion and to the fact that the expense on each occasion to the owner was at least £1 1s., apart from the cost to the State, he will introduce legislation to abolish this tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member's statement of the average yield appears to be founded on the belief that valuations and assessments have been made in connection with every transaction in land that has taken place since the coming into force of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. I cannot admit that it gives a correct indication of the productivity of the tax. I am not aware on what basis he calculates the expense to the owner, arid it is not proposed to introduce legislation to abolish the tax.

    Superannuation Acts (Amending Bill).
    Mr. CASSELasked when it is proposed to carry out the promise to reintroduce shortly the Bill to amend the Superannuation Acts introduced last Session?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should be glad to introduce a Bill to amend the Superannuation Acts in certain particulars, but I fear that, unless such a measure could be regarded as entirely non-controversial, I can see no chance of its passing into law this Session.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some time ago at Question Time, promised that the Bill would be introduced? I think it was on the 1st April.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no objection to introducing the Bill, but last year when I introduced it the whole time was spent in irrelevant attempts to put into the Bill what was not in the Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends will take the Bill as it stands, we might be able to get it through.

    Inland Revenue (Secretaries).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the length of service and the average annual increment of salary since entry of the Secretary of Inland Revenue who has been promoted to the post formerly filled by the present Controller of the Stationery Office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The length of service of the Secretary of Inland Revenue who has been promoted to the post formerly filled by the present Controller of the Stationery Office is sixteen years, and the average annual increment of salary since entry into the service, £65 12s. 6d.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the age, length of service, present salary, and average annual increment of salary since entry of the last appointed Assistant-Secretary of Inland Revenue?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The age of the last appointed Assistant-Secretary of Inland Revenue is thirty-three years; the length of service ten and a half years; the present salary £850, and the average annual increment of salary since entry into the service, £70.

    Imperial and Local Taxation (Departmental Committee).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to issue the Report of the Departmental Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation before the end of the present Session; and, if not, what is the reason for the prolonged postponement of its publication?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that no date can at present be named for the presentation of their Report.

    Income Tax (Overpaid).
    Mr. FELLasked if persons who are shareholders in railways and limited companies and whose dividends are paid with a deduction of 1s. 2d. in the £ in all cases, but who do not claim a return of Income Tax, although entitled to do so, come in any way into the calculation of the Income Tax Commissioners or into the estimates of the number of persons who pay the tax at the full rate; and if any estimate is made of the amount overpaid by such persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In estimating at 150,000 the number of persons who pay Income Tax at the full rate, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue took into account the fact that there are a certain number of taxpayers who, from the extent or nature of their incomes, are entitled to relief, but who fail to claim it. The figure does not include persons who through such failure suffer tax at the full rate on a portion only of their total incomes. There are no means of ascertaining the amount of tax overpaid by such persons.
    Mr. FELL: Is not the 150,000 a pure estimate of the number who pay Income Tax at the full rate, and might it not be 200,000 or any other number?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is an estimate—I hope it is pure. It is the best estimate the Inland Revenue have been able to give, quite apart from what the figures might be used for upon either side, of what they think the number to be.

    Railway Companies (Pooling Arrangements).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that since the passage into law of the Railway Rates Act railway companies have reduced competition by pooling arrangements and have thus been enabled to present a formidable front to traders in their attempt to protect themselves from unfair treatment in the form of decreased facilities, decreased railway liability, and unsatisfied claims; and, if so, whether the Board of Trade is prepared to take any steps to see that the Railway Rates Act is not used oppressively against the trading community?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am not aware that any new pooling arrangements have been concluded between railway companies since the date mentioned by my hon. Friend, whilst, as regards liability for damage, the Joint Claims Committee, which I presume my hon. Friend has in mind, was set up some ten years ago. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1913, merely lays down certain conditions subject to which increased cost of labour shall be regarded as justifying an increase of rate. The Court of the Railway and Canal Commission decide any cases which may come before them under the Act, and I have no power to interfere with their discretion.

    Civil Service (Appointments).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, pending the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, the Government will remove no further posts, situations or appointments in the Civil Service from the list of offices in respect of which a Civil service competitive examination is a necessary qualification to the list of those offices which are filled up on the nomination of a Minister of the Crown?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question for him. So far as I know, no such step is in contemplation, but I cannot give any undertaking on the subject.

    Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Banking Company, Limited.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the affairs of the Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Banking Company, Limited, which in 1911 was taken over by another bank and wound un; whether the consent of the shareholders to the amalgamation was secured without warning to them of any financial difficulties and subsequent to the payment, after providing for all bad and doubtful debts, of a 10 per cent. dividend for the previous year; whether he is aware that in the winding-up heavy losses have been revealed, involving grave distress to many persons in Lincolnshire and surrounding counties, and that the liquidator
    1058
    has declined a request from a committee of shareholders for the full and public examination of the directors and officials of the bank, so that the shareholders have received no adequate explanation up to date of the way in which the directors came to incur these losses; and whether he can secure that such an examination shall be held?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Banking Company, Limited, is being wound up voluntarily, and the Board of Trade, therefore, have no information as to the company's business or as to the circumstances connected with the winding-up and the sale of the goodwill, except so far as appears from the accounts which the liquidator has filed. These accounts are open to inspection by all creditors and shareholders of the company. A public examination of the directors of a company can only be held in the case of a company being wound up by the Court and on an order being made by the Court for that purpose.

    Lead Compounds (Departmental Committee).
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state when the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the use of lead compounds will be issued?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Chairman that the Committee have now completed the taking of evidence, which has been very voluminous, and are engaged in considering it. He is unable to say definitely when the Report will be ready, but it will be presented at the earliest possible moment.

    Liquor Licences.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked what is the number of new licences granted for the sale of liquor from the year 1905 to the latest available date?
    Mr. McKENNA: During the period from 1905 to 1912, 404 new on-licences and 1,476 new off-licences have been granted. For further information in regard to these licences I would refer the hon. Member to the annual volumes of Licensing Statistics which contain these and all other available figures relating to licensing administration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ACCIDENTS (MEDICAL AID).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a number of doctors are refusing to attend an insured person who is prevented from following his employment through an accident, and is thereby excluded from the benefits of the National Insurance Act; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this refusal to provide medical aid for insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any such case. If the hon. Member will give me any particulars I will institute immediate inquiries.

    PANEL DOCTORS (PRINCETOWN, DEVON).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked if any panel doctor is resident at Princetown, Devon; and, if not, to what doctor must insured persons residing there apply in case of sickness?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no doctor resident in Princetown except the prison medical officer. As I pointed out in answer to a similar question from the hon. Member last week, the Act has made no difference in this respect. The nearest doctors from whom insured persons resident at Princetown can obtain medical attendance are, I understand, about six miles away.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the medical man who served the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows at Princetown has ceased to act in that capacity, and therefore there is no doctor within seven miles of Princetown and district, is it not a fact that the medical men of Tavistock are prepared to undertake the work if they get reasonable mileage facilities, and will he allow me to show him many complaints from residents in that district as to the utter inability to get any benefit under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should be very glad to receive any communication from the hon. Gentleman. I only want to make the Act work as smoothly as possible. There are three doctors on the panel within six miles of Princetown, and they are going to get mileage, which they did not get before the Act came into force.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the names of the three doctors.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not got them with me, but I will gladly communicate them.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has now been able to consider the Report of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners with reference to payment of travelling expenses of members of insurance committees in those counties where no possible levy would suffice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The matter is stilt the subject of departmental correspondence between the Scottish Insurance Commission and the Treasury, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to expedite the matter? It has been months and months under consideration.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a very difficult question involving something far more than the Highlands themselves. We are going to deal with the Highlands in a special manner.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SPECIAL GRANT).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state when he will bring forward the proposal of the Treasury for the administration of the special Grant for the Highlands and Islands; and whether, in view of the pressure of work in the various Departments, he would take into consideration the advisability of appointing the Local Government Board of Scotland to administer the Grant in conjunction with the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian, it is proposed that the Grant should be administered by a Joint Committee of the several Government Departments concerned, in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee. I am unable at present to state when the proposals for administering the Grant will be introduced.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that this Joint Board is being constituted to administer £40,000 a year, and how much of the

    1061
    £40,000 will be absorbed in administrative expenses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that off-hand.

    TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether by Regulation 964, of 1912, a reserve value is to be credited in respect of an insured person who resigns his original approved society and joins another society within three months of his resigning his original society; if so, whether it is intended to provide two reserve values for the same man or whether the reserve value credited to the original society will be used for the second society; and, if the latter, how this is consistent with Circular A.S. 92?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Regulations referred to do not deal with the crediting of reserve values, but only with the time within which an insured person may join a society without becoming a deposit contributor. The answer to the first part of the question is, therefore, in the negative. Two reserve values will not be provided in respect of a man who leaves a society without consent which the society proves to have been reasonably withheld. As I stated in answer to the hon. Member on Monday, if such a person should join another society within the time prescribed by the Regulations, that society would, owing to Section 31 of the Act, have to take him without the reserves represented by the transfer value, and it is to be presumed, therefore, that it is unlikely that he will gain admittance to another society.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not a fact that under Regulation 964 if a man who has resigned membership of a society joins another society within three months, he is entitled to claim reserve value?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot recall to my memory at the moment what takes place in regard to that Regulation. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of the question?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have given notice on two occasions? Will he consider the matter finally and give me an answer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Answers have been given to the questions which the hon. Gentleman has put on the Paper.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the question on the Paper has not been answered? It is a point of importance.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why there has been nearly four months' delay in transferring a deposit contributor, No. 4286 C.W., from the Post Office to the Amalgamated Approved Society, with the consequence that, although he has paid thirty-two contributions and has been certified for sick benefit three weeks ago, he is unable to obtain any benefits; and, in view of the fact that he is in need, whether steps will be taken to expedite the transfer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No claim for transfer has yet been received from the society in this case. I am making inquiry as to the claim for benefit made by the insured person referred to, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that not only is respect of this case but of similar cases where a Post Office contributor has applied to become a member of a new society, there has not been, when he has claimed benefit, a delay of four months before the cash at his credit was transferred to the new society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any delay of four months. So far as I know a transfer is completed with great rapidity.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this particular case where a delay of four months occurred?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is exactly what I am doing.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it a fact that by signing a declaration that he has paid so many contributions, his approved society can pay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like notice of that.

    Telegraph Service.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Postmaster-General if there is no direct telegraphic communication between Gorey and Wexford, thirty-five miles apart in

    1063
    the same county, and that telegrams from Gorey to Wexford have first to be sent sixty miles to Dublin and then ninety-five miles back to Wexford, resulting in considerable loss of time and to errors in transmission; and if he will arrange for direct telegraphic communication between Gorey and Wexford as speedily as possible?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The number of telegrams (about eight a day) between Gorey and Wexford does not warrant the expense of providing direct communication, and Dublin is the best transmitting centre for such telegrams. I am not aware of any considerable loss of time or of errors resulting from such transmission, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will be so good as to send me full particulars of any such cases.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: asked the Postmaster-General whether on 5th June, Captain Bell, a resident at Bishopsbourne, near Canterbury, sent a telegram from Bishopsbourne Station, addressed to James Crowhurst, Veterinary, Canterbury, which, owing to what was described by the postmaster at Canterbury as an unfortunate oversight on the part of the messenger, was not delivered to the addressee, but to his brother, Mr. W. H. Crowhurst, although the messenger must have passed Mr. James Crowhurst's door before doing so; that Mr. James Crowhurst has practised as a veterinary surgeon in Canterbury for more than forty years and constantly receives letters and telegrams addressed as was the telegram in question; that the telegram was sent for the purpose of procuring his attendance on a Jersey cow belonging to Captain Bell valued at £20, which was suffering from milk fever, and which died in consequence of the delay in obtaining veterinary attendance caused by the non-delivery of the telegram; and whether he is prepared to compensate the owner of the cow for the loss occasioned by the negligence of the Post Office officials?
    Captain NORTON: I am having inquiry made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of arranging that the sender of a telegram should be able, by
    1064
    payment of an additional fee, to ensure delivery of his telegram on arrival, even in cases where it arrives at a village office after 8 p.m. or on a Sunday?
    Captain NORTON: There is already an arrangement—set forth on page 94 of the Post Office Guide—under which the sender of a telegram can by payment of an additional fee secure the delivery of his telegram after the office of destination is closed provided the attention of the postmaster or other officer at such office can be obtained.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: asked the Postmaster-General whether prior to the taking over by the Post Office of the National Telephone Company's business, telephone subscribers in St. Margarets, near Dover, were entitled for an inclusive charge of £8 per annum to an unlimited number of calls in an area which included the town of Dover, but that St. Margarets has now been made a separate area, so that calls to Dover are reckoned and charged as trunk calls; whether the total number of subscribers in the St. Margarets area is about forty; and whether, having regard to the fact that this new arrangement deprives subscribers in St. Margarets of the most valuable part of the rights they enjoyed under the National Telephone Company, he will revert to the old arrangement by which St. Margarets was included in the Doyer area?
    Captain NORTON: The position as regards area facilities of subscribers on St. Margarets Telephone Exchange is exactly the same now as for a considerable period before the transfer of the National Telephone Company's business to the Post Office. It has not been possible to trace the exact date when the change to which the hon. Member refers took place, but it was apparently some time in November, 1908. Calls between St. Margarets and Dover are charged as junction calls, not trunk calls. The total number of subscribers to this exchange on 31st March, 1913, was forty-three. I do not propose at the moment to make any alteration in existing arrangements.

    Wakefield Post Office.
    Mr. O'GRADY: asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to complaints of delays at the public counter of the Wakefield post office, and to the inadequacy of the staff provided there; whether several representations by

    1065
    the staff have been made urging the provision of relief, afterwards officially admitted to be necessary; and whether he has stated that he sees no objection to the action of the postmaster in censuring and threatening members of his staff in connection with the delays complained of?
    Captain NORTON: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There had been complaints in the local Press that the public were not receiving proper attention at the post office counter at Wakefield; and the postmaster, after inquiry in the matter, was satisfied that the complaints were the result of want of thought or judgment on the part of the counter staff. He, therefore, issued a notice in which he informed the members of the staff that if they failed to apply for assistance at the counter, when necessary, they would be held responsible for the failure of duty; and he appealed to them to make a personal effort to prevent further delay. It is essential that the public should receive proper attention at the post office counter.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that the staff at this particular office have over and over again applied for assistance upon the ground that they were overworked and have worked constant overtime?
    Captain NORTON: No, I have no information to that effect, but I will make inquiries.

    Road Board.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: asked how many applications for Grants from the Road Board were made in 1912–13; and how many were refused?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the number of applications received from highway authorities in the United Kingdom during the financial year ending 31st March, 1913, was 432; of these forty-three have been refused.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Is there any return showing the amount of Grants made to the various applicants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure whether the Grants were not given in the reports last year, and whether, as far as this year is concerned, I have not given them in answer to questions. I will find out.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the next report contain the Grants received as well as those which are entertained?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no control over the Road Board or its reports. I will communicate the hon. Gentleman's wish to them.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked how many officials are employed by the Road Board; and how many have been appointed by competitive examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The officials employed by the Road Board are a secretary, two consulting engineers, five technical staff, two accountants, nine clerks, a messenger, and a boy. For many of these posts competitive examination would hardly be suitable or usual. Two of the clerical staff, who are two second division clerks, were appointed by competitive examination.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When were they appointed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. HOARE: Was the competitive examination after consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should also like notice of that question.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this work of issuing loans to county councils could be as efficiently and more economically carried on under the Treasury Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: asked how many members there are of the Road Board, how many are paid, and how many are unpaid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Road Board consists of a chairman (paid) and four members (unpaid). There is at present one vacancy caused by the death of the late Sir Charles Rose.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked how many times did the Road Board meet in the year 1912–13, and what have been the respective attendances of the different members
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that there were three formal meetings of the Road Board during the financial year ending the 31st March, 1913. One meeting was attended by all the members of the

    1067
    Board and two meeting by four members. In addition, there were thirty-four formal conferences with representatives of highway authorities, of which all were attended by the chairman, twelve by one, and eight by two members, in addition to the chairman.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is worth while having all these members of the Road Board if they only attend once a year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot find any suggestion in my answer that any of the members only attend once a year.

    Income Tax Assessment (Citizens of United States).
    Mr. O'GRADY: asked whether individuals who claim to be citizens of Great Britain and the United States of America are liable to Income Tax assessment; whether there is any information at the Treasury of cases in this respect where Income Tax assessment is avoided by individuals adopting a practice of living for a less period than six months in each year in Great Britain; and, if so, will action be taken to compel such individuals to fulfil their obligations as British citizens?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The persons referred to in common with all other persons are liable to assessment if resident in the United Kingdom, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts. Persons, however, who are in the United Kingdom for a temporary purpose only, and who are not resident here for a period equal in the whole to six months in any one year are exempted from tax in respect of any profits or gains remitted to them from abroad. I have no knowledge of persons who habitually curtail their residence in the United Kingdom to less than six months in order to obtain the benefit of this exemption which could not be withdrawn without legislative sanction.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question; whether it is possible for a man to be a citizen of the United States and a citizen also in Great Britain at the same time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a question for the Foreign Office.

    Bank Deposits (Ireland).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what was the amount of the deposits and cash balances in Irish joint stock banks in the years 1893 and 1912, respectively; and what was the amount of the deposits in Post Office and trustee savings banks in Ireland in each of these years?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The deposits and cash balances in Irish joint stock banks were £35,852,000 on 31st December, 1893, and £57,651,000 on 31st December, 1912, and in the Post Office Savings Banks £4,343,000 and £12,824,000, respectively. The deposits in the trustee savings banks were £1,876,000 on 31st December, 1893, and £2,606,000 on 31st December, 1912.
    Mr. CASSEL: Do not these figures indicate a wonderful growth of prosperity in Ireland under the Union?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the final proceedings for the acquirement and subdivision of the untenanted lands of Clonfin, North Longford, will be undertaken; whether any steps have been taken since his last reply on this subject; and, if not, will he say why?
    Mr. GULLAND: As the hon. Member has already been informed, the Estates Commissioners have had this property inspected. Their formal proposal to purchase the property has been drafted, and when it has been settled and approved it will be issued to the owners. Meanwhile the Commissioners cannot take any further steps in the matter.

    Mullingar District Asylum.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that from 1909 to the present time, out of a sum of £7,411 17s. 2d. due to county Longford in respect of capitation Grants for inmates in Mullingar district asylum, only £4,921 18s. 4d. has been paid, leaving a deficit of £2,489 18s. 10d. for three years, which involves an extra rate of 4d. in the £ on the county; whether, seeing that a capitation Grant of 4s. per head is statutorily due to asylums in Ireland, he will say what power exists to change that legal obligation; and will he ask the Treasury to make good this deficit to the county Longford?
    Mr. GULLAND: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Prior to the year 1910-11 no abatement was made from sums payable to the county of Longford in respect of the maintenance of insane poor in Mullingar Asylum. The total amount due to the county for that service for the financial years 1910–11, 1911–12 and 1912–13 was £6,919 lls. 4d., of which £6,065 11s. 6d. has been paid. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the abatement was made under the provisions of Section 58 (5) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, the income of the local taxation account being insufficient to meet the sums payable thereout. The answer to the final paragraph of the question is in the negative.

    Lillington Estate (Berrinagh, County Longford).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: asked what steps have been taken to make roads and fences for the tenants on the Lillington estate, Berrinagh, county Longford; and whether, in view of the condition of this estate, steps will now be taken to have proper accommodation in the way of roads and fences made for the benefit of the tenants of this congested area?
    Mr. GULLAND: The Estates Commissioners have already expended over £250 on roads and drainage on this estate, and the question of further expenditure is under consideration.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief secretary for Ireland the reasons why Ellen Farrelly, Fihora, county Longford, was refused an old age pension after the same had been passed for her by the local sub-committee; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to send an independent inspector to inquire into this woman's circumstances?
    Mr. GULLAND: Ellen Farrelly's claim has not been refused. An appeal has been lodged with the Local Government Board by the pension officer against the decision of the sub-committee on the ground that the claimant's means are in excess of the statutory limit. The case is at present under consideration by the Board, and when all the available particulars are placed before them they will be in a position to determine whether it will be necessary to send an inspector to investigate the claimant's circumstances before a decision is arrived at.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. FALLE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Mr. F. Moore bought from the builder two houses in Copnor Road, Portsmouth, in 1907, for £390 each, and raised a, mortgage of £300 on each; that in 1909 the builder offered to buy back the houses at £370 apiece, the houses being built in a main road and the price of land increasing in value; and that since that date the local district land valuer has placed a value of £330 each on these houses; and if he can suggest any means by which Mr. Moore can obtain another valuation approximating more nearly to the value of the property and which will be accepted by the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the total value of each house, to which the valuer proposes to adhere after considering the various representations received from the owner's agents, is £340. If Mr. Moore is of opinion that this does not represent the true value of the property at the 30th April, 1909, it is open to him to give notice of further objection and also for the purposes of Increment Value Duty to claim a substituted site value based on his original purchase. I have no knowledge of any offer to repurchase the houses at the figure named.
    Mr. FALLE: May I ask if this has to be done at Mr. Moore's own expense?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there is any way by which the Government can pay his expenses in the matter.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a general complaint of systematic undervaluation of this class of property.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have heard it stated by the hon. Gentleman, but when we have got a debate on the subject he has never been able to substantiate the statement.

    Divorce Court (Arrears).
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: asked the Attorney-General, in view of the fact that 272 undefended cases are waiting to be disposed of in the Divorce Court, about 150 of these being from last session, many of them for some months previously, and that dissatisfaction is caused hereby, he will say whether any and, if any, what arrangements are being made to enable

    1071
    these old undefended cases to be taken at once in order that more immediate justice may be done to the plaintiffs, who are presumably innocent of any transgression against any law?
    Mr. BAKER: The Probate and Admiralty work, as well as the Divorce work, in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division is heavy. All classes of cases are being disposed of in regular order with all possible dispatch. Moreover, the President of the Division announced about a fortnight ago that he proposes to sit for some hours after the ordinary day's work is over, on three days in the week, for the express purpose of hearing undefended divorce suits.
    Sit W. MENZIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is not a fact that during the first week of the sittings these undefended cases are taken, and that the judges usually pass about fifty; and, further, whether this was not done this session?
    Mr. BAKER: I am afraid I cannot say.

    Load Line.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has consulted the Committee which he appointed recently to consider the question of the load line for ships on the point as to whether there is any serious objection to the meetings being open to the Press?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has consulted the Committee. This matter was fully dealt with in the answer which he gave on the 28th May to my hon. and gallant Friend the senior Member for Southampton, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that answer.

    Railway Rates.
    Mr. AMERY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decision to raise canal rates to traders of the Midlands on 1st July, he has been advised that such increase is justified?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to offer any opinion on the point, and has no jurisdiction in the matter.

    Canals and Inland Waterways.
    Mr. AMERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes
    1072
    to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Waterways?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for the Stretford Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

    House of Commons (Procedure).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any effective steps to fulfil his pledge that a Committee on Procedure should be appointed during the present Session?
    Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): The Motion is now on the Paper, and if it is not got before we will take it first Order on Friday.

    EXECUTIONS FOR MURDER (OUDH).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether, having regard to the circumstances attending the retrial, conviction, and execution for murder in Oudh of natives previously acquitted, and the refusal to forward the appeal of the convicts to the Government of India for the revision or commutation of the sentence, the Under-Secretary will be prepared to say, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night, if it is the intention of the Secretary of State to advise that the penal code of India be modified so as to secure that the plea of previous acquittal on the same charge may be made available in the case of natives as it is in the case of Europeans, and that the procedure in trial for murder in India will be assimilated in the case of natives to that of Europeans?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have assumed that my hon. and learned Friend intends by the question with customary consideration to indicate to me part of his argument in the Debate he proposes to raise to-night, and part of the reply he wishes me to make. I note the terms of the question, and I hope he will not press me to try and argue a very grave and difficult matter in an answer to a question.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that I am not counted out?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask how many Orders of the Day will be taken to-day?
  Mr. McKENNA: We do not expect primâ facie to go beyond the third Order [Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill].
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: What does primâ facie mean in this matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: It means that the Government do not expect to go beyond the third Order, but clearly it is not desirable, in the interest of business itself, that the House should adjourn immediately if these Orders are got through early in the evening.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask my right hon. Friend what additional Orders in that case he proposes to take?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend will be interested in knowing that we shall not take the Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not in the least concerned whether that Bill is to be taken or not. May I ask not what he does not intend to take, but what he does intend to take?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is premature yet to say, and until we learn how far we can get with the Orders of the Day, it is undesirable to make any definite statement.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: A great deal of legitimate objection was taken last night to a very desirable Bill [Education (Scotland) Bill] being taken without notice, and in justice to hon. Members interested in the Bills that might be taken may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give a general indication of what will be taken after the Consolidated Fund Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), who knows more about these matters than I do, advises me that he does not think it probable that we shall be able to get beyond the third Order.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask the Home Secretary if he intends to take the Money Resolution of the Welsh Church Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, not to-day.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he intends to put it down?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do you intend to take the Bee Disease Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Government do not propose to take the Bee Disease Bill to-day.

