Commons Sitting of 7 April 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HOUSING ACCOMMODATION (IRELAND).
Mr. FLAVIN: I beg to present a petition from the Listowel Urban District Council praying for the provision of better housing accommodation for the working classes in the towns of Ireland, as a matter of urgent public importance.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable, have been complied with, namely:—

Nottingham Mechanics Institution (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

Leighton Buzzard Gas Bill [Lords].

British Gas Light Company (Hull Station) Bill [Lords].

Newport Corporation Bill [Lords].

Llanfaelog Water Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas (Electric Supply) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Central London Railway Bill,
King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Chesterfield Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; A Clause added; Bill to be read the third time.
Stourbridge Navigation Bill,
Rhymney Railway Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Taff Vale Railway Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
Northern Junction Railway Bill (by Order), Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill (by Order),
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Inclosure (Elmstone Hardwicke) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to the Common Fields in the parish of Elmstone Hardwicke, in the county of Gloucester." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Hawarden Rural District, Kenilworth, Ledbury, Llanfairfechan, Merthyr Tydfil (Amendment), Newton-in-Maker-field, Oulton Broad, Ruthin, Slaithwaite, Thornton, and Yeovil." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Wakefield." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the counties of Essex, Oxford, and Wilts." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the

1775
first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bridgend, Burnley (Rural), Holmfirth, Maidstone, Runcorn (Rural), and Tyne-mouth. Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bootle, Gravesend, Huddersfield, Leek, Llanelly, and Workington, and the North-East Durham Joint Small-pox Hospital District." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

EAST INDIA (WARS ON OR BEYOND THE BORDERS OF BRITISH INDIA).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 7th August, 1913; Mr. King]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]
ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (ESTIMATE, 1914–15).
Estimate presented of the Sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1915 to defray the Expense of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 185.]
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
Copy presented of Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 427 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.
Copy ordered "of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are, for the time being, complied with."—[Mr. Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Consular Service.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, under the memoranda published by the Foreign Office, as indicating the conditions precedent to entry into the Consular Service, it is provided that candidates cannot be nominated unless they are unmarried and between twenty—two and twenty-seven years of age at the date of their examination, and that candidates must pass the examination in all subjects specified to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Commissioners; and whether Mr. de Bernhardt, recently appointed Consul at Nantes, and Mr. G. Hertslet, recently appointed Consul General at Trieste, complied with these conditions?
  (2) Whether, under the provisions of a memorandum dated July, 1913, candidates for appointments in the Consular Service are required to appear before the Board of Selection meeting at the Foreign Office on the first Tuesday in May and November at 3 p.m.; whether the function of the Board of Selection is to recommend candidates; whether Mr. de Bernhardt and Mr. G. Hertslet, recently appointed to the Consular Service, appeared at any and what time before the Board of Selection; and whether their respective appointments were recommended by the Board of Selection?
  (3) What are the duties of officials in the Librarian's Department of the Foreign Office; whether there is any examination of persons appointed to that Department in French as a compulsory subject, German or Spanish as alternative compulsory subjects, the principles of British mercantile and commercial law relating to shipping, negotiable instruments, contracts for the carriage of goods, contracts of marine insurance, bottomry, and respondentia, English and metric weights and measures, commercial geography, and political economy; whether satisfactory examination in the above-named subjects is according to the published memoranda of the Foreign Office essential to Consular appointment; and whether Mr. de Bernhardt and Mr. G. Hertslet, who have recently received Consular appointments, have at any and what time passed examination to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Commissioners in the above-named subjects?

  1777
  (4) Whether Mr. G. Hertslet has been appointed Consul-General at Trieste; whether this appointment is regarded as one of the prizes of the Consular Service; whether Mr. Hertslet has previously filled any and what offices as a Vice-Consul or Consul in the Consular Department; whether Mr. Hertslet was, until the time of his appointment, engaged in the Librarian's Department of the Foreign Office; what commercial experience Mr. Hertslet has had which justifies his appointment; and whether he is aware that appointments of this nature cause dissatisfaction amongst members of the Consular Service, who have begun by examination and worked up by merit, and that a repetition of such appointments is calculated to deter valuable men from entering the Consular Service?
  (5) Whether, some few years ago, the office of Consul at Nantes was suppressed on the ground that the work did not justify the existence of a British Consul; whether the work has until recently been done by an unsalaried Vice-Consul; whether a Consul has again been appointed and at what salary; whether the Consul so appointed is Mr. de Bernhardt; whether Mr. de Bernhardt has for thirty-five or some and what other number of years been engaged in the Librarian's Department of the Foreign Office; what commercial experience Mr. de Bernhardt has had which justifies his appointment; and whether he is aware that appointments of this nature cause dissatisfaction amongst members of the Consular Service, who have begun by examination and worked up by merit, and that the repetition of such appointments is calculated to deter valuable men from entering the Consular Service?
  (6) Whether Mr. Clipperton has been appointed inspector or visitor of all Consular posts in Northern Europe, and at what salary; whether Mr. Clipperton was about eight or nine years ago appointed Vice-Consul at Rouen at a salary of £300 or thereabouts; whether Rouen was subsequently made a post for a Consulate; whether Mr. Clipperton's salary was increased to £600 or some and what other sum; whether Mr. Clipperton has since been made a Consul-General; whether a new post of inspector or visitor of the Consular posts in Northern Europe has been created and conferred upon him; whether in his new office Mr. Clipperton becomes the superior officer to most of
  1778
  the visited Consuls, who until a short time ago were his superiors in service; and what considerations have contributed to the rapid promotion of Mr. Clipperton at the expense of many officers of much longer service?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The conditions referred to by the hon. Member are those which regulate the admission of candidates to the junior branch of the Consular Service. Successive Secretaries of State have always reserved to themselves the right to recommend to the Crown the appointment of persons not in the Diplomatic or Consular Service to higher posts in those services, and they have acted from time to time in this way with great advantage to the public service. The duties of officials in the Librarian's Department of the Foreign Office are to take charge of past official correspondence and to furnish memoranda on political, Consular and commercial cases, and on treaty and other international questions, and to collect and collate precedents for the information of the Secretary of State. Time subjects of examination for that Department, when the two gentlemen in question entered it, were the same as those for the Diplomatic establishment of the Foreign Office, and the examination was likewise competitive. Their long experience of work in the Foreign Office furnishes them with a very complete equipment for the discharge of Consular duties.
  The appointment to the Consulate-General at Trieste (which is classed as an ordinary Consulate for purposes of salary and cannot be considered one of the prizes of the service) is counterbalanced by the transfer of a senior member of the Consular Service to the Librarianship; and as the Consulate at Nantes is a new post, no member of the Consular Service has suffered through the recent changes. Nantes was reduced to a Vice-Consulate in 1905, but in consequence of the inclusion of all the Departments of France in Consular districts and a redistribution of districts, a Consulate has again been established at that port, with a salary of £800 a year. Both Mr. de Bernhardt and Mr. Hertslet, in the course of their duties at the Foreign Office, have had close experience of commercial and other matters which, in my opinion, qualified them for the discharge of their present duties. The one has had thirty-five, the other nearly fifteen years' service.

  1779
  Mr. Clipperton has been appointed Visiting Consular Officer for North-Western Europe. He was Vice-Consul at Baltimore in 1892, and entered the regular service after the usual examination in January, 1894. After various moves he was transferred to Rouen in 1904, when he received a salary of £410 a year. In 1906 he was promoted to be Consul at Rouen, and last year his salary, in common with that of many other Consuls of the same standing in the service, was raised to £800 a year. Four visiting officers have been appointed, of whom he is one; and they each receive an allowance of £100 a year in addition to their ordinary salaries. Their new appointment does not confer upon them any special seniority in their several grades. Mr. Clipperton's promotion has not been rapid. His rank as Consular-General is personal. There are several others with the substantive rank who are of less service. His selection for the duty of the visiting officer was due to proved capacity when charged with difficult tasks and to a knowledge of the details and management of a Consular Office as complete and thorough as that possessed by any member of the service to which he belongs.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, without seeking in any way to prejudice the gentleman, whether Mr. Hertslet is the son of the late Librarian of the Foreign Office, Sir Edward Hertslet?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not sure; I will inquire.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can say whether the Persian Government are desirous of extending the Swedish gendarmerie in Northern Persia; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government would favourably regard any such proposal?
  Mr. ACLAND: The question of extending the organisation of the Swedish gendarmes is being amicably discussed between the Persian, British and Russian Governments. Pending such discussion, it is not desirable to make any more detailed statement.

  Piracy (Persian Gulf).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether two vessels belonging to British-Indian subjects were recently the subjects of piratical attacks
  1780
  in the Persian Gulf, the tindal of one of the vessels being slain by the pirates, and both vessels being robbed and ransacked; whether the perpetrators of this outrage have been brought to justice; and whether the peace, which has hitherto prevailed in the Persian Gulf, is no longer maintained?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I am not aware of any such incident in the Persian Gulf. But a piracy bearing a general resemblance to that described in the question occurred in November last near Basra, which is not in the Persian Gulf. The acting Vali of Basra, who has seriously exerted himself to check piracy on the river, has paid compensation for the cash and effects stolen, and several of the robbers have been caught.

  India Currency.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the policy of the Government of India at present is to retard the flow of sovereigns to India and their consequent accumulation in the paper currency reserve; and is it with this object that Council Bills were sold last year for a lower price than at any period since June, 1911?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has any information concerning the hoarding of gold in India or relating to any increase or decrease in the practice of melting sovereigns in order to make ornaments, particularly in the Punjab?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: On a subject of this nature precise information is necessarily difficult to obtain, but many observations and opinions are collected in the annual reports of the Indian Currency Department, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is there any evidence to show that sovereigns qua sovereigns are hoarded at all in India?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: It is rather difficult to summarise, but I think the opinions go to show that they are being hoarded on a diminishing scale.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he can give the net profit obtained by the

  1781
  Calcutta and Bombay mints during the current year on the coinage of nickel and bronze coins for circulation in India, also on British dollar, ten-cent, and five-cent pieces for the Singapore Government, and silver and copper coins for other places outside of India; and if these profits are added to the general revenue of the Government of India or ear-marked for any special purpose?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Budget estimate of total net profits of the Indian mints for 1911–15 is £145,500. I cannot say what portions are estimated to be obtained, respectively, from the various coins mentioned. The whole is credited to general revenues.

  Railway Board (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Government of India proposes to ask the Railway Board to assist private enterprise by providing refrigerator cars for the distribution of cold storage meat and other articles of diet in the interior of the country?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the Secretary of State kindly inquire whether the Railway Board was approached by a cold storage company in regard to this very desirable report?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have no information. I will inquire further.

  Indian Post Office.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the surplus operations of the Indian Post Office in 1913–14 was £290,000 and is expected in 1914–15 to be £470,000; and, if so, what obstacle exists to giving India two English mails weekly at a cost which would be far less than the surplus already realised?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The surpluses are as stated. It is a matter for consideration whether the provision of two mail services a week is the best way of spending the whole or part of any similar surpluses in future years.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the Secretary of State considering it as possibly desirable and acceptable to the mercantile community?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: It is under consideration.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: What would be the cost of this proposed experiment in State syndicalism?
  Sir J. D. REES: Has it not been estimated at £100,000?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I must have notice of the question. I know nothing of the experiment in State syndicalism to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Delhi (New Capital).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India if he will state when the Government of India proposes to put forward a comprehensive and inclusive estimate of the cost of establishing a new capital at Delhi; and whether the figure given by the Viceroy on 24th March, namely, £6,000,000, is to be regarded as having more finality than the preceding estimate of £4,000,000?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The final estimates for the new capital are expected from India very shortly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Detailed plans and estimates based on carefully ascertained requirements are likely to have more finality than a rough forecast.

  Indian Medical Service.
  Sir J. D. REESasked what were the results of the last competition for the Indian Medical Service held in London; whether four out of twelve vacancies were gained by gentlemen who are natives of India; whether three more candidates, answering the same description, were found among the eight to whom subsidiary vacancies were allotted; and, if so, whether the bearing of these facts upon the simultaneous examination question is under the consideration of the Secretary of State and the Government of India?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Thirty-three candidates competed in the last examination for the Indian Medical Service. The minimum number of appointments advertised was twelve, but owing to there being more vacancies twenty candidates were eventually accepted. Of these seven were Indians. The Secretary of State is not aware that these facts have any bearing on the simultaneous examination question.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the Secretary of State kindly consider the matter, since the cases seem to be in pari materia?

  Aeronautical Establishment (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the establishment of an aeronautical establishment for India; can he say how many aeroplanes are in active commission, what is the personnel, and where the establishment is situated; whether any ruling chiefs have assisted the Government in this behalf; and up to what standard the Indian authorities propose to work?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: An aviation school has been established at Sitapur. The present personnel includes a commandant and three other Flying officers, with the necessary medical and subordinate staff. There are three aeroplanes, and five others have been ordered. The immediate object is to gain experience in aviation under Indian conditions, with a view to the eventual expansion of the school as a training establishment. One ruling Chief—the Maharaja of Rewa—has generously presented an aeroplane.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Can the hon. Gentleman state the cost of this establishment?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, but I think I can obtain it.

  Calcutta Murder Trial.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a British subject named Roy has been recently charged before Mr. Justice Stephen and a jury at Calcutta with the murder of Inspector Ghose and the culpable homicide of one Ananteli; if so, whether, although he was acquitted, he was kept under arrest and tried a second time on a charge of abetment of murder and was again acquitted by the jury; whether he is still kept in confinement by order of the judge; and, if so, whether he can inform the House how often a British subject in India must be acquitted before he can regain his liberty?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Roy was definitely acquitted of the murders of Inspector Ghose and Ananta Teli, but he has not been acquitted of the abetment of the inspector's murder or of the culpable homicide of Ananta Teli, On those charges a jury has twice disagreed, and the accused is still in custody under the orders of the High Court.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it the fact, as stated in the "Times," that the judges have ordered a third trial of this young student, and is it the resolve of the India Office to have his blood?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have seen the statement in the "Times."
  Sir W. BYLES: Twice acquitted already?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Not twice acquitted. The jury disagreed, but he has not been acquitted.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DUTIES OF OFFICERS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will explain what is meant by the expression that an officer may under circumstances disappear; if an officer disappears is another officer appointed to replace him temporarily, and does the disappearing officer lose any seniority during his temporary disappearance; what scale of pay does he draw during the time of his disappearance; and is he ordered to leave his address with the War Office during the period of his disappearance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The instructions given were that in the exceptional cases referred to the officers might be allowed to remain on leave or with the details. The ordinary conditions as to pay and seniority would therefore apply.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will this new status be embodied in a new Army Order?
    Mr. McKENNA: No new status is created.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Who was the originator of the term "disappear" in this connection?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am quite unable to say.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether orders under the Official Secrets Act were issued to all or any of the Reserve officers of the Army during the first fortnight in March; and for what purpose were the orders issued?
    Mr. McKENNA: No orders were issued other than the ordinary routine orders given to officers in the Reserve.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is it not the fact that many of those officers received orders

    1785
    to report themselves on receipt of a telegram, and some of them were ordered to be prepared to take on such duties as embarkation officer, and mobilisation of Reserve?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; no orders were given of any exceptional kind whatever. The orders that were given were in the ordinary way of routine service.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what reductions in small-arm ammunition and general stores for the Territorial Army are alluded to upon page 3 of the Army Estimates, 1914–15?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The reductions mentioned do not refer to the Territorial Force. I am sorry if the necessarily condensed form of the note in question has misled the hon. Member.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that no deductions, as indicated in this question, in the Territorial Force are intended?
    Mr. TENNANT: Not in the Territorial Force.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the bonus of £1 which is to be given to every Territorial soldier who attends camp in future will be given to every man attending camp this year?
    Mr. TENNANT: The bonus to be given to men attending camp for fifteen days will be issuable this year to all who fulfil the conditions of efficiency. These conditions include the completion of the full number of annual drills before going to camp, and a musketry qualification. The latter, however, will not be insisted upon until next year.
    Mr. WATT: Is the bonus this year on precisely the same footing as in future years?
    Mr. TENNANT: No. That appears with the answer which I have given.
    Colonel YATE: Why is the musketry qualification not insisted on?
    Mr. TENNANT: Because it has only come into force, and this is a relaxation.