BILL PRESENTED.
  AGRICIILTITRAL LOANS BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of agricultural loan committees and for the making of loans to farmers." Presented by Mr. JARDINE; supported by Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Stanier, Mr. William Boyle, Mr. Hamersley, Captain Morrison-Bell, Sir John Spear, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Harry Hope, Colonel Boles, Mr. Campion, and Mr. Sandys; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 9th July, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY [CONSOLIDATED FUND, ETC.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole one million one hundred thousand pounds, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, certain underground Railways and other works in London, and for purposes in connection with such Railways and works; and to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums, to borrow money by means of Exchequer Bonds and terminable annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys annually provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to omit the words "one million," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and fifty." The result of this, of course, will be——
  Mr. BOOTH: May I point out that the hon. Member must surely omit the word "hundred," else it would be "two hundred and fifty hundred thousand pounds"?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I move that—to leave out the words "one million one hundred," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and fifty" I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for so kindly not taking advantage of a technical slip in my speech, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity of repaying him in kind. The result of the Amendment is to authorise the Government to take only £250,000 for the purposes of this Bill. My object is to press the Government to give some information as to why they have departed from the usual process with regard to loans. In this Bill they propose to defray a very large expenditure of £1,100,000 by loan, but with regard to military and naval works they have steadily taken a contrary course. They have refused in these matters to allow expenditure to be paid for except by annual Estimates. That has been insisted on by no one more strongly than by the present Home Secretary when he was Secretary to the Treasury. I know it is said that one is revenue-producing expenditure and the other is not. Surely no valid distinction can be drawn on that ground, because though military and naval works are not revenue-producing, they are necessary expenditure for the national upkeep. When a gentleman in his business or in reference to his estate is called upon to make renewals of his plant or farm buildings, he would never think of paying for them out of his surplus income for the year. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be thought a want of common sense for him to do so? I know that some very conservative companies do pride themselves on the amount of surplus that they are able to put away in good years to meet depreciation and renewals, rather than to increase their dividends, but a private individual does not do so. When he is faced with heavy expenditure to repair buildings that are useless, or about to come down, he naturally borrows, or if he has capital, he pays for it on the spot, and in some cases he takes out what is called, though it does not apply to this case, a redemption sinking fund policy by which he pays off in a certain number of years.
  That matter of common sense in private affairs ought to be extended to military and naval works, which are absolutely as necessary for the maintenance of the
  1084
  efficiency of the country as are the farm buildings for the proper maintenance of an estate. It is not whether these are means of making a profit or not. The point is that from time to time expenditure of that kind has to be made, and it is absurd to throw it upon the Estimates for particular years, but in this case the Government propose to admit, in the case of the Post Office, the argument which I advance in general. On what grounds do they admit it in the one case and refuse it in the other? I think it is rather hard on the Assistant Postmaster-General that he should have to deal in the absence of his chief with a matter of this magnitude, and, if the reply of the hon. Gentleman is unsatisfactory, I will make, all allowance for the unfortunate position in which he is placed. The Postmaster-General, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, endeavoured to show that this would be a profit-producing undertaking. His reasons were by no means convincing. He allowed for interest oh a loan at 3½ per cent. Is he sure that ho will be able to get a loan at 3½ per cent.? This Bill will take some time in passing through the Houses of Parliament, and in the present condition of the Money market, which may for all he knows grow worse—I believe that, as a rule, conditions tighten up towards the autumn—it is exceedingly probable that money will be dearer. He should take warning by what happened in the case of Irish Land Stock.
  The Government of that day, not acting on their own responsibility, but on the advice of the best technical advisers of the day, Treasury permanent servants, made what has, unfortunately, turned out to be a great miscalculation as to the price at which Irish Land Stock could be issued. Surely it is rather sanguine of the Postmaster-General, in the present instance, to calculate on being able to raise money at 3½ per cent.! When the last Consolidated Fund Bill, or the one before that was before the House, I took exception to the powers then taken to borrow at the rate of 5 per cent., because I thought that sum excessive and very unlikely to be necessary, but I was told that a margin ought to be allowed so that in case the Government found it necessary to raise money at 5 per cent. by ordinary Treasury Bills they should have power to do so. If that is admitted in the case of Treasury Bills, I do not quite understand why the Postmaster-General calculates that he will be able, by means of Exchequer Bonds

  1085
  and terminable annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, to raise a loan at 3½ per cent. Then he makes other Estimates as to cost and working expenses, but he gives no authority for them. I would especially urge that surely these are matters which ought to be threshed out in Committee, and, if the Committee approved of the proposal, then a short Loan Bill ought to be brought in. I do not think it is quite fair to take loan powers and authorising powers in the same Bill, because the House cannot have an opportunity of really judging whether the loan powers are justified until the Hybrid Committee, to which this is to be sent, have reported. I admit that it would take a little longer, but it is not fair to the House to give—I will not say a blank cheque—this power to spend the large sum of £1,100,000 before the House has been properly informed on the technical side. What is the present position of the Bill? It is to be sent to a Hybrid Committee, three to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and two by the House. I do not remember to have seen that the appointment of two Members by the House has taken place. It is rather necessary that a point of this kind should not be overlooked. Where it is a question of Select Committees, like the Select Committee on procedure, the names are scrutinised very carefully, as will be seen by the number of Amendments on the Order Paper in reference to the Select Committee on procedure. The matter is rather important, because the whole point of committing this Bill to a Hybrid Committee, in regard to those Members to be appointed by the House, is that the names proposed may be closely scanned. When you consider the large powers this Committee will have——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion of that matter is relevant to the Motion for the appointment of the members, not to this Resolution.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I will only say that it is not right that this Resolution should be passed until the Committee has been appointed and the two members to be nominated by the House have been approved. I submit, further, that it is not necessary that it should be set up before the Committee has been formed, and then we would know to whom the powers to be given' to this Committee are to be entrusted. I very greatly regret the absence of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who
  1086
  made himself an expert on the Bill, and I am quite sure that nothing but some more urgent engagement can have kept him away. I see indications that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is taking an interest in this Bill, and I am sure he will see that, on every ground of public finance and utility, it is not right to give these large powers to raise and spend large sums of money until the Committee has been appointed. It is just in this sort of way that the national revenue is frittered away—half a million here and a million on objects which, sometimes, are not of great public use; and this is just the sort of question which does require the vigilant attention of private Members on both sides, if expenditure of the national funds is to be properly scrutinised.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so for different reasons from those which the hon. Gentleman brought forward. It seems to me that the present time is the most undesirable for raising large sums of money on the Money market. It is a notorious fact that during the last two months there have been a series of attempts at flotations on the Money market in London and elsewhere which have lamentably failed. The underwriters have been left over and over again with 80 per cent., 90 per cent., and even 95 per cent. balances on their hands. That the British Government should now go into a depleted Money market and demand £1,140,000 for new work of this sort seems to me most unfortunate and most undesirable. When we find loan after loan not taken up by the public but left to the underwriters, we know perfectly well that there may be at any moment a very big collapse on the Stock Exchange which might affect the trade of the whole world. I do think that it is very undesirable that the British Government should go into the market borrowing money in this way. The suggestion is made that an expenditure like this should come out of the current account, or out of revenue, as the expenditure occurs. That would certainly be preferable. I think things have got worse during the last month or two, and since this Bill was discussed before. The tightness of the Money market has increased, and every argument that could have been used before against borrowing money in this way for a bureaucratic Department, the Post Office, top spend, can now be adduced with infinitely

  1087
  greater strength against the undesirability of the British Government going on to the Money market. There is another reason why this Amendment should be supported. When the great Budget of 1909 came before the House there was introduced a scheme of Road Boards and Development Grants, and money was voted to be expended on those objects. One of the main arguments in favour of those purposes, and particularly supported by the Labour party, was that the money might be spent in times of bad trade in order to equalise to a certain extent employment between good times and bad times. There was not very much in that argument; after all, merely taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other does not create trade. Here the Post Office ask to spend £1,100,000 just at the time when materials are at their highest price, just at the time when unemployment is less, and just at the time when it will be of least benefit to the working classes and to the trade of the country. I think the Government should take these things into account when contemplating a large expenditure of this sort. A large part of this million and a quarter will be spent on labour in tunnelling, and at any rate it would be well to wait for a few months to see whether any slackness of trade comes along, when this expenditure would be of some use to the general public and the country.
  We are living at a time when inventions, particularly in the matter of communication, are going through a crisis. The telephone has just recently been taken over by the Government, and the beginning of telephone development has hardly been reached. In a very short time we may find the telephone taking the place of the Post Office, and the ordinary Post Office may become a thing of the past. We do not want, at such a moment as this, just when our system of communication is undergoing this enormous change, to be involved in an expenditure of a million and a quarter of money for some Post Office work, which, by the time it is completed, may be absolutely out of date and useless. I remember that some years ago the Post Office made an underground tunnel. It was intended to develop a pneumatic tube service to Euston. That tunnel was made, and I believe I am right in saying it was never used. It was forgotten for fifty years until an antiquary discovered that an underground tube still existed
  1088
  from the Post Office to Euston. That is an example of the way in which public Departments, controlled by an irresponsible bureaucracy, do their work. We do not want to have more examples of that sort in the country. In the Post Office you have, I dare say, a better trained bureaucracy and more skilled, and I think the Postmaster-General has got very fine control over his Department, and a control which I would recommend other Members of the Cabinet to try and secure over their Departments. But even in that Department you find this mistake made fifty years ago of the construction of this tunnel, which proved useless. As soon as you have a million and a quarter given to that Department you may find very extravagant schemes adopted and very extravagant methods of carrying out the work. Everybody knows that every Government Department likes to get as much money as they can, and when they get it they spend it very often on too elaborate offices and schemes. We do not want to see that even in the Post Office. Therefore for the reasons that it is the worst possible time for raising money, and that employment is good and large expenditure of Government money on new works is not desirable, and that we are going through a great change in the means of communication, the telephone taking the place of the electric telegraph, and possibly wireless taking the place of the telephone; and, finally, because it is not right to give any bureaucracy, however well managed, the expenditure of a million of money, for all those reasons I would urge the House to accept the Amendment, and thereby apply a brake to the expenditure which is ever growing, and which we know now needs checking and prevention for the future benefit of the country.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I do think there is apparent inconsistency in the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) with regard to the question of a loan, when we remember the attitude adopted on a loan for military and naval affairs. I rile for the purpose of reiterating a grievance which I feel in common with some other Members. Though my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General persisted and somewhat vigorously, in his refusal to grant quite a modest capital sum for the purpose of extending underground telegraphs in Scotland, he is now coming to Parliament for £1,100,000, with, I believe, a margin of £150,000 for these works in

  1089
  London. I should hesitate to go the length of supporting the very sweeping Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite, though I did record my vote against the Government upon a previous stage of this Bill, but I hope even at this late hour my right hon. Friend will be able in his reply to hold out some hope to hon. Members for Scotland that while he is expending this very large sum of money on London, he will give a sum of money to spend in the interests of the great commercial community of Dundee and of the East of Scotland, who in my opinion have made out a strong case for what they ask.
  Mr. BOOTH: In the previous discussion on this Bill and on the Money Resolution there was a plan which was passed about the House, I think by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), and I presume it was snore or less official. It seemed to show that there may be a larger expenditure than the present Vote, and I want some assurance on that point. The scheme at present authorises a loan of £1,100,000 and solely concerns the north side of the river, but on that plan there was a projected development of this system of underground railway which would go underneath the river to the south side. I would ask the Post Office whether they intend to come forward next year and claim for a subsequent loan and expenditure as the necessary completion of the scheme now before the House? If that is so, I think they should he candid with the House and give us the larger figures. There were lines on that plan which indicated that the railway would some time be conveyed under Westminster Abbey and under this House to the south side of the river. It seems to me quite unnecessary to tunnel under historic buildings of this description. If that is the intention of the Post Office, they should now indicate what the full cost is to be. I am only asking for information, but we are too familiar with the position taken up by Government Departments in this kind of piecemeal programme. I cannot think for a moment that the south side will consider this satisfactory. The hon. Member the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a Division on the south side, and it would be a natural thing for him to come forward with a complete scheme. I therefore ask that the House should be frankly told whether this development to the south side is an integral part of the scheme, and what is the total amount of money which will be required?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Owing to the very full way in which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General dealt with this question in all its aspects on the last occasion when the matter was before the House, it is not necessary for me to deal with it at any great length. With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield as to a loan, I would point out that if we wished to deal with it by means of a loan, there would probably be no difficulty in getting a loan from the National Debt Commissioners, but, as it is a Revenue Department, and as under this arrangement great saving is made, there is no necessity for a loan.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that it is competent to switch off part of the profits of the Post Office to apply to a development of this kind and not let the whole of it go into the Exchequer and into the Sinking Fund?
  4.0 P.M.
  Captain NORTON: No, certainly not. The House apparently fails to realise that the main object of this scheme is to bring about economies in our working expenses. The working expenses in connection with the transference of mails throughout the Metropolis are very large indeed; they are constantly increasing, and are likely to continue to increase. Owing to the fact that we have to use mechanically-driven instead of horse-drawn vehicles, the expenditure a few years hence will be something enormous as compared with the present. The hon. Member made a reference to the appointment of the Committee, of which three Members are to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and two by this House. The two Members were nominated by the House on the 17th inst., and I believe that the Committee has already sat. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) raised the objection that we were bringing in this measure at the wrong time. My right hon. Friend has taken the highest expert opinion on the subject, and he is quite satisfied that there will be no danger or difficulty whatever in obtaining the money at the present time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it not make the Money market "tighter" than it is at the present time, and thereby cause difficulty to other people?
  Captain NORTON: That is riot a matter for the consideration of the Post Office.

  1091
  As long as the Postmaster-General obtains the money, that is sufficient. The tube to Euston, to which the hon. Member referred, had nothing whatever to do with the Post Office, but was constructed, I believe, by some private company. The hon. Member objected that we spend money too readily; yet every day in this House the complaint is that we do not spend money sufficiently freely. That was the point of the recent speech of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. R. Harcourt), who wishes a large expenditure to be made in connection with placing underground the telegraph and telephone lines to the North of Scotland. That would be a sheer expenditure without any corresponding revenue, whereas under the scheme now proposed we shall effect a distinct saving in expenditure. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked whether there was to be a still larger expenditure in the future than that mentioned in the present proposal. He referred to a plan which had been circulated to the House showing further tubes crossing to the south side of the river. That plan was in no sense official, and there is no intention at the present moment of doing anything more than the present Bill proposes. But that does not in any way bind my right hon. Friend with reference to the future. If, as we expect, this system of transferring mails results in a very large economy indeed, the probability is that years hence some successor of my right hon. Friend may introduce a system dealing with the southern portion of the Metropolis. I have now dealt with the various points raised, and I hope the House will agree to the Resolution.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly surport him. A more unbusinesslike speech than that just delivered it has seldom been my pleasure to hear. The hon. Member says that the House of Commons should pay no attention to the state of the Money market, providing the Post Office can get its own particular loan. That is a very strong statement, seeing that the House of Commons is supposed to consider the welfare of the nation at large as well as that of a particular Department. Moreover, it is frequently urged by Members of the Labour Benches that the Government when contemplating large works ought to take into account the state of the labour market. We are asked to sanction
  1092
  a loan of over a million pounds in connection with a purely experimental scheme of underground railways in London. I read the speech of the Postmaster-General very carefully, and I notice that he suggested that great saving would be effected. In all these prospectuses very tempting prospects are held forth. The question of upkeep, however, was hardly dealt with at all in that speech. Most private underground railways are involved in large sums for upkeep which cannot possibly be foreseen. I submit that it is not fair to the House that they should have this Financial Resolution put before them at the present time. The desirability of this scheme of underground railways run by a bureaucracy in London—which seems to me to be a wild-cat scheme—has been referred to a Committee, and I submit that this Resolution should not come before the House until the Committee has reported. There are underground railways at the present time in London dealing with this particular district, and as far as I am aware the Post Office makes no use of them at all. I dare say there may be very good reasons. It is a bad principle to grant big borrowing powers to a Government Department in the manner here proposed. I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and if the Government require more than £250,000 they can come to the House again.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Would the Postmaster-General tell us what is the real necessity for passing this Resolution now? Is it, not a fact that unless this Resolution is passed the Committee cannot get to work? If that is the case, I think it is desirable that we should pass the Resolution at this stage, and to that extent the hon. Member's point fails.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Government would have £250,000, and if they required more they could come again.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: That is surely a very unbusinesslike method of proceeding. I am not objecting to the Committee looking into the matter. On the contrary, I think it requires very careful consideration. I can quite understand that there are reasons why the existing railways should not be used, but the experience of the building of railways by Government Departments is not very promising. The only instance I can recall is that of the Uganda Railway, where a Government

  1093
  Department spent at least twice as much as a contractor would have done it for. I do not doubt the business ability of my right hon. Friend; at the same time I think the Committee should look into the matter very carefully. I am quite prepared to be guided by them, and if the Committee are satisfied with the business aspects of the scheme I shall have nothing further to say. In any case, the present Amendment is technically quite absurd. If the proposal is objected to, the Resolution should be rejected altogether. But subject to the investigation of the Committee, I think that now is the time to pass the Resolution.
  Mr. FELL: I support the Amendment in the full expectation that this request for £1,100,000 is only the beginning of the money that will be required in the course of the next few years. My knowledge of London is not sufficient to tell where all these railways are going to run. Maps have been supplied, but we are now told that those maps were only suggestions, and that the railways therein shown may not be constructed. That is a very curious suggestion. On those plans there were tubes suggested going not only under this building but under Westminster Abbey. We know the difficulties that have arisen in regard to St. Paul's Cathedral, and we have read the reports of engineers stating that tubes are liable to affect the stability of structures over them or in the neighbourhood. Therefore a proposal of this kind should be considered very carefully indeed. We ought to go slowly in the matter. This proposal is purely an experiment. If it is successful I believe that, instead of one million, several million pounds will be required. As to the period of the loan, the Post Office is a great profitable business, and whether when it undertakes a large outlay of this kind it should write it off in thirty years or in a shorter period is a matter for consideration. The scheme may turn out successful or it may not. Twenty years hence such a tube may be obsolete; we may be travelling by the air instead of underground; and then for another ten years we should be paying instalments without any return. If enough money were granted to enable the Committee to start their work, that would be quite sufficient. More than £250,000 will not be spent this year. The Government can come again for further money next year, when we shall know more about the subject than we do at the present time.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The matter has been very carefully considered by a Departmental Committee. I have consulted one of the greatest experts in the country on the subject of tube railways, and it will be further closely considered by a Committee of this House which has already been appointed. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken may be sure that nothing will be rashly undertaken. There is no proposal whatever for running any railway under Westminster Abbey or under the Houses of Parliament. The maps which he says contain merely suggestions, are some maps which have been issued, I do not know quite by whom, showing the mere outline of possible future extensions. Those extensions are not included in this Bill. The maps which have been prepared in connection with this Bill show precisely the route where the railway will run, and are not mere suggestions, but indicate in the closest detail the precise location of the railway. Notices have been served on the property owners affected. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that this is a mere vague scheme which has been worked out in detail. The suggestions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, referred to possible future extensions in years to come which, if they are made, must of course be sanctioned by Parliament in a separate measure, and will then be laid before the House. Two or three points have been raised to which I will briefly refer. It has been suggested that the Money market might be inconvenienced by being suddenly called upon to find an additional million for the Post Office. The money will not be spent all at once, but gradually spent, and in all probability—I am not pledging myself to this—but in all probability it will be obtained, as Departmental loans very often are, from the National Debt Commissioners, from the money in their hands. The National Debt Commissioners have very large sums in hand in connection with Savings Bank deposits, which are available for use by Government Departments on ordinary commercial terms. Instead of our going to the Money market with annuities or Exchequer bonds, or whatever the security may be, those annuities or Exchequer bonds will be lodged with the National Debt Commissioners, and they will supply month by month and from time to time whatever sums are needed in this connection. The Committee which has

  1095
  been appointed cannot complete its work, and cannot proceed far with its work without the authorisation we asked for here.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Could the Committee not make an interim Report as to the general desirability of the scheme, and leave the House to say whether the scheme shall or shall not be financed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I doubt whether it can. I will inquire. I am told it is necessary for the Committee to have this Resolution. Of course, the Committee might possibly hear objections from the property owners, and spend some weeks possibly, and hold a number of sittings in anticipation of the Financial Resolution. But I think it would be most unfair to the hon. Members who have been selected by the House and by the Committee of Selection to serve on that Committee, to subject them to the trouble, if perchance, after they have completed their work the House will not sanction the expenditure. To sanction a quarter of a million is quite useless. It is as though we were going to lay a cable between England and France, and the House were to say: "We will give you half the money that is required for the cable." It is no good making half this railway. The railway is intended to connect the East and the West. It will be a great waste of money to do it in a partial fashion—to attempt to limit in the direction and in the manner proposed by the Amendment before the House the expenditure which is required.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to spend out of the £1,100,000 in the current financial year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Very little, but this is not voted money, as the hon. Member knows; it is an authorisation for a loan, and therefore, the limitation of the present financial year does not apply. The hon. Member for Cambridge University suggested that possibly we might use the existing tube railways. We are indeed, an unbusinesslike Department, he says, to come forward and ask Parliament to sanction a loan of over £1,000,000 in order to make a new tube railway, when there is such a splendid network of these railways underground in London already, if they would do. But I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken without having given much thought to the subject, and what it would mean for the present tube railways to carry the mails from
  1096
  the Eastern District Office in White-chapel to Paddington Station, the extreme point to which the railway will run. It would mean, first of all, loading the mails into a van at the Eastern District Office, and of conveying them in charge of a man to the Bank Station, or to Liverpool Street Station. Then it would mean sending a man down the lift with them to load the mails into the tube carriages. There would be the unloading them again at Paddington Station, and loading them up again on a trolley and carrying them to the train.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: There are through trains from the Great Western Railway running right along to the Metropolitan Railway and right into the City.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would mean loading and unloading between the post offices and the stations and loading and unloading between the stations and post offices. There is no underground railway that touches the General Post Office in King Edward Street, or the Mount Pleasant Office which are the centres for sorting. Any such arrangement would mean an increase of the present expenditure, and complication and delay which it is really impossible to contemplate. The new railway will reach from office to office. There will be lifts from the sorting tables where the letters are being dealt with to the stations on the new underground railways. There will be lifts at the other end where the letters will be automatically transferred, and at the railway termini, where they will be sent by train. It will mean enormous economy in time and labour. It will accelerate the mails. It will relieve the London traffic, and will enable the work to be more economically done in the offices because there will be an even flow of work instead of as now the work coming in spurts, as large vans unload their burdens. I trust, therefore, that the House will allow this measure now to proceed. I venture respectfully to suggest that the House ought to be ready to encourage a Department which shows some enterprise, is willing to adopt new ideas, and which is looking about for means to facilitate its business, and to effect economies in the future, rather than to throw cold water upon schemes which have been carefully thought out, and which I can recommend to the House in the best interests of the service.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I

  1097
  am not at all sure that I have been converted by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who tells us that we ought to encourage his Department to enter into new works and to spend money to facilitate the operations of that Department. I am not sure that that is a very good point. My contention is that the Department ought not to show enterprise and to spend money on new works against the interests of the taxpayer. Take this particular case. It is proposed to spend £1,100,000 to construct certain underground railways. The Postmaster-General has given a very clear account of how this is going to be made, and of the processes involved in the collection and forwarding of the letters. All this may be very true; but the point that interests me as a taxpayer is whether the mails could not be conveyed as efficiently, or more efficiently, by motor omnibus overground, instead of going to a very large expenditure by making railways underground. I understand the railways, when made, are not going to carry a guard or a driver, but are going to be run automatically. I am not sufficient of an engineer to be able to say whether that is possible or not. I, of course, accept the Postmaster-General's statement that he has gone into this matter with those who are experts upon the subject. My experience of engineers is that when they go into a new enterprise of this sort as soon as it is started it is found that they have omitted something, and that very large sums of money have to be spent in addition to the original estimate before the enterprise is completed satisfactorily.
  I am very much afraid in a new enterprise of this sort it will be found that this system does not work well. Having spent £1,100,000, we shall be asked to spend a considerable amount more to render the system efficient, and it will then be said that anybody who is desirous of economy should not object to further sums being spent to make the system efficient seeing that we have already spent £1,100,000 on starting the service, and that that money will be sacrificed if we refuse to spend a further £300,000 or £400,000. An hon. Friend near to me interrupts to ask whether I think the money can be raised at 3½ per cent. I should almost think it could at the present time. It is rather a narrow margin. Rut if we are raising money for other purposes it is doubtful whether we should be able to get it at that rate of interest. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend
  1098
  who moved the Amendment. I do not know whether the intention is to make a small experimental part of the railway, nut costing so much money—a small portion of the line, and then see whether or not it is desirable to go on. That may be all right; though if I were Postmaster-General, I think I should be content in endeavouring to develop motor traction above ground, which is developing very rapidly. I spend a considerable amount of time in the streets, and I notice every day that there are more omnibuses in the streets, and more motor-buses put on for the purpose of carrying goods. There were very few a few years ago. These goods motors have increased very largely. I was nearly run over to-day by one of the motor vans of the Post Office.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet's arguments deal more with the Bill, which has passed its Second Reading.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My arguments were directed, or meant to be directed, in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I was endeavouring to show that it would be better to spend this money, not on making the railway proposed, but on motor traction which can be——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment proposes to spend a quarter of a million upon a railway; to make a portion of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Well, yes. But I am sure it would be better if we did not spend any of it upon this particular proposal. Anyhow, it would be better to see whether or not, before this proposal is carried, an experimental line would be a success. My hon. Friend tells me that there are about sixteen different railways to be laid down. I therefore gather that the making of one railway will not interfere with the rest of them, and that an experimental railway could be made which, if it works successfully, will suggest that the proposal of the Postmaster-General is justified. I hope the Labour party, some of whom are with us in the House this afternoon, and who object to expenditure, will support us in this Amendment——
  Mr. W. THORNE: Expenditure on armaments!
  Sir F. BANBURY: Only on armaments! I understood they objected to expenditure —but I will not go into that now, and I am sorry the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to seduce me from my path. I presume it is no use to appeal to the Postmaster-

  1099
  General, and ask him to accept this Amendment, but you never can tell what may happen until you try, and, therefore, I earnestly ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend.
  Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 87.