    WAR MEDAL (INDIA).
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has
    1786
    yet cabled to India to ascertain the reason of the delay in replying to the claim of C. Cooper, of Knutsford, put forward on 3rd December, 1913, for a war medal, and whether he has a reply; and when exactly he hopes to be able to get this question, which is of urgent importance to an old soldier, settled?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have communicated with the India Office, who do not see their way to cable. A written reminder has already been sent, and there is no reason to think that there will be any unnecessary delay.

    INDUSTRIAL TRAINING OF SOLDIERS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when he will issue the Report of the Committee on the Industrial Training of Soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Stoke Division on the 25th March.

    DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the discharge certificate of a soldier leaving the Army owing to physical disability contracted on service contains a statement to the effect that the man has been found medically unfit for further service; and, if so, whether the form of certificate would be modified so as to prevent it being a hindrance to discharged men seeking civilian employment?
    Mr. McKENNA: the Regulations with regard to this certificate have recently been altered. The formula now used is: "No longer physically fit for war service," to which, if the disability is not such as to interfere with the soldier's fitness for civil employment, there is added the words: "although fit for employment in civil life."
    Mr. F. HALL: Would the hon. Gentleman state when that came into operation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think in December.

    SERGEANTS (PENSIONS).
    Major GASTRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the hardship in the Service arising from the fact that 40 per cent. of the sergeants leaving the Army at the end of twenty-one years' service are not entitled to the maximum pension appropriate to their ranks as non-commissioned officers, and that

    1787
    this—hardship is due mainly to the difficulty in many regiments of a private being raised to the rank of sergeant in any period less than nine years, the question of rearranging the scale of pensions during the last few years of service so as to rise by ld. per day in each year instead of by 3d. per day in each three years will be reconsidered; and what would be the approximate cost of such a change if applied to the last three years only?
    Mr. TENNANT: The concessions suggested could not be confined to sergeants. To give a figure for the cost of its general application would necessitate a laborious actuarial calculation, but the sum would certainly be large, and I am not prepared to make this addition to the already heavy non-effective cost of the Army.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS, BELFAST.
    Mr. F. HALLasked by whom the order for the seizure of the rifles of the Officers' Training Corps at Queen's University and Campbell College, Ireland, was given; what were the reasons for taking this step; and why a similar course was not adopted in regard to the arms of the North Irish Horse, which are also Government property?
    Mr. McKENNA: The rifles referred to were removed on the suggestion of the adjutant of the Officers' Training Corps at Queen's University and Campbell College and by the order of the major-general in charge of administration in the Irish Command. The commanding officer of the North Irish Horse was communicated with as regards the security of the arms in the possession of his regiment, and he replied that he did not think any special precautions were necessary.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask if it was necessary to send half a battalion to guard nothing at Newry, would it not have been necessary to send a whole brigade to guard the arms of the North Irish Horse?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman must argue the question for himself.
    Mr. F. HALL: I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been in a better position to inform the House.

    GENERAL SIR ARTHUR PAGET.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the instructions which were given to General Sir Arthur Paget between the 17th and 20th March last, and by whom?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I have stated before, these instructions were given orally by the Secretary of State to Sir Arthur Paget, and I have nothing to add to the numerous statements which have been made and to the documents which have been laid in this House.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no statement has yet been made with regard to the instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget between 17th March and 20th March, nor are they in any of the Papers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have overlooked the fact that the statement has been made, and it is repeated now that the instructions were oral only, and that there were no written instructions. I have also stated, yesterday I think it was, the facts as to the interviews between Sir A. Paget and the Secretary of State on the 18th and the 19th March, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what were the oral instructions, which have not yet been published?
    Mr. McKENNA: The oral instructions were the same as the written instructions of the 14th March; there was no variation.
    Mr. G. FABER: Was it at the interview on the 18th March or at the interview on the 19th March that the instructions were given to Sir A. Paget?
    Mr. McKENNA: Partly on one date and partly on the other. As I stated yesterday, on the 18th March the answer was given to Sir A. Paget as to the despatch of ammunition from certain places in Ulster to Dublin. That occurred on the 18th. A general conversation took place, both on.

    1789
    the 18th and on the 19th, but it did not vary the original instructions.
    Mr. G. FABER: The instructions as to domiciled officers being allowed to disappear, and so forth—when were they given?
    Mr. McKENNA: They were given on the 19th.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Did the instructions suggest that any active operations would have to be initiated by the troops in Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then how was it— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I beg to give notice that having regard to the—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can give notice later. He has already exceeded the number of supplementary questions allowed.
    Mr. GRETTONasked if there is, in addition to the letter of the 14th March already published, another letter in existence to General Sir Arthur Paget, signed by the late Secretary of State for War, giving instructions to General Sir Arthur Paget to take certain action in Ireland, and also a letter from General Sir Arthur Paget objecting to a part of the instructions above referred to?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Who invents all these interesting rumours?
    Mr. GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman make any difference between official and formal communications and unofficial and informal communications?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not the slightest idea to what correspondence the hon. Gentleman refers in his question. I believe that correspondence to be a pure myth.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have done so.

    GRENADIER GUARDS (MR. ROWLAND HUNT'S CIRCULAR).
    Captain WARINGasked the Attorney-General whether the circular letter issued by the hon. Member for South Shropshire to a non-commissioned officer of the Grenadier Guards and others differs in principle from the handbill distributed by one Crowsley among soldiers at Aldershot; and, if not, will he consult the Public Prosecutor with a view to his deciding whether similar proceedings should be instituted against the hon. Member as were instituted against Crowsley?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The terms of the circular referred to, however reprehensible, differ in important respects from the handbill in question; and in view of such differences, I do not propose to consult the Public Prosecutor?
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sergeant-majors have votes? May I ask if there is any law to prevent a Member of Parliament from calling the attention of voters to a letter which appeared in the public Press, the envelope being bought in the usual way at the House of Commons Post Office; may I further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether the Government will take proceedings to prevent the "Army against the People" being advertised as a party cry?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry that I do not think it is possible to deal with all those issues in an answer to a question.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: What are the actual differences between this case and the Crowsley case?
    Sir J. SIMON: The most important difference is this: Crowsley was prosecuted for inciting to mutiny because he appealed to those who were serving to disobey orders while they were serving. The hon. Member's letter may perhaps be construed as being an appeal to those who are serving to resign rather than to continue to serve.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer my question as to whether there is any law to prevent a Member of Parliament calling the attention of voters whether soldiers or not, to a letter which appeared in the public Press? What harm is there in that?
    Sir J. SIMON: If the Member of Parliament had written the letter I should not think he improved it by calling attention to it.

    SMALL ARMS STORES AND AMMUNITION.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that all the places to which reinforcements were recently sent in or near Ulster are in districts that are for the most part Nationalist, he had any reason to fear an attempt on the part of the Nationalists to raid the stores of small arms and ammunition?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The assumption which underlies the first part of the question is inaccurate. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    Churches and Churchyards (Valuation).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any revenue has yet been received as a result of the valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, of churches and churchyards?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): No, Sir.
    Mr. MOUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he does not think that, as there is no revenue arising from these, it is worth while continuing the valuation?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is a necessity in the valuation of all lands.

    Taxation Revenue, Scotland.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the total revenue from taxation in Scotland for the last complete year; and the amount spent on all Scottish services?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The last complete year for which figures are available is 1912–13. They will be found in the Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland and Ireland) Return, House of Commons Paper 200 of 1913.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Scotland is worked at a profit to the Imperial Exchequer?

    Housing Accommodation, Lanarkshire.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the order issued for the closing of 150 houses at West Benhar, Lanarkshire, on 28th May is to be enforced on that date; and what provision has now been made for the accommodation of the 700 displaced inhabitants?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am informed that the District Committee of the Middle-Ward of Lanarkshire have prepared a scheme to be laid before the county council for the provision of 100 houses, and that, pending such provision being made, the Local Government Board have advised the District Committee to apply to the sheriff to suspend the closing order.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked if the attention of the Local Government Board for Scotland has been drawn to the need for providing proper housing accommodation for miners and other industrial workers in Lanarkshire; how many housing schemes have been framed and are in course of being carried out under the Town Planning Act in the county of Lanark; in how many cases colliery owners have initiated such schemes; and what steps have been taken by the County Council of Lanark and by the Local Government Board for Scotland to deal with the situation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first portion of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Board informs me that in the landward areas of the county two housing schemes—Harthill and Cleland respectively—have been framed by the District Committee and await the consent of the county council to the financial proposals involved. No schemes under the Housing Acts have been initiated by private owners, but a private scheme for the provision of houses is at present being carried out. The Local Government Board for Scotland are in communication with the Upper and Middle Ward District Committees, who are the housing authorities, with a view to assisting them in their efforts to deal with the situation.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked if the Local Government Board for Scotland have received any information as to the

    1793
    steps which the County Council for Lanarkshire are taking to provide housing accommodation at West Benhar, where over 150 houses are to be closed by order of the sheriff on the 28th of May; whether the colliery proprietors, whose employés are occupying the condemned houses, have taken any action in the matter with a view to providing suitable housing accommodation in the district; and whether the occupiers of the condemned houses will be permitted to remain in them until other suitable accommodation is provided for them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that while the proprietors of the colliery in which the majority of the occupiers of the houses referred to are employed are not taking any steps to provide accommodation in substitution for the condemned houses, provision is being made by one employer which will be available for a certain number of these people. As regards the remainder of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on the same subject which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian.

    Saughton Mains Prison.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now say when it is contemplated to make a beginning with the new Scottish prison at Saughton Mains?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A beginning has already been made with the construction of main sewers and drains, and the erection of fencing for the new prison at Saughton. These are nearly completed and further work will be taken in hand shortly.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is the building being erected by some Department of the Government or are the plans being given out competitively?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would require notice of that question.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now give particulars of schemes for the extension of small holdings in Sutherlandshire that on the 24th March had been or were about to be settled?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The schemes referred to were (1) Shegra (parish of
    1794
    Eddrachillis), where seven holders were granted enlargements extending to 1,280 acres; (2) Skelpick (parish of Farr), where application has been made to the Land Court for an order to constitute five new holdings and forty-nine enlargements on 10,540 acres; and Dalchork (parish of Lairg), which is the subject of a similar application for two enlargements on 149 acres. The two latter cases have been heard by the Court, but a final order has not yet been received.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now give any information with regard to the applications for the farm of Achaphris, Shinness, Lairg, Sutherlandshire?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 24th March.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland Whether he will endeavour to induce the Board of Agriculture (Scotland) to carry out a scheme whereby the applicants from Durness, Sutherland, may acquire the farm at Balnakiel, Durness, as proposed by a Sub-Commissioner and supported by the Commissioners for Small Holdings?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is in error in supposing that the Commissioner for Small Holdings has yet reported finally on the scheme. It is true that it has been under careful consideration, but the compensation involved amounts to a very large sum, and I cannot make any promise at present.

    Contagious Abortion in Cattle.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the opinion of the Board, contagious abortion in cattle is on the increase throughout the country generally, or in what county or counties in particular; whether inoculation with either live or dead bacilli is being advantageously carried out for the purpose either of immunisation or of cure; and whether its extensive use can now be confidently recommended by the veterinary advisers of the Board?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Stock-owners are naturally somewhat reluctant to admit that the disease in question exists in their herds, and I am not prepared to

    1795
    say whether or not it is on the increase, but there is no doubt that it is prevalent. From the nature of the case the experiments conducted by the Board must extend over some years before a confident opinion can be formed as to the value of preventive inoculation, but up to the present the results are encouraging.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the Board favour the inoculation process pending a final decision on the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are conducting experiments extensively.

    Somaliland.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received full Reports on the raid made on Berbera by the followers of the Mad Mullah; if ho can state how it was that the raiders were enabled to penetrate within the defences of the town; and if it is now secured from similar raids?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have just received a Report, from which it appears that it had not hitherto been considered necessary to provide for the defence of the native town. The Commissioner has now taken steps to prevent the recurrence of similar raids, which, in his opinion, will sufficiently meet the present needs of the situation.
    Mr. FELL: Will any Report be laid upon the Table with regard to the disconcerting and alarming news which has come over? Shall we have any statement in regard to it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It would be very undesirable to lay any Report as to the suggested precautions against future raids. I will consider later on whether any papers can be laid.
    Colonel YATE: When is Burao likely to be occupied?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As soon as the forces have been obtained and are ready to move up there.

    Imperial Reunion Association (Canada).
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total number of women and children who have left this country for the Dominion of Canada, under
    1796
    the auspices of various branches of the Imperial Reunion Association of Canada, during the year 1913?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, I regret that I have not this information.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Dominion of Canada?
    Mr. HARCOURT'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

    Road Board.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Road Board and Development Fund Board, in spending the accumulations of their funds at a time when employment is scarce, only to make Grants to local authorities when those authorities are willing to raise money from the rates for the same purpose?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Since the establishment of the Development Commission and the Road Board, employment has been generally good, and it is impossible at present to make any general statement as to the policy to be pursued in different circumstances.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman point out to the Road Board that the effect of carrying out such a policy would be to help rich districts and to leave poor districts alone?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Road Board, but I have no control over that body.

    Postal and Telegraphic Communications.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allocate a time on which matters relating to postal and telegraphic communications throughout the British Empire can be discussed?
    Mr. McKENNA: These questions are usually and properly discussed on the Post Office Estimates.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether F. J. Long, a draper, of Market Square, Lichfield, has been illegally deducting under the National Insurance Act sums from the wages of Florence Palmer, an assistant

    1797
    in his shop, whose remuneration did not include board and lodging and did not exceed 1s. 6d. per working day; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Mr. right hon. Friend has made inquiry into this case, and finds the facts to be as stated by the hon. Member. He is satisfied, however, that the irregularity arose from a mistake as to the employed person's age. He understands that her whereabouts are not at present known, but every effort is being made to trace her and to repay her the amount of the excessive deductions.

    DOMICILIARY TREATMENT.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether a dependant of an insured person who is treated for tuberculosis by a local authority undertaking treatment of tuberculosis for the whole population with the aid of the Hobhouse Grant from the Treasury, is entitled to the same domiciliary treatment as may be given if sanatorium benefit is extended under Clause 17 of the National Insurance Act to dependants of insured persons?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Dependants are not entitled as of right to domiciliary treatment even if an insurance committee has extended sanatorium benefit to such persons. The matter is within the discretion of the insurance committees. Local authorities generally have not so far included domiciliary treatment in their schemes; the view which has been acted on is that the institutional side of these schemes should be fully developed before the question of providing domiciliary treatment is considered.
    Mr. HILLS: Is the treatment of dependants the same under the Hobhouse Grant as under the Insurance Act in respect of domiciliary treatment?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It depends in both cases upon the view taken by the competent authority, which is the local health authority in one case, and the insurance committee in the other. It is legal for both of them to give or to refuse dimiciliary treatment to dependants.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what is the number of deposit contributors under the health section of the National
    1798
    Insurance Act; and how many of these have been notified of entire suspension of benefits?
    Mr. BENN: The number of deposit contributors on 12th January, 1914, was approximately 360,000; 60,200 contributors have been notified of suspension of benefits, but it is not at present possible to state how many of these are still deposit contributors, as in a large number of cases, of which the Commissioners have not yet been notified, suspension is due to the contributors having ceased to pay contributions into the Deposit Contributors' Fund, because they have either joined approved societies or gone out of insurance.
    Mr. F. HALL: Have some of these deposit contributors now ceased to receive benefits under the Act because the amount of their contributions have been exhausted after the deduction of expenses?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, I have no doubt that is so in some cases.
    Mr. F. HALL: Do they therefore get 9d. for 4d.?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir, the deposit contributor is precisely the person who does get 9d.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT (IRELAND).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that insured persons, members of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union Approved Society, were certified as suffering from tuberculosis and were passed for sanatorium treatment twenty-six weeks ago and have not yet received the treatment; whether he is aware that other members of this approved society have waited from ten to twenty weeks without getting admission to a sanatorium; and whether any effort is being made to provide the necessary accommodation?
    Mr. BENN: I am informed that of the eight applicants for sanatorium benefit to which it appears that my hon. Friend refers, one has already received treatment in a residential institution but was discharged for breach of the rules, one is not in a suitable condition for this form of treatment, but will be sent to a hospital as soon as a bed is available, and the remaining six are being sent to a sanatorium at once.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    R.M.S. "AQUITANIA."
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked what subsidy, if any, has been given by His Majesty's Government towards the building of the royal mail steamer "Aquitania"; whether His Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Dominion Government of Canada suggesting that ships subsidised by the British Government plying between here and America shall, in return for such subsidy, make alternate calls at Canadian ports; and if the Government will endeavour to make this stipulation should any further subsidies be granted in this connection by His Majesty's Government?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This vessel belongs to the Cunard Company. Under the Cunard agreement, in return for a subsidy for building the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," the company undertook, under certain conditions, to make modifications in the plans of new ships (of which the "Aquitania" is one) to render them suitable in certain respects for service as auxiliaries. Some work of this sort is now being done in the "Aquitania." The question of whether this work is wholly or partly in excess of what the Admiralty can claim to have done under the agreement is now under consideration. I have no information in regard to the second part of the question. I suggest that this and the third part should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication at all for a similar subsidy as that granted to the Cunard Line from such services as the Canadian Pacific Railway or other lines plying between this country and Canada; if so, will he favourably consider them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall any.

    Uncertified Deaths.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the statutory authority for the amended regulations recently issued by the Registrar-General on the subject of uncertified death; whether the regulations have been advertised in the "London Gazette," in pursuance of Section 44 of the Registration Act, 1874, and, if not, why were they not so advertised; and whether the regula-
    1800
    tions forbid registrars to register such deaths until they have been dealt with by the coroner, or whether it is intended that the registrar should register such deaths as heretofore, and then report them to the coroner, if this has not been done already?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The statutory authority for the regulations referred to is Section 5 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836, which does not require their publication in the "London Gazette." As regards the last part of the question, the new regulations follow the previous regulations in providing that in all cases in which the registrar reports to the coroner he must await the coroner's decision before registering the death.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Can we get a copy of the regulations?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will send the hon. Member a full memorandum on the whole subject.

    Road Board (Motor Omnibuses).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is considering the question of the damage done to the macadamised country roads by the user of these roads by services of motor omnibuses; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the cost of repair and upkeep of these roads before and after such user?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circumstances vary so greatly in different cases that I do not think it would be possible to draw any useful conclusion from such an inquiry.
    Mr. FELL: Could not a specimen road be taken and the cost of repair previously to the user by the motor omnibuses, and an estimate of the present cost of repair be made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place it would be exceedingly difficult to distinguish between the amount of user of the road by omnibuses and other vehicles; and, in the second place, no generalisation could be drawn from a single instance, or even from half a dozen instances.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what is the greatest radius of an area scheduled

    1801
    by the Department round an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and why any such radius ever exceeds 15 miles?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The principle of the 15 miles radius, on which the procedure in Great Britain is also based, is observed in Ireland as a rule. It is, however, sometimes necessary in the absence of suitable natural boundaries to adopt a boundary which at particular points exceeds the 15 miles limit. The furthest point in any existing boundary is approximately 18 miles from the infected place.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Does not a line drawn across Ireland from Oranmore, Galway, to Drogheda constitute the whole of the South of Ireland a scheduled area so far as the export traffic is concerned?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is a general question, and one that scarcely arises on the question.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will state why, in drawing a line across Ireland dividing the country into two areas under different regulations, when he reached Mullingar he swerved from the straight course and drew it directly north for a distance, and then south-east, forming an acute angle; whether he will state if the line so drawn, to be effectively guarded by the Constabulary, would require three times more men than if he continued in a straight course from Mullingar to the sea viâ Trim, Duleek, to the outlet of the Delvin at Gormanstown; whether, as cattle cannot be shipped from the port of Drogheda, although they can be trucked from its railway station, the area around the port is to be considered as the neutral measure of Irish territory enjoying neither the advantages of being the northern side of the line nor the disadvantages of the southern; and whether there is any and, if so, what prospects of Drogheda port being opened?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to the opening of certain northern ports for the shipment of animals for slaughter was conditional on the boundary line being drawn as it is at present defined. The circumstance that about the time of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Cork City animals were known to have been moved thence as far north-east as the counties of Meath and West-
    1802
    meath accounts for the deviation of the line from Mullingar. When the general position becomes somewhat more reassuring, the Department will make suitable representations to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as regards the adoption of a new boundary line favourably affecting Drogheda, but they do not feel that the present position warrants them in pressing for immediate resumption of shipments from Drogheda Port.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether it was his Department or the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which drew the line prohibiting the shipping of cattle to certain ports in this country for immediate slaughter from King's and Queen's Counties; and, considering that a case of foot-and-mouth disease has not occurred in these counties for the past thirty years, he can say when this prohibition shall be removed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: At present the orders of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries allow of the shipment of animals for immediate slaughter from certain northern ports only, and the Board's consent to shipments from these ports was made conditional on the movement of animals being prohibited by the Department out of the part of Ireland south of a line drawn from Drogheda on the east coast to Oranmore on the west. I am unable to say when the Department will be in a position to modify this prohibition, but as the general situation improves suitable representations in the matter will be made to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Apart from this prohibition some parts of both King's and Queen's Counties are included in an area which has been scheduled by the Department on account of the existence of the disease within a fifteen miles radius, and out of which the movement of animals is prohibited.

    Magazine Postal Rates.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the necessity of reducing to the lowest possible minimum the postal rates on magazines and newspapers between this country and the Dominion of Canada and other parts of the British Empire?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to similar questions yesterday.

    Children Act.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary whether it is the practice of the Metropolitan Police, after instituting proceedings for offences under the Children Act, to hand over the case to the charge of Officers of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; whether this procedure is governed by any definite arrangement to secure that the prosecution should be continued; and under what statutory powers is the arrangement authorised?
    Mr. McKENNA: It would not, generally speaking, be the practice of the Metropolitan Police, after instituting proceedings, to hand over a case to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, but it has been their practice for many years, when information is received of alleged offences against certain provisions of the law relating to children, to notify the society. The society can then often take measures for remedying the evil which are more effective than a prosecution, and avoid the breaking up of the home, which is liable to result from a prosecution. When a prosecution is desirable, proceedings are taken either by the police or by the society, as the circumstances of the case indicate. The arrangement with the society in no way abrogates the power of the police to prosecute when a prosecution is desirable.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases have happened—I am told very frequently—in which the police have handed cases over to the society, after they themselves have instituted proceedings—as mentioned in the question?
    Mr. McKENNA: It may have happened in certain cases—I will inquire further—but it is certainly not the practice.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he will have further inquiry made into the claim of John Cray, Clahananoe, Ballinskelligs, for an old age pension, in view of the fact that he has attained the statutory age and that his absence for a time in America was for the purpose of seeing his children who had emigrated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, John Cray's claim for an old age pension was dis-
    1804
    allowed by the Local Government Board on appeal, on the ground that the statutory conditions as to residence in the United Kingdom were not complied with in his case. The alleged reason for his residence in America does not affect the case. The Board have no power to reopen consideration of a case already decided.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, with a view to expediting the sale of the Ballinskelligs portion of the estate of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, of Darrynane, the landlord will be requested to furnish the necessary maps and documents; and whether, in view of the fact that there are only eleven tenants on this portion of this estate, of which the total rateable value is only £31, efforts will be made to bring about a speedy purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the owner is not prepared to negotiate for the sale of the Ballinskelligs section of his estate until the purchase of the lands which he has agreed to sell to the Congested Districts Board is completed. The Board do not, therefore, propose to take further action in the matter at present.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if he will state in what stage the sale of the Caledon estate, county Tyrone, under the Land Purchase Acts now is: whether any demesne or untenanted land is included in the sale; if so, whether it has been sold to persons occupying uneconomic holdings or landless people, and what information the Estates Commissioners have on this point; and will he further state the area of the demesne or untenanted land so dealt with?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The lands referred to, which were the subject or direct sale proceedings before the Estates Commissioners, have been vested in the purchasers. No demesne lands were included in the property sold, which comprised tenanted lands and some 91 acres of untenanted lands. Sixty-eight acres of this untenanted land was sold by the owner to an evicted tenant, and the remainder to two tenants on the property under the provisions of the Purchase of Land Amendment Act, 1889, and the Purchase of Land (No. 2) Act, 1901. Under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, the Commissioners acquired 167 acres of untenanted

    1805
    land on the Caledon estate, and have allotted them to five evicted tenants.
    Mr. O'MALLEY: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow I shall call attention to the question of land purchase in Connemara.
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made an offer for the purchase of the O'Flaherty estate, Ardnasella, Oughterard, and for the O'Flaherty estate, Ballyconneely, near Clifden; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay in the purchase of those estates, which were valued three years ago?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have made an offer for the estates referred to, and negotiations are proceeding. There has been no avoidable delay in dealing with the matter.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary what is the policy of the Estates Commissioners in cases of direct sales of estates under the Irish Land Purchase Acts when there are parcels of untenanted land or demesne land included in the sale; whether inquiries are made as to whether there are any evicted holdings or uneconomic holdings on such estates which ought to have first consideration in the distribution of such lands; what precautions are adopted to prevent parcels of land being given to persons who are already possessed of large holdings; and whether any special investigation is made in cases where the purchase agreement discloses the fact that the letting of the land to the purchaser is a recent one?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In the case of an estate which is the subject of proceedings before the Estates Commissioners for sale by the landlord direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Acts, 1903–4, where there is any untenanted land or demesne lands included the practice of the Commissioners is to have inquiries made as to any evicted holdings on the property, or holdings which in their opinion should be enlarged. If the Commissioners acquire land in the landlord's occupation they either allot them to persons coming within Section 17 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, or they resell the lands to the vendor under Section 3 of the Act of 1903. Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1909 limits the amount of the advance which can be made to occupiers of holdings for the purchase of parcels of untenanted land. As regards
    1806
    any recently created tenancies due inquiry is instituted, and no advances are made where such tenancies have been created after the date mentioned in Section 16 of the Act of 1909.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state why Mrs. Mary Riordan, Dromin, Listowel, a tenant on the Raymond estate, who signed her purchase agreement and paid interest on the purchase, will not be allowed to complete her purchase the same as the other tenants on the estate; and whether the Estates Commissioners will reconsider her case with a view of allowing her to become a purchaser subject to an annuity under the Land Purchase Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The holding referred to comprises some 3 roods, and the Estates Commissioners, after having the plot inspected, did not consider that it afforded security for any advance under the Land Purchase Acts; and, as the tenant could not see her way to pay the purchase money in cash, the purchase agreement was dismissed and the holding was not included in the sale of the estate. The Commissioners cannot see their way to alter their decision in this case not to make an advance.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a great injustice to many small tenants who cannot produce the money in cash that their farms will not be taken as security?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot help that. If the holdings do not afford security, there is an end of the matter.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The labourer's cottage with a half-acre of land is security, and why not the small holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is a question for the Commissioners entirely whether or not the holding is security. In this case it is not.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Evicted Tenants Association held in Kilarney; and whether the case of Mr. Jeremiah O'Riordan, Ashgrove, has been considered by the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the resolution referred to. The Congested Districts Board have no information regarding the case of Mr. Jeremiah O'Riordan.

    Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board own the lime-kiln and quarry at Droumavally, near Killorglin; that frequent representations have been made by memorial and otherwise to the Board and to the Department on the subject of providing lime at a reasonable cost to the people of the district; can he state what report has been made in view of the fact that the Department's inspector met deputations on three different occasions, the last being held at Droumavally on 14th November last, when inspectors representing the Board and the Department were present; and whether steps will be taken to put a practicable scheme into operation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. The Department have investigated the occurrence of limestone in the neighbourhood referred to, but, in the opinion of their experts, the quality of the limestone is bad and would not justify any expenditure in working the deposit. The Congested Districts Board would be prepared to facilitate the acquisition of the lime-kiln by a local committee, but they would not undertake any responsibility in connection with the working of it.

    Manufactured Goods Imported (Luxuries).
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imports into the United Kingdom of manufactured goods, finished and ready for consumption, in 1913; and what proportion of such imports consisted of luxuries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Robertson): Out of imports of goods in 1913 into the United Kingdom classed as wholly or mainly manufactured, the value of which was £193,600,000, goods to the value of about £70,200,000 were articles completely manufactured and ready for consumption. I am afraid it is impossible to say which of these articles should be considered as luxuries.
    Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the Board of Trade can give any figures that correspond with the £30,000,000 of luxuries the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle stated are imported annually?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As I have stated, we have no standard Whatever in regard luxuries. If the hon. Baronet could suggest to me how such a standard could be arrived at I should be glad.
    Sir A. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of manufactured goods imported into Germany and France, respectively, in 1912; and what was the net revenue received by those countries from Import Duties levied on such goods?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The imports of manufactured goods into France in 1912 amounted in value to £64,569,000, and the duties collected on these imports to £5,453,000. In the case of Germany the imports of goods classed as manufactures amounted in value to £79,069,000, and the duties collected on these goods to £7,281,000. The present German classification of manufactures, however, differs from those adopted in France and the United Kingdom, and if all goods classified as "wholly or mainly manufactured" in the United Kingdom were included the total imports into Germany of such goods in 1912 would have reached approximately 92 millions sterling, the duties collected on these goods being about £7,900,000. The particulars with regard to the duties collected represent in all cases the gross amounts, particulars of the net revenue from such duties, less the cost of collection, not being available.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the tariffs which produce those results are revenue tariffs or protective tariffs?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a question for the hon. Member to put to himself—whether they are high or low.
    Mr. J. HOPE: I take it the hon. Member cannot answer?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should take it they are protective tariffs.
    Sir A. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of dutiable imports and manufactured imports, respectively, into the United Kingdom in 1913 from all British Possessions and from the British self-governing Dominions, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The value of dutiable imports consigned to this country from all British Possessions in 1913 was £16,358,000, and the value of such imports from the

    1809
    self-governing Dominions was £188,000. The value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured consigned to this country from all British Possessions in the same year was £23,345,000. and the value of such imports from, the self-governing Dominions was £6,979,000.

    Unestablished Postmen.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General what provision, if any, is made for full-time unestablished postmen, with thirty years' service to their credit, who are incapacitated from further work?
    Captain NORTON: Full-time unestablished postmen are usually paid out of allowances granted to postmasters, and in that case are not eligible for pension or gratuity. After serving for not less than fifteen years, an unestablished postman retired on the ground of age or ill-health is eligible if in necessitous circumstances for a gratuity from a fund established to meet such cases.