  Division No. 119.]

  AYES.

  4.31 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leach, Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Doris, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Adamson, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Lelcester)

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Falconer, J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Baker, Joseph Allan (Finsbury, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barton, W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hackett, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hancock, John George

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bryce, John Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayward, Evan

  Murphy, Martin J.

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Nannett, Joseph P.

  Bytes, Sir William Pollard

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Neilson, Francis

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hinds, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clough, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clynes, John R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, James

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shee, James John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crooks, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parry, Thomas H.

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Kelly, Edward

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Dillon, John

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Waring, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea. Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Webb, H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Reddy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Winfrey, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

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

  Wardie, George J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Orde-Powl ett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peel, Lieut-Colonel R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbounre)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Blair, Reginald

  Hardy, Rt, Hon. Laurence

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Stanler, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Courthope, George Lloyd

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Worthington-Evans, I.

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

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Younger, Sir George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  James Hope and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN GUARANTEE.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee out of the Consolidated Fund the payment of interest at a rate not exceeding three and one-half per cent. per annum on a Loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise three million pounds."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. BAIRD: No one can be opposed to this policy of assisting the Soudan to develop the enormous resources which obviously exist in that country, but I think we are entitled, before committing ourselves to this very considerable expenditure, or, at any rate, the liability of the taxpayers' money for this expenditure, to hear a little more about the finances of this proposal. On the last occasion when this question was before the House several of my hon. Friends endeavoured to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some details with regard to the

  1103
  purely financial aspect of these proposals. They were very unsuccessful. The right hon. Gentleman made an ingenious speech, in which he reviewed the position of the cotton industry in Lancashire. He dealt in a somewhat amusing manner with the Soudan, at least it was amusing to anyone who has been out there, and then he proceeded to gloss over everything connected with the finance. The woolliness of the Chancellor's finance was very characteristic. He said the Committee might like to know, when we are guaranteeing a loan of this kind, what the conditions of the Soudan are. That is indeed what we would all like to know, but we got no enlightenment from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman went at considerable length into the question of the revenue of the Soudan, but failed altogether to deal with the expenditure, which is a thing common to young men and others, who consider that their private income has no visible relationship to their expenditure. When you are dealing with other people's money it does seem to be necessary to see that the gilt is not taken off the gingerbread by the ever increasing expenditure. Here is what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said in regard to the revenue. He pointed out that it had risen from something like £250,000 in 1906 to £1,424,000 in 1912, but there was no allusion whatever to the calls on the Soudan Government and to the sources of expenditure which must be taken into account in considering this question. So little did the right hon. Gentleman seem to have studied the question, that in the middle of one of his most eloquent periods he was interrupted by one of my hon. Friends who inquired what was the denomination of the currency to which he was then referring, and he said:—
  In 1899 the land there was worth £191,000,000 and the rent £16,250,000."
  Then there was a great increase in 1912, and he said:—
  "I suppose those figures represent Egyptian pounds."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) interrupted the right hon. Gentleman and asked if they were "Piastres," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "I am not certain what the coinage is."
  Surely you want to know exactly what it is, and the whole of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was typified by the doubt he displayed with regard to this particular currency. The upshot of it was that the
  1104
  right hon. Gentleman after his interesting, and eloquent speech, left the House completely in the dark, in my humble judgment, as to the ability of the Soudan Government to pay the interest on this loan which we are asked to guarantee, so that we could not be certain whether this would be a nominal liability which we would never be asked to discharge, or whether in fact we should find ourselves sooner or later obliged to pay out of the British taxpayer's money £105,000 a year as interest on this £3,000,000 loan. That is a very important point, and I trust that the Secretary to the Treasury will find it possible to give us some reassurance on that subject.
  I am not prepared to say that it would not be worth our while to pay £105,000 for the sake of developing the Soudan. I think very likely it would be money well spent, but as has been stated in connection with the subject when we, last discussed it, money is now what is technically known as "tight," and therefore the chances are that although the Soudan Government are entitled to sorrow this money at 3½ per cent., it may not be easy for them to get it at that price, and they may have to pay more. We cannot tell what the calls on our resources are going to be, because they are put up in the most light-hearted manner every day, and we cannot be sure that the Estimates of those entrusted with the duty of looking after our expenditure are accurate. So late as yesterday we had an example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing forward proposals, no doubt admirable in themselves, in regard to which the expense is going to be thrown on the taxpayer. This is regarded as a very serious question by hon. Members who probably have as good an opportunity of forming an opinion as to the cost of those proposals as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I think all those points are pertinent when we are considering even so desirable a question as the granting of facilities to the Soudan to raise money which no doubt will be well spent, and will be directly remunerative. so far as this country is concerned. By this expenditure you may improve your markets and sources of raw materials, and do something to justify your position in the Soudan. I am not quarrelling with the expenditure of this money, but I should like to know something more than we heard on the last occasion as to the financial side of the question. In endeavouring to enlighten

  1105
  myself on this point, I thought I could not go to a better source than the last Report on the Finances of Egypt and the Soudan, and there I find on page 57 in the paragraph headed Finance:—
  "The accounts for the year 1912 are not yet closed, but the figures of the revenue and expenditure, as nearly as can at present be estimated, will be as follows: Revenue, £1,758,500; expenditure, £1,658,500; surplus, £100,000."
  If the Soudan is going to saddle itself with a new liability to the extent of £105,000, it seems to me that the surplus of £100,000 is rather an inadequate sum to meet the ease. But that is not all. Here is a pertinent paragraph which shows the amount of revenue actually collected:—
  "To ascertain the amount of the revenue actually collected in the Soudan, and the actual Budget expenditure of the Civil administration, there has to be deducted trout the revenue side of the account the sum of £335,000 (Egyptian pounds), which is the amount of the contribution paid by Egypt to enable the Soudan to balance its Budget, and from the expenditure the sum of £172,000, the amount repaid by the Soudan to Egypt towards the cost of the Army in the Soudan."
  On the next page I find the following paragraph:—
  "After deduction of these amounts the figures are: Revenue (Budget Estimates), £1,375,600; anticipated results. £1,423,500; expenditure (Budget Estimates), £1,538,600; anticipated results, £1,486,500."
  In the first case there is a deficit on the Budget Estimates of £163,000, and, if you take the anticipated results, that deficit is reduced to £63,000. If you have a deficit of this amount it appears that in this country we shall have to put our hands into our pockets to the extent of £105,000. I agree that there are many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent in a far worse way, but let us be clear on the subject, and let us see whether this is an obligation which we shall have to discharge or whether we are simply backing a Bill which you feel perfectly certain will never be brought back. As to the advantages that will accrue from the expenditure of this money, there is no question that they will be very great. The total revenue from Land Tax and Ushr, or tax on rain-irrigated land, amounts to £141,400. There are some interesting details given in this Report with regard to the area of cultivated land in 1912 and the two previous years. If you are going to spend this money in the manner indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think you are entitled to anticipate a rise in the revenue, but surely we want to know precisely how much the revenue will be, seeing that at the present moment there is a deficit. We want to know for certain whether there is any justification for the view that this deficit will be
  1106
  wiped out by this expenditure money. I have not seen the figures, which must be given before we settle this question. We want to know whether there will be sufficient balance to pay the interest on this money, the raising of which will take place-under our guarantee. May I remind the House of the items to which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this £3,000,000 is to be devoted. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "There is to be a sinking fund to enable the Soudan to repay the loan in thirty years. The interest is not to exceed 3½ per cent. The purposes I have already indicated to the Committee are, for irrigation, £1,000,000 for the Gezira Delta, £100,000 for Tokar, and £200,000 for Kassalii; £1,600,000 for railway extension; and £100,000 for contingencies; making £3,000,000 in all"
  Obviously in a country like the Soudan every pound judiciously spent on those services is remuneratively invested and you will get the benefit of all the cotton which it is expected will be grown there as soon as it is irrigated. It is perfectly certain that you will get a very good return in the shape of cotton from the expenditure on this irrigation quite equal to the expenditure upon the making of railways. Therefore you are entitled to expect a very profitable source of revenue, and with the general increase of prosperity in the country you are entitled to anticipate that the yield of all those taxes and duties will rise. But there is also going to be a rise in the expenditure at the same time, and that important little item is one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not find it necessary to devote any attention to. Even in considering so desirable a method of spending public money as this is, we are-obliged to go thoroughly into the question, and make sure that we are in a position to tell our constituents exactly what we are letting them in for. It is for that reason, even in dealing with a matter which from the point of view of policy I do not for a moment criticise, and in regard to which I rejoice to think this proposal has been made by the Government, I ask the representative of the Treasury to give us some little information on the points I have raised, and on other matters bearing on the financial situation which it is of importance we should have.
  Mr. SANDYS: I certainly support the suggestion which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) has put forward, namely, that those who represent the Government this afternoon should give us more information with regard to the financial questions than they had an opportunity of doing when this question

  1107
  was under our consideration before. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Debate will refresh his memory by an examination of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the previous Debate, he will find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion was unable to give a full and adequate reply to many of the points brought forward by hon. Members on this side of the House, because he had only a matter of five or ten minutes to spare, and therefore he was unable on that occasion to deal as fully and adequately as I understood he desired to do with many of the important questions which he admitted had been raised in the course of the Debate. Under those circumstances I think it is extremely regrettable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have been able to be present this afternoon when this question comes up again for consideration. I have no doubt that he with other right hon. Gentlemen is at the Mansion House.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Chancellor of the Exchequer is indisposed, or, no doubt, he would be here.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. SANDYS: We all very much regret to hear the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's absence, but we have no doubt that adequate replies will be given by the right hon. Gentleman who is representing him this afternoon. I regret the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), who took such a prominent part in the discussion on the previous occasion, because he brought forward some arguments which were not in any way answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt, if he had been here, that he would have liked to have dealt with some of those questions again, and to have been more successful in eliciting a reply from the right hon. Gentleman than he was on a previous occasion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but possibly, like many others on this side of the House, he was unaware of the exact order in which these questions were going to be discussed, or he would have been in his place this afternoon. I desire most heartily to support the observations, very moderate and just in their tone, which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. If we wish to ascertain whether the liability which this
  1108
  country is undertaking in connection with this large sum of money being advanced under the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund to the Government of the Soudan is merely a nominal liability, or whether we shall be called upon to pay, it is necessary for us to review some of the circumstances under which this proposal has been brought forward.
  There was, I understand, an application to the British Government from the Soudan Government to advance a large sum of money—I believe the sum was suggested by the Soudan Government itself, a sum not exceeding £3,000,000—for various purposes, one of which, of course, was for improving the system of irrigation in that country, and another of which was for railway extensions which everybody must agree are essential for the future development of that country. I believe that the Soudan Government attach particular importance to the grant of money which they intend to allocate to the purpose of cotton growing within their territory. They ask that the British Government should guarantee the interest upon this loan. It was, on the face of it, not an unreasonable request to make. We are, after all, the greatest exporters of cotton goods in any part of the world, and I think, with the exception of the United States of America, we are the greatest importers of raw cotton in the whole of the world. Our exports of cotton goods during the last ten years has increased from what was originally the enormous sum of £70,000,000 to no less than £120,000,000, according to the latest information. It has become apparent to those who are interested in this great industry in this country that in consequence of the enormous development of the trade which has taken place, and also for technical reasons connected with the quality and the price of the raw material, that it is very much in the interests of the industry that even larger supplies than have hitherto been obtained from the Soudan should be got from that part of the world.
  The cotton producers, who have formed themselves into an organisation known as the Cotton Producers Association, sent out a very important and representative deputation to Egypt and the Soudan in order to make further investigations into the cotton growing possibilities of that country. They sent out at the head of that deputation a gentleman—Mr. Hotton, I think, was his name—who has an un-

  1109
  rivalled position as an expert on this question. He went into the matter thoroughly and visited the Soudan. I do not know whether he actually visited these particular lands with regard to which this proposal is now before the House. I should like some information from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. At any rate, the deputation spent some considerable time in the Soudan, and visited various parts of the country. Their conclusions are embodied in a report, which is practically to the effect that if this country could be properly irrigated it would undoubtedly develop into one of the most successful cotton growing countries in the world. It was pointed out that it was just as important that facilities should be afforded for getting the water off the land as for getting the water on to the land. That point escaped the attention of some hon. Gentlemen who took part in the Debate on the last occasion. The deputation laid particular stress on this fact. They pointed out that unless the water could be got off the land at the proper time it was not going to be of any great use at all. This £3,000,000 which the British Government is asked to guarantee is going to be allocated in the following manner. One million pounds is going to be employed for the purpose of irrigating that district of the Gezira, which is referred to in that portion of Lord Kitchener's report which deals with the Soudan. Experiments have already been carried out in this particular district. "Gezira" is a very familiar word in all parts of Egypt and the Soudan, and it would be interesting to know whether this "Gezira" referred to is actually the same "Gezira" with regard to which the money is going to be allocated. Lord Kitchener says:—
  "The success of the experiment in growing cotton on the Gezira plain and in other parts of the Soudan referred to in my last report has been further verified and confirmed by the results obtained during the year, and the intention of His Majesty's Government to assist financially this agricultural development of the country has been received with the greatest satisfaction by all classes."
  I should like one or two words of explanation with regard to that statement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether this intention referred to in Lord Kitchener's report has any connection with this proposal now before the House, or whether it is something quite different.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): It is naturally the same.
  Mr. SANDYS: No doubt this paragraph was inserted in Lord Kitchener's report with the approval of the Government, but it is rather anticipating a decision of the House of Commons which has not yet been given. That is rather a favourite practice of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and is one which I think ought to be discouraged.
  Mr. ACLAND: We have not spent any of the money. He only says that the decision of the Government is, of course, very welcome in the Soudan.
  Mr. SANDYS: No, he goes a little further than that. He says: "The intention of His Majesty's Government to assist financially this agricultural development of the country"——
  Mr. ACLAND: The intention, certainly.
  Mr. SANDYS: "Has been received with the greatest satisfaction by all classes." I think that is going a little too far. It is an anticipation which no doubt wilt probably be realised. This proposal, or indeed any other proposal, placed before the House -will receive the unswerving support of the Government majority, but I do think it was going perhaps a little too far to have made it so clear to the natives of this particular part of the Soudan that the whole thing was settled beforehand, and that the sanction of the House of Commons was practically a foregone conclusion. Suppose, by some extraordinary mishap, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had not on this occasion been able to command a majority, the money would not have been voted, and there would be extreme disappointment and dissatisfaction among these natives, who thought they were going to be benefited, and who found, owing to the action of this House, they were unable to get the money. Surely, it is very much better not to make these definite statements in advance. It would be far better to wait until the sanction of the House has been actually given before making these statements which, if they do not prove to be true, may be a serious disadvantage to our position in the Soudan amongst the native population. It struck me, when reading this paragraph, that the right hon. Gentleman had advised Lord Kitchener to go a little further than was justified in view of the fact that the money had not, at that time, been actually granted by this House. I understand that £1,000,000 is going to be allocated to that district, and that it is hoped it will be

  1111
  sufficient for the improvement and irrigation of a territory amounting to about 5,000,000 acres for cotton growing purposes. Then the sum of £200,000—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—is going to be employed in a district called Kassala, and will be used for the improvement and irrigation of about 100.000 acres of land. On the district of Tokar a much smaller sum, only £100,000, is going to be spent, so that the amount of land to be irrigated in that particular district will be considerably smaller than in the other two districts to which I have referred.
  Then there is the sum of £100,000 put on one side for contingencies. I am not complaining of that, because, in big undertakings of this kind, it is no doubt difficult to exactly estimate the amount which will actually be required for the purpose of these works. Therefore, I think the Government are justified in having that sum in hand for contingencies. In addition there is a sum of £1,600,000 which is going to be allocated for the purpose of railway extension. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird), in the course of his speech, said it was very desirable that those who represent the Government this afternoon should make it clear whether this is really a nominal guarantee or whether we shall have to actually find the money. He did not especially deal with this sum of £1,600,000, which is going to be employed for the purpose of railway extensions. But in Lord Kitchener's Report on the Soudan the railways are dealt with under the heading of "Communications." notice that in 1910-11-12 the revenue of the railways has increased. But the working expenses have also increased, and the percentage of expenditure to earnings has risen from 68.5 per cent. in 1910 to 70 per cent. in 1911 and 73 per cent. in 1912. That is an experience which is not peculiar in any way to railways in Egypt or the Soudan. It is an experience which is being felt in this country, and, indeed, in every part of the world. The proportion of expense is always mounting up to a much greater extent than the actual earning capacities of the line. Consequently, if this tendency goes on, and there is no reason why it should not, we may find that this guarantee of £1,600,000 is a very real liability which we may eventually have to meet. Consequently I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, will make some statement with regard to the
  1112
  possibilities of this railway extension and whether it is really going to make a sufficient profit in order to discharge the liability that will fall upon us should, unfortunately, these railways not be a financial success owing to the increase in the working expenses.
  These sums which I have mentioned as being allocated in accordance with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer amount in all to £3,000,000, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, in his reply, make it clear exactly where this money is going to be spent and where are the lands which are going to be irrigated practically at the expense of the British Exchequer and the British taxpayer. I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reply to this particular part of the Debate in the course of his answer on a previous occasion. The names which are used in connection with this irrigation scheme are names in common employment all over Egypt, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it perfectly clear exactly where these lands are situated.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has said the same thing now four times.
  Mr. SANDYS: I will not repeat it again. It was said on a previous occasion, and no answer was then given.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is no reason for repeating it again and again.
  Mr. SANDYS: I must apologise, but I do hope time right hon. Gentleman will make it clear on this occasion who are the owners of the property which is going to be so greatly improved, and which is going to be put on a totally different basis to that it now occupies at the expense of or under the guarantee of the British taxpayer. What I want to learn is, Who does it belong to at the present time? Here are lands of very little value under existing conditions, but when this £3,000,000 of money has been expended they will no doubt be of very great value, and before we definitely allocate this very large sum of money I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear who are the owners of the property which is going to be improved at the expense of the British Exchequer. Personally, 1 think it is highly desirable that the development and improvement of the cotton-growing lands in the Soudan should be undertaken, but I must emphasise the fact that the Soudan is not, as a matter of fact, a British

  1113
  Colony. It is only indirectly under our Government, and we do not know exactly how and when our position there will develop. Therefore, I think we are entitled to have the fullest possible particulars as to how this money is going to be spent. This large sum of money is being allocated for what practically amounts to the protection of an artificial offspring of the agricultural interest in the Soudan, and it is a question whether the money could not be better employed for the purpose of furthering the agricultural interests in this country. I do not suppose that a single penny of this money will go into the pockets of a single British working man. It is perfectly obvious it will not do so directly; indirectly, it may, of course. But I certainly think, in view of all that is necessary to be done for agriculture in this country and all that is required in the way of housing the agricultural population of Great Britain, this House should be very chary and should desire to have the utmost particulars—exactly how the money is going to be expended—before it gives its sanction to the payment of £3,000,000 of British money for the purposes of agricultural development in a country admittedly under our protection, but which forms no part of the British Empire. I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will give this explanation. I want to know where the lands are situated, and who are the actual owners who are going to be so enormously benefited by this large sum of money out of the British Exchequer. There is ample time in which to give us this information. The right hon. Gentleman will not be in the same difficulty as that which overtook the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the matter was previously under debate and when the time at his disposal was so short as to afford him no chance of dealing with the very important questions in a full or adequate manner.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I rise to deal with certain points which have been raised, from the Treasury point of view. The hon. Member who first spoke on this Motion seemed to think that this money was worth spending even if the whole amount had to fall on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. He was strongly in favour of the money being spent, or at least of the loan being issued. But the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is apparently against the loan altogether.
  Mr. SANDYS: No.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That, at any rate, is the impression the hon. Member gave me. He said that not a farthing would go to the British working man. He was very doubtful whether it would be of any use at all in the Soudan. He pointed out that the Soudan did not belong to us, but that it was outside the British Empire, and, therefore, ——
  Mr. SANDYS: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is, no doubt quite unintentionally, misrepresenting me. The point I desired to make was that under the circumstances this loan called for the fullest investigation before it received the sanction of this House.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I cannot conceive for what reason he dragged in the British working man. I have to deal with the general question so far as it affects the Treasury, and I wish to touch upon the various limitations in that regard. May I, in passing, say I should have thought that much which has been said this afternoon would have been far more appropriate to a Debate on the Bill itself than to this Debate on the Money Resolution. The Money Resolution limits the amount to be raised to a sum not exceeding £3,000,000 and if the hon. Gentleman opposite says on examining the Bill that some of the money devoted to certain districts ought not to be devoted to those districts, or if he says that some of the railways ought not to be built, surely that is more appropriate to a Second Reading Debate, or to the Committee stage, than to the Debate on a Money Resolution, when hon. Members have not the Bill in their hands, a Bill which we are anxious they should have in their hands as soon as possible. In the same way many points raised by the hon. Member who first spoke will be fully answered, and answered to his satisfaction, when he gets the Bill in his hands. The other points he raised can be met either in Debate on the Second Reading, or in the Committee.
  Mr. BAIRD: Why not now?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We do not debate Bills on Money Resolutions. That would mean going through the Second Reading stage and the whole Committee stage over and over again. It would be unprecedented in the history of any civilised community. Now the Treasury are asked to guarantee the interest on a loan for thirty years for the Government of the Soudan.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The thirty years does not appear in the Resolution.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Surely?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If it does not appear in the Resolution I may say that that is our intention.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very important point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is thirty years, so that if everything failed, if the Soudan Government should go to pieces, the utmost we should have to face would be a liability of about £100,000 a year. The hon. Member said that even if the Soudan Government could not pay we ought to. He thought it would be worth while doing it, and he only wanted to be clear what the chances were of our having to meet this liability. I can only refer him to the statements made by Lord Kitchener in various reports which we have received in connection with the Soudan Government. With the present expenditure you have an increasing revenue, and you have an especially increasing revenue in connection with the railways. I know the working cost has gone up, but you have a remarkable increase of revenue in the case of the Soudan Railway. It is not intended that this £3,000,000 loan shall be issued all at once. It will be issued from time to time as required, and the Soudan Government are fairly confident that it will result in the expenditure being paid by the amount of revenue coming in, and that there will be so large an advance in that revenue that it will more than cover the loan. Of course, I agree that it is experimental. The Soudan Government could not have raised the loan on reasonable terms without this Government's guarantee. Those who have power to speak, and are specialists in the matter, do believe that a very great development, especially in the cotton industry, may be produced in the Soudan by such expenditure as that which this money is intended to provide. They know that that cannot take place unless some such loan as this is made. Therefore, it is for an Imperial reason, as well as for reasons connected with the desirability of raising larger supplies of cotton from all sources, that this guarantee is recommended to the House. If, in the first few years, the money is not returned, and the interest bas to be borne by the Consolidated Fund,
  1116
  the money so spent out of the Consolidated Fund will be repaid by the Soudan Government in later years, and be repaid with interest.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If they can.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, if they can. All I wish to make clear is that we cannot guarantee that in the first year, when the railway is being built, that you can get the money back. The Soudan Government believe, and give reasons for their belief, that ultimately they will be able to repay all this interest to us, together with interest on any amount which has to be paid in interest in the first few years.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Treasury does take that, risk.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: After all, it is an Imperial question, which ought to be considered with a view to the development of one of the largest and most important of the possessions which are subject to the Crown, although I agree a condominium of another nation. I do not think the authorities in the Soudan have any doubt at all that they can carry out this development and repay all the money, but even if they cannot pay all the money, I agree with the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Baird), that it would be worth while for us to advance this interest for this limited time, because it is essential that this country, which is now being held up in every way, but which shows great signs of possible development, with an increasing revenue, an increasing population, increasing railway receipts, and increasing irrigation, is simply held up in all these matters by not having enough capital money to invest. I think it is essential from all points of view that they should have this capital money. I think I have answered all the Treasury questions. Any other questions will be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As the question has been put from the Chair, no Amendment can be moved to the Resolution, but I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to several purely Treasury points. I am sorry that thirty years is not mentioned in the Financial Resolution. A thirty years' limit from the point of view of an economist does make a considerable difference in voting the money. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that as it is not in the Resolu-

  1117
  tion, it will be quite open to the Government to take the thirty years' limit out of the Bill, and, if that were done, we should then be guaranteeing for all time, with no provision made for the determination of the guarantee. Are we to understand that the Government intend to adhere to the limit of thirty years, or whether, when we come to the Bill later on, the Government will allow themselves to be pressed by the Lancashire Free Traders who desire Protection for their own interests to take out the thirty years, and put in an extended period, or take it out altogether? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will answer that question. With regard to the finance of the matter, I will assume for the moment that the thirty years will remain in the Bill. I have been favoured by my hon. Friend with a report of a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when this Resolution was in Committee. One of the arguments put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the guaranteeing of the loan by the British Treasury was that unless it were done it would be extremely difficult for the Soudan to borrow the money at a reasonable rate of interest, and that if they were compelled to pay an unreasonable rate of interest, it would seriously interfere with the possibility of success of the enterprise. Supposing the thirty years' limit is allowed to remain, does the right hon. Gentleman think the money can be obtained at 3½ per cent. interest, or anything like it? Would he himself lend to the Soudan Government for thirty years at 3½ per cent. interest, knowing very well that at the expiration of the thirty years there would be no guarantee for the return of his money or the payment of interest? If a loan were put upon the market with a guarantee only as to interest and not as to capital, that guarantee as to interest being for a comparatively short time, and no provision was made for a sinking fund, it is evident that people lending money upon those conditions would require a greater interest than 3½ per cent. What it would be, I am unable to say.
  A further question arises as to the financial position of the Soudan at the present moment. My hon. Friend told us that there was a deficit, but I do not know whether he pointed out that the revenue of the Soudan is a decreasing revenue. The revenue for 1913 is estimated at £1,631,000, whereas the revenue for 1912 was £1,710,600. Yet it is at this moment, with a decreasing revenue, that the right hon. Gentleman comes forward
  1118
  and proposes that a loan should be raised to be advanced to these people The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I ma sorry to say is not here, although I understand the reason, in his speech made a statement which is quite inaccurate. He was talking about the debt, and said:—
  "The Soudan up to the present has not paid its way. It has now squared its accounts, and in a very short time it will pay its way.
  It has not squared its account. There is a deficit at the present moment upon accounts, and, in addition, it is actually in the position of having a declining revenue. It is evident that for some considerable time the Soudan will not be able to repay the interest on the loan we are going to advance to them. I cannot conceive it possible that the loan can be raised at par at 3½ per cent. With regard to the other points which arise on this Resolution, I think the right hon. Gentleman will allow that I have a right to criticise the Resolution as a whole, because I object to it as a whole. It is no use saying to me that we can amend part of it in the Bill, because I should object to the Bill. I object to it for the reason that we are now spending such a very large sum of money, that I do not think it is advisable that we should go into fresh commitments abroad or at home. We are going into this commitment abroad, not because we are going to make anything out of it for the nation as a whole, but because we are going to provide cheap cotton for some parts of Lancashire. I see below the Gangway opposite an hon. Member who made a speech during the Committee stage of the Resolution, in which he congratulated himself and his Friends upon the fact that Lancashire, at my expense and at the expense of my hon. Friends here, is going to benefit by getting cheap cotton which we have paid for. That may be a good thing for Lancashire. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks it is. As I do not happen to have any connection with Lancashire, I see no reason whatever why I should be compelled to provide Lancashire with means for obtaining an increased trade. I have never been one who advocated Protection in that way. This is rank Protection. Lancashire is to be protected at the expense of the taxpayers. That may be right or wrong. From my point of view, I think it is wrong. I do not believe in protecting one industry only. That the proposal should come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are supposed

  1119
  to be apostles of Free Trade, is something I should never have believed possible, but I must say that the last year or two has convinced me that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do anything. I never even believed that they could come down to this House and demand that a certain portion of England in which they are interested—they have not even the excuse that that portion of England is badly off, because I believe it is that portion of England which is doing better at present than any other part of the United Kingdom——
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: We want that to continue.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Let it continue through your own enterprise and industry. Do not let them come to me and say, "Please subscribe in order that we may obtain something which is going to benefit us." I am naturally of a generous disposition, but I object very strongly to generosity of that description. I have given two reasons why this Resolution should not be passed; one is the financial reason which, as I have some slight knowledge of finance, I venture to say is a very serious one, and the other is the more general reason, that this is a Protectionist measure, designed to benefit one part of the Kingdom at the expense of the remainder. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has said that he has always been convinced that at the bottom of his heart the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a rank Protectionist, and that the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the same boat. I am rather inclined to think the hon. and learned Member is right, especially as I see no signs of dissent from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who have always been strong opponents of any kind of Protection in any shape whatever. I feel myself at liberty to vote against the Resolution, and I shall certainly be prepared to do so if any hon. Gentleman on this side will support me. I am rather afraid from the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that they are a little bit inclined to support this Resolution.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Hear, hear!
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend is fired with a patriotic desire to benefit the Soudan as being part of the British Empire. I, too, like to benefit the British Empire, but I do not care to benefit it by
  1120
  doles—doles to landlords in the Soudan. An hon. Gentleman opposite is against doles for landlords if they are Englishmen. I do not know what line he is going to take now, but I should not be surprised if he were to support this Resolution. That is the difference between him and me. If I am going to give any doles to anyone, 1 prefer giving them to an Englishman rather than to a Soudanese. I really think if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to show their consistency, they should vote against this particular Resolution, which, after all, is nothing but a dole to landlords. I shall have much pleasure in voting against the Resolution if I can get anyone to go into the Lobby with me, and if the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Whip, will allow me to do so.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Baronet says this is virtually a loan to landlords in the Soudan. If I have the opportunity I am going to oppose it on this ground with him, unless we get further information from the Front Bench. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was introducing the Bill he rather suggested that these were Government lands, and left it rather indefinitely, and I am entirely with the hon. Member (Mr. Sandys), in wanting to know more about these lands, to whom they belong, and who is going to benefit by this great expenditure. I am glad the light seems to be dawning on the Opposition benches and that hon. Gentlemen realise the truth that public expenditure results in the increase of the value of land, which goes into private pockets. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says this is Government land, he is not in agreement with the official report of the annual federation of master cotton spinners, which says:—
  "It is very unfortunate that the land in the Gezira belongs to the natives and not to the Government. The Government has to rent the land necessary for working certain farms. At present it is sold at 20 piastres, 4s. 2d., per acre. When the water is available, the value of that same land may be anything from it £10 to £l5 per acre and more. This surely is a case for a large application of an unearned increment tax. The whole construction of the canal might be paid for out of this unearned increment."
  If that is the case, there seems to me no need whatever for the loan. At any rate, it seems to form a very good argument for sonic assurance being given us that if a loan is granted and this enormous increase in value takes place it should be made part of the security for the loan.
  Mr. ACLAND: I would have quoted to the hon. Member that passage on page 105

  1121
  if he had not already quoted it to me. It is a fact that this land belongs to the natives. It is also a fact that the land is almost entirely valueless unless it has water, and it is the fact that the Government of the Soudan can make what charge for water they like. Therefore, you would get a fair return in one way or the other, either for charging for the water which is supplied, which alone makes the land of higher value, or else—and this has the advantage of getting rid of the indirect boundaries, which are rather a difficulty in the present ownership—by saying to the first owners, "We will give you free water for a part of your holding if you hand over the remainder of it to the State." That is a good bargain for both. The State gets land in its possession which it has not got now, and the native gets land properly irrigated, of considerable value, in place of a large amount of land of practically no value. In either case it is certain that there will be a return—we hope an increasing return—to the State from the scheme of irrigating this land; but really you cannot get that return in advance. The extra money which the State will get, either for its water or by obtaining part of the land, can only accrue to the State when the water is supplied, and that is what the money is wanted for. I can try to answer, in addition, some of the points which have been made with regard to the merits of the case by other speakers. It is a fact that the deputation which went out did actually see this experiment in process of working. They say:—
  "We found that in the middle of the desert a miracle bad happened. All around, although the soil was probably the most fertile in the world, the country was bare as a billiard table, with only the merest vestige of vegetation. In the midst of this desert, thanks to the supply of water, we found a real oasis. We saw probably the most luxuriant crops of cotton that have been produced anywhere."
  These words show that this was actually seen by the deputation which went out, and is not only reported by hearsay. With regard to the point that it is necessary to get water off the land as to get it on, they say this:
  "It is almost an axiom of irrigation, as they are now beginning to realise in Egypt, that one must spend almost as much money in taking water off the land as one has spent in irrigation works to pour the water on to the surface."
  That luckily, in the case of this Gezira plain, is provided for in the natural slope of the land. The hon. Member who raised the question did not seem to be quite certain whether the Gezira scheme referred to by the right hon. Gentleman
  1122
  the other day was the same as the Gezira, scheme mentioned by Lord Kitchener. It is the same. There is a very excellent map in this Report which shows the Gezira plain lying between the Blue and the White Nile, and the natural slope of the land from the Blue Nile towards the White Nile is such that the problem of getting the water off the land once you have got it on happily does not arise. I am not sure if I can satisfy the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). It is always a pleasure to hear him say he has a very generous disposition in general, but on every particular matter which we ever discuss that generosity, for some excellent reason, does not become apparent. We heard him make that familiar statement with equal pleasure this afternoon. We quite recognise, as he said, that he was perfectly justified in objecting to this, because he objects to everything, and therefore we cannot take any exception to his attitude. But really he was wrong in this matter that we were proposing to give this guarantee to the Soudan when they were revenue. There is included in the accounts now in the state of having a decreasing for 1912, but not in the accounts for 1913, a contribution by the Egyptian Government. That is balanced to some extent also in the accounts for 1912, but not in the accounts for 1913, by a payment to the Egyptian Government. The contribution by the Egyptian Government is required in order to make the Budget of the Soudan balance. This year, for the first time, it is possible to finance the Soudan entirely on its own resources, and if the hon. Baronet will add up the revenue from purely Soudan sources, leaving out both the contribution by the Egyptian Government and the payment to the Egyptian Government, he will find that there is an anticipated increase of about £200,000, and not a deficit.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I admit that is right.
  Mr. ACLAND: When we introduce the Bill the hon. Baronet will be in a better position to criticise it further. It will provide that a guarantee must not be given until the Government of the Soudan has provided, to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, for the establishment of one or more sinking funds for the purpose of the repayment of the principal loan, or any instalment thereof, within a period not exceeding thirty years. I think he will agree that he will be in a better position for bringing home any

  1123
  delinquencies to us when the Bill is introduced, printed, and circulated, so that the matter may be as clear to him as it now is to me.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: The hon. Baronet seems to think this scheme was brought forward as a Protectionist dodge entirely to benefit Lancashire. It is nothing of the sort. It is a great Imperial measure to benefit the Soudan, although Lancashire gets some indirect benefit by having a large supply of cotton, and I do not think the House ought to grudge it. The hon. Baronet thinks that he and his Friends do not get any good from any one particular trade being prosperous. I do not know any place outside Lancashire which will benefit more from the prosperity of the cotton trade than London. We do not want to saddle the Soudan with the expense of going to a financial company, which will get all the profit. We want to give the inhabitants a fair chance, and the money is sure to come back.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have no objection to the hon. Baronet and his Friends in Lancashire advancing the money. I should look upon it as a patriotic action.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: They would have to pay very flinch higher interest to a private company, and so the Soudan would be saddled with a debt twice as great as it will be now. Therefore, in the Imperial interest, this country ought to find the money to develop the Soudan. The only benefit Lancashire can get is in having a full supply of cotton, and considering the enormous increase in the cotton trade within the last few years in Lancashire, it is not only a question for Lancashire, but a national question. While our exports of cotton goods have increased by leaps and bounds in the last few years, the export of cotton goods front Germany since 1906 remains almost stationary. Therefore the hon. Baronet ought not to object to Lancashire benefiting incidentally. The City of London will have some share in the prosperity of Lancashire.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Baronet said quite truly that this loan, which we are to guarantee, would not particularly benefit Lancashire, and he went on to say that it would benefit the inhabitants of the Soudan. I want to know whether it will benefit the inhabitants of the Soudan, because that seems to me to be the only possible justification for pledging British
  1124
  credit in this way. We have had a similar scheme to this introduced for Egypt. We did not find the money in that case. Egypt found it itself. But we know quite well what has been the result to the people of Egypt of these great schemes of irrigation. It has not been the people of Egypt who have benefited, and it has not been the people of Lancashire who have benefited. The people who have benefited are the landlords of Lower Egypt. In what has already occurred in Egypt you have an admirable example of the result of such barrages and irrigation works as are proposed to be established in the Soudan when they get this cheap money. I think those who are pledging the credit of this country in this respect have a right to ask from the Government that they should be told whether this is land, the value of which is bound to go up in the Soudan, as in Lower and Upper Egypt, and whether it belongs to the Government or to private landlords.
  Mr. ACLAND: As the hon. Member was not here when I spoke, perhaps he will allow me to interrupt him. I made it quite clear that the land is owned by the natives, and that the only way for the State to get back the extra value for the expenditure on the land, is either by charging them for the water, or by arranging with them, as can be done, that they shall exchange a certain quantity of useless land, which they now have, for a lesser quantity of irrigated land.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not gather whether the land is owned by peasant cultivators. Are they peasant cultivators or speculators?
  Mr. ACLAND: Peasant cultivators.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then in that case I think it is very important not to rely merely on a water rate to get hack the increase in the land value. The result in Egypt has been to drive out the peasant cultivator. There was a case in Upper Egypt where certain people bought a village, and where there were riots in trying to gel the people out. Wherever you get speculative value in land, there you get big landowners and moneylenders. At present 1 per cent. of the landowners own 45 per cent of the land in Upper and Lower Egypt, so that you have proof positive there that all these irrigation works have resulted in the land getting into few hands. If that is to be the result in the Soudan as

  1125
  well, it will not be for the benefit but for the enslavement of the people there. They will be forced to part with their land to moneylenders and others who will reap the benefit of the expenditure of our money, and to talk of getting it back through water rates is perfectly ridiculous. You can only charge for the water. You cannot charge for the benefits conferred by having water and barrages. I think the Government which is going to lend this money has a right to protect the interests of the people of the Soudan. I do not say anything about benefiting Lancashire. I do not think that Lancashire or any other part of this country will get any particular benefit. You have a right to say to the Soudan before you go to the enormous expense of putting in barrages that the increased value of the land shall go back to the public pocket. I do hope that even at this eleventh hour it may be possible with the willing co-operation of Lord Kitchener to have some such scheme established there. This is only one scheme. There will be other schemes which will develop the equatorial provinces of Egypt, and it is desirable that these should not only be paying schemes, but that the increased money value of the land should go back to the Treasury, and that the benefits of the operation should go to the whole people, and not to a small percentage of moneylenders and landowners.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have in some respects the financial purism of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is not only with surprise, but with something like overwhelming astonishment I find that there is opposition to the proposal, which was made by the Under-Secretary. I do feel that I am bound to protest against what I think is the rather poor and petty Little Englandism in opposition to this loan. I think that one of our duties when we got hold of the Soudan, was to develop the country for the benefit of the people. It was depopulated during the war, something like 10,000,000 of the population had perished under the Mahdi. If hon. Gentlemen had seen it when it was depopulated, and suffering from the devastation which was wrought during the war, they would know how overwhelming was the duty laid upon us to develop the country to the utmost of our power when we came to be faced with the responsibility for it. It is all very well for hon.
  1126
  Members to speak of this as a country over which we have a Protectorate. We have a condominium and not a Protectorate, and hon. Members know that, means that the administration of the country is in the hands of the Sirdar. It is not a question of a Protectorate like that over Egypt. It is a question of a condominium, which throws upon us responsibility for developing the country, and I am not going to associate myself with any refusal to carry out the burden which is laid upon us. We are told by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) that this will only repeat all the evils of the barrage system in Egypt. Has the hon. Gentleman considered what the position in the country is? Who is talking of a barrage either on the White Nile or the Blue Nile? The hon. Member must know that a barrage there would be absolutely out of the question. Hon. Members do not consider how delicate is the position we occupy with regard to Upper and Lower Egypt at this moment. If there was power in the Soudan to take water freely from the Nile during all seasons of the year, the result would be the starvation of the people and the defertilisation of the country. From August to February the amount of water that may be taken from the Nile is strictly limited in the interest of Lower Egypt, and it is absolutely necessary for us to hold the balance between those two parts of the country. We deprive the Soudan of the free use of the water which they could have. Does not that place upon us all the greater obligations to see that they get. the water they require?
  No one talks of a barrage for the Soudan. They require artificial irrigation, and that cannot be carried out without capital, and the capital is not there. Where are you going to get it? Do hon. Members who object to this loan think that speculators should go into the country and get hold of it? Do they think that the people of the Soudan would be dealt with easier by speculators than by the Government? Do, they think that they will be more just to the Soudanese and more merciful to the tenants? If you do not have such a loan, the inevitable result will be that these speculators will be only too ready to go in and get hold of the land, and squeeze the natives out of the benefits resulting from what we are doing to develop the country for the natives. We cannot do it except by taking a certain burden upon ourselves. No

  1127
  doubt this is a burden for which we are responsible in the eyes of the world, but in this case it is the very small and insignificant burden of guaranteeing a loan, the interest on which will be £100,000 a year, and which will be repaid not only by the development of the country, but by the opportunities which will be given for British enterprise. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say, "How will the British workman benefit?" He will benefit by the development of commerce of this sort. If this Motion goes to a Division, I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have my support for the new loan, which will be beneficial to the Soudan and redound to the credit of this country.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Acland, and Mr. Masterman. Presented accordingly and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be Printed. [Bill 220.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Colonel BURN: The scene is changed from the Soudan to our own country. On this Bill we can consider the pay of officers and men in the Army. We all welcomed the statement of the Secretary of State for War that this country has at last realised that the pay of officers has not been changed for over a hundred years. It was more than necessary to make some change when we consider how prices have gone up and the expenses of officers have increased. In these days, when we wish to see commissions given from the ranks to the men most fitted to hold them, they must have adequate pay in order to maintain their position as officers in the Army. There is a certain suggestion which I would like to make, and although it would not increase the pay of officers any further, it might lessen their expenses and thus have the same effect as an increase of pay. Regiments are moved from time to time from one station to another, and there is considerable difficulty in finding out when a regiment is about to be moved. It entails considerable cost, especially on the
  1128
  married officers, and to a considerable degree on all the officers and men. If some notice were given of these movements it would be——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise under this Bill. It can be raised upon a separate Vote later on.
  Colonel BURN: I will not proceed with the suggestion any further, though I may say, if it were adopted it would be equal to an increase in pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be given an opportunity when the Estimate is reached on Vote 6.
  Colonel BURN: I apologise for exceeding the bounds. When an officer joins, I do not believe that he is attracted by the pay that is going to be offered to him. As a general rule he does not consider the amount of pay which he is going to receive when he joins the Army. Most of them join because they are soldiers by heredity and they have a military spirit. Coming to those who join as privates, may say that in these days we hear a great deal of discussion as to a voluntary Army and conscription, but I think that the great majority of the recruits who present themselves for enlistment are soldiers by compulsion—not by the compulsion of the State, but by the compulsion of hunger. We wish that the best type of men should present themselves for enlistment, and without desiring to increase the pay of the private soldier this result would be arrived at if we only offered him sonic inducement in the future. If they felt that during the years they served in the Army they were doing themselves sonic good, and that those years of service were counted towards their future, that would certainly have the result of inducing men to join the Army as a profession, and not because of the want of food and clothing. It is the duty of the State to recognise the service that these men give to the Army, very often for a considerable period in foreign stations which are unhealthy, and also on active service, and it is the duty of the State and the War Office to fight their battles and to see that the greatest possible number of positions is kept open for them at the termination of their Army service. That would do far more than even a slight increase in the pay of the private soldier. What we want is to see that this service is recognised, and that, while the man is soldiering with his