PAPERS PRESENTED TO PARLIA-MENT (PROCEDURE).
Sir J. D. REES: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask your ruling on a point of procedure, in view of the fact that National Health Insurance (Married Women Outworkers) Order, 1912, dated 18th February, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, under Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the National Insurance, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. 5, c. 55), as to outworkers who are married women, was entered in the list of Rules, Orders, etc. (which have been presented during the Session and are required by Statute to lie for an appointed number of days on the Table of the House), dated 21st March, 1914, as required to lie for "thirty sitting days" from 18th February, whereas in the list of such Rules, Orders, etc., dated 28th March, 1914, the said Order is required to lie for "thirty days from the 18th February during which the House is sitting," the latter Order thus including non-working days in the computation of the period, such days being apparently or inferentially included in, or capable of inclusion in, the period stated in the earlier Order, that the periods mentioned in the second column of the aforesaid lists consist in some cases of "sitting days," in other cases of "days during which the House is sitting," or, again, in certain instances of a period described as "a given number of weeks," that such diversity of description obtaining even in respect of one and the same Order in the above-mentioned lists, is productive of doubt and uncertainty, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether some uniformity of practice, at any rate, so far as relates to Orders referring to one and the same Statute, cannot be introduced?
Mr. SPEAKER: These Orders, which are to be laid on the Table of the House, are so laid by Statute. Different Statutes allot different times during which objection can be taken. In some Statutes there are so many "sitting days," and in other cases so many "days during which the House is sitting." Different phraseology is used with regard to different Orders. It does not rest with me or any other authority to put on one side what the Statute states to be the proper time. It is very desirable that all these matters should be unified and all be allowed a certain time, but the House has decided otherwise in passing Bills which allot these different times. The hon. Member has pointed out an error which I regret,
1818
and for which I must apologise, that the Papers and list of Rules and Orders circulated on the 21st of March described the period of objection to a particular Order in which the hon. Member was interested, as thirty sitting days from the 18th of February. It should really have been thirty days during which the House is sitting. There is a great distinction, and I regret that the mistake was made. If the hon. Member was inconvenienced, I am extremely sorry, although I believe, as a matter of fact, he did not suffer in consequence.
Sir J. D. REES: May not the hon. Member for East Nottingham, who lost the privilege of treating it as exempted business, be allowed the chance of a discussion?
Mr. SPEAKER: I should be glad to give him every indulgence, but I cannot override the Statute.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND.
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 29th April, to the public ownership of land, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Aneurin Williams.]
  RATING (SCOTTISH SYSTEM).
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 29th April, to the disadvantages of the present system of rating in Scotland, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Dundas White.]
  CAPTURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 29th April, to the capture of private property at sea, and to move a Resolution.—(Mr. Hodge.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COM-MITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection—That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Parliamentary Elections (Polling Day) Bill): Mr. Norman Craig and Mr. Ogden; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Rothschild.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
  "To prevent the writing, printing, publishing, or circulating in the United Kingdom of advertisements, circulars, or coupons of any Ready Money Football Betting business." Presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; supported by Mr. Alden, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Butler Lloyd, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Snowden, and Sir Joseph Walton; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 16th April, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
  HOMICIDE BILL.
  "To make further and better provision with respect to Homicide and certain other crimes, and to declare and amend the Law relating thereto; and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." Presented by Sir JOHN JARDINE; supported by Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Sir William Byles, Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Higham, Mr. Herbert Craig, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Leif Jones, Sir David Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Aneurin Williams; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 23rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

FARM SERVANTS' HOLIDAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to regu-
1820
late the leisure time allowed to farm servants in Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith."
The object of the Bill which I desire to introduce this afternoon is to secure for the Scottish farm servants a little relief from the life of unremitting toil which has been their lot up to the present time by providing for them a statutory Saturday half-holiday, ample provision being provided in the Bill for the feeding of live stock, and for its suspension during seed time and harvest. I think it only requires to be stated that the general custom in Scotland is for these men to be at work in the stable before six o'clock in the morning, and that they continue at work until after six o'clock in the evening, altogether working about seventy hours per week, for every reasonable person to agree that their demand for a weekly half-holiday is not an exorbitant one. There is a general feeling, shared by many farmers in Scotland, that more leisure must be given to these men, the only points of difference apparently being the amount of leisure to be granted and the means by which it is to be secured. There are a number of those who are interested in the question who are of the opinion that this very desirable reform can be secured by voluntary agreement. With this view I do not agree. Personally, I am convinced, and in this attitude I am strongly supported by the men themselves, that unless there is some compulsory power such as is provided for in this Bill it will be impossible for arrangements to be made for giving these men their Saturday half-holiday.
The best evidence of the failure of an arrangement on a voluntary basis is to be found in the reports of the different farmers' associations when the matter has been discussed. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture has failed in its efforts to get the affiliated societies to agree to a scheme being prepared for the whole of Scotland. The great majority of the affiliated societies took the view that the matter should be dealt with by the societies locally. The members of the Farm Servants' Union have since tested the value of the suggestion to settle the matter by local agreement, and they have met the representatives of the farmers in conference. Such conferences have been held at Inverness, East Aberdeenshire, Perth, Fife, Midlothian, East Lothian, and Berwickshire. At these conferences it was argued by both sides that arrangements ought to be made for granting

1821
increased leisure. At Inverness, for instance, the representatives agreed to a total of forty-six Saturday half-holidays per year; at Perth the representatives agreed to forty-eight half-holidays; but in both cases the agreement was rejected at full meetings of the farmers afterwards held. In other districts sixteen holidays, including the present recognised holidays, have been suggested, and in many cases even less have been proposed. For instance, in the upper ward of Lanarkshire fourteen half-holidays have been proposed, but these suggestions in every case have only been made by the committee of the society, and, as in the case of Inverness and Perth, there is no guarantee that they would be carried out by the members of these societies. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that a number of farmers tried to hire as many men as they could without granting any increase of leisure, and in the districts where the farm servants' organisation is weak they have succeeded. The greatest difficulty in getting arrangements for a half-holiday has been that a number of the farmers have refused to grant the men increased leisure.
The secretary of one of the farm servants' societies in Ayrshire, in answering the demand put forward on behalf of the men for a half-holiday, stated that the members of his committee were of the opinion that a Saturday half-holiday was unworkable. The effect of this has been that even the farmers who have commenced the system have in some cases withdrawn the half-holiday, while others state that until the system is made general they cannot agree. The real difficulty in making a voluntary arrangement is the lack of organisation among the farmers themselves. A large number of the prominent farmers, including members of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, have stated that in their opinion the only satisfactory method of securing the half-holiday is by Statute. If such a Bill were passed it would have the effect of creating the necessary organisation among the farmers themselves and would entirely eliminate the fear that the farmers of one district were getting an unfair advantage over the farmers in another district. It would, at the same time, enable them to make the most suitable arrangements for special exemption where that was necessary. In such places as Inverness, West Fife, and Midlothian, where the men's organisation is strong, it may fairly be said that the majority of the
1822
men have secured the half-holiday, and in no case has it been found necessary to increase the number of men employed or to increase the cost of working the farm. Evidence could be given from a number of districts in Scotland where the half-holiday has been in operation, to show that no hardship would be entailed by the passing of such a Bill, but that it would result in the best interests of both the employer and the employé. The men are unanimously in favour of the Bill which I introduce, and in many cases there is a feeling in its favour among the farmers themselves.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adamson, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

COMPENSATION FOR MINERAL DAMAGE (SCOTLAND).
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to feus and leases for building in Scotland and to secure compensation for injury caused by mineral workings."
4.0 P.M.
The object of this Bill is to amend in one particular the law relating to feus and building leases in Scotland, so as to secure payment of compensation to feuars and lessees for damage caused to their buildings by subsidence of the ground due to mineral workings. I think I may fairly claim that the Bill possesses certain special features which entitle it to the favourable consideration of the House. In the first place, it deals with a serious and admitted hardship inflicted upon feuars and householders in mining districts, mostly men of small means, and also upon the owners of large works and upon public bodies who are under the necessity of acquiring building sites for their buildings. In the second place, it embodies the recommendations of the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases (Scotland), which reported in 1894. I might remind the House that upon that Committee there were members representative of the different sections of opinion in this House including several distinguished Scottish lawyers. The Chairman was the late Lord Kinross, and Sir Charles Pearson, afterwards Lord Pearson, also acted as a member of the

1823
Committee. In the third place, the provisions of the Bill are extremely brief and simple, and they do not place any obstacle in the way of the development of the mining industry or unfairly penalise the proprietors of minerals or land. I think that the grievance can be best and shortly stated by referring to the Report of the Select Committee:—
"The grievance felt in the Motherwell and Hamilton districts and other places, is that in consequence of all the available building land being in the hands of a small number of proprietors, persons whose businesses compel them to live and work there, are obliged to take feus on such terms as the proprietors may dictate. They complain that they should, by the terms of their feu grants, be bound not only to erect but to maintain buildings upon the surface, and yet that they should be obliged to submit to these buildings being seriously injured, and possibly destroyed, without their receiving any compensation, and further that, although this injury or destruction might occur time after time, they would, by the terms of their feu grants, be bound as often to re-erect the buildings. It appears to the Committee"
—and this is one of the findings of the Committee—
"to be established that the grievance is serious, operating hardly upon individuals as well as public bodies, and likely to create a feeling of dissatisfaction with the law which permits such things."
In a word, the situation is just this: Land in feued, or let for building purposes, and liberty is reserved to the superior to undermine and destroy the very buildings for which the land is let without payment of any compensation. I think that I can best illustrate this to the House by referring to the clause in a typical feu contract, namely, the feu contract on the Duke of Hamilton's estate in Lanarkshire, from which the House will see the extraordinary position in which the feuars find themselves. There is a reservation in all such feu contracts of the minerals to the superior, and then there is this power inserted:—
"With power to the superiors and their tacksmen or others in their name to work, win and carry away the reserved minerals, and to do everything necessary for working, winning and carrying away the same (including power to lower the surface of the said ground), and, in the event of any damage being caused to the ground hereby feud, or to the buildings erected or to be erected thereon, or to the water with which the same may be supplied, or to the drainage thereof, or in any manner of way by or through the past or future workings of the reserved minerals under or near the ground hereby feud, no claim for damage or recompense shall on such account lie or be competent to the said disponees against the superiors or their tacksmen or other persons deriving right from them."
4.0. P.M.
Then follows a clause in the same feu contract binding the feuar to erect and maintain in all time coming, buildings sufficient to secure the Feu Duty. I draw the attention of the House to these provisions in favour of the landlord. He is entitled to lower the surface of the ground, while the feuar
1824
is bound to maintain and erect in all time coming buildings sufficient to maintain the Feu Duty. It is only right to say that a number of learned judges have commented very unfavourably on this state of affairs, and I propose to quote to the House two or three sentences from the judgment of Lord Neaves, in the case of "Andrew versus Henderson"—a Coatbridge case heard in the year 1871. This was a case in which the decision of the majority of the judges was reversed by the House of Lords, but the dicta which I am about to quote set forth quite clearly the true view of the situation. Lord Neaves said:—
"A town has thus been called into being, and Colonel Buchanan and his predecessors have derived from it both importance and pecuniary profit. He takes his feuars bound to build houses, and he lays down streets to be traversed by all the inhabitants, but it is said that by the force of certain clauses as to the mineral estate, he is liable to destroy those uses of the surface, which he has not only permitted but compelled….. Now here the proprietor says, 'I bind you to build, and reserve to myself right to undermine, and you must rebuild and I may again undermine, and so on, as often as I please to undermine, and you must pay the Feu Duties notwithstanding.' I cannot imagine such a contract."
It is perfectly true that other judges have taken the view that the law is that one must stand on the terms of the contract itself. It is suggested that there is freedom of contract, but, according to the finding of the Select Committee, that is not the case in a district where, owing to a monopoly of land, it is made quite impossible for parties coming in to get land under conditions absolutely fair to them. It has also been suggested that the Feu Duty is smaller in amount under these conditions, but that is not so in Lanarkshire, where the Feu Duty is even larger in districts where there are mineral workings than in other districts. The damage which is done is of a very serious character. In the town of Motherwell, in my own Constituency, with a population of over 40,000, there have been many streets undermined and whole streets have had to be rebuilt. Many individual feuars have suffered serious loss and damage, and many owners of large works have had injury done to their works by this undermining. There is a great need for some remedy being applied. The remedy of the Bill is a simple one. The proposal is that such conditions in the future should be null and void, unless accompanied by full compensation for the damage done. In a wealthy industry like the mining industry there is, I submit, plenty of money available in the hands of the mine-owners to provide such reasonable compensation. Individual superiors in certain districts have acknow-

1825
ledged the grievance and have sought to meet the difficulty. But that is not the general case. This Bill has been introduced for many years by Members who have represented the North-Eastern Division of Lanarkshire. If we had had a Scottish Parliament we should have got the Bill through before this, for I am quite sure that, without distinction of party, Members sitting in a Scottish Parliament is bound to maintain and erect in all time would have supported such a measure and have carried it into law. I trust that the House will grant permission for the introduction of this Bill, and that some progress may be made with it, in order that the grievance may be dealt with.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Duncan Millar, Sir William Beale, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Adamson. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th April, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, That this House do meet Tomorrow at Twelve of the clock.—[Mr. Harcourt.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  Although this Bill bears its meaning on its face and in its few Clauses, I think the House may reasonably expect that I should give a very brief description of what its intentions and methods are. It is desired to secure a loan of £3,000,000 sterling to three Protectorates on the East Coast of Africa, the Protectorates of Nyasaland, the East African Protectorate, and the Protectorate of Uganda. As will be seen from the provisions of the Bill, arrangements are made for the repayment of these loans, both as to capital and interest, by the Protectorates themselves, at no cost at any time to the British tax-
  1826
  payer. The trade and financial position of these Protectorates has been steadily improving during the last few years. No Grant-in-Aid is now asked from this country, either for Nyasaland or for the East African Protectorate, and the Grant-in-Aid which appears in our Estimates for the current financial year for Uganda is only £10,000, as against a Grant-in-Aid of £35,000 last year, and a very much larger sum in the few preceding years. There will be, I believe, an even greater expansion of trade in these Protectorates if the transport facilities which they at present possess can be immediately increased. The fact is, that production in these countries has altogether unexpectedly outstripped the carrying capacity of the countries. There is naturally a great congestion, both on the railways and lakes and at their seaports, which very naturally leads to complaint—justifiable complaint from those who have to deal with the production. If goods cannot get to the coast there is a grave danger that in the immediate future the cultivation of many articles may cease. Coffee, cotton, tobacco, and other things now being produced there, will have a serious set-back, and if progress is imperilled and the export of these articles of consumption interfered with, the result may be that these Protectorates may again become a charge on the Treasury, and therefore on the British taxpayer.
  We therefore, to put it at its lowest, have a direct interest in facilitating the provision of funds for further development. These Protectorates are not yet in a position to raise loans on their own account in the open market, and I think it is not unreasonable that we in this country should help, not with our cash but with our credit. The Colonial Loans Act, 1899, which was passed by the Government represented by hon. Members opposite, seems to be a convenient precedent for this purpose. The allocation of this loan to the three Protectorates is stated in the Schedule of the Bill. I do not, however, want to tie myself in detail to the exact amount of allocation within each Protectorate for the specific work to which it is to be applied, but I think the House will expect me to give a general idea of the objects to which this money is to be applied. In Nyasaland, the money will be spent on roads or railways, or both; in Uganda, the money will be devoted to roads and a railway from Kampala to Mityana. Mityana is to the west towards the Congo frontier, near Lake Isolt. In the East

  1827
  Africa Protectorate the money will be spent upon harbour works at Kilindini, wharves, roads, bridges, and relaying the railway with heavier rails, if possible, up to Magadi Junction—though this Bill has nothing to do with the Magadi Railway, and none of these loans are devoted to that railway. There is also provision for additional rolling stock for the Uganda Railway, and additional steamers for the lake fleet on Lake Nyanza. Time is the essence of the assistance which we desire to give to these Protectorates. Until I have got Parliamentary authority, which I can only obtain by the final passage of this Bill, I cannot and I certainly shall not think of proceeding with detailed surveys, and with tenders and contracts which I hope will soon be made after the passage of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will not think it necessary to put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of the passage of the various stages of this Bill, because perhaps it is not always understood by those who live in more equable climates that a few weeks or months delay here may mean the loss of a whole season to those Protectorates for the work we wish to carry out. I feel convinced I can commend this scheme to the House as one that will be of advantage to the Protectorates and to the settlers, as being sound in its finance, and as one which will entail no cost at all on the British taxpayer. On these grounds I hope the House will proceed with the Second Reading.
  Sir G. PARKER: I am sure we all feel that the Colonial Secretary has had a story to tell which is an agreeable one to the House of Commons. I do not rise to oppose this Bill, or indeed to criticise it, because what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is what has been done in the past with good effect. I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has been enabled to assure us that Grants-in-Aid have practically become a thing of the past in these Protectorates, and that the only Protectorate which does not pay its way is Uganda. Many of us in this House some years ago took a good deal of trouble to explain to the Members, who were critical of our colonising efforts, the possibilities that lay before these territories, and what an advantage the development of the territories would be to the Empire at large. I am glad to think that the criticism which was delivered in those days was not acute enough or bitter enough to cause any ill-feeling to remain in
  1828
  the minds of those who opposed our policy then. I am glad to be able to bear testimony to the fact that both Governments which have been in power since I have been in this Parliament have acted, as I think, with great discretion and prudence, and with not undue generosity, but with a reasonable amount of encouragement, in assisting the settlers there to develop those territories. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, though I do not know whether he would be able to reply except by leave of the House, what are the conditions in connection with repayment, or is it expected that this loan will voluntarily, and within a very short time, be assumed completely, and paid off by the Protectorate without establishing any direct condition now. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Probably a good many questions will be put to me in the course of the Debate, and possibly I shall be able to give the information later on, if it is not contrary to the Rules of the House.
  Sir G. PARKER: It was mainly for fear that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to make a further statement that I put the question now. There is, however, a question I would raise, which is one of very great importance in connection with the Bill. The House may not be aware, though certainly some Members are aware, and the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, fully aware, that in 1904 there was set apart by agreement certain reserves for the Masai tribe. This, it will be seen, does affect the granting of this loan today. There were two reserves set apart for the Masai, but it was subsequently found it would be better to have one reserve for them, and it was agreed that there should be one reserve. But there were people who regarded the change as unwise, and who considered that they had a grievance, and appealed against this agreement, with the result that the High Court at Nairobi decided that they had no case, and could not be dealt with in that Court, because the Protectorate of British East Africa, as well as the Protectorates of Nyasaland and Uganda and Bechuanaland are not British territories but foreign territories. Our position is that we have made agreements with foreign sovereignties or potentates, that is, headmen or chiefs of native tribes, that we shall go in there, establish law and order, protect foreigners passing to and fro and assume the responsibilities of good

  1829
  government. But we do not possess the territory. We have only that authority given by agreement with headmen or chiefs. That is fully established by the fact that our authority is established under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. The East Africa Order in Council of 1902 states:—
  "Whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, Usage, stipulation and other lawful means, Her Majesty the Queen has jurisdiction within divers foreign countries, and it is expedient to consolidate the Acts relating to the exercise of Her Majesty's jurisdiction within Her Dominions—"
  We all ought to have known this. I have no doubt that most people did know it. I myself did not know that that was the exact position of these Protectorates. I think it expedient now to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that in becoming responsible for government there, and in using the credit of British taxpayers for the assistance of the Governments of these Protectorates, we are sufficiently secured in our position? Undoubtedly we all assume that the power of British armaments could achieve a conquest there, but I, for one, am quite unable to understand why it is that we have not formally declared our sovereignty there, or formally annexed that territory by declaration of conquest, peaceful, of course, but still by declaration by conquest. I think it will strike the British public as an extraordinary situation that we have got a Legislature in British East Africa and an Executive, which is a Legislature and an Executive in a foreign country and in a foreign territory, where our authority only exists by agreement with the headmen of tribes, the subjects of which headmen are now making complaints and making appeals to the Courts against agreements made between their headmen and our Government. The situation is this: That the grievances can only be settled through diplomatic channels. The diplomatic channels which exist between the Masai tribe and this great Government are quite plain to everybody. A few headmen, unexperienced in anything that is European, except what they have been taught since we have taken possession of the country, would stand a poor chance, except by stubborn resistance to any proposal that was made, of achieving anything in the way of success in their appeals through diplomatic channels. It would seem to me that a native subject of Uganda or British East Africa ought to have an appeal to someone else rather than the Government, which is securing vast advantage from that treaty or agreement.
  1830
  Therefore I say that before we grant this money we ought to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as to what our exact position is, because I regard it as an extremely serious thing, although it may not practically be so, from the standpoint of the citizens, native and otherwise, of those countries that they cannot through the usual channels, that is, the Courts, secure justice in the case of an agreement that has been come to between their potentates or sovereigns and the sovereignty of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this House might naturally be disturbed by the present situation. I would like, if I might, to make another statement to the House concerning it. We have got a Crown Colony Government in Nyasaland, which Crown Colony Government is pursuing the usual course of a Colonial Government in a foreign territory, for Nyasaland, British East Africa, Uganda and Bechuanaland are all upon the same basis. We have been in Bechuanaland a great many years. I cannot, of course, enter into that, but I raise this question because there are undoubtedly reasons which, so far, are hidden from us, not purposely, I know, but hidden—I hope not purposely, although an hon. Member opposite seems to think they are hidden purposely. The responsibility does not rest upon this Government; it rests upon the Government which preceded it; it rests upon this country, which has had responsibility there since these territories were occupied after agreement. The system, if it is not irregular and unconstitutional, is one which seems to me to call for reconsideration, if for no other reason than that justice cannot be got from the Courts of these Protectorates, because the position of these Protectorates is that of foreign territories where we, by agreement, have powers to administer them.
  Think of the millions of capital that have been invested in these Protectorates; think of the British credit that has been involved, and think of the possibility of any difficulty arising in the future which might cause this Government very considerable trouble. It is quite possible that the question might be raised by a foreign country. It seems to me quite possible for another country to enter into agreements with the native tribes now in what we call our territories, agreements which would not affect perhaps our rights as they exist, but might interfere very seriously with the further exercise of the

  1831
  rights we have attained and which we desire to attain. In these circumstances, I have put this case because I think it ought to be put, before we become responsible for three millions of money in these Protectorates, which are doing us every credit, where the settlers are performing, as I think, prodigies of enterprise, and where, I venture to say there is more confidence, on the whole, in the future of those territories occupied by active settlers than in almost any other portion of the King's Dominions. Everyone who has been to East Africa and Uganda has come back with one story, that here are territories which, like Rhodesia, are going to be the most valuable under the Crown, suitable for the growing of all kinds of produce necessary to the peoples of those countries and to the people of this country, with splendid climate, with excellent waterways, and a climate where British people can live, not like North Queensland, not like other portions of the British Dominions, where they cannot work and thrive commercially, industrially, and agriculturally. In view of all these circumstances, I think we ought to have the slate quite clean, that we ought to know exactly where we are, that the position we occupy should be clearly defined, and that the rights of the people within those territories should be made regular by our assumption of an unchallenged sovereignty by annexation of those territories.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill under consideration. Having travelled through British East Africa and Uganda a little more than two years ago, I was able to gather on the spot some knowledge of the possibilities of those two regions. I may say that the Uganda Railway—and my experience has been somewhat extensive—is perhaps unique in the whole world. I question whether there is any railway which traverses country so absolutely varied in character. Starting with the sea coast in purely tropical country, it passes gradually to a higher and yet higher level, until it reaches the great tableland, and attains at some points an elevation of from 8,000 to 9,000 feet above the sea level. I was surprised to find that that huge tableland at this elevation was already largely occupied by the very best kind of British settlers. The great Uganda Railway, in its initial stages, was a disappointing undertaking because of the immensely
  1832
  larger sum it cost to construct than was at first estimated.
  The Uganda Railway is really the property of the British taxpayer. There has been expended upon it no less than £7,000,000, and we are paying out of the pocket of the British taxpayer £139,000 a year in redemption of debt. In 1925, however, that railway becomes, free of debt, the absolute property of the British taxpayer, and as a revenue-producing asset it will prove a most valuable undertaking. In 1912 the net earnings of the railway reached 2 per cent. I have not been able to refer to what the earnings were in 1913, but I have no doubt they will show an improvement. A mistake was made in building it a narrow gauge railway. It would have been much better if, in the first instance, it had been a wider gauge, able to cope with a larger amount of traffic, and laid with rails of a heavier weight. Already the Government tell us it is necessary to relay the railway with heavier rails. I have no doubt that before a generation has passed it will be necessary to have a double line of rails for a very great part of the distance across British East Africa. That country has enormous possibilities. We have a new undertaking to tap the soda deposits of the Magadi Lake. That line joins the Uganda Railway, and has been built at a very considerable cost as a private undertaking. When it is completed, and when it is possible to bring these deposits to market, it will increase the traffic over that portion of the Uganda Railway from where it joins it to the port of shipment at Kilindini enormously. There were, when I was there amongst the agriculturists, great complaints as to the delay that took place in bringing up what they had to import and in conveying what they had to send away.
  The secret of success in the opening up of new countries like this lies in building feeder lines to increase the traffic of the main trunk line. We know what a bold courageous policy of railway building has done for the great Dominion of Canada. It has also done a great deal for Australia, and for New Zealand, and, indeed, in the opening up of all great countries the one most potent agency that is most productive of beneficial results to the trade and commerce and prosperity of those countries is a bold policy of railway construction. In Uganda I traversed the first railway that has been built there, and went along fifty miles of railway on a railway truck a few weeks before it was opened to traffic, and soon after there came the news that the

  1833
  amount of traffic conveyed across that new railway was simply astounding. Now we are told that part of the Grant to Uganda is to be expended in roadmaking and in railway construction. All this means that the development and opening up of Uganda will bring extra traffic across the Uganda Railway, and if, added to what is now contemplated, we have further branch lines constructed through fertile districts in British East Africa, connected with the Uganda main line, there is no doubt whatever that that Uganda Railway, which at first seemed so disappointing by reason of the enormous amount that it cost to the taxpayers of this country, will not only prove of incalculable value in promoting the development and the prosperity of that country, but will be an excellent financial undertaking for the British taxpayer. There is no question as to the possibilities of these countries, and I only wish that all Members of this House had had the opportunities which I and some other Members have had of seeing for themselves on the spot the character of those countries and the character of the people living in them. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who referred to the Masai tribes speaks from personal knowledge of what a splendid race they are. Their ownership of cattle is simply enormous. Their average wealth is much greater than the average wealth of the people of this country, because their flocks and herds are so enormous that divided amongst them, they place them in a position of being a very well-to-do population. Of course, the smallness of their numbers adds some force to the easiness of their circumstances.
  I was not quite able to follow my hon. Friend in his reference to the desirability of the Imperial Government assuming definitely the control and the ownership of these countries. I am certain that in any step of that sort we are bound to have due regard to the nature of the arrangements which have been made in the name of the British Government with the head men of these different tribes, and I should be sorry indeed to see arbitrary steps of that kind taken which were not desired and fully acquiesced in by the head men of the tribe who will be dealt with under any such scheme. I have no doubt my hon. Friend will fully share my views as to justice in every respect being done to these tribes, whom, to a large degree, we have undertaken to control, and whose countries, after all, we do, as a matter of fact,
  1834
  actually govern. I congratulate the Government on this new enterprising departure, because to have over £3,000,000 raised for the benefit of these three Protectorates at the small interest of 2¾ per cent. is a step in the right direction. It does not and cannot involve this country in any financial responsibility, but will, indeed, create an enormous outlet for many of the products, manufactured and otherwise, of this country, and will promote, in return, imports to this country from these various Protectorates. It must not be forgotten, of course, that this £1,855,000 to be spent in British East Africa will to some extent interfere with the repayment of the £7,000,000, the original cost of the Uganda Railway, but the increase of traffic promoted by the provision of this rolling stock and by the improvement of the line and otherwise, will, I am convinced, be so great that it makes this expenditure most profitable and in the best interests, not only of Uganda and British East Africa, but also of this country and also a sound financial investment.
  Earl WINTERTON: As I was in this Protectorate last October, and am probably the last Member of the House to have been there, I should like to say a word in support of the Bill. I should like to press upon the Colonial Secretary, with all the emphasis in my power, the need there is for spending a larger amount of this sum which is proposed to be voted upon improving the Uganda Railway. There are a great many other things which are very important—the provision of good roads and of branch lines—but the thing of immediate importance is the provision of more rolling stock, better engines, and stronger rails. I met several cotton growers in Nairobi, and other people, who were really afraid that their business would come to an end unless something was done to deal with the tremendous congestion which exists on the railway now. It is also necessary to have more ships on the lake, and to have the terminus at Kilindini improved. At present there is no wharfage. It is all done by lighterage, which is very expensive. The provision of wharves in the harbour would really not be a very serious matter. A sum of money was granted for this purpose which has never been spent upon wharfage. I asked one or two people, including an official, and they were unable to tell me what had exactly become of the money. The promise of wharfage accommodation has been made for some years, but it has not

  1835
  yet been carried out. I also entirely support the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walton), and hope there will also be these feeder lines. It is most necessary to have a continuation of the line to Forthall. At present the line is being constructed there, and it is most necessary to continue it to the Uashin Gishu plateau.
  There is one matter to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the allocation of the money if this Bill is passed—the question whether or not the tourist traffic and accommodation could not be greatly improved. I have had the almost unique advantage of visiting Abyssinia, Portuguese East Africa, German East Africa, and Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and I have watched with some interest in all these countries the attempts made to encourage tourists to come there. I am bound to say that British East Africa is greatly behind the Soudan in the way of the comforts it offers on the railway to tourists. The opportunities which it offers to the tourist for shooting game are unexampled, but I would point out that the Soudan Government has been much more successful than the British East Africa Government in providing facilities for tourists. The Government of the Soudan is not a foreign Government. It is a mixed Government —partly Egyptian and partly foreign—and both as regards trains and steamers the accommodation is very much better there than in East Africa. I believe the time is rapidly coming when the revenues of East Africa will be materially increased by tourist traffic if a proper effort is made to get that traffic. At present it is possible to go from Mombasa to Khartoum and right through to Cairo with comparatively little discomfort. In the Soudan there are restaurant cars now, but on the East African Railroad there are no sleeping cars and no restaurant cars, and the food which can be obtained at the stations is of a very curious description. It is cooked entirely by coolies from India, and the time allowed is somewhat limited. The service altogether in that country is not up to the standard in the Soudan or in other parts of Africa.
  Hon. Members may be disposed to smile at this reference to tourist traffic, but I would point out that the revenues come very largely from tourists who go there game shooting. Whether they are an unmixed blessing in the country, I am not prepared to say. I know that in Rhodesia
  1836
  they have had considerable effect in upsetting local conditions as to labour. Men with large sums of money at their disposal unsettle the farmers by offering wages to natives far beyond what any farmer can afford to pay. I would not mind the high wages they receive, but very often their treatment of the natives leaves a great deal to be desired. These men are being encouraged to go there, and it is just as well to give them more attractions than rival Dependencies and Colonies. One thing I should like to refer to in this connection is the tremendous effort that is being made to secure a large portion of the lake traffic in Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has drawn attention to the great importance to Uganda of the lake traffic. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Walton) truly said that the possibilities of the country on the shores of the lake, of British East Africa, and of the Belgian Congo, which abuts on the lake, are limitless. At present we not only secure our own traffic, but we secure a large amount of the traffic from the Dependencies of other States. But recently the German Government have extended their railway in German South-West Africa, and they are making superhuman efforts to get that traffic. They have already taken away a great deal of our traffic. I do not think that anybody who has not been in Africa realises the big fight that is going on there. The value of Uganda Railway stock will in twenty years be as great as Canadian Pacific Railway stock is to-day. I believe there is as great a possibility for the Uganda Railway as there was for the Canadian Pacific Railway. I personally do not believe that the sum which the Government have asked for in this Bill is anything like sufficient, and I hope it will be possible to get a greater sum in future years.
  I am glad to observe that the old attitude which some hon. Members belonging to certain parties in this House used to take up towards any proposal to vote money for our Colonies and Dependencies seems to be to some extent disappearing. In the old days a proposal to vote a single penny to any Colony or Dependency was met with an outburst by hon. Members below the Gangway, but I am glad to see that they are conspicuous by their absence to-day. I hope that, in the case of British East Africa, what has taken place in connection with the Debates on this question may be regarded as evidence of a better feeling on the part of this House towards