  1129
  regiment, these years of service are going to count if he is fortunate enough to get a position in the Civil Service when once more he joins the civilian ranks. That, to my mind, and the mind of anyone who knows anything about the Army, would do more good for a British soldier, and the Army in general, than any other proposition which can be made from either side of the House. The best soldier feels himself left out of it at present. He thinks, and he has reason to feel, that his service is not well treated by the country and those in authority, and when we are considering tins question of pay it would be well worth while for the Secretary of State to consider what I have said. I know that if we demand a further increase of nay we shall be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such a thing is impossible, but the scheme which I advocate makes no further demand for pay, but simply asks for a recognition of the service that has been done by the man serving in the ranks of the regiment. I am convinced that if that were carried out it would have the effect generally of producing the best class of men who would desire to make the Army their career, and help the Army and those connected with it. I, for one, should be only too glad to co-operate in any scheme which would bring about this, and make the position of the British soldier more assured and his future more certain.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I was not aware until a moment ago that one could not discuss questions which arose on Vote 8, but I gather from the ruling which Mr. Speaker has just made one must postpone any observations on that Vote until another occasion. Under Vote 1, however, we have the very important question of seamen's wages. The wages of the lower deck attracted a great deal of attention recently in this House. The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech on the Naval Estimates last year, referred to the raising of wages. On that occasion he gave us some hope that he would do something to assist the married men in the Service. I rather gather that he thinks that he has done this by raising the pay of the seamen. May I inform the House that an Order is being issued by the Admiralty to the effect that the price of seamen's clothing and bedding is to be raised. I understand that the Order will be promulgated very shortly, and that from the 1st July a certain rise is to take place in
  1130
  the men's uniform and in various articles of clothing necessary for the seamen to purchase. I understand that blankets are to be raised front 7s. to 8s. 9d., and "fear nought" trousers are to be raised from 4s. 1d. to 4s. 11d., while the petty officers' gold badge, which hitherto only cost them 1s. 11d., is to be raised to 2s. 3d. Some of us will remember that when the chief petty officers obtained the addition of a halfpenny to their pensions, this concession was promptly met by knocking off £5 from their good conduct medal gratuities. It seems that that precedent is about to be followed by the Admiralty to-day. I am afraid that such gratitude as the men expressed after they had received the rise in pay will be turned into resentment when they find that these articles of clothing have gone up by something like 30 per cent. The First Lord of the Admiralty, taking a leaf out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's book, is pursuing the policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. One word about the kit. We were told by the First Lord that in future all men on the lower deck were to receive a free kit. He has not yet seen his way to give any allowance for the replacement of the kit—that is to say, when the kit requires renewing, the seaman is obliged to pay for it himself. I have received a letter-upon this subject from which I will read an extract:—
  "Well, Sir, the point is we have to pay for a portion of kit. whether we like it or not. This week I have had my pay stopped, and when I enquired why, I was told that I had drawn clothing. I have not drawn any of my own free will, but have been supplied with 'Fear-noughts' by the Admiralty, and have had 10s. 5d. placed on the debit side of my account. This means that for one week I have to go without any money. Personally, it does not matter very much, but, Sir, there are others who have to depend on their earnings for a livelihood, and I submit that it is tint fair to stop a man's money when there is already provision made by the stopping of 1s. 8d. every week for extra clothing."
  The letter goes on to deal with other matters of a similar kind, perhaps it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give some explanation of the point, for we should all be glad to know, if a free kit was promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the men will receive it. Then there is the question of the men who are hurt in the dockyard, and of the widows and orphans who are supposed to be provided with work, as part of the compensation given by the Admiralty, in the colour loft and in the ropery. The Parliamentary Secretary told us the other day that there was not sufficient work in either of those depart-

  1131
  ments to provide employment for those widows and orphans. If that be the case, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me on what ground we are told, after we have applied to the Admiralty for help for these widows and orphans, that work will be found for these women and for these orphans in the colour loft and in the ropery? Again I would appeal to him to give us some explanation—I think he might have taken advantage of the opportunity which presented itself the other day to tell us why work in those departments is decreasing. Why did he not tell us that work in the ropery is gradually drifting away, and that in a very few years' time will probably be stopped altogether? In these circumstances, I do press him to say what other kind of provision he has in his mind for these widows and orphans. Then there is the pension question in connection with widows and orphans of men who have lost their lives while in the service of their country by accidents in submarines. Over and over again I have brought the matter forward by question and answer in this House, and the First Lord of the Admiralty told me last October that he had under consideration the giving of extra pensions to widows, and some extra allowance for the orphans of men who have lost their lives in the service of the country.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, however, did not give me such a friendly answer. He told me that he could not raise what he called "false hopes." The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head, thereby indicating that they are false hopes. If they are false hopes, I would like to know why the First Lord of the Admiralty told the House only the other day that he had under consideration the giving of an extra allowance to the widows of these men. I now pass on to the question of compensation, the whole subject needs further consideration. Compensation is given for hurts in the Navy and for hurts in the dockyards. Compensation is also given to the widows and orphans and next of kin of men who have lost their lives, either in the dockyards or in the Navy. All these matters require very much further consideration. I believe I am right in saying that the Admiralty have under consideration a new scheme, and that new scheme, we are told, is to come into force at the end of this month, or at any rate this month.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Those are dockyard employés.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, the dockyard employés, and that scheme will come into force about the end of the month. I believe that it is questioned in the yards by several of the employés whether the former scheme met the requirements which they had thought it would meet when they acquiesced in it. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not these matters have been considered with a view to meeting the difficulties which have been from time to time brought to his notice, either by the employés in the dockyards or by persons acting in their behalf. I would especially call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one section of the scheme which divides the men into those who are slightly hurt, those who are partially impaired, and those who are totally disabled. The division into these three sections has not worked out to the advantage of the men. As to the medical representatives of the Admiralty, I do not in any way imply that they are not altogether sympathetic or that they do not do the best they can, but it is the fact, which cannot be denied, that a very considerable number of the men who are hurt in the dockyards are put down as partially impaired or slightly impaired. It is pointed out that these men can only have very small pensions, and that they must get work in some other way. The Parliamentary Secretary has very nobly and very kindly, I am sure, brought in a regulation by which, I think I am right in saying, the men who are injured, either in the dockyards or in the service of the Navy, are to be allowed to receive such work as they can possibly do in the dockyards, but owing to the number of men who are hurt, both in the Navy and in the dockyards, there are very few vacancies available for them. When a man with a broken arm or a broken leg once gets his appointment he keeps it for life. His injury is not likely to cause his death, and he may live for a very considerable time. Though it is very nice and very kind of the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce this new regulation, it has been of no advantage whatsoever. It has in no way assisted the men to obtain employment in the dockyards. The suggestion has been made that employment might be found outside, but that, of course, is altogether absurd, because no one is likely to

  1133
  employ a man who is even slightly impaired. The result is that there are often found in dockyard towns men who have very small pensions indeed, which are not sufficient to live upon, trying their best to get work but never succeeding. I do hope that the matter will be considered in the new scheme which the Admiralty are about to bring forward. The Parliamentary Secretary told us the other day, in answer to a supplementary question, that the Admiralty would submit the scheme to each man in the yard before the scheme came into force. The reason I press this point—and I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me—is that the men never understood what they were signing on previous occasions. If the Admiralty were to circulate in the yards this scheme, the men could take it to their solicitors or their friends and could then themselves come to a conclusion, and probably a very satisfactory conclusion, as to whether they will accept it or whether they will not.
  While I am talking about pensions, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he cannot see his way, in !some way or other, to press forward a reform which is needed, namely, that money should be voted, or more money than is now voted, from the Naval Fund towards the pensions for widows of men who die in the Service. As it is now, the greater part of this money comes out of the funds which are known as the Greenwich Hospital Funds, that are intended mainly for the purpose of assisting old men in the Navy who have obtained certain emoluments to live more comfortably in their old age than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, so long as those funds are drawn upon to the present extent for widows pensions to that extent they are depleted, and these poor old men are in consequence deprived of what they ought to receive. That is a matter which I wish very much to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like him also to make some further explanation of the extra money which he said would be available this year, beginning on 1st April last, for the 5d. per day, and the 4d. extra for the old men who come under the Hospital Fund. There is an idea among these men that something extra is coining to them, because the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement to the House, and I believe a great number more pensions have been given than have been granted for a considerable time past. I received a letter this
  1134
  morning saying that two increased old age pensions had been given, such a thing has not occurred during the time I have been in Parliament. In conclusion, I should like to say that if the Government had accepted the suggestion which I made on the Estimates last year, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into all labour and pension matters connected with the dockyards and the Navy, and if those matters had come before such a Commission, the country would then have got some understanding of what the real grievances are in the Navy and in the dockyards. I would still press upon the right hon. Gentleman the granting of a Royal Commission. I should have got it had it not been for the abstention from voting of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) who was prepared, I believe, to second my suggestion—I do not know that he voted against me—certainly he did not vote for me. In fact, hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite somehow or other continually oppose the Naval Votes. They say they would like to see the men of the dockyards receive higher wages, yet without in any way qualifying or restricting their observations, they vote against these Naval Votes on every possible occasion. They also voted against my suggestion for a Royal Commission. I think that was a very unfortunate matter, and I do not think that the men in the dockyards consider that the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite are assisting them in any way, when they do not vote for suggestions which come from this side, and which are so manifestly proposed in the interests of the men, whom they are supposed to represent. I remember that only a week or two ago the hon. Member for Blackfriars and the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan), two very energetic Members who often address the House on subjects connected with dockyards, went down to the West, and said that they cared nothing whatever about the Liberal Government, that the Government had no concern for them. The hon. Member for Barrow went so far as to say to the dockyard men, did they, think that the Labour Members were deaf and dumb, did they think that forty Labour Members were in the House of Commons for nothing——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has no relevance to this Debate.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I bow to your ruling. There are one or two other matters which, however, I am unable to bring forward on this occasion. I would ask the Financial Secretary in his reply to give me a specific answer to each of the questions I have put to him.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD:I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions on the Votes under discussion. Is the recruiting satisfactory at present? I notice you are joining 21,000 men this year, in order to make up for wastage and increases. I may be wrong, but the right hon. Gentleman I hope will tell us how many he is joining, and also whether the Admiralty are joining the men necessary, not only for our own Fleet, but also for the Australian and Canadian Fleets. That is a very important question. The First Lord of the Admiralty said on the 21st January last, that all our manning resources are strained to the utmost limits. I was bold enough then to tell the House exactly the state of affairs with regard to the manning necessary for the Fleet. The First Lord made what was hardly a civil reply. He said that what I said was not true. The number of men he is now joining shows that what I said was true, and it will be proved in the next year and the year after that we were very short of men. I do not blame the First. Lord himself, but his predecessor, because he did not look ahead. The First Lord was perfectly justified in saying that officers and skilled professional ratings cannot be improvised, but that they require years of skilful training. By joining the enormous number of men this year not to man the fleet which is being built, but to man and fill up vacancies that have occurred, the thing is perfectly apparent. I congratulate the Admiralty on the great improvement of putting down the maximum number of those wanted instead of the average. That is a sound principle, and enables us to see exactly how we stand with regard to the men voted and the men that are joining. I have often said here you may get your ships, boilers, engines, guns, and the like, but the personnel is what is going to win, and unless you join men and give them the training which is necessary, which is five years for the men and nine for the officer, it does not matter how good your ships are, you cannot expect to do justice to the Service unless the personnel is properly trained. There is a good deal of irritation and unrest now owing to the shortage of
  1136
  men. The right hon. Gentleman knows it, and if he does not know it, he ought to know it. A few years ago the men were two years in harbour and one year at sea. Now they are two years at sea, and one year in harbour, while the training is many times more strenuous than it used to be. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to reply more particularly with regard to the question I ask as to whether the recruiting is satisfactory. I would also like to know how much he has reduced the standard for bluejackets, stokers, and marines, in order to get this enormous number of increased men which the Admiralty now find necessary to fill up, the complements.
  Is the new scheme for joining officers satisfactory? We were told we had plenty of officers, and when I said that was not the fact, I was severely hauled over the coals about the statement. The proof of the matter is that the education scheme with regard to the supply of officers failed. If it did not fail, why are you suddenly promoting from the lower deck and getting recruits from the public school and a large number of men from the mercantile marine, which you want in order to fill up vacancies. On Vote 1, I am glad to see there is at last an increase in the Marine officers' pay. I again call the attention of the Admiralty to the fact that those who study the question can only regard the increased pay of the lower deck as an instalment. I am hopeful that the Admiralty next year will see their way to pay the men in the Fleet according to the work that they do. I am rather inclined to think that the Admiralty may do that, because the First Lord said the other day that the idea that the increase of pay was an ending of the benefits the men were to get was not a sound idea, or words to that effect. At any rate, he encouraged the House to think that he would in the future take into consideration the pay of the men with regard to increases. Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Admiralty give us any hope that the pay of the coast guards is to be increased. Their pay should be increased. They are the very best reserve we have got. They are men who have served for some time in the Service, and they would be most valuable men in war. They are, I think, the only branch of the lower deck that have been left out in the increase of pay. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to increase the pay of these valuable men, I hope he will tell the House why. On Vote 2, I

  1137
  desire to refer to the question of the upkeep of the kit. It is an immense improvement to give a free kit to a large number of men on the lower deck, who did not get it before, but the upkeep of the kit ought to be given by the Government in exactly the same way as is done in the Army and to the Marines. The cost of the upkeep would not amount to a great deal on the Government, while it costs the men a very great deal. They feel very keenly on the question, because of their position in this respect. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my few questions.
  Mr. WHELER: I desire to ask a question about the kit. Are we to understand that from the 1st July the petty officers and men of the Navy will be called on to pay an increased price for the kit. The matter is causing considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment amongst the men, for the reason that they feel, if they are going to be called on to pay an increased price, the addition that has been given to the wages they earn in the Navy, will, of course, be largely discounted, and as much as 30 per cent. in some cases will disappear as a result of that increase. The subject is the cause of considerable discontent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the matter, because if there is any intention of making the increase, I am certain it would be doing a great injustice and will nullify the additions connected with the increased pay.
  Mr. FALLE: I wish to support, as strongly as I can, every remark that fell from the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), and particularly the question of the upkeep of the kit and as to the pay of the Coastguards. Both matters are of the greatest importance. The next point he raised was as to the seamen of the Navy, and there was the question of the re-engagement of those who are termed in their first period. There is little temptation for those men to re-engage. They have been taught their work and are worth their weight in gold to the Navy. There is the question of the paymasters and assistant clerks in the Navy. I do not think the higher grade are sufficiently paid, but they are in a position to look after themselves, but as to the others they are not. They have a difficult examination to pass, and they are paid 2s. 6d. a day. I consider that an iniquity. I think their parents are in many cases led to believe that the promotion
  1138
  is quicker than it is, while it is slow and for years they are absolutely unable, to keep themselves. I think that should be brought more clearly before the public, and that the pay in this case should be increased, so that at any rate they would not have to come down on their parents every year for a very large sum for maintenance. The pay of these youngsters, just as the pay of the second lieutenants in the Army, should be a sum which would enable them to live according to the class of life from which they are taken, and of that to which they are going.
  7.0 P.M.
  Major GUEST: There is one point of very considerable importance raised by the hon. Member for Devoriport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) in the earlier part of his speech, and that is with reference to the workmen's compensation scheme in the dockyards. I hope very much that when the Financial Secretary replies he will be able to tell us more or less in detail what the terms of that scheme are, because the old scheme expires on the 30th of this month, and very few days are left for this new scheme to be introduced. Personally, I think the Admiralty ought to have given a little longer warning to the men as to what the new scheme is to be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal specially with the question of the tribunal for settling disputed eases, particularly arbitration matters. At present there is no doubt that the decision rests more with the Admiralty than with anybody else.
  Mr. PETO: I should like a little information as to how many officers the Admiralty have actually got from the mercantile marine, and whether they are really getting officers from the great liners—men who have been accustomed to navigating vessels travelling at very high speeds. If the deficiency in officers in the Navy is to be made good by officers from the merchant service, the Admiralty ought to offer terms which will ensure their getting the absolute pick of the officers in that service. I am told by officers who are personal friends of mine that the terms offered by the Admiralty are not such as. to attract officers of the highest class. That being so, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to state how many of these officers they have actually got, whether they are of the very highest class, and whether the terms are such that a career is offered equal to that which these officers are asked to give up in order to take,

  1139
  service in the Navy. I should also like to know how many officers the Admiralty have got under the new scheme for taking officers from the public schools. That is a new departure, and the House ought to know how it is going on. I understand that there has not been any large response on the part of boys who have gone through the full public school course.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to congratulate the War Office on the new scheme which has been issued for giving soldiers a technical training to fit them for employment after they leave the Service. I hope, however, that the authorities will not be too hard in the matter of fees, but that they will give a Grant-in-Aid for that purpose. The War Office has cast upon it a great responsibility for finding employment for the men after they leave the Army. We hear a great deal about blind-alley employment for boys, but it is much worse in the case of men. Boys employed from thirteen to eighteen years of age have a much better chance of making a subsequent career than men who are enlisted at eighteen, kept until they are twenty-five, and then turned out unfitted for any civil employment. It is a bad employer that does that, and as the Government is the employer in this case there rests upon the War Office the responsibility of finding life employment for the men. I think that we ought to find employment for a great many more in the Government service than we do, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will take that matter into consideration. Take the, ease of the telegraph boy. He serves the Post Office from thirteen to eighteen years of age. He ought then to enlist for seven years, afterwards returning to the Post Office as a life career, and those seven years in the Army should count towards pension. No boy ought to be enlisted even as a telegraph messenger unless he states his willingness to serve his time in the Army and then continue his career in the Post Office. That is the way to find a life career for these men. Service with the Colours ought always to count towards civil pension. That is a very great point which I trust will be considered.
  In regard to officers, the Secretary of State told us the other day that he was going to give an increase of pay. That increase has been postponed and postponed. It was promised in March; we have not got it yet. The Financial Secretary expressed the hope that under the
  1140
  new scheme no officers would be worse off than at present. That is not very encouraging for those who are looking for an increase in their pay. There ought to be a real increase, and it should be given promptly. I cannot imagine what is the object of postponing the pay until next year, unless it is that the Secretary of State has to cut down something else to find the money. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give an assurance that this increase of pay will really be given. Another point to which I wish to refer concerns officers' allowances. These allowances are absolutely insufficient to cover the cost that they are intended to make good. Travelling allowances, too, are absolutely insufficient. I have before asked the hon. Member to appoint a committee of regimental officers, and really thrash out this question. I ask not for a committee of staff officers, but for a committee of regimental officers who have served their life with their regiments and know where these things hit. If the hon. Gentleman appointed such a committee, and asked them to work out proper allowances, he would do a great deal to put a stop to the irritation which all officers feel at the shabby and mean way in which they are now treated in this respect.
  Major M'CALMONT: I wish to raise a question with reference to quartermasters, and more especially quartermasters who are specially promoted. Under the Regulations at present, a quartermaster specially promoted, if he happens to be promoted two or three three days before his promotion is due, although it may be for gallantry in the field or for special services, gets no benefit whatsoever. But if he is promoted four or five years before his promotion is due, he gets a great deal of benefit. Cases have occurred and will go on occurring in which quartermasters are promoted on exactly the same grounds—for valour in the field, or for good work during peace time—and whereas one man benefits very largely, another does not benefit at all. The Financial Secretary on one occasion when replying to me, said that the same thing applies to brevets. They are not the same thing, because an officer who obtains brevet promotion obtains it as an honour and not necessarily for financial benefit, whereas a quartermaster, who is entirely dependent upon his pay, if he gets any promotion hopes to get something with it. If one man makes only a few shillings by his

  1141
  promotion, while his neighbour in the next regiment makes a great many pounds, it leads to a great deal of controversy and ill-feeling, and is bad for discipline, for the Service generally, and particularly for the officers promoted from the ranks.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): One or two questions have been asked with regard to the position of the soldier, and more particularly with regard to the employment of old soldiers. I rise for the purpose of giving a sympathetic reply. If any scheme could be promulgated providing a certainty of employment for men who had served their country, it would not only be received sympathetically by the War Office, but it would receive our best support. The Permanent Under-Secretary (Sir Edward Ward) interests himself very much in these matters, and is always trying to devise some new machinery by which to make the old machinery more fruitful and more serviceable, or to find some new means by which we can employ our old soldiers. I have before stated that we are in constant communication with the public Departments in the endeavour to get them to appoint old soldiers to any suitable vacancies that may arise. I have on previous occasions given the numbers of Government employés who have served in the ranks, and the House has noted with gratification that men who have served in His Majesty's Forces have been given posts in an increasing ratio. A question was asked with regard to pensions, but as the hon. Member is not in his place I need not go into that point. It is really a matter not for the War Office to deal with, but rather for the Treasury. The question of allowances has been gone into by a Committee. I am not able to give any assurance that the present allowances will be increased. It has been suggested in connection with certain deductions made from officers' pay and allowances the War Office make a profit. I can assure the hon. Member that that is not the case at all. We charge exactly the cost to the War Office. With regard to the question of quartermasters, I believe the Secretary of State has the matter in hand. It has not been brought to my notice, and I can only say that it is engaging the attention of the War Office.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A number of questions have been put to me with regard to the Navy, and especially with reference to
  1142
  the compensation to Civil employés of the Admiralty. In regard to the scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I explained in Committee that when the first Workmen's Compensation Act came into operation in 1898 we already had provision for the Civil employés in the dockyards by way of hurt pay and compensation in the case of death or permanent injury. On the whole, that provision was more favourable than the provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly as regards hurt pay, because under the first Workmen's Compensation Act there could be no hurt pay unless the absence consequent upon it extended to a fortnight, and in the second Compensation Act to a week. From the beginning our scheme provided that a man would get his hurt pay even though he was only away one day as the result of an accident. We took the view that our scheme was more favourable; therefore it was proposed that our men should be given the opportunity of contracting out of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1898. They have been contracted out ever since. But, of course, under Section 3 of the Act it is necessary for the Chief Registrar to be satisfied that our scheme, as an alternative to the Act, was at least as favourable to the workmen engaged as the Act. The first scheme we offered was accepted with practical unanimity. The second scheme was also accepted with practical unanimity. The present scheme, as my hon. Friend behind me says, expires on the 30th of this month—that is next Monday. It must be submitted again for the decision of the men.
  During the hearing of the Petitions a number of points were put to me by the men, and suggestions were made as to where the new scheme could be arranged more favourably on most of the points. Further, I called to London representatives of the body of workmen and in conference with them I gathered what their views were about the matter. All these representations have had considerable care devoted to them. I have forwarded a number of them to the Treasury, and the Treasury thereafter forwarded them to the Chief Registrar. I desire to say that I am very well satisfied indeed with the way my representations have been received. The new scheme is now on its way to the men. Some of them possibly have received it to-day. They will all have received it to-morrow, or perhaps at latest by the next day. I have arranged that every man shall have a copy put into his hands. We