  1837
  that country. I do not think that the value of the investment can be gainsaid, but I think the gain which is possible will be largely lost unless an adequate sum is spent at the present time. We see from the newspapers that subscriptions are invited for an Austrian loan of £16,000,000, which sum I have not the slightest doubt will be granted, and not only so, but it will be over-subscribed. When we realise how easy it is for foreign countries to come here and get loans for their potentialities, it is not a great thing for this House to vote £3,000,000 for the development of our Dependencies. That brings me to another part of the argument. The House must realise that in the case of East Africa the Imperial Government and the local Government, acting under the Imperial Government—the local Government get very much tied by the Imperial Government—have to a great extent prevented private enterprise in regard to the progress and development of the country. I will explain what I
  mean. It is practically impossible, for example, for a railway in that country to be built by private enterprise. I was told of a certain group of financiers who approached the Government with the view to budding a private railway, and they were informed that it was not possible, because it might injure the Uganda Railway. It is true that a railway has been built for Magadi soda deposits, but that is a comparatively small affair.
  There are vast timber ranges in British East Africa, the value of which it is hardly possible to estimate. They are very considerable in extent and value, and the timber rights have been acquired by certain concessionaires who have attempted to work the industry, but that have not, so far, succeeded, because it is said that the development of that should be left in the hands of the Imperial Government. Therefore, this House ought not to adopt what would be a dog-in-the-manger policy in this matter. It must give money for the purposes of development or throw the country open to private enterprise, just in the same way as the Dominion of Canada was thrown open. An hon. Friend who has taken an interest in Uganda has informed me that if East Africa was thrown open to-morrow, as Canada has been thrown open, he himself would be ready to invest a large sum of money in that country. I think, on the whole, that the form of development which successive Imperial Governments has gone
  1838
  in for in East Africa is better than the Canadian system. It is better that the country should be largely developed in the first place by State aid, but you cannot have the two things. It is not fair to have the two things, for it seems to me that the country must be developed either by private enterprise or by money voted in this House. Canada was also developed at first by State aid. I hope that the House will grant this money, and that the Bill will pass rapidly through its various stages.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: There are only two points in the observations of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) to which I wish to take some objection. I wish to refer first to the disparaging manner in which he spoke in referring to the money which has been spent by the Magadi Soda Company.
  Earl WINTERTON: I did not wish to say anything disparaging. I said it was a comparatively small railway. It is only seven miles long. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is 100 miles long."]
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. C. WASON: The other point the Noble Lord referred to was the absence of adequate accommodation on the railways and steamers for tourists. That has not been my experience, and I have travelled, perhaps, as much in these territories as the Noble Lord. I have found the accommodation extremely comfortable. There is no comparison between East Africa and the Soudan as regards natural features. In the case of East Africa there are great attractions and possibilities, and we hope —I believe the hope is well founded—that that country will have a large settlement of British colonists. You cannot have colonists and shooting also. The two things are opposed to each other. I am certain that anyone who goes to East Africa to settle will receive every consideration and be protected as far as possible. One does not wish to say anything against tourist traffic, but the shooting of big game is a thing which I cannot appreciate, and I strongly deprecate it. It is one of the most magnificent sights in the world to see giraffes and warthogs and large quantities of all sorts of game careering round, and I must confess that I cannot appreciate the frame of mind which makes men use explosive bullets to tear the animals to pieces. That is not a kind of sport of which I approve. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Walton) has dealt very fully with the subject of Uganda, I trust

  1839
  that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Colonial Office will endeavour to ascertain if it is possible in some way or other to do something towards improving the Sessi Islands in the Lake. They are by far and away the most fertile portion of Uganda which we have at the present moment. I saw the Lake and its islands many years ago, when there were many people, now there is not a human being to be seen, and the state of things presents a striking contrast. I believe this fertile country only wants a little care and attention for its proper development. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness are absolutely against the possibility of any settlement of any sort there. I do not myself hold that view at all. I think a good deal might be done in the way of encouraging the settlement of a certain class. It is quite clear that you cannot have a native settlement, but I am sure Italians, of whom there are many, could make use of the country in some form or other. For us to sit down and allow all these magnificent islands to remain in a state of neglect is a policy which, I am sure, this country would not assent to. I am extremely glad that this Bill has been brought forward. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the matter he will find that some years ago, in the time of his predecessor, there was suggested a somewhat similar scheme that this country should be in a position to borrow money for its development. Without that any country must stagnate.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Like the hon. Member for Horsham and the hon. Member for Barnsley, I, as one who has travelled through British East Africa, German East Africa, and Uganda, and spent a considerable time in these countries endeavouring to ascertain their resources and develop progress there, most heartily desire to support the proposal brought forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I hope that it will be a principle of British policy to give Government assistance to a larger extent and in a more liberal measure than has been done in the past to those countries that have definitely passed the experimental stage, and have to-day placed themselves in a position to rest on a foundation of proved capacity and an established status. In spite of the most considerable difficulties that confronted these
  1840
  early settlers in East Africa, they are today, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, in the happy position of being able to pay their way without any assistance of Grants-in-Aid from the Imperial Government. They have had to fight against all the endemic tropical diseases that confronted them, and made it so difficult to raise cattle, pigs, and sheep in the country —those diseases so well known that have swept all over the country, such as rinder-pest, East Coast fever, swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease, and malarial fever. Hampered by lack of transport, and by many administrative restrictions, they are and have been able to battle with the situation, and are preparing a most prosperous future for that country. Every year the country is becoming more and more valuable as a cotton-growing area. The estimated crops of cotton for the year 1914 represent 55,000 bales, or two and a half times as much as the amount produced in the year 1912; and as one bale of cotton gives raw material for a whole year's work for one cotton operative in Lancashire, the effect has been that that country is contributing at the present moment to the maintenance of 55,000 cotton operatives in Lancashire. Then we find that additional facilities have been already provided which will enable the output to be raised in the coming year to 75,000 bales.
  This is not the only means by which they have been able to contribute beneficially to this country. The natives are growing more prosperous, and, as they grow more prosperous, their purchasing power increases, which show itself again in the increase of their imports. For instance, the imports of cotton manufactured goods have increased last year by 57 per cent. In other respects also valuable products will be produced that are most necessary for our manufactures in this country. Take sisal, for instance. We are told that the sisal of British East Africa is to-day of superior quality to any fibre in the whole world. I was talking to one of the biggest hemp manufacturers and he told me that it was better than anything in the market, more particularly for the production of binder twine. Then, if you take the wattle industry, the bark of the wattle is superior to that of the best quality wattle in the market. Turning to coffee, we find that during the nine months ending September 284 tons were exported, and rubber to the value of £31,960 was produced. There are six estates on which no less than 800,000 trees are growing at the

  1841
  present moment. The cattle industry is also developing rapidly, and at the cattle sales by auction no fewer than 10,000 head of cattle were disposed of during the year. Most of these were bought by the farmers themselves. But in order that these resources may be developed to the fullest possible extent transport facilities must be increased, and the Government are well advised to give money for these and kindred concerns.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out to the House to-day, the Kilindini Harbour and railway terminus must be considerably extended, and deep-water wharves must be provided for the purpose of ocean-going steamers. The steamship companies are doing their part. The Union-Castle Company have been building quite recently two steamers of 11,000 tons capacity, but increased facilities should be offered to the settlers of British East Africa to dispose of their products, so that agriculture may be developed and trade stimulated in that country. I notice with satisfaction that the Government have sent out an expert to British East Africa to report on the wharves of Kilindini Harbour, where there is great congestion. I understand that something approximating to £750,000 will have to be spent for the purpose of relieving that congestion. I also notice with great satisfaction that the metals are to be relaid on the railway in British East Africa, and that heavier metals and heavier rolling stock are to be provided. There are over two million acres of forest land untouched at the present moment and capable of development. South Africa imports no less than 1,500,000 tons of timber every year. Here is a method of producing an exchange by sending timber to South Africa and getting coal in return. Then there are 2,000,000 acres of land which have been allotted in British East Africa and which are at prohibitive distances from the railway centres, and a sum of £250,000 has to be spent on this land before the settlers can get their rights in the tenure, as, owing to the prohibitive distance, the land cannot be developed at present to its fullest extent.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not refer in detail as to how the money was to be spent, except that he referred to Kilindini, and the relaying of part of the lines. I would like to know whether this sum is to include an extension of the railway towards the Lake Albert district and to the upper regions there, to bring us into
  1842
  closer touch with the whole Congo development. I desire also to say a word for the claims of the settlers of the Wasin Gishu plateau. Hon. Members will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he was Secretary for the Colonies, offered this whole territory to the Zionists. They sent out a commission to report on it, and they refused the offer of the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that the country was not suitable for their needs in consequenre of the wild animals that infested the country—for this particular species of men were unlike the forerunner Daniel, not facing the lions in their den. Every acre available in that country has to-day been taken up by settlers, and to illustrate the type of men whom they comprise, I may mention an incident which is part of my own personal experience. It was at a point somewhere near Lake Nivaisha, where I met a party of trekkers composed of colonists. It was about six o'clock in the evening at the time when the day suddenly sinks into pitch darkness. There they were with their families and household goods and flocks of cattle and sheep and they were constructing a booma to prevent the wild animals from disturbing them during the night. I spoke to these men and found that they had come without any maps or any guides through the Sotik country and the Mau Forest to their destination; and it is men with these Colonial instincts who are filling the Wasin Gishu plateau, and they are to-day remaining in this country and making it the abiding home. These are the people who are coming forward and claiming the help of the Government to assist them in building a railway, and they are even prepared out of their scanty means to come forward and give a substantial guarantee if the Government will come forward to assist them in building a line of railway to give access to this country, which at certain times of the year is almost inaccessible. When I was going there I was for six days continually passing through swamps up to my thighs and sometimes up to my neck in water.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is that where our money is to go?
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Yes, a country so full of promise, and one of the best districts of the whole of British East Africa. The very fact that every acre has been taken up is sufficient proof of its possibilities. In

  1843
  dealing with the development of these particular countries it is important to see how relatively little we are doing compared With what other countries are doing. If you take the case of Rhodesia, which is a commercial enterprise, they have no less than 2,400 miles of railway there to enable the country to be opened up. Our line in British East Africa, which was only built for strategical purposes to put down slavery and control the sources of the Nile, is only 584 miles of trunk line. Let us compare that with what our neighbours in German East Africa have been doing. My hon. Fried referred to the necessity of our pushing ahead, because the Germans have been so very active in trying to get to Victoria Nyanza and to tap, as far as they can, the trade coming from the north and from the Congo. This year a great railway in German East Africa, from Daresselam to Tanganyika is to be opened, and the extent of this line is 800 miles. On this line they have spent £6,000,000. They have now decided on building a branch line from Tobora to connect Victoria Nyanza. They are spending £2,000,000 on this particular line that is going to tap the Victoria Nyanza and open up the great plain in the south-east of the country. These are some indications of the policy which German East Africa is pursuing. The results are seen in the enormous increase in exports from that particular country. As a result of this railway policy there are no less than 19,000,000 rubber trees planted and half ready for sapping. There are 50,000 acres of cotton under cultivation, which I admit is less than we have in Uganda, where there are 62,000 acres, but they have 50,000 acres of sisal and 75,000 of rubber. They are giving a subsidy, which we are not doing, to our steamship company of £69,000.
  The great question with this House in reference to this matter is whether we have really got security for the loan which we are undertaking. I think that we are amply covered by the resources and the development of the country to which the hon. Member for Barnsley referred. The estimated revenue of British East Africa in the coming year is £1,389,000, which exceeds by £415,000 that of last year, when the estimated expenditure was only £1,246,000. The revenue of the Uganda Railway in 1912–13 was £489,000, as compared with £360,000 in the previous year. In other words, the revenue has increased
  1844
  by 35¾ per cent., against a reduction of 22 per cent. The hon. Member for Barns-ley, referring to this enterprise, said it was producing 2.5 per cent. If he will refer to the figures he will find that during the present year this railway has returned 3.52 per cent. on the capital outlay, which really makes it a sound commercial undertaking. What seems to me a most material point is the increase of the white population in that country. It has increased by no less than 20 per cent. each year during the last three successive years. A point which I now wish to urge perhaps will touch with some measure of concern Members of this House, as it certainly will the population in East Africa: The point is that this increasing white population in British East Africa has no direct elective representation upon the body which will have to spend the loan.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: What is the number of whites?
  Mr. GOLDMAN: It is about 6,000; I speak under correction. It is a matter of vital importance to the House of Commons to secure, when it sanctions this loan, that the money shall be spent to the best advantage of the general body of white settlers, and the House will, indeed, be relieved if the Secretary of State will give some assurance upon the point that this increasing white population shall have some representation on the body which will have the spending of this money. It would be a serious objection if it left the whole control of the expenditure of this money in the hands of a purely official and nominated Chamber. The credit of the whole white population of British East Africa is involved in this question, and I think that you can only get the best results for it if it has some representation on an elective basis to take the place of the existing system. The white population do not ask for a majority representation at all; they are content to have a minority representation; and just as we in the House of Commons are anxious, where public money is to be spent, that there should be some assurance that there will be some elective clement on the body that has the spending of it, so I hope that many Members will agree with me that there ought to be some element of representation of the white population on the body which has the spending of this loan, and I believe that in that case it would be spent to advantage. I would like to impress on the Secretary of State for the Colonies that it would be well

  1845
  if he could see his way to make some adjustment in regard to this particular question; it would remove the only contested point in regard to this particular loan, and it would give emphasis to the inherent element which supports this Bill, that of a measure of justice which has been too long delayed. I believe that if the Secretary of State can see his way by some means of bringing the settlers into closer touch and co-operation with the Administration of the country, it will redound to the advantage of the future development of British East Africa and Uganda, among the most promising provinces of the British Empire.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I should like to join in the song of triumph of the securing of this three millions of money, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to keep a close eye upon its expenditure, in order to see that, so far as possible, it is used, not for the exploitation of private landed interests, but for the development of the whole country, and especially of those areas which will form security for the loan. I rose not so much for the purpose of saying that as to invite the right hon. Gentleman to recognise what I think is even more essential in countries like British East Africa, namely, that it is absolutely necessary, if they are to be made habitable for both black and white people, that they should be freed from diseases brought by game and the tsetse fly. The construction of the Panama Canal was made possible because scientists dealt with diseases in that part of the world, and got rid of the mosquito. And so it must be with these territories in East Africa. These diseases spread over large areas, rendering them practically uninhabitable, and where there are game and tsetse fly it is practically impossible to keep domestic stock. I hope, therefore, that a large amount of this money will be made available for the extinction of disease and for the protection of both black and white.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not know that this is a disputed proposition among scientists at the present moment.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: It is not disputed that where the tsetse fly and game exist in a territory the keeping of domestic stock is not possible.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The point in dispute as to game bringing the tsetse fly.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: That is quite so, but what I say is that while game and the tsetse fly exist, domestic stock cannot be kept at all, and cattle, horses, dogs, sheep, and other domestic animals are killed off in the course of a month or two. A great deal will have to be done to clear these large areas of disease, and I trust that this money will be spent in such a way as to produce the best results. The right hon. Gentleman has already taken great interest in this matter, and has set up a Committee of Experts to advise him. Their Report is now ready for his consideration, and I hope, when it is placed before him, that he will see his way to taking prompt and drastic action in order to prepare those areas for settlement, and for spending the money which is to be placed at their disposal in the most advantageous manner possible.
  Sir J. D. REES: It has been suggested in the course of the discussion that there is some doubt about the Treasury advancing the money to the Protectorates on the ground that there is some flaw in the title. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend suggested this by introducing to-day the case of the Masai, which I had already raised on a previous occasion and which does not appear to me to be altogether relevant to this Loan Bill. I am rather sorry he suggested any flaw in our title. There is no such fear; it is a purely technical matter. We are the de facto owners of these Protectorates just as much as we are owners of any other part of the British Empire. As regards the security for full repayment of the money, there is not the shadow of a suspicion of doubt, and, as it is most desirable that this money should be provided, I hope that hon. Members will put that doubt entirely out of their minds. My hon. Friend beside me made a very strong point of the necessity of representation on the body which will have the spending of this money. I confess I am not a strong supporter of representation anywhere in Africa. I think we have a good deal too much of that form of Government, and the principle has not proved a success when transplanted to those countries. If there were time, it would give me great pleasure to have followed my hon. Friend and others in dwelling on the great resources of Nyasaland. I am sure that Protectorate grows most magnificent cotton, some of the very best cotton in the British Empire. It is perfectly clear that I am justified, and, indeed, more than

  1847
  justified, in saying a word or two about the particular portion of this Grant which is to be dedicated to Nyasaland. I take it that the greater part of this sum will be devoted to making a railway northwards from Blantyre to the south of Lake Nyasa. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will think it proper to indicate the route which the railway would take—whether, for instance, it is proposed that it should branch off to the left, leaving Lake Nyasa to the east, and going towards Port Jameson and the Trunk Railway running due north and south through Africa, or whether it is proposed to go straight to the lake. Any information on that subject would be most acceptable to all those who are interested in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech stated that part of the money was to be devoted to dealing with trade transport congestion at various points. I was not quite clear as to what he said upon that point in connection with Lake Nyasa.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I never said anything about Lake Nyasa.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am glad to understand that; I thought the right hon. Gentleman referred to it.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I was referring to Nyanza.
  Sir J. D. REES: I leave that point, for I may have had some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman, but, perhaps he may be able to give the House some little information as to the prolongation of the railway north of Blantyre. At the present moment the existing railway in Nyasaland is being extended down to the Zambesi, and there is also a project for making a line from Beira to the Zambesi, which will make a connection with the quite tolerable port of Beira right up to the south of Lake Nyasa. The case is somewhat complicated by the Portuguese at present constructng a line from Quillamaine towards the Zambesi, meeting at a point at which the other extension from Beira concentrates upon that river. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman about this he was kind enough to give me information which was of a great deal of interest to myself and my Friends, and, indeed, to the House of Commons. If he can tell us anything more about this railway scheme it would be very acceptable to many who are working in Nyasaland for the develop-
  1848
  ment of that country, and I think cannot fail to assist those who, without the help of the Government, are trying to bring its exceedingly great manifold potentialities into actual fruition. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the provision of railway stock for the Uganda Railway, and said it was very necessary. I was extremely glad to hear him say so, and I do not know of any measure which he could take which would be more important to the interests of East Africa. He said, if I understood him correctly, that the present Grant-in-Aid to Uganda was only some £10,000.
  Mr. HARCOURT: During the current financial year.
  Sir J. D. REES: That is a very small figure, and surely it must leave the railway out of account. It cannot be that the charge upon this country, including the railway, is any such figure, and therefore I hope he will make it clear in case there may be other Members who find some difficulty in understanding the matter. I was at great pains during several Sessions to get at the real cost of the Uganda Railway, not that I offered any objection, as, on the contrary, I think it is a great and magnificent enterprise, worthy of the British Empire, and most beneficial to the countries concerned. I should like to know what is the real account between the Treasury and Uganda, and whether the £10,000 can really be said in any way to measure that amount, as I think it cannot be so. I believe firmly in spending money upon communications in Nyasaland, East Africa, and Uganda. That expenditure will, as the right hon. Gentleman himself thought, in the end save the British taxpayer. It is remunerative and most valuable expenditure. I am myself interested in one of those three, Nyasaland, in which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, private enterprise has already constructed some 180 miles of railway, and therefore, being as it is a community which helps itself, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help it. I should like, in conclusion to say that whatever view I may take of the right hon. Gentleman's politics in some respects, in his action at the Colonial Office in regard to these Protectorates he has shown a very earnest desire to promote business in those Protectorates, to increase communications, and to take steps such as I think both sides of the House must be equally anxious to applaud and to approve. I

  1849
  shall be grateful to him if he will look into the remarks I have made about the railways, remarks which I think he will allow have not been actuated by any sort of contentious spirit, but are merely made in order to obtain such information as I think would be acceptable and useful in all quarters of the House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The right hon. Gentleman, rather wisely perhaps, has brought forward this Bill, with its proposal for expenditure, at the fag-end of the Session, when it will be least likely to be open to criticism. The criticism which fell from hon. Members opposite, or several of them, suggested to me that they had interests in that country.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member before he makes charges say to whom he is referring?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Member is quite at liberty to make any explanation. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that he had interests in Nyasaland, and I do not know whether there is any objection to making such a statement.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the hon. Member has any objection to my having interests there?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Not the slightest.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not think the hon. Member ought to make a suggestion of any improper motive.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Nothing was further from my mind than suggesting any improper motive. I was going on to explain how certain people will have a very great interest in this expenditure, and how this expenditure is not in the interests of the British taxpayer, and I think I am within my rights in doing so. I have listened to the Debate and I have failed to find out of what interest it is to the British taxpayer and the people of this country that this great sum of money should be guaranteed to East Africa. I listened to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who gave us the benefit of an account of his journeyings in Africa. I gathered from his speech that his main point was his passionate appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to spend a considerable part of this sum of money in ministering to the comforts of those who go to Africa to shoot big game. I do not think it is in any way to the interests of the British taxpayer to provide for big game shooting.
  Earl WINTERTON: I said nothing of the sort, and the hon. Member should really refrain from entirely misinterpreting what was said. I never made the slightest reference to providing facilities for big game shooting. All I said was that the tourist traffic of Africa was a very valuable revenue, producing part of the income of the railway, and I suggested that if it was improved the revenue might be increased.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Member is unable to interpret his own remarks or to understand them. He asked that part of this money should be spent in giving greater facilities, and in increasing the comfort of those who went to shoot big game.
  Earl WINTERTON: I never mentioned big game.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Small game, and simply to increase the comfort of tourists.
  Mr. CROOKS: Do they go out to play golf there?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I believe that when great sums of many millions of pounds are spent afar off, we have a right to consider for whose advantage the money is to be spent. I was in South Africa some years ago when that country began to be opened up, and I have a vivid recollection of what happened there, and of the number of people who did not come to exploit the wealth of the country, but simply to get concessions in land and timber, and it seems to me to be probable that this money is to be spent in chief for that kind of people. The hon. Member for the Falmouth Division (Mr. Goldman) suggested that this money would advantage the rapidly growing white population of the country, which he said increased by 20 per cent. every year. One child in every family would do that, but what I want to know is what number does that percentage represent. The hon. Gentleman is unable to tell me with all his great knowledge of the country.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Six thousand.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: That is very small, and the country is not increasing rapidly, although the percentage may be large. To spend three millions of money for the benefit of 6,000 white people seems to me to be a very absurd proposition. At any rate, we have the right to suggest that charity should begin at home. Only a week or two ago a great deputation came

  1851
  down from the Midlands, headed, I think, by a son of the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), to see the President of the Board of Trade and to ask that the transport facilities for the Midlands should be increased, and to ask for money for a canal with the Mersey. When we make a suggestion of that kind hon. Members opposite jeer at it, although it would be for the benefit of industry, while at the same time they are ready enough to provide money to be spent for the benefit of land jobbers in East Africa. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"] I desire to ask the Secretary of State not to pay any particular regard to the suggestion that some bogus electoral system should be set up in that country, for I believe it would be only a bogus system, and it would mean handing over the government of that country entirely to those land jobbers there, while the people, the natives, would have no electoral rights there, and it would probably only result in this, that whatever control the Crown may have today over the land, its exploitation would be taken away, and the land would be jobbed away into freeholds. That would be following the unfortunate precedent that has taken place in other Colonies of the Empire.
  The hon. Member for, I think, the Barnsley Division (Sir J. Walton) spoke of the magnificent results that had accrued from the expenditure of money in Australia and New Zealand. I think every Government in Australia and every thinking man realises the great mistake that was made in the early days in those countries when the vast sums spent on railways resulted in benefit which went to the landlord, while the country got no return for that vast expenditure. Again and again, that vast expenditure on railways and public works and for the development of the Colonies and the opening up of their magnificent resources, really resulted in bringing Colonies to a condition of bankruptcy. I hope that the Secretary of State, whenever great sums are being spent in these Protectorates, will take care to keep in his control as far as possible the ownership of the land of the country, and will not allow it to be jobbed away in freehold for the purposes of speculation. If he does that, then undoubtedly all this expenditure will be profitable, because the Government will always be able to get quite sufficient out of the land to pay for the cost.
  Mr. GEORGE A. LLOYD: I wish I had been here sufficiently early not to have to get up after the very unfortunate speech which we have just heard from the other side. Just because the hon. Member's experiences in South Africa do not appear to have been very rosy, I cannot see why on that account he should make East Africa the target for his abuse. I do not propose to follow him in the line of motives imputed to hon. Members who take a legitimate and fair interest in the development of a British Colony. I would like to tell him this, that we who care to see our Protectorates and our Crown Colonies developed, do take the trouble to be a little better informed than the hon. Member himself appears to be. He asked a question as to what interest the British taxpayer has in the development of railways in East Africa and in Crown Colonies. I suppose that the Lancashire workman is of no interest as a wage-earner to the hon. Member, and he does not care in the least, I suppose, whether the Lancashire wage-earner and the Lancashire mill-owner can get supplies of raw cotton! Is he not aware that the Uganda Railway has- been a most powerful and most valuable method of bringing raw material to this country? Is he not aware that the interest which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken in getting British steamship lines to communicate with East Africa has been actually the means of diverting from German towns to British towns a very large number of the raw products which have been introduced into this country? If he is not aware of those facts, he ought to be before he gets up to impute motives to hon. Members on this side of the House. I remember perfectly well when this question of communications in East Africa was brought before the House hon. Members in certain quarters took great exception to it. I think that they spoke for themselves, and I for one would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Colonial Secretary upon the interest he has taken in the question of communications in the Crown Colonies during his administration. On these matters we have no party politics whatever. If things are done, we congratulate anybody who takes them up and carries them through. I do not wish to say anything with regard to the object for which this Bill has been introduced. I had not the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I believe it has been fully commented upon.

  1853
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration one point in regard to the officials in East Africa, and that is that he should provide money out of this loan, or from subsequent moneys, as early as possible for the better housing of the officials in the Protectorate. There have been in the past, and no doubt there are still, many complaints some of them justified and some unjustified, as to the slow pace at which the official machine grinds out its work in East Africa—in the Land Office, in this office, and in that. It is said that the delays are doing a great deal of damage to the settlers and to the interests of the Protectorate. I cannot speak with a great deal of experience, but, from what I saw when I was in East Africa, I believe that the officials there are as efficient as the officials of any other Protectorate. But they work under very difficult and trying conditions. Their offices are merely tin huts, which are loaded up to the roof with papers, with very inadequate facilities for filing and storing documents and so on. Unless the Government can afford to provide even the most modest accommodation for their work, there must be delays and great difficulty in coping adequately with the demands of a rapidly increasing and productive Colony like British East Africa.
  One other matter to which I would like to direct attention is the great need for a rest house, somewhere in the highlands of East Africa, for officials who are worn out or who fall ill during the hot weather. It has been suggested that a very inexpensive scheme might save the Government a great deal of money in connection with the health and lives of their officials. At a very small cost indeed a rest house could be built at a reasonably high level in East Africa, to which men who were working in the steamy heat and bad atmosphere round the lake could go before they got very ill. There are very good communications; you can get across the lake in a steamer; and a week-end or a few days at a rest house or sanatorium, erected at the cost of a few hundred pounds, with a very small sum for maintenance, would very often enable officials to recover their health before they got very ill, and to return to their work refreshed and greatly helped. In conclusion, I do not think that we have come to the end yet awhile of the demands for rolling stock or for the equipment of the Uganda Railway.
  Mr. BOOTH:Hear, hear.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: The hon. Member opposite says "Hear, hear." The Uganda Railway was rather extravagantly built, but in spite of that pays an adequate return on the capital invested, and I can see no possible reason why you should not in this business, as in any other, put in a certain amount of working capital when you can see a return upon it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, as he has seen his way to get a good deal of money for the Crown Colonies and for communications, may be able to go ahead in the future as he has done in the last few years with the re-equipment and the provision of more rolling stock for the Uganda Railway, which I do not think this loan alone will provide adequately. More communications, with more rolling stock, will be of great assistance in the solution of the labour problem, by making it possible to move labour about more rapidly than has been the case in the past.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I can address the House again only by permission and by their wish; but a certain number of questions have been put to me by hon. Members who have knowledge of the subject and are interested in these three Protectorates, and, in courtesy, I should like an opportunity to answer them. The hon Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), who is unable to be here now, asked whether in the near future there would be an assumption by the Protectorate of the loan which was being made now. I think he was under some misunderstanding. The loan has to be assumed by the Protectorate the moment it is made. It is arranged in the Bill that the repayment is to be made in forty years by the Protectorate alone, with no charge upon the British Treasury or taxpayer. The hon. Member went on to deal with the decision lately given by the High Courts in the East Africa Protectorate on the Masai case. It is not very easy to associate that case with a Loan Bill; but since reference to it has been permitted, I may be allowed to reply. The decision of the High Court has made no difference whatever to the known situation in all these Protectorates, or in any of the Protectorates throughout the world, which have been under well known circumstances under our control and management for many years. A Protectorate is not in law a possession of the country exercising the protectorate over it. A Protectorate admits the administration of the protecting country by international