  1143
  are not following the procedure of the past when the men had to go and read the poster to tell them all about it. They will be allowed a fortnight during which they will make up their minds whether to accept or refuse the scheme. There will be no compulsion. The men can please themselves entirely. Any man who says: "I do not want the scheme, I prefer the Workmen's Compensation Act," will not be prejudiced in any way. Further, even if in the first instance, a man comes under this scheme, he can at any time, by giving notice, withdraw from it, and come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Each man will receive a ballot paper, a copy of which I have in my hand. I will read it to the House, if I may. It says:—
  "Government scheme of Compensation for Injury. Ballot paper. "Are you in favour of the proposed scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906?'"
  The man places "yes" or "no" opposite to that question. The men will exercise their own discretion, and will not be prejudiced in any way whatever, if they say "no" to the scheme and say that they prefer to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Let me deal with the main criticisms to the expiring scheme. There was a point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and others have been raised from time to time by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Chatham. So far as the main criticisms go, I gather they are three. Let me put them to the House. The first is this: Under the old scheme, if a man was hurt soon after the expiration of his apprenticeship to assess the hurt pay he would get it was necessary to go back for twelve months, which might include a long or a short period of time during which he was an apprentice. On this method of calculation the hurt pay was unquestionably reduced, and perhaps reduced substantially. If a man shortly after the expiration of his apprenticeship was fatally injured, under the old scheme the procedure was to go back for three years, and assess the basis of compensation in that way. In that man's case it would again very substantially affect the compensation, because of the small wage of the apprenticeship period. We have under this scheme, which is to be submitted to the men, altered the compensation both in the matter of hurt pay and when a man is fatally injured. After he becomes a workman the award will be based upon the average of his wage as an adult workman. We are not taking into
  1144
  consideration nor carrying the survey back to the period that we did before. The workmen put it to us that it was not fair to go back during the time we had been going back, and we have forwarded to the chief registrar a recommendation that the award should be based upon the average as an adult workman as I have stated.
  The hon. Member for Devonport raised another point, which has been the subject of considerable criticism. Under the old scheme of compensation the rates of compensation were: If the earning capacity were totally destroyed, twenty-four-sixtieths of the average weekly earnings was given; if materially impaired, eighteen-sixtieths; if impaired, twelve-sixtieths; if slightly impaired, six-sixtieths. Under the new scheme the corresponding rates will be raised. If the earning capacity of a man is totally destroyed he will be given one-half of his average weekly earnings; if his earning capacity is materially impaired, three-eights; if impaired, one-fourth; and if slightly impaired, one-eighth. In other words, the scale of compensation allowance has been increased by 25 per cent. for each of the several degrees of impairment. The maximum rate of compensation is the same as that authorised under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906. As to the very important point of arbitration. The men claim that there should be independent arbitration in case of dispute. They say that the Admiralty ought not to be the judges in its own behalf. We are not. The cases in dispute are few, and relate almost exclusively to conflict in medical testimony. This is the procedure which has been followed under the existing scheme, and will be followed under the new scheme if the scheme is accepted. If there is any criticism of the certificate of our surgeon, any divergence of view, the Treasury Medical Referee would have the whole matter put before him. Anybody on behalf of the man concerned who have counter testimony can give it, and the Treasury Medical Referee will weigh that testimony. He can call in other assistance. He can call any testimony he likes; and this is all quite outside our control. He is not under the Medical Director-General at all.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman says he can call in any testimony. Will he receive any testimony offered to him from outside the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. It is open to anyone to send up another medical certificate if they think fit, or desirable, or just, or equitable, and he will examine it. I will say this on behalf of the Medical Referee: he does give these cases most careful and sympathetic consideration. I have watched the matter closely for some years, and I must say on behalf of the Medical Referee that his decisions are invariably marked by sympathy to the workmen. Let me state how the matter will stand under the new scheme:—
  "All questions, whether as to the right of compensation under this scheme, or as to the amount thereof, or as to the period during which it is payable, or as to the person or persons to whom it is payable, or otherwise, arising upon the scheme, shall be decided by the Treasury. For purposes of arriving at a decision the Treasury may make such inquiries, and take such statements and medical or other opinions as they think fit, and shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the workman or his dependants.
  Provided that the Treasury shall appoint a Medical Referee to whom on the application of the workman or Ins dependants any medical question which arises shall be referred. Further the Treasury may in the absence of any such application——"
  and this is a case not contemplated by the hon. Member—
  "refer to the Medical Referee any question on which an independent medical opinion may seem to them to be desirable."
  That is how we stand under this new scheme. That is not the arbitration, which, no doubt, my hon. Friend would wish. I do not say it is. But my experience is that the man gets sympathetic treatment.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Under this would a difficulty arise such as arose in the Horne case?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, and I will tell the Noble Lord why.
  Mr. FALLE: It says the Treasury "may." It should be the Treasury "shall."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have gone into this very carefully. In the light of my experience, and having spent a very great deal of time over the matter, I think it is a perfectly satisfactory solution, while it does fall short of the arbitration which the hon. Member desires. The Noble Lord put a question a moment ago as to whether the difficulty which arose in the Horne case would arise again. No, it has not been possible ever since the Horne case, because what happened immediately after that case was this: In the Home case the certificate said death was due to natural causes. Upon that we could not give compensation. The matter was brought forward,
  1146
  and those concerned were helped no doubt by the Noble Lord as by others to get counter testimony. That was put forward, and ultimately compensation was given. I saw the weak link in the then existing chain. We determined to stop the thing arising again. Since that the Treasury have had all the papers sent them at once in case of dispute. The Medical Referee, of whose administration I have spoken in the terms I have, and I think quite justly——
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will this be retrospective?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Does the hon. Gentleman mean in cases where compensation has been refused that as the result of this new scheme someone may come to us and say, "Now, then, we must have some compensation. "No, certainly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. He will have the cases I refer to in his memory, because in one of these he decided in my favour and the other he is now considering. Both of these cases have been going on for some years. Will these cases come under the new scheme?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The case the hon. Gentleman refers to is not a Compensation Act case at all. The painter in the case referred to contracted lead poisoning, and died. We were not able to pay any compensation, but we could and did avail ourselves of a phrase in our regulations to the effect that help can be given if death was caused by "extraordinary exposure or exertion on duty." What we did was to read into that phrase, "extraordinary exposure or exertion on duty," a death from certified industrial diseases. We thus gave a more generous and more sympathetic interpretation to the case than otherwise we could have done. Our new scheme is more expensive to the Crown than the Workmen's Compensation Act would be. I am quite sure the hon. Member, who knows the problem, will agree with me that it is more favourable than the old scheme. I shall not give the men advice: I would not presume to do so, though I think my relations with the men are such that I am perfectly certain they would not resent it if I did. There the matter ends. This is a new scheme and every facility will be given to them to take advantage of it. The Noble Lord raised another question as to numbers. Last year we voted an average bearing of 137,500 men, and we are estimated to have

  1147
  had at the end of the financial year 139,770, which gives us not the precise number, but very nearly. We are going to work up this year to a maximum of 146,000 up to the 31st March, 1914. We have altered our estimate from the average to the maximum. We have to work up to 146,000. The estimated number at 31st March, 1913 is 139,770. We are to work up to 146,000 to the end of the financial year, so there will be an actual addition of 6,230.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is not quite my point. What I wanted to get at was the number you would join for wastage and increase.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I was coming to that. Having got that number, having to work up to a maximum on the 31st March, 1914, it is clear we must have an addition of 6,230. The Noble Lord says to get them and to provide for wastage you would have to get another 21,000 men. That is not so; 17,500 men is about the figure, and so far as I know it is proceeding satisfactorily. The Noble Lord referred to a question of the recruitment of officers. Generally, I would say that the system of common entry and training still holds the field, but of course the very large increase of the personnel of the Fleet which has recently taken place has compelled us to take exceptional steps to provide for emergencies which will arise, some time shortly, say, in two or three years' time, and therefore, in addition to that which I say holds the field, we have taken one or two emergency steps. We have provided for entries from the Royal Naval Reserve, in the merchant service, and I would like to say that that is quite satisfactory. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his statement, said:—
  "We propose first to take 100 to 120 lieutenants from the Royal Naval Reserve following the precedent employed in 1895 and 1898. But we propose to select them with very great care, not in one batch, but gradually over a period of two years."
  That was the proposal, and it was quite satisfactory, and this particular means when the emergency arises in regard to the increase in the personnel of the Fleet, is quite satisfactory.
  Mr. PETO: How does the number already joined agree with the number he expected to get.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not like to enter upon that at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman would put a question down, I will give him precise figures in
  1148
  regard to it. With regard to the other emergency procedure, the direct entry, the First Lord said:—
  "The third method by which we shall increase the lieutenants' list is by offering from thirty to forty cadetships a year to competition, after selection, by young men of between seventeen and a-half and eighteen and a-half years of age, taken probably mainly though by no means exclusively, from the public schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March. 1913, col. 1781, Vol. L.]
  That is now in progress, and although I cannot give the number of applicants, I will do so if the question is put down, but we have no reason to suppose that this particular expedient to meet this particular emergency will not succeed.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us quite clearly is the emergency caused by increases in the Fleet or by lack of looking ahead in the last five years, and joining the proper number of men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated already that the rapid increases of the personnel in the last year or two wilt create a situation three or four years hence to meet which we must adopt expedients. The Noble Lord referred to promotion from the lower deck. I do not think I could include promotions in the lower deck as an emergency expedient. The Noble Lord then referred to the coastguards' pay. I cannot, I am afraid, hold out any hopes upon that. The coastguards work is not very arduous when compared with that of men in the Fleet. The coastguard is at home with his wife and children and has a nice little house and garden, and all that has to be taken into consideration. I should be the last man to raise hopes that will not be realised.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The price of provisions has gone up.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I know that, but compared with the men in the Fleet, the coastguard is at home with his wife and family, and therefore, I cannot hold out any hopes. The hon. Member for Faversham raised the point that we recently agreed to give a free kit all round on entry, and that now we were going to take it out of the men by charging them higher prices for particular items which they have to buy. I am not aware of that. Let me explain the procedure. I do not want any misunderstanding upon it. I am very sorry indeed that the idea should get out that the £8,500 which it would cost us to give every man a free kit on entry, that

  1149
  that amount is going to be taken back by us with a profit upon the non-compulsory articles which they have got to buy. Nothing of the kind. It would be very unfortunate if such a thing should get about.
  Mr. WHELER: If statements to that effect have appeared, they should be flatly contradicted.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There may be some increase of price as the result of new contracts entered into, but we do not propose to make a profit on those things that the men have got to buy. We sell them at bedrock prices at a very small percentage for administration and establishment. I do not say there is no increased price, but that is an increased price to the contractor. Do not let it be supposed, and it would be very unfortunate if it were to be supposed, that when we give a free kit on entry that we are going to take it back in an underhand way by making a profit on things a man is compelled to buy.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is not what I said. I did not say that the Admiralty was going to make a profit. I read out two or three articles which showed there was going to be a rise of something like 30 per cent.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that the prices may not have to be revised; they may be as the result of the new contract; they vary from time to time, but it is not a question of our making a profit. The procedure will go on the same, selling the things at cost price with a very small percentage—I do not think it will be more than 5 per cent., but I do not commit myself to the figure—for the cost of administration and establishment.
  With regard to the suggestion, which is not a new one, that the men should get a free kit from time to time, and that we should do for them what is done for the soldier and for the Marine, providing a kit free continually right through the Service; what we have done is this: Up to the present time certain allowances are made for kits in certain cases. Everyone in future will get a free kit on entry, and the cost of that is £8,500, but the Noble Lord says that the soldier and the Marine get free kits right through, and why not the sailor? The Noble Lord, I think, must remember that when comparison of that kind is made there are other considerations to be taken account of also. You must remember that the sailor does
  1150
  better than the soldier on non-substantive pay, and the proportion of promotions for the total number of able seamen, as compared with the total number of promotions for soldiers, is greater—that is, the promotion of seamen to petty officers and so on, as compared to promotions of soldiers to the rank of corporal, sergeant, and so on, is much greater in the Navy than in the Army. The Noble Lord said it would cost very little to transfer the payment for the upkeep of kits to the Crown. As a matter of fact, it would cost £370,000 a year. It is a matter for the House of Commons, but I am bound to say that I certainly cannot now recommend it. There are only two, other points. The hon. Member for Devonport mentioned the list of women that were kept in the yards in the hope or getting employment in the colour lofts. If the husbands of these women were sailors who died or were killed in the service of the Crown these poor women have a small pension, and their children of tender years have a small allowance. If a woman is the widow of a dockyard man who died in circumstances that come under the compensation scheme, she, too, would have consideration. Therefore, these poor women are not entirely penniless. What happens in cases of that sort is we open a list and, if we can find places in the colour loft, we give those poor women those places.
  As to the Greenwich Hospital pensions, I explained in Committee that the annual sum of £100,900 provided since 1907–8 for Greenwich Hospital age pensions of 5d. and 9d. a day will this year be increased by a sum of £6,100, bringing the total amount provided for this purpose up to £107,000. That will enable us to give about 800 additional pensions to be granted as from 1st April, making 3,837 pensions in all this year at 5d. a day and 5,691 at 9d. a day. I must remind the House that every recipient is a naval life pensioner. The hon. Member for Devonport has mentioned the case of a man who had a substantial life pension.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I would like to add that the man I mentioned and who had a substantial pension was of very advanced years.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If we had an old man getting £18 pension, clearly he ought to have the first chance as against the man' getting £50, and as long as I am concerned with the Admiralty he will have it. We have got this money. We take the

  1151
  oldest men, the men with the lowest life pensions, and men in the most necessitous circumstances, and deal with them until the money is gone. With regard to clerks and assistant clerks, I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the other day.
  Mr. FALLE: The pay is so bad that the men cannot possibly live on it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not admit that, but if the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him all the information at my disposal.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST:I desire to put a question to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), as representing the Office of Works, in reference to the ventilation and heating of the premises in which we carry on our work. It is admitted on all sides that the heating and ventilation of this House are very much neglected. It will be possible during the four or five months' holiday we expect to enjoy this year to carry out the necessary alterations in order to make the conditions more tolerable for us to carry on our work. This is a grand opportunity which may not occur again for several years, if we have a succession of Autumn Sessions, and therefore I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any prospect of anything being done during the coming autumn in order to improve these conditions. If the hon. Member is not sufficiently acquainted with the requirements, I would like to know if he will set up a Select Committee, which can sit and report before the end of this Session, upon the strength of whose Report the necessary alterations can be made. It is common knowledge that when the House begins to be artificially heated we suffer very great inconvenience. We live in a somewhat enervating atmosphere which affects our health, and as we sit or stand in this House, the upper part of our bodies, from our knees upwards, is in a state of considerable overheat, while a cold draught circulates along in the region of our legs, causing indispositions, if not illnesses of a most serious nature. It is not hard work that causes the death of Members of Parliament, but the villainous atmospheric conditions in which we are asked to carry on our work.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: My hon. Friend has described the close imminence of
  1152
  death to anyone who sits in this House on account of the draughts. Let me ask another question. I know that the First Commissioner of Works is a peer, but at the same time, I hope the hon. Member will make an appeal to him that, at all events in the Library, our lives should be in a certain modified state of security. Although I am not accustomed to the palaces of the great, I ask that the carpets of the Library should not be threadbare, and there should not be such gaps in them as fit into our feet like a trap. Not long ago, I was running out of the Library to meet a gentleman. I rushed off, and I had just got to the door of the Library, when my foot was caught in a loose carpet, which is a regular trap for anyone. I fell to the ground, and I was thankful I was not killed, because my head came within an inch of the door upon which there is a considerable amount of brass fittings. I hope the hon. Member will be able to give me an answer that is original, and say that he is prepared to protect our lives from carpets, which are more like the tattered colours of an old regiment. Perhaps, if he cannot get us new carpets, he will get some substance to mend them.
  Mr. BARNES: I wish to refer to the statement which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I have often raised the matter. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement in regard to which I do not want him to think that silence means consent. His statement is quite inadequate. I have raised the question of the shortage of officers many times, and I have often pointed out the cause. This shortage has been accentuated owing to the large and apparently unexpected increase in the Navy during the last few years. I gather that that shortage is going to be partly made up in two ways. You are going to draw from the Naval Reserve, and you intend to get a limited number from the public schools. In regard to the first method, I do not think you have the men to draw from, because the conditions of the Naval Reserve are so unsatisfactory that you cannot get officers into it. In regard to the public schools, I admit that to some extent that is a better arrangement, and you may fill up your vacancies in that way. I do not, however, think that that, is satisfactory, because you will get two classes of officers in the Navy, one class trained at Osborne and Dartmouth, and the other coming in at a later time in

  1153
  life. My limited knowledge convinces me that these two classes are not likely to work well together. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have redeemed the promise he made long ago in regard to making some general and comprehensive arrangement whereby he could have more men trained for positions in the Navy by lowering the fees so as to draw upon a larger number of the community.
  8.0 P.M.
  I enter my protest once more against this system. Instead of taking a democratic method, which is the proper one, and the only one by which you are likely to get efficient and sufficient men, you are resorting to these temporary expedients and they will not get you out of your difficulty. At present, every officer trained for the Navy in the ordinary way at Osborne or Dartmouth enters at thirteen years of age, and £75 a year have to be paid in fees for tuition. You must add to that another £50 at the very least, and this means that every boy in order to be trained as an officer in the Navy has to pay about £125 a year for four years, and £50 a year for two years. Under this system, only the sons of those people who have got lots of money can become officers in the Navy. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has simply repeated this promise, which is the same promise which was made by his predecessor in office. Seven years ago, the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman said the fees would be reduced, and a suggestion was made that the hat was to be sent round by the Navy to those people who were willing to pay the fees of boys whose parents were too poor to provide the money. That was a paltry suggestion, but even that was not done. We are not getting into the Navy the sons of shopkeepers, engineers, and other people in positions of responsibility, as we did in the days of Nelson, and absolutely nothing has been done during the last seven years to alter this state of things, except to talk about it. Absolutely nothing has been done to translate that talk into action. I rise simply now to say that it is about time something was done to translate it into action. I would suggest, pending that, he might adopt even some better suggestion for a temporary expedient than he has done and facilitate the promotion of those men who, in the lower ranks, have given the Navy the best years of their lives. He could get many men who, after spending ten or twelve years in a subordinate position, would be quite
  1154
  qualified to fulfil the position of lieutenant and give efficient service for years.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I am sorry my hon. Friend should have met with an accident owing to the defective state of the carpet in the Library. We will have it attended to at once. It has already been promised that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the question of ventilation, and, although the Office of Works do not share all the views expressed by the hon. Member, steps are now being taken for the appointment of the Committee, and the names will shortly appear on the Order Paper in the usual way.

  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Execution of Instruments on behalf of Commissioners of Woods.)
  (1) Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Commissioners of Woods or any two or one of them or to which they or he are or is a party may be executed by any secretary of His Majesty's Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods, and if so executed shall be deemed to have been executed by the Commissioners of Woods and shall have effect accordingly.
  (2) Any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods without proof of the official character or handwriting of the person appearing to have executed it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["which they or he is a party may"], to insert the words "if and when sealed with the seal of the Department."
  I must confess that in submitting this Amendment I feel some little difficulty, because after considerable research I am not able to ascertain whether the Department possesses a seal. I find that by Section 35 of the original Crown Lands Act of 1829 the Commissioners "shall

  1155
  execute all instruments under their hands and seal," but, if it is the fact that there is no Departmental seal, it will only be a waste of time if I move this Amendment. I, however, just formally move it in order to ascertain whether such a seal exists.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Amendment will be of no use to the Department or those who have dealings with the Department, because the Department is not in possession of what is known as an "official seal."
  Mr. BATHURST: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, after the word "by" ["may be executed by any secretary"], to insert the words "either of the permanent."
  A consequential Amendment will be necessary to leave out the word "secretary" and to insert the word "secretaries," so that the Sub-section will read: "Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Commissioners of Woods…may be executed by either of the permanent secretaries of His Majesty's Office of Woods." If there is no official seal of the Department, it becomes all the more important for the protection of those who may derive title under any document purporting to originate with the Office of Woods that it should be made perfectly clear who is the person executing the document and that he is a responsible official of the Department. It appears that there are at the present time two permanent secretaries of the Office of Woods, and, as this Bill is framed, any secretary—he might be a locum tenens or a temporary secretary, and even the secretary of the Minister who supervises the Department—would be authorised to execute such document, and his execution would be sufficient to give for all time a validity to that conveyance or other instrument. It is in order to protect future derivative interests that I beg to move this Amendment. It is in order to secure that the signatory shall be some responsible official of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am prepared to accept the Amendment in substance, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that although their are two permanent secretaries at the present time, their might conceivably in future be only one, and in that case the words of the Amendment would not exactly fit the case. If I might make a suggestion, it would be that we should leave in the word "any" and insert "permanent," so that it would read "any permanent secretary," and that would apply if we had two permanent secretaries or only one.
  Mr. BATHURST: That would meet my point, and I desire, with your approval, to submit it in that form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the word "any" ["may be executed by any secretary"], insert the word "permanent."
  Mr. BATHURST(who had upon the Order Paper an Amendment in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "until the contrary is proved"): It has been pointed out to me that if those words are omitted it might operate against the bonâ fide purchaser. I quite see that it might conceivably have that effect, and, therefore, I do not desire to move the Amendment. I beg to move to leave out the word "without," and to insert instead thereof the words "but subject, if required, to." If this Amendment is carried the Sub-section will read: "Any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods but subject if required to proof of the official character or handwriting of the person appearing to have executed it." I lay stress upon this Amendment not merely in the interests of the bonâ fide purchaser of property, the title of which has originated with the Crown, but in the interests of persons who may find themselves prejudiced by imposters who purport to convey to them, or attempt to agree for the sale of, property when they themselves have forged a signature purporting to be that of one of the permanent secretaries of the Board. It would, as this Section is framed at the present time, be wholly impossible for such a person after perusal of the abstract of title to call for proof of the official character of the person

  1157
  purporting to sign on behalf of the Government Department. It would be very unusual to say that such a person when he attempts to trace back the title must be satisfied with the appearance on a certain document of a name which may be that of a person who has been at some time or other a permanent secretary of the Board. It is in order to protect the bonâ fide purchaser for value, against imposters, that I desire to move this Amendment. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the Crown Lands Act of 1829, which is one of the most important Acts to which reference is made in Sub-section (2) any person forging the name or the handwriting of a Commissioner of Woods is deemed to be guilty of a felony. I do not know quite what effect this Bill will have upon that provision, but it seems to me that, although under the existing law anyone attempting to forge, or actually forging, the right hon. Gentleman's signature would be guilty of felony, a permanent secretary purporting to sign a document on his behalf and thereby forging such document would be free from the provisions of this Section.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is a matter more for practising lawyers than administrators, but I am informed by those who have had experience in these matters that if we insert the words suggested we shall be putting a burden on the purchaser instead of relieving him. In the case of a sale in the second stage the vendor would be in the position of having to produce proof, it might be at great legal expense, without giving any greater guarantee of security to the person who is going to buy the property. I am told that it would add to the conveyancing expenses, which I certainly have no desire to do by this or any other Bill. The words which the hon. Member quoted from the Crown Lands Act, 1829, I believe, apply equally strictly to the Permanent and to the Under-Secretaries, and I am advised that any fraudulent signature of the Permanent Secretary would render the forger subject to the severest penalties. The safeguards which the hon. Gentleman asked for would not be in the interests of purchasers of Crown Lands, but would only add to the expense of conveyancing, whereas the safeguards which at present exist appear to me to be sufficient.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would he be sufficiently protected if the vendor or the purporting vendor were in fact an impostor?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not a question of forgery in the second or third degree. All I suggest is that the provision against forgery of any kind is sufficient, and I therefore think it unnecessary to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  It seems to me that we ought not to discuss legal points of this nature without the presence of the Law Officers, and, in view of their absence, and of the indication given us by the Home Secretary earlier in the day that only three Bills, which we have already passed, would be discussed, I think we might have the support of the Government to a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on this Bill. At the same time, while we are discussing that Motion, we might get some information as to whether the Government intend to proceed with any other business this evening, or whether they will be content if this Bill goes through. There is another contentious Bill on the Paper, the Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill, and I think it is most undesirable, after the statement from the Home Secretary to which I have referred, and seeing that the three Bills have already been passed, we should be subjected to the possibility of other Bills of a contentious character being unexpectedly thrust down our throats. The Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill contains a doubtful precedent, that of throwing the onus of proof on a person who is charged. I think the Government might well adjourn the Debate under these circumstances, rather than persist in opposing Amendments and trying to force Bills through.
  Mr. BOOTHseconded the Motion.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Although unconvinced by the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Runciman.]

  HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Brand Barrels filled with Cured Herrings.)
  (1) In any place in which this Section is in force barrels filled with cured white herrings may be presented to an officer appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purpose of being branded or otherwise marked with a mark denoting the description of the herrings contained therein, and any barrel so presented shall, on payment of the prescribed fee and on compliance with the prescribed conditions, be marked accordingly, if in the opinion of the officer after inspection and examination the construction and capacity of the barrel and the quality, curing, selection, and packing of the herrings are such as to satisfy the prescribed requirements.
  (2) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by Order published in such manner as the Board direct declare this Section to be in force in any place in England or Wales if it is shown to their satisfaction that there is a general desire on the part of the curers of herrings carrying on business in that place that such an Order should be made.
  Before making any such Order the Board shall, at least one month before making the Order, give notice of their intention to make the Order in such manner as the Board think calculated to give publicity thereto in the locality, and shall consider any objections or representations made to them in the interval.
  (3) For the purposes of this Act the expression "barrel" includes half-barrel.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "and" ["construction and"].
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, after the word "capacity," to insert the words "and condition" ["of the barrel"]. The object of this Amendment is to insure that every barrel shall not only be well constructed, but that if, after it has been used for a long time, it has become unworthy of further use, the Government brand shall not be affixed to it. In other words, the object is that both the barrel and the contents shall be satisfactory.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "one month" ["at least one month"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two months." The object is to insure that sufficient notice shall be given to all interested in the business.
  Mr. MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill proposes to move an Amendment in lieu of the one I have on the Paper, and I do not, therefore, intend to press my own.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move to insert the following new Sub-section:—
  (3) "No barrel or half-barrel shall be branded unless it has a capacity in the case of a barrel of 26 2–3 imperial gallons or in the case of a half-barrel of 13 1–3 imperial gallons."
  My hon. Friend in his proposal suggests that we should provide for a capacity of 26 2–3 imperial gallons for all barrels which shall be used for cured herrings, whether they be branded barrels or not. We cannot turn this Bill into a Weights and Measures Bill to apply to barrels which do not come under the Crown Brand at all. To do so would create considerable disturbance at some of our principal fishing ports. The main object, that the brand shall not be given to various sized barrels, and that it shall apply to quantities as well as qualities, is, I think, reasonably secured by this new Sub-section.
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: I do not oppose the new Sub-section proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sorry that he did not accept the words I had put down, i.e.,
  "shall in all cases, whether presented for the brand or not, have a capacity of twenty-six and two-thirds imperial gallons, and a half-barrel thirteen and a-third imperial gallons."
  What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is practically to make his Bill of little account. He is providing that anyone who presents a barrel of herrings for the brand

  1161
  must have that barrel of a certain size. He knows as well as most people that there will not be many applications for branding in England, and that the great majority there will not brand their herrings. The right hon. Gentleman says that the barrel to be branded will have to be of a uniform size. Suspicion therefore will rest upon those who do not brand their barrels that they are not of the standard size. When you have a uniform size of barrels in Scotland used by those who brand and those who do not, and you have a uniform size of barrel in Ireland, I fail to see why England should not fall into line. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted the Amendment I suggested.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: The point is, why, if you want to brand barrels, you should stereotype the size, especially an odd size like this. At the time when we are desiring the simplication of weights and measures, the Government propose to stereotype by Act of Parliament a barrel or package of fish in the way described in the Amendment, containing 26 and some fraction gallons. Why should not the trade, if they desire the liberty to vary the size, have the right to do so?
  Mr. BOOTH: I think my hon. Friend (Sir Walter Essex) is somewhat out of touch with the modern craze for meddling with everybody. He seems to think that advocacy of the kind which I am glad to hear from him is at all welcome in these days, when there is a mania for Government interference and the more interference there is with a particular thing apparently the more welcome it is to the Government Department. They are interfering now with the quality of herrings, and are trying to show the people in the business that they at Whitehall know more about fish than themselves. Incidentally, the stereotyping of a particular kind of barrel is going to be a permanent obstacle in the way of the reform of weights and measures, and therefore it is all the more dear to the officials. I rejoice to hear from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs (Mr. Sutherland) that probably through the Government Amendment the Bill will have little effect. I hope his prophecy is correct. I cannot understand why Government Departments are busying themselves looking round every industry with a view to interfering with it and poking their noses into it.
  1162
  My own view is that there is no need whatever for legislation of this kind. Therefore, on the ground that it will make the Bill of non-effect in England, I welcome this Amendment. What is my hon. Friend's position? He knows that the Scottish people are more Radical than we are in England. They have a certain size of barrel in Scotland. I understand it is the same in Ireland, and of course my hon. Friend wants to impose Scottish and Irish customs upon the English and the English trade. We do not want anything of the kind. We want a little more individuality and freedom, to enable the trade to go on in its natural way, and to have that size of barrel which the trade and occasion demand. Why we should go in for a blank uniformity in order to make it easier for Government inspectors to walk about and interfere, I cannot understand. I support the Amendment because I believe it will mean much less State interference, and that the Bill to a large extent will be non-effective in England.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am afraid I do not understand the question very thoroughly, but it does not seem to me that the ground given by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) for supporting the Amendment is quite sound. Neither do I understand the position taken up by the hen. Member for Elgin Burghs. If the Amendment is carried, it seems to me that the Bill will be twice as efficacious from his point of view as it is at the present time. At the present time the Bill stereotypes the brand of white herrings cured in the barred. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment not only stereotypes the type of herring the poor people of this country ought to eat, but also the size of the barrel. That makes the Bill worse. I do not understand the point taken by the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs that this Amendment will make the Bill null and void. If I thought that, I should support it. It seems to me you will have not only inspectors to inspect the fish and make a chemical analysis of them, but a different set of inspectors to see that the barrels are of the right size. It means two sets of inspectors instead of one. It is not likely to diminish the scope of the Bill, but to increase it to a dangerous extent. I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture to drop this Amendment, which evidently is unpopular among those who want the Bill, and is certainly most

  1163
  unpopular among those who object to the creation of fresh inspectors in this country.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Penalty on Use of Old Barrels bearing Brand.)
  If any person uses any old barrel bearing a mark affixed under this Act for the purpose of packing herrings or other fish therein, he shall, unless he can show that he had no intention to defraud, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and the barrel and the contents thereof shall be forfeited.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  There was an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs which, while it does not quite meet my views, I was prepared, if cause were shown, to accept as a compromise, but as he has not moved that Amendment, because I understand the persuasive tongue of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has induced him to withdraw it, I must ask the House to reject the Clause. The Clause has no necessary connection with any other Clause, and does not interfere with the machinery of the Bill. No other Clause need be amended if it is struck out. It deals with a special subject, and the marginal note is:—
  "Penalty on use of old barrels bearing brand."
  The commonest thing is to use receptacles in which we have bought an article for any purpose we like. That applies to business premises as well as private houses. There is no reason whatever, if people buy a barrel which is branded, why they should not have the free use of their own property. This case actually tells them what they are to do with it afterwards. If you bought one of these old barrels which has had a mark affixed to it under this Bill, you could not use it afterwards even as a store for keeping herrings or any other fish, although you were keeping it on your own premises and did not intend to use it for any purpose other than as a store for your own use. I am not sympathetic, as the House knows, to Government inspectors going about and branding barrels for people, putting badges on articles and even upon boys and girls, as a good deal of the legislation now favoured in this House proposes. I detest
  1164
  that kind of thing. You will not build up a manly and independent nation on it. Here you are going further. You are actually telling people that when they have made a purchase you are going to pursue it still further and interfere with the purpose for which they use the old barrel. It, of course, will not be used very much in the ordinary way of business, but it will lend itself to unjust use. I will read the Clause:—
  "If any person uses any old barrel bearing the mark affixed under this Act for the purpose of taking herrings or other fish therein, he shall, unless he can show that he had no intention to defraud, be liable to a penalty of £20."
  That is to say, that the onus of proof is put on the man to show that he is innocent. This principle is creeping into nearly every one of these Acts, which, I am sorry to say, strew the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman himself has another Bill coming on in which this principle is enshrined and to a much more vicious degree, and I therefore should like to warn him. I believe he is still a Liberal. I believe he is still a Radical, and I do not suggest for a moment that he is not as keen in the cause of liberty as I am. But I want to ask him how he can justify putting the burden of proof upon people to show their innocence. It is against all the well-known principles of English law and jurisprudence, and I shall protest against it every time it is introduced, and by whatever Department. It falls upon the poor; it does not terrify the rich. The rich man can pay people to look after his law, and he can engage counsel to go into Court. The poor man is unacquainted with the procedure in Court and, in stating his case, gets nervous, and does not bring out the facts which would prove his innocence. We have seen that again and again when a poor person goes into a Police Court. He may be innocent, but he is nervous, and does not state his case to the best advantage. For one thing, they begin giving a preliminary account of the transaction. It is the habit of people in humble circumstances, in giving an explanation, to begin far away at the beginning. They will begin with the original purchase, and will point out how they did the business and give all the details. In the meantime, the paid lawyer and the paid inspector, who has been hunting them down, are interrupting and making them nervous, putting them off the thread of their argument and making them confused. It is a most

  1165
  unwise thing and dead against the public interest, and, I am sure, will increase the spirit of lawlessness which has now become so rampant if we go on legislating in this way. But if the people find that they are pitted against State officials with good education and good salary, laying traps for them, they will begin to have a wholesome contempt for all these proceedings and it breaks out in various ways. I am entitled to ask the House to be firm. I quite agree it is not in so bad a form as it, is in some other Acts. I spoke to a very distinguished legal Member of the House and discussed the Clause with him this afternoon, and the only defence he could make was that the principle which I object to is introduced in some other Bill in a much more vicious form than it is here. But that is no reason why we should pass it on this occasion. It appears again in the Bee Disease Bill, and that is one of the reasons why I will fight that Bill. It is a principle which I hate and detest.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to second the Amendment in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can do anything to conciliate the opposition of my hon. Friend. If not, I am afraid this cannot be regarded as a. non-contentious Bill and that the proceedings will be greatly lengthened.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite appreciate the feeling of my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth), and perhaps lie will allow me to explain why the Clause was put in at all, and why it is necessary for the working of herring branding. It has been founded very largely on Scotch experience, and it is the case that although nearly all the branded herring goes abroad, occasionally a barrel finds its way back into this country and when a barrel comes back here bearing the brand, it would be open to any person to fill it with herring of very low quality, far below the requirements and the Regulations of the Scottish Fishery Board, and to send it away again, thereby committing a fraud upon our purchasers abroad and depreciating the value of the brand, which is of the greatest service to the Scottish fishing industry, and it would indeed tend to the mark itself becoming of less value. That is a case which has occasionally happened and the sole object of the Clause was to prevent the brand being used fraudulently. I understand that my hon. Friend has no objection to a man who uses a brand fraudulently being punished for it, but
  1166
  what he objects to is putting the onus of proof upon him. If he has a barrel in use on his premises he ought not to be declared, or thought, to be guilty unless it can be proved that he wished to use that barrel for the purpose of defrauding. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sutherland) has suggested the insertion of the words "for sale" after the word "therein." If those words had been inserted it would have been almost impossible ever to get a conviction, for the only way, I am told, in which you could prove that a barrel was being used for herring for sale would be actually to see the sale taking place or to know that some sale or contract note applied to that barrel, and conviction would be absolutely impossible. I believe there is another way of meeting my hon. Friend, and I would suggest that he might put an Amendment at the beginning of Clause 3, which I think would serve the purpose both of my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Sutherland), to make it read "If any person fraudulently uses any old barrel bearing the mark affixed," and so on, and then we can, if necessary, omit the words "unless he can show that he has no intention to defraud." If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I will move to insert those words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: After the word "person" ["If any person uses any old barrel"] insert the word "fraudulently."
  Leave out the words "unless he can show that he had no intention to defraud."—[Mr. Runciman.]

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provision for Northumberland).
  If section one of this Act is put in force in any part of the area to which the Branding of Herrings (Northumberland) Act., 1891, applies, the powers of the Fishery Board for Scotland and of their officers under that Act shall cease to be exerciseable in that part so far as concerns the branding or otherwise dealing with barrels or half-barrels of herrings.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move to leave out the words "in that part" ["cease to be exerciseable in that part"] and to insert instead thereof the words "throughout the whole of that area."
  The intention of the Amendment is to prevent two sets of fishery inspectors from carrying out their operations in the county of Northumberland. Under the Act of 1891 now in operation the branding

  1167
  of herrings is carried out in Northumberland by the inspectors of the Scottish Fishery Board. It is proposed that the present Bill may be adopted in various districts throughout England, including the county of Northumberland, and the situation might arise that it would be adopted in part of that area and not in the whole. I understand that the Scottish Fishery Board have taken the view that they should either continue the branding of herrings there, and that the county of Northumberland should not be included in the Bill, or that if the Bill is adopted in any part of that county their jurisdiction should cease so that there should not be any conflict between two sets of inspectors going into the district. I move this Amendment in order that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of informing the House as to the view expressed by the Scottish Fishery Board. I think they were entitled to he consulted in the matter, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I think the matter is one that ought to be very carefully considered, and I am quite prepared to accept any expression of opinion which the right hon. Gentleman may give to the House coming from the areas likely to be affected. I regret very much that those hon. Members interested in this subject had not the opportunity of being informed at the usual stage that the Bill was going to be taken to-night. I sincerely hope that in future the Government will see that those who have put down Amendments will be informed in due time when the business is to be reached.
  Mr. MUNRO: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite understand the object of my hon. Friends, and I can assure them that we have been in close consultation with the Scottish Fishery Board, and that we are working in harmony with them on this subject. I think what the Scottish Fishery Board had in mind when they first considered this matter was the possibility of Berwick-on-Tweed, which is in the county of Northumberland, adopting this measure, while the remaining ports of Blyth and Shields remained under the Scottish Board, in which case there would have been a crossing over of the two sets of officials. What actually has taken place since this Bill was introduced is this. The
  1168
  Scottish curers in Berwick, or rather the Berwick curers, have declared unanimously that they would prefer to go on with the Scottish brand, and not adopt the English brand, so that the difficulty anticipated as to English officials going up as far as Berwick, and Scottish officials coming down to Shields is past. If the Amendment were adopted, the Act might be adopted by Shields, and in that case it would be impossible for the Berwick curers to have the benefit of the Scottish brand, and that might deal very harshly with the Berwick curers who know their own business better than we do. They have made their choice, and we do not wish to interfere with it. If the Amendment were adopted, Shields might impose on Berwick conditions which it does not desire. I would suggest that, taking into consideration the local views, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  EXECUTIONS FOR MURDER (OUDH).
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I may be excused for speaking on the Adjournment at a time which is generally inconvenient to the House and myself. I may say that since the 1900 Parliament, I have never spoken or intervened in regard to a Motion for the Adjournment, and I would not do so now except that, in common with everyone here, I have feelings of humanity and desire to do to others as they should do unto us. I shall put before the House two or three salient points. I think hon. Gentlemen who have been bred to the law must have been startled on finding that under any Government under the British Crown—and especially in India with respect to which Edmund Burke said that he would be desirous that the British flag should have as much power for the protection of every subject there as it has in this land—such a thing is possible that two men should be arrested, tried for murder, and acquitted, that they should be left at large at home in their own houses for five long months, and that then at the instance of the local Governor they should

  1169
  be rearrested, tried by another tribunal, convicted, and. sentenced to be hanged, and that their memorial for reprieve and for mercy was refused to be sent to the great State Governor of India by the Lieutenant-Governor of the province—the very man who instituted the retrial. I asked the Under-Secretary whether he would take some steps to secure that there should be such a change or modification in the penal code as to ensure that under the Indian code the plea, which is an absolute plea in bar of trial in our Courts, should also be accepted in India, so that such an outrage as that with which I am now dealing—I am not discussing the question whether the men were guilty or not—should not take place, the men having been once tried and acquitted. The second thing I asked the Under-Secretary was that there should be, especially in capital cases, the same rules of procedure, the same form of trial, and the same facilities for having an appeal given to the natives of India as are at present given to every European subject.
  I will state exactly what has occurred. My authority for the facts I am about to state is a gentleman whom we all knew as one of a kindly disposition, and who cared little for the trammels of officialism. I refer to Sir Henry Cotton. The particulars were placed in the possession of Sir Henry Cotton by a gentleman of great eminence in the United Provinces. Sir Henry thought the matter so serious that he at once sent all the papers he had received to Lord Crewe, and asked him to inquire into the matter, with the view that there should be an amelioration of the procedure, especially as to appeals and retrials, and that possibly Lord Crewe would give some assurance on the matter, as he (Sir Henry) did not wish to publish the facts—they were so terrible. He received from the India Office the official letter in January of this year. He waited until early this month, and asked what reply he was to have, and the reply he got was to this effect, that every statement which he had made was practically correct, and that the Indian Government saw no reason for interfering. Then Sir Henry Cotton said, "If you do not choose immediately to interfere through the ordinary sources, I will publish what has taken place." What went on was this: The province of Oudh is what is called a non-regulation province—that is, a province in which they have not the usual order of higher judges.
  1170
  Instead of judges, they have Commissioners; instead of magistrates, they have Sub-Commissioners and Petty Sessions judges; and instead of a Lieutenant-Governor, although he has all the powers of one, they have a Chief Commissioner. It has been a non-regulation province owing to the great resistance made by the people in the Indian Mutiny. In that province there were three men who were arrested for some murder arising out of an agrarian dispute. They were natives, and were brought before the Petty Sessions judge for trial.
  If they had been Europeans they could not have been brought before this judge for trial in a case of murder. The Petty Sessions judge cannot try a European for any offence for which there is a greater punishment than twelve months' imprisonment. The Petty Sessions judge in this case, who sat with two assessors, was a gentleman named Benn, who is a high official in the Indian Civil Service, a man of high character, and, they say, of great judicial qualities. The assessors agreed, having heard the evidence, with Mr. Benn, who takes their advice, though he need not act on it, but must decide on his own responsibility, and what he said was this: "I am constrained to acquit. I cannot and do not believe the evidence produced before me." That occurred on the 22nd February, 1912. The men, of course, went back to their homes, and heard nothing whatever of the case from the 22nd February until the 10th July. Then the Chief Commissioner himself directed the Crown Prosecutor in this district to appeal not to the High Court at Allahabad, but to the Chief Commissioners of the United Provinces to retry the case. They admitted the appeal. They retried the case. I believe there were three of them. The way they retried the case was the most astonishing thing in the world. The accused were not present. No fresh witness was produced. They never saw the witnesses. They never were able to examine them, and look at the demeanour of the people giving evidence. What they did was to read the record. In India a record is a strict account of the evidence in the Court below, of every word that is said, of all the evidence of the witnesses, and even of the judgment of the judge and the reasons for giving his judgment, and, on what we call the depositions, they came to the conclusion—against the

  1171
  judge, who saw the prisoners and was able to judge of the character of the witnesses—that the men were guilty. Two of them were sentenced to death, and the third was sentenced to penal servitude for life.
  9.0 P.M.
  In these countries, in any case in which there is a technical verdict of murder, the judge must pass sentence of death. In India, on the contrary, a judge has the option of sentencing to death or to penal servitude for life. One was sentenced to penal servitude for life, and two were sentenced to death, though one would imagine that where discretion existed a judge would be very slow to pronounce the death penalty on men who, however guilty, had been out for five months, and who had gone through all the mortal agony, such as is even endured by persons defending them, of men who are tried for their life. To these poor men the same idea of mercy was not extended as was extended in the case of the Europeans, Lieutenant Clark and some woman, who were convicted in a horrible case of poisoning. Because they were Europeans they were tried before a jury, and the judge, an old friend of mine, Chief Justice Richards, did not pass sentence of death at once, but considered whether he could by any means respite one of them. But these Commissioners did no such thing, although the men had been acquitted. They were sentenced to death when there was the option of imposing a sentence of penal servitude for life. Now comes the strange thing. This occurred on the 17th August. On the 27th August these men sent in their appeal to the Chief Commissioner, the very man who had instituted the prosecution against them. He kept it for four days and refused it. It reached the prisoners' counsel on the 2nd September. The execution meantime had been fixed for the 9th September. They wished to appeal, as they were entitled to do under the rule, to the Governor-General of India in Council, that is the Government of India, for a remission, revision or commutation of their sentence. That appeal had to be forwarded to the Lieutenant-Governor, who kept it back. He did not forward it on the ground that it would be too late to reach the Indian Government in Simla before the 8th September, whereas the execution had been fixed for the 9th, and it is the rule that in these appeal cases the Government of India should have forty-eight
  1172
  hours to consider whether they would grant the respite of sentence or not. It was his absolute duty under the circumstances to arrest the execution pending the decision. That he did not do. Unfortunately the official who instituted the prosecution of these men took on him-self the horrible and grave responsibility of shedding their blood. This is by no means the first case in which this has occurred. Of course these men were hanged on 9th September, and one of the most pathetic incidents in the case was that the father of one of them hurried to the Governor-General on the 8th, and the Governor-General sent him back to the Lieutenant-Governor, who had no difficulty in the matter. As I said, this is not the only case of the kind which has occurred. In 1906, in the eastern province of Bengal, a man was found guilty of murder, in precisely the same circumstances as these, before a Petty Sessions Court. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the sentence. This man, therefore, was sentenced, and the sentence was confirmed. He then wished to appeal to the local Government, and having the opposition of the local Government, he desired to appeal to the Governor-General in Council, and that appeal was not forwarded by the local Government. This is what Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for India, said in reference to that transaction, a much less horrible transaction than that which I am bringing before you:—
  "Let me say that if a prisoner petitions the local Government and further petitions the Government of India, and if such petition in the opinion of the local Government contains anything which would be likely to influence the Government of India in the prisoner's favour, the local Government is bound under Regulation 85 to forward it to the Government of India, but he is not bound to postpone the execution beyond the date already fixed."
  We are told that a petition could be sent to the Government of India, but the execution was to go on. In this case they did not forward it, and the execution went on upon the Lieutenant-Governor's own responsibility. I thank the House for the great attention they have paid to me in taking this opportunity to bring forward this case on grounds of humanity.
  Mr. MORRELL: I will not detain the House by repeating what my hon Friend has already put so well. The facts of this case are not in dispute; indeed, the main facts have been admitted in the House. They fall, as the House will see, into two main issues. First, the question arises as

  1173
  to the policy of putting these men again on trial for their lives, after they had been tried and acquitted by the judge and the assessors. The second point is as to the circumstances under which these men appealed for mercy, and their appeal was not forwarded to the Governor-General of India. As regards the first point, I would only say if any new facts, any new evidence had come up in the five months after the men had been acquitted, then, although I believe myself that it would have been a barbarous thing to put the men on trial again, yet, at least, there would have been some defence for doing it. But in this case there were no new facts, no fresh evidence, no other witnesses; indeed, there were no new witnesses at all called, and to put them on trial again for their lives, after they had been duly tried and acquitted, is nothing short of a judicial scandal. As regards the other point, surely if ever there was a case in which an appeal for mercy should have been properly considered by the Governor-General of India, this was the case to which full consideration should have been given. What happened? I see from the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary that these men appealed to the Lieutenant-Governor, and the Lieutenant-Governor on being memorialised by the accused, refused to interfere. What did they do then? They sought to appeal to the Government of India, but that request was again refused. In spite of that, they prepared their appeal, and they handed it to the Lieutenant-Governor, asking that it might be forwarded to the Government of India. The Lieutenant-Governor said, "I cannot do so; I withhold your appeal for mercy, because it has been forwarded too late, and because there would not be time for it to be considered before the date of the execution." This was after he himself had refused—I believe I am stating the facts rightly—to postpone the date of the execution.
  We shall be told again by my hon. Friend that all this is quite true, but that the Lieutenant-Governor acted legally, and that all the officials acted within the strict letter of the law. Does anyone who has read history, and who knows what may happen in countries under such a Government, doubt that within the strict letter of the law you may act with an injustice, an inhumanity and an unfairness that may be as great an outrage as if the Governor-General himself had broken the law. I submit that in this case, although they
  1174
  took care to keep within the law, the way in which they behaved was nothing less than a gross straining of the machinery of the law. I have one more point. Even if the Government of India can do very little, at least we can take some steps to see that a case of this sort does not occur again under the British flag. I want to know to-night what steps Lord Crewe proposes to take to prevent this sort of case occurring again. I must say, and I speak with all due respect, that the attitude of the Government does not strike me as satisfactory. Lord Crewe had all the facts before him, and the whole of the correspondence, and for six months he did not reply except through a secretary. Is it the case, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that while those facts were perfectly well known to the Government, Sir John Hewett was recommended for promotion and received promotion in the Order of the Star of India? If I am wrong in that I hope my hon. Friend will correct me, but I am informed that he was promoted from Knight Commander of the Star of India to Grand Cross of the Star of India. It may be that there is a complete defence for his conduct in this matter, but if there is no better defence than we have yet heard, I think it is nothing short of a scandal that au officer of that kind should have been guilty of this conduct. I do hope that we may have something more satisfactory than we have yet had. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the Secretary for India doubts whether under the circumstances this discretion was wisely exercised. I think we are entitled, after six months' consideration of the case, to have a more satisfactory assurance than that.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have already stated, in answer to a question in this House, that the facts of this case, so far as we have yet been able to ascertain them, are substantially as they were set forth in the question which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Swift MacNeill) and other hon. Members asked me yesterday. That is exactly how the matter stands today. On receipt of an unofficial communication from Sir Henry Cotton, the Secretary of State forwarded that statement of the facts to India, and has received the confirmation of the facts which I have described. I can only say now that the case presents features so unsatisfactory on the report which has at present reached us that they cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I do not want to risk

  1175
  wearying the House with the matter, but it is one of such importance that I want to state one or two of the salient features once again in order that the House may have an unprejudiced view, and I am making no accusation, as to the correct details of what occurred. The prisoners concerned were tried by the Sessions judge, sitting with three assessors, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. I do not think the hon. and learned Member ought, if he will forgive me for saying so, to have used the word "Petty" in front of the title of the Sessions judge, because it may cause Members to think that it is analogous to the Court in this country, and give a mistaken view of the very responsible position of a Sessions judge. It is an inferior Court. but a competent Court. The Sessions judge, and the three assessors who sit with him in such a case is, I assure the House, the best substitute which we can find at present for the jury system in many parts of India where it is difficult enough to find assessors, and where it would be impossible to find juries competent to deal with cases. Of those three assessors, two agreed with the Sessions judge, and one differed from the Sessions judge in acquitting the prisoners. Five months afterwards when the——
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Are the assessors natives?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The assessors are Indians.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it the fact that the assessors are simply entitled to express an opinion, and that it is the judge who gives the verdict?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The assessors are there to assist the judge. Two of them agreed with the judge in acquitting the prisoners, and one differed. Five months afterwards the two Judicial Commissioners for Oudh convicted the prisoners on appeal. The Judicial Commissioners of Oudh are exactly the same in status as the High Court judges in the other Provinces. I can assure the House it is simply a question of title, and not a question of status, and that happens to be the name given to the judges exercising the functions of a High Court in that Province. In this particular case you have two judges, whom I venture to describe as
  1176
  as competent as you could find anywhere in India, one an Englishman and one an Indian. They convicted the prisoners. The reason why an appeal was ever made was that the district magistrate, convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, asked the Lieutenant-Governor through the ordinary channels to direct an appeal. Sir John Hewett, giving the case his most careful consideration, and having consulted and taken legal advice, did not come to the conclusion these men were guilty and ought to be punished, and did not form any conclusion, but thought it ought to go in the normal way under the Criminal Procedure Code to appeal.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that there were no new witnesses or no new facts?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Under the Criminal Procedure Code they cannot call new witnesses, but they can hear the accused. I do not know yet whether they did.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: They were not present.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information on the point. They hear the Public Prosecutor and read and consider the evidence. They can order a retrial in the court below, put they cannot hear fresh evidence or re-try the case themselves. They came to the conclusion, those two judges, sitting together, that the learned judge below and two of his assessors had been wrong in not giving credence to the evidence they had read, and that there ought to be a conviction. They then sentenced two of the men to death, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, and one of them to transportation for life. The first point which I will submit to the House demands inquiry, is to get au explanation of the very long delay which occurred between the one verdict and the other, a long delay which is the first, and on the face of it, most questionable fact we have to deal with. The Lieutenant-Governor makes a practice that as soon as a capital sentence has been passed by the High Court within his province, or by the Judicial Commissioners, to have a record of the cases sent to him for his inspection, so that he always, as a matter of routine, possesses himself of the facts of the case before an appeal is made for the exercise of the prerogative, in case an appeal should be made. I happen to know on inquiry this was done in this case, and

  1177
  when the appeal came forward, again acting on legal advice and after carefully considering the case in all its aspects, he came to the conclusion that he must reject the appeal for mercy.
  I would not pay this tribute to him if it were not provoked by certain words which fell from the hon. Member who addressed the House last, but there can be no two opinions, that no administrator in India has shown greater ability and greater industry, and has been a greater success in the administration of his province than Sir John Hewett, and in this particular case I refuse to believe that he did not, as was his characteristic in all his dealings, show the very greatest possible care in considering the high and responsible duty he had to perform. Nobody wants the horrible task of confirming or reviewing a sentence which is going to send a fellow human being to his grave. It is a responsibility which any one of us would be glad to shirk if we could. It is a responsibility which calls for the most careful exercise and, even if Sir John Hewett acted in a way which might, when we knew all the details demand criticism or censure, I am quite certain he acted with great responsibility, justice, and caution. In this particular case let us consider the situation. There is first of all the appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: the hon. Gentleman forgets that Sir John Hewett himself was the person who stimulated the retrial and set the Court in motion. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the district magistrate. He must know that the district magistrate in India is the same as the Crown Prosecutor in Ireland.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The district magistrate is a high official, responsible for law and order and good government in his district. The Sir John Hewett who directed the appeal against the acquittal was of course the same person who had to deal with the appeal for mercy, but he was as Lieutenant-Governor exercising two different functions. You may say that the accused knowing him for the same person could not be expected to think he would take a fair view of their appeal for mercy. But they appealed to him. You may say that they were wrong, but they appealed to him, and the first thing he was bound to do was to consider that appeal. That he did, and he rejected it. Then comes the second appeal—the appeal through him to the Government of
  1178
  India. He had to say whether it should be sent on or not. Let me remind the House that in dealing with questions of capital punishment every Government in the world, I think, makes it a practice to avoid, if possible, the postponement of an execution. It is not always a merciful thing to postpone an execution. It is always better, unless circumstances demand it, not to keep a condemned man—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say as a general rule, if consistent with the interests of justice, the first thing you should try to do is not unnecessarily to postpone an execution. It may not be a merciful thing to do for the prisoner. I will read to the House the rules under which Sir John Hewett acted. These are rules issued on 11th February, 1911:—
  "Local Governments and Administrations should withhold petitions of mercy addressed to the Government of India only when all the following three conditions are fulfilled, namely: (1) That the petition cannot reach the Government of India in time to allow forty-eight hours for the consideration of the case before the date fixed for the execution"——
  [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members must remember that if you did not have a provision of that kind as one of the provisions—there are three of them—it would only be necessary in order to get a postponement that a petition of mercy should be lodged just within the two days. The rule proceeds—
  "(2) that it does not set forth any consideration or that there are no circumstances in the case which in the opinion of the local Government would be likely to cause the Governor-General in Council to take a different view of the case from that taken by the Local Government; and (3) that the case is not one in which for some special reason considerable public interest has been aroused."
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: The hon. Gentleman says that these are regulations of 1911. Is he aware that they repealed the regulations of 1885, ordering petitions in all circumstances to be sent on?
  Mr. MONTAGU: These only amplify the regulations in force before. The rule goes on that an execution will be stayed by the local Government only when in its opinion there are considerations or circumstances which might cause the Governor-General in Council to take a different view of the case from that taken by the local Government. There are two different questions before the House: First, are the rules bad; and, secondly, did Sir John Hewett act in accordance with the rules? If he did, he must not be blamed for the fact that the rules are bad.
  Mr. MORRELL: He may have acted harshly.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would suggest that the two main points which require investigation and inquiry are, first, the great delay between the acquittal and the sentence, and, secondly, whether, having regard to the facts that in this case there had been an acquittal in one Court and a conviction in the other, and that he himself was as head of the Government responsible for permitting the appeal to take place, the Lieutenant-Governor did not think it wiser, if I may use that word, to forward the appeal to the Government of India rather than take upon himself the responsibility of deciding that the case did not call for intervention. I have to say on behalf of the Secretary of State that this particular exercise of the discretion is one of the circumstances which does demand careful investigation, and this investigation is to be undertaken at once. Naturally, any features of this case which seem to us incompatible with British ideas of humanity cause the Secretary of State as much anxiety as they cause hon. Members here. If I may state my own opinion, the slightest investigation of the rules, which I have promised to lay upon the Table of the House, will show that they require emendation. One of the rules which the Secretary of State will submit to the Government of India as the outcome of this case is to the effect that in a case where an acquittal in one Court has been followed by a conviction in a Higher Court an appeal for mercy transmitted through the local Government to the Government of India should always be forwarded. I know the delay, and I know the extreme difficulty in exercising patience in a case which stirs feelings as this case does, but I would suggest that some of the criticisms passed in this Debate are premature. We have at the moment only the statement of the facts. We have not had an opportunity of getting an explanation in an official form from the Lieutenant-Governor as to the way in which he exercised his duty.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: He is in this country.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I know; I have seen him this afternoon. But he has not the Papers before him, and I am quite convinced that the right way to treat a man who has had to exercise this responsibility is to give him every opportunity of making his own explanations.
  Mr. MORRELL: Meanwhile, does the Government think it right that he should have been promoted?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I may express the opinion that such decorations as have been awarded to Sir John Hewett for his services in India have been in every way merited.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Tell that to India.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Only on this question, which the India Office desire as thoroughly as anybody in this House to inquire into and to make certain that any objectionable features in it may never recur, I ask for a suspension of the judgment of the House until Members are in possession of all the explanation and information that we can get. I can assure the House that we do intend to pursue our investigations as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Is the third of the prisoners to be kept in prison until the investigation is complete?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am glad the hon. Member has mentioned that. His appeal for mercy was forwarded to the Government of India.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Why?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is exactly the sort of thing the House of Commons has no right to decide, until we know why. That is precisely one of the things upon which we desire to inform ourselves; to inquire about. So far as I can see by reading the documents the Government of India has rejected the man's appeal for an alteration of his sentence.
  Mr. LYNCH: I would like to put one question. The hon. Gentleman said that all objectionable features in this case will be inquired into. May I ask if he considers it an objectionable feature to try men again who have already been declared innocent?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is a feature of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code which it shares, I am informed, with other countries, and which has been in existence since 1872. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you approve of it?"] Speaking on behalf of the India Office, I cannot on a case half investigated pronounce on a practice that has existed for forty years. If he suggests that a right

  1181
  of appeal from an acquittal is one of those things which ought to be considered in a revision of the Criminal Procedure Code, I will certainly convey that expression of opinion to the Secretary of State. But I would point out that he is making very large conclusions from one case.
  Mr. LYNCH: I think the House will agree.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The situation has arisen—must have arisen—several times before, and so far as I am aware, with the possible exception of a case in Eastern Bengal, which I am not investigating, there have been no cases in which any objection to this form of procedure has taken place, nor am I acquainted with the reasons for adopting it in 1872. There are quite serious and grave enough question. There is the Amendment of the There is the great and perplexing delay of five months. There is the way in which the Lieutenant-Governor used his discretion. There is the Amendment of the rules which dictate what appeal the Lieutenant-Governor shall and shall not withhold. All these three questions require close and studious investigation. I should have thought the House would have gathered that from the answers I have given to questions. I may here say to-night that this investigation will be pursued vigorously. The Secretary of State will not shirk any measures, however drastic, which the honour and reputation of our code of justice demands. The case cannot be allowed to rest where it is. I am as determined as any Member of the House to get a thorough explanation, and I can assure the House——
  Mr. KELLAWAY: When will the investigation begin?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A despatch will be drafted, and probably sent by mail after the next meeting of the Secretary of State in Council.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Sir John Hewett is here while you are sending despatches. What nonsense it is!
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member is naturally very much harrowed in his feelings, and he has come down here, so far as I can see, to make no allowance for anybody, and before we have done it he casts doubts upon the efficacy of our inquiry. I cannot undertake to move or to act before we have completed our investigations. I can assure the House
  1182
  that we shall move and act when the investigation has been completed.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that these papers have already been before Lord Crewe six months?
  An HON. MEMBER: He wants another six months?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The papers never came before Lord Crewe officially, but in the private letter—I do not mean that the letter was marked "Private." There is all the difference in the world, as the hon. Member knows, between an appeal to the Secretary of State in Council, which can be dealt with in Council, and a letter to Lord Crewe. When that letter arrived in January, Lord Crewe immediately sent out the allegations of fact to India, and he has now received the reply. The reply applies only to the facts. Now Lord Crewe is in a position to deal with the matter officially in Council. He is also in a position to ask that these facts shall be supplemented, and to express the opinion which he must have formed upon the facts submitted to him. The speech which I have made on his behalf to-night and the answers that he has given to questions, shows that he shares with the House the anxiety which they feel upon this question.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: May I put one question, as to whether the hon. Gentleman can give any explanation as to why a letter of representation from Sir Henry Cotton, a gentleman who was long years in this House and highly respected, received no consideration for six months? Whether it was official or otherwise, surely representations of that kind should within six months at least have received due consideration?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I cannot give any explanation of that. It was a letter which I, personally, never saw. The letter was dealt with by Lord Crewe, with the assistance of his secretary, and was sent out at once to India, and the investigations in India and the receipt of the reply accounts, I imagine, for some considerable portion of the time. I will certainly make the hon. Gentleman's comments known to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: There is only one point that I wish to have cleared up in the statement of facts as presented to the House this evening. The hon. and learned Gentleman represented Sir John Hewett

  1183
  as having stimulated—that was his word I think—the appeal against the acquittal by the Sessions judge. I want to ask the Under-Secretary as to whether I do not understand his version of the facts to be that the initiative in the matter of the appeal against the acquittal was taken by the district magistrate, and not by Sir John Hewett, and that all that Sir John Hewett had to do was to decide upon the request put forward by the district magistrate? Secondly, I ask the House to suspend anything in the nature of a hostile judgment on the wholly inadequate version of the facts which we have before us against Sir John Hewett without hearing anything in the nature of his explanation. Speaking from personal knowledge of Sir John Hewett's administration in India, there is no more capable or no more conscientious servant of the Crown in the Indian Empire.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: It has been asked why there was six months' delay before this appeal was heard. The Government of India may appeal against an acquittal within six months' time. People used to Indian affairs know that High Courts and local Governors require all the records before they make up their minds and before they refer them to the Law Officers, gentlemen who do work like that done here by the Attorney-General and a long time is occupied in copying out the whole of the records. That will account for a good deal of the delay. Before urging an appeal in a capital case after acquittal, the responsible authorities require some time to make up their minds. I agree very much with what was said as to the Sessions Courts presided over by a judge with very large penal powers. Except as regards appeals he is assisted in some cases by assessors and in others by juries. He may try all cases and pass capital sentences, and there are a great many of those judges throughout India who have this power. Whether, as in this case the judge uses assessors, where the system of trial by jury is not brought in, he is bound to ascertain and record the views of the assessors, and he may put questions to them as to whether they believe a particular witness, or whether a particular story is probable or not. The most competent judges do that in order to get the advantage of these substitutes for juries; they are men who are natives of the district having a very considerable standing and having that intimate knowledge of customs
  1184
  and of language which most of us European officers do not possess. I do not know that the judge entrusted with such great powers, and especially having assessors conferring with him in the acquittal, did not properly exercise his high functions. But when we have a question of appeal against acquittal, it would be wrong to infer in any way anything against Sir John Hewett because he directed the appeal.
  According to the statement, he was asked to prefer this appeal to another competent Court by the district magistrate. In every district there is a high officer, often the head of the ordinary magistrates, but in judicial matters subordinate to the judge of Quarter Sessions, and that district magistrate, usually known by another title as collector, is responsible for maintaining order in his district and seeing that the laws are properly put in force. For years and years it has been found that the ordinary criminal procedure in allowing appeals in cases of acquittal must be given to the High Court in a particular province, like our appeals to the High Court. There are several restrictions surrounding this right of appeal. First, it can only be brought by the direction of the Governor of the province. When I was in India the law stood in these terms, and I believe it is much the same, though I could not find the Statute at present in force. It runs thus thus:—
  "The local Governor may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from the original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than the High Court."
  When the law says that the Lieutenant-Governor may do such a thing within certain reasonable circumstances, and where the circumstances do require that there should be an appeal against an acquittal, he is bound to use his judgment and direct the Public Prosecutor to make the appeal. And, so far as I know the ways of Indian Government—and I have sat as a Sessions judge and a High Court judge, and have been an adviser to Governors in all those matters—we must not impute to the Lieutenant-Governor any personal or pecuniary interest. He is simply doing his official duty when he determines upon the most competent and responsible advice to lay this appeal against acquittal. They are not in the habit of making such appeals very often. It is impossible for us in the House of Commons to sit as a legislature of revision upon the Legislature presided over by the Viceroy and Governor-General

  1185
  of India. That is a highly competent Legislature, and when they make these Criminal Procedure Codes they have with them the representatives of all the provinces and their Law Officers up to the highest. They have an immense lot of information and years and years of experience to bring to bear upon the questions they are considering.
  I ask the House to pause before they think of suggesting to the Government of India that they should alter particular things in their Procedure Courts. After all there are many things in the Indian procedure which are different to ours. I think it is a good procedure. Judges dealing with cases of murder have often to pass more lenient sentences than may be allowed here, and you must take the procedure as a whole and as hanging together. Many people here would fear to enact a code of law which allowed a judge, when he thinks the verdict of a jury to be wrong and justice requires him to say so, to say "I will not accept that verdict: I believe the man is guilty or innocent, as the case may be," and then to submit the case to the High Court, where two or three judges sit together as judge and jury, and have power to pass conviction upon a man acquitted or acquittal upon a man convicted. You cannot begin to interfere with procedure in one part without equally disturbing other parts, and I think no case has been made out for saying that the procedure is wrong. The High Courts are rather chary before they will upset a verdict of acquittal. They will not do so unless the whole case is roost thoroughly established; in fact, the subject is considerably protected in all these matters. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India has spoken of the Judicial Commissioners as having the same status as the High Courts; that is not the way I would put it. I have been a Judicial Commissioner myself for seven years, wielding the whole power of the High Court in my sole person. The Judicial Commissioner is a substitute in the backward provinces and has got a less rate of salary than the judges of the High Court. It is often said that the Judicial Commissioner should be abolished and the High Court substituted, and that was done in Burma, where I was Judicial Commissioner, and in the Punjab, another great province that used to be under a Judicial Commissioner. They have the same power as the High Court, and they use their powers with ordinary judicial discretion, fairly and conscientiously.
  1186
  I think we can safely leave ever the question of amending those laws to the Legislature in India, which is well accustomed to legislating on these subjects and easily accessible and have particular advantages.
  10.0 P.M.
  With regard to this particular case, I would not be inclined to arrive at a conclusion before I get all the facts, and until I have seen the judgment and know something more about the case. We have not had copies of the judgment to show whether it is a clear ease or whether the decision was against the weight of evidence or not. I think many Governors in such a position would have respited the sentence. It is the policy of the law that criminal sentences should within reasonable time, without much delay, be carried into execution. On that ground alone the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have power to hear appeals from India and the Colonies, but they refuse to do so because it might paralyse the law, and in that way the order of the State might be disturbed. It is one thing not to use the discretion rightly, but it is another thing to have erred against the free rules which have been laid down by the Government of India. It is well to withhold our judgment and wait until we have full information on the subject. Sir John Hewett has risen to a great and high place, and he has an excellent record behind him, and it would be altogether against my sense of fairness to say anything against him now or to imply that he has not deserved all the honours and decorations he has received from the Sovereign. Far be it from me to pass any such criticism, which would be quite against his career and the inference we ought to draw from it. Nay I add that, after considerable experience in all these Courts, I may say that I have no reason to suppose that the Government of India are not careful and scrupulous as regards carrying out the fearful sentence of the judge that a man shall hang by the neck until he is dead. It is a dreadful thing to have to sign a death warrant of that sort. I have joined at times when sitting in the highest Court of Appeal in saying that we accept the evidence on which a man has been convicted, and we see no judicial reason for modifying the sentence of death. In some cases the Members of the Government wanted to consult with me, some of them giving reasons why mercy should be exercised. It is an accepted maxim in all these cases that mercy should be mingled with

  1187
  justice, and I have always done everything I could in that directioon. Certainly it is a serious thing that two men should have been executed in this way. I think this discussion and the proposed alteration in the rules may deal with that question, but I would ask hon. Members to suspend their judgment until we have had a clearer statement of the fact, so that we may judge whether an appeal would have made any difference in the case of these men or not.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Knowing absolutely nothing of the circumstances of this particular case, I approach this question with an absolutely open mind. I agree with what the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Sir J. Jardine) has said that we are incompetent to adjudicate upon or suggest alterations in the criminal law of India. To most of us India is a very strange country, but, at any rate, there are certain elementary principles which do concern us, and in regard to them a great responsibility rests upon this House towards the people of India, because we prescribe the Government of India, and the people of India have no control over their own Government. When appeals of this kind come before the House of Commons that is the only real chance we get of considering them, and there is a deep responsibility cast upon this House to give them full and fair consideration. The Under-Secretary for India read out the rules, and I have no hesitation in saying that they are unjust and almost inhuman. I think they ought to be altered, and this House is perfectly competent to adjudicate upon them, because the justice or injustice of those rules can be judged by any ordinary man. The hon. Member opposite asks us to suspend our judgment until the case is investigated. I have sat here for thirty years, and I do not think I have heard three effective debates upon Indian questions during the whole of that time. The opportunity of discussing the affairs of India are very rare. The Budget of India, of course, comes round once a year. I may be permitted to say here that over and over again I and many Members of the Radical party have appealed to the Government to place the salary of the Secretary of State for India on the Estimates, so that we could properly discuss the administration of India, but it has always been refused. Supposing this case is postponed—in must be postponed in due
  1188
  course—when will we have another opportunity of discussing it? I doubt whether we shall hear of it again. First of all, I say that the rules are bad, and ought to be altered. I think the Under-Secretary himself indicated that he agreed with that view. I do not think Sir John Hewett did violate the rules, as well as I could understand them, but, without professing to have any expert knowledge of Indian affairs at all, as a man, it appears to me inhuman and outrageous that a man in the position of Sir John Hewett, who must have made up his mind on the facts—first he directed the retrial, which he would not have directed if he had thought the judge in the first instance had given a proper verdict, and, secondly, after the conviction in the Higher Court he reviewed the evidence—should be able to refuse a petition for mercy. He was in a double sense a party to the prosecution, and he must have made up his mind as to the guilt of the prisoners. He refused these unhappy men who were sentenced to death the opportunity of petitioning to the highest Court of mercy in the land, which they had a right to do, and refused it on the plea that because the execution was fixed for a certain date the Supreme Government of India would not have the forty-eight hours required to consider the petition.
  I say, no matter what the record of Sir John Hewett, that was an inhuman thing to do. I say that human life ought to be treated as sacred in any country, and, no matter what the colour of the unhappy person may be who is the victim of a sentence of this kind, he ought, at all events under the British flag, not to be treated in that way. The law might say his appeal could go no further than the Governor of his province, and we might think that was just or unjust; but that is not the law. According to the present criminal code of India, the unhappy criminal who lies under sentence of death has a right to appeal to the Supreme Government of India, and I say that the man who stands between him and the highest tribunal of mercy is offending against the highest dictates of justice; and to say in excuse of conduct of that character, that there is not time because the execution is fixed in such a way that forty-eight hours could not be given to the Government of India to give these unhappy men their last chance of life, is a plea which cannot for a single moment stand or hold water in this House. What

  1189
  are we told when this argument is put forward? We are told that it is a settled principle of civilised Governments, and especially in India, to expedite execution.
  Mr. MONTAGU: If I said that, I said something I did not mean to say. I meant to say that it was accepted in all countries that it is not a merciful thing to postpone an execution if, in the opinion of the responsible person who is called upon to exercise the unpleasant and responsible task there is not any likelihood of the man escaping from his sentence. That is what I meant to say.
  Mr. DILLON: Observe how that statement fits in with what I am saying. It is not a merciful thing to postpone execution if in the opinion of the man who has power to postpone it the circumstances may not lead to the exercise of mercy by the highest tribunal. What an amazing statement! It stands already proved ex hypothesi that in the opinion of Sir John Hewett there were no extenuating circumstances, and that the prerogative of mercy would not probably be exercised by the higher tribunal. But what right had he to judge, and what right had he to deprive these men, for the sake of forty-eight hours, of their last chance of life? Of course, we admit that he did not break the law, but is that the way for a man to judge a case of life and death? I think the rules are unjust; but even under those rules a man who had a humane mind would say: "I have judged this case twice and consider that there are no extenuating circumstances, but the law gives these men another chance, and far be it from me to stand between them and their last chance." That would be the natural view any man would take under the circumstances. Once you concede the right to appeal to the fount of mercy, I say that in the view of any humane man a person lying under sentence of death ought to have that last chance, no matter how strong the conviction may be that his crime is proved and that he deserves his fate. Therefore, it is
  1190
  not a question of surveying the whole policy of the Indian Government and looking into the question of the Indian criminal code. I say that, this is a subject on which, as unfolded by the Under-Secretary himself to-night, any man of ordinary intelligence and humanity can form a judgment without any expert knowledge of Indian affairs at all, and, in spite of the appeal made, I think Sir John Hewett, judging him by the account given by the Under-Secretary, made a very grievous mistake, a mistake which I hope and trust he will regret. These men were treated with a lack of humanity, and were denied a chance which in any civilised country in the world all criminals are entitled to expect, and I venture to say do obtain, the chance of appeal to the highest and last tribunal.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: There is just one fact on which I hope that the Under-Secretary will give the House a rather fuller assurance. I am sure we all heard with great satisfaction the statement that there is to be a revision of the procedure in these cases. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in cases where there was after acquittal a reversal of a sentence there would be an alteration in the procedure adopted. Will he undertake that in such cases where there is an appeal for mercy, not only shall that appeal always go forward, but in those cases where there has been a reversal of the sentence there shall be a postponement of execution, in order that the appeal for mercy may be effective? That is a point on which, whatever may be said about this particular case, all parties in the House will be agreed.
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is the alteration which I suggested. It would be a most horrible form of cruelty to insist that an appeal should be forwarded to the British Government without giving time for consideration.
  Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Ten of the clock