  1855
  acceptance. All our Protectorates throughout the world are in that position. The security for this loan is amply sufficient, and no question of security arises in the fact that the advance is being made to a Protectorate. A Protectorate was considered good enough security for a loan as long ago as the year 1899, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) carried a Bill through this House making loans to British Crown Colonies, and also to three Protectorates—the Niger Coast Protectorate, the Malay States, and Cyprus—all of which at that time were accepted by this House as sufficient security. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the annexation of a Protectorate is necessary or desirable. I can certainly see many complications which might quite unnecessarily be raised by such a step being taken at this time.
  The hon. Member for the Barnsley Division (Sir J. Walton) mentioned that the interest on the loan was fixed at 2¾ per cent. I think it necessary at once to observe that that 2¾ per cent. is a minimum. It is by no means a fixed rate. The rate at which any particular loan is made must depend on the market conditions at the time at which it is raised by the Loans Commissioners. The hon. Member seemed to imagine that some repayment of the capital expenditure on the Uganda Railway was demanded or intended from the Protectorate. That has never been the case. No demand for the repayment of the capital expenditure has ever been made by this country. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) expressed the wish that a large part of the loan should be spent in East Africa Protectorate, and especially upon rails and rolling stock. As I said in my opening speech, I do not want to tie myself to a definite allocation of the money amongst various works, but I shall not be far from the mark if I say that something like a million pounds out of the whole three millions advanced will be spent in the East Africa Protectorate on rails and rolling stock alone. A sum has already been voted in the Estimates for wharfage at Kilindini. The Noble Lord said that when he was in the district he could not see any signs of its having been spent. I am glad to assure the Noble Lord that it has not been spent at all, but it is in reserve, and will be added to the money provided by this loan in order to provide Wharves at Kilindini against which ships
  1856
  may safely and usefully lie and discharge their cargoes. The Noble Lord was anxious for tourist facilities, and laid some emphasis on restaurant and sleeper cars. I am afraid that for the present I must take the view that commerce must come before comfort, but, no doubt, the management of the railway will consider the suggestion. The Noble Lord seemed to have some doubt as to the advantage of tourists to the country at all. At all events, they bring money into the district, and in many cases they remain as settlers in the country which they came originally only to visit.
  6.0 P.M.
  I wish particularly to emphasise the fact that we are not voting public money in this case. We are only authorising a loan to the Protectorates at their own expense. One of my hon. Friends seemed to think that this was an expenditure of public money, as he said that we were providing millions apparently from the British taxpayer. That is a complete misapprehension, which must have arisen from his not having looked at the form of the Bill. What we are finding for the Protectorates is not money, but credit. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. C. Wason) raised the point as to the reoccupation of the Sessi Islands in the Lake. There has been a great deal of sleeping sickness there, and they were vacated for that reason. Inquiries are being made into sleeping sickness in both Nyasaland and Rhodesia by Committees sitting at the Colonial Office. Those inquiries are still in progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) is a member of one of those Committees, but whether or not he is in agreement with the rest of his colleagues I cannot say. The whole question of sleeping sickness is a very difficult one, and is still being elaborately inquired into by several agencies. It is only two days ago that I had the honour of a visit from Miss Robertson, who has been in Uganda on behalf of the Royal Society. She is a lady of great scientific attainments, and with splendid courage has been living for months alone with natives in huts in order to make these inquiries. She has brought home results which will be of great value to science and in the inquiries which are now in hand. I must warn hon. Members from running away with the idea that it is anything more than an assumption, and especially that there is any proof that game or domestic animals are necessarily the carriers or the only carriers of sleeping

  1857
  sickness. The hon. Member for Falmouth raised the point as to the election of members for the Legislative Council. That matter is now under consideration. It did not surprise me to find the hon. Member for East Nottingham opposing elective representation, as usual, Athanasius contra mundum, but I was a little surprised to find the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) also denouncing representative institutions when they were so far away from home as East Africa. The hon. Member for East Nottingham asked me a number of questions as to railway extension in Nyasaland. I quite appreciate the delicacy with which he did not probe this question too far, from the private financial interests that he has in that country, and in the railway development. He asked me about the route to be followed by that railway which should extend to the Lake on the north. What I can say is that the route will be that which will be most beneficial to the country, and not a route which will be specially beneficial, or necessarily beneficial, to private interests. I know nothing in detail of the railways in the Portuguese territory of Quillimane to which the hon. Member referred. No doubt his information—as is my own—has been derived from the Press, or possibly from some local correspondents. He seemed to me to doubt my statement that the Grant-in-Aid for Uganda would this year be only £10,000. He said that that could not include the charge for the railway.
  First of all, let me point out to the hon. Member that the Uganda Railway is not in Uganda. That is an error into which many people who do not know the country fall. Obviously. therefore, no charge for the Uganda Railway will be made upon Uganda. But, if it was necessary to make one it would be upon the Protectorate through which it passes, which is the East Africa Protectorate. The hon. Member said that he would like to know something about the charge that the Treasury made upon Uganda for the railway. I should have thought that he would have known that there was none; that there has never been an attempt to make a charge for the capital of that railway on the Protectorate through which it passes, and in which it has contributed so much to their prosperity. There was a question put by the hon. Member who spoke last as to the housing of the officials, and a rest house in the highlands. The housing of officials
  1858
  is of the utmost importance in East Africa and in Uganda. There is no possibility of improving the housing of the officials out of this loan, but the hon. Member will be happy to know that a very considerable amount of money is being taken in the Estimates this year for the improvement of the housing in East Africa. The fact is that the officials have always been ready and willing to sacrifice their own comfort and convenience when it was evident that enough money could not be found for other developments. They have really sacrificed their own accommodation in order that the other works in which they were interested could be pushed on. I hope that these unselfish sacrifices will not be much longer necessary in either of those Protectorates. The rest house in the highlands is certainly a matter which is worthy of consideration. It appeals to me personally, and I will see—though I cannot make any promise—if anything can be done in the matter. I hope, having answered all the questions so far as I could put by hon. Members that the House will not be disinclined to let us have the Second Reading.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to indicate the Government policy with regard to the claims of the settlers on the Wasin Gishu plateau for a railway connecting them with the main line to which I referred?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. That cannot be included in this Bill, and I therefore cannot deal with it now.
  Mr. BOOTH: I regret I cannot fall in with the request of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary that he should get this Vote at once without it being strictly scrutinised from the standpoint of the Radical economists. The taunts from the other side seem to me to have considerable justification—that there are so very few relics left of the Old Guard and the watchdogs of the public purse who formerly made Governments quake and scrutinise their Estimates severely. I am sorry that on an occasion like this we cannot depend upon the regular Opposition. They, of course, are not likely to reject any scheme which means expending a certain number of millions somewhere in the British Empire. It is quite evident from speech after speech on the opposite side that there is no consideration at all for the British tax-payer. It was simply a question of a certain demand that British gold should be poured into some Colony or some

  1859
  Dependency; the only controversy of hon. Members opposite is as to whether it should be for railways, or ships, or land, or for sleeping and restaurant cars for travellers.
  I submit we are entitled to ask some very plain questions as to why it is that such a large amount of money as £1,855,000 is to be spent in East Africa while it remains only a Protectorate. When we were considering the financial aspect of this the Colonial Secretary very cleverly remarked to us that this was not a definite lean or Grant to the East African Protectorate. We are simply authorising that Protectorate to issue a loan. He says distinctly that he considers it would be a great deal of trouble to annex the country. The bulk of the speeches of hon. Members who have been welcoming this Grant have spoken of the country as if it were our own—as if it were a Colony and under the British Flag. It seems to me to be as much a part of the United Kingdom as Ulster. I cannot reconcile hon. Gentlemen now speaking of the expenditure of this money as if it were a domestic concern; the development of our own business, pushing our own trade and financing our own fellow countrymen—I cannot reconcile those remarks with the position taken up by the Colonial Secretary.
  We have had no indication whatever as to what is the real security. We are clearly not first mortgagees. Are we second mortgagees? What have we to depend upon for the return of the millions of money lent at such a small rate of interest? The Colonial Secretary distinctly says this is not a loan of money. Therefore there is no practical responsibility of that kind. We are merely authorising a Protectorate in East Africa to pledge our credit, and not to take our cash. That is a very fine distinction. I do not think the business world will draw it. I am not quite sure that hon. Members here are justified in giving the same value to this distinction as the Colonial Secretary has done. What I would like to point out to the House is this: Whether an annexation be desirable now or not, the granting of a loan of this description makes it a certainty in the future. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] We all know what an important part was played in Egypt by the bondholders, and how in the history of every country, not only this Power, but other Powers, have been forced to take over the Government, forced to assert
  1860
  themselves as the dominant Power, or to absorb the territory within their Empire owing to proposals similar to that in this Bill, namely, the advance of money.
  I would like to ask hon. Members opposite who welcome this expenditure whether it is clear in their minds that this Grant authorising the three millions of money will be followed by a rigid British control from Whitehall? If the money is not to be controlled from Whitehall, what becomes of our security? If it is, surely these are Protectorates only in name [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I see hon. Members opposite are quite frank about it. I think it is time for a little plain speaking. If we intend to incorporate this land, and make it an integral part of the British Empire, let us do it openly! I have never been a Little Englander. I have never made light of our possessions abroad, or anything of the kind, but I do ask for straightforward dealing. We have often got a reputation upon the Continent through moves of this kind which I hope we do not altogether deserve. I am perfectly certain there can only be one construction put upon this, not only by any foreign Power, but also by any foreign diplomatist who reads the Debates in this House. The precedent that the right hon. Gentleman quoted, as one might expect, was a Conservative precedent—if we can apply that epithet to the action of the right hon. Gentleman whose absence we deplore, the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain). I am not quite certain that the view is without force, that there was no precedent, but I do not feel sufficiently informed upon the subject to challenge an authority like the right hon. Gentleman. Apparently, however, there is only one precedent, and that precedent is that of a Conservative Government, and of an Imperialistic Colonial Secretary.
  The repayment of these sums is to take forty years. I would ask the House what indication has there been given, first, as to which shall be the authority in the next forty years in this country? Are you going to grant self-government in that forty years? Will you have a Parliament of settlers or of natives? If so, will they take over these burdens? I notice a very important sentence in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill. It says:—
  "Every Act or Ordinance of the legislative authority of the Protectorate which in any way impairs the validity or priority of any such charge or diminishes

  1861
  the revenues to be raised as above mentioned shall, so far as it impairs or diminishes the same, be void unless the consent of the Treasury and the Secretary of State has been previously obtained…."
  So that we are preparing here for an active veto—not a dead veto! Not something which repairs into the limbo of history. There is an active operative veto which may be called into exercise during the run of those forty years. It may be that already a sort of dummy authority as that exists now. An hon. Member has pointed out, and I think very properly has raised the question, as to having some specific authority, which, while it may not be in accord with European standards, would be the best that could be got in the locality. That is what I understood the hon. Member to mean. I do not join in the comments upon that proposal from this side of the House. I think it was a bonâ-fide suggestion. Whether we give it much or little legislative or administrative power, surely it is contemplated by this very Clause that there is to be legislative authority in the Protectorate, and if it is not to consist of settlers, of whom is it to consist? These are questions which nobody here wants to discuss. The only thing we must do is to vote three millions of money and get to the next business. It may be that the House is exhausted by the quantity of eloquence and repetition in the last few weeks. Now that we have passed away from those great Debates, and have come down to something practical, there has not been a quorum in the House for the bulk of this afternoon. I am not prepared to ask for the count of the House, for I believe that a number of Members would troop in, but the average number in attendance for the last two hours has been twenty-one or twenty-two Members.
  What is the meaning of all this? The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take the line that I do at present, for I am a sincere admirer of the way in which he conducts his Department, but his speech in introducing this matter suggested to me that he was taking this as a somewhat easy task that would just slide through the House probably in a few minutes, unless some cantankerous Members, like the right hon. Member for Pontefract, or the hon. Member for East Nottingham, or some hon. Member below the Gangway objected. To my mind it is desirable that the House should realise the relations between this country and East
  1862
  Africa, where the money is being spent. I do not know that I have any objection to this money if I saw the definite lines of its disposal: if either we control or do not control. If we do not control the country, why should we take responsibility for the country? If we do control the country and intend to do it, why not be straightforward and say so? That, I should have thought, was a vital question. The hon. Member for Gravesend raised it, and it was present in the minds of Members in the House, but the Colonial Secretary said not a word about it. It may be of course that my voice is only a feeble one. I looked forward when I came to this House to joining a party of Radical Economists, but I find they are absent at a time when an opportunity crops up such as to-day. These hon. Gentlemen seem to be bent on saving something in one particular direction in order to spend twice as much in another. The House should scrutinise a Bill like this from the point of view of the taxpayer, simply and solely in order to save any money we can save. I think no case is made out for these £3,000,000. Hon. Members who know the district say it is not sufficient, and that it will do little or no good. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said the money was altogether too small, and should only be regarded as an instalment. If this is an instalment we should be told so, because we are entitled to ask again, what is the exact relation between this country and that State? As spending it for the purpose of deriving facilities for some industry, or in favour of any particular kind of business, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do nothing of the kind. I am quite clear—and I would say the same of the party opposite—no Colonial Secretary would spend money of this kind in favour of a particular business without thinking of the community at large. We are entitled to ask where the natives come in? Nobody in this House seems to know what is the population of this district. The hon. Member for Penrith says there are 6,000 whites living in the East African Protectorate. That would mean we were spending £500 on each of these 6,000 whites.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: The provision for the railway is one of the main reasons for this money. At the present time the natives cannot travel because there is no real rolling stock, and if more rolling stock is provided the natives could move about a little more.
  Mr. BOOTH: What I was wondering was whether the hon. Member could give us the numbers of the population. I am not sure it is a good thing to move the natives in East Africa. It may be a good thing in this House to send us on a half-day trip, but I do not think it is a good thing to send natives from one district to another where they are not likely to make as good a bargain for their wages, or to move them far away from home. It might lessen their unity in a strike. Neither is it a good thing for the employer. It is not a good thing for the natives to flock together where there are not proper industries. What I am not clear about is, that consideration is shown to the natives. I understand the railway is to be used in order to move natives about so that wages may be brought down. That may be very happy from one standpoint, though it is doubtful whether it is for the good of the natives themselves. Will the railway be used to remove them and their belongings from one part of the country to a neighbourhood more salubrious? I feel these are vain hopes. I should be inclined, as a lesson to the Government not to spend this money without being more particular about the taxpayers, to vote against this loan, but the trouble is that if I did so I might be stopping developments in this district. That is the dilemma. I can only say, from the taxpayers' standpoint, there is not a sufficient case made out for this money. It is perfectly clear it ought to be more or less. Why this figure is fixed upon nobody knows. It is perfectly clear there is no finality any more than in the political connection. I hope my remarks will have this effect upon the Colonial Secretary, that when he comes for the next additional loan he will be a little more frank with the House with regard to this Protectorate and the form of security which it offers.
  Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I think I can say all I have to say in four or five sentences, and incidentally answer the hon. Member for Pontefract. Does he not know that the largest customer of this Protectorate is Lancashire, while with regard to Nyasaland more than half the imports are Lancashire, and with regard to British East Africa more than 30 per cent. of the business is done with Lancashire, and Lancashire depends, and I hope it will depend a great deal more in future, upon the raw cotton imported from this Protectorate? The hon. Member alleges the House has never any consideration for the
  1864
  British taxpayer when they make a loan or credit to develop trade in Protectorates in the British Empire. Every one of our loans are for the development of manufacture. Not only do we export Lancashire goods and machinery to these Protectorates, but beer and whisky also. What we want this Bill for is to improve the communication and trade facilities. I hope the Colonial Secretary, when he comes to consider trade facilities and what shall be spent for trade facilities, will remember the cotton trade of Lancashire, because there has been such a block upon the railways in this district that it is impossible to import all the raw cotton grown there, and everybody knows that raw cotton is of great importance to Lancashire industries. It is also important to distribute the goods in British East Africa lying there, amounting to half a million of money, because great difficulty exists and is placed in the way of the merchants and traders fostering and encouraging trade there. Every facility, therefore, the Government can give by the spending of this money for improving the communication will be very much to the benefit of Lancashire over and above every other advantage. May I also urge this in answer to the hon. Member for Pontefract—and perhaps he will think this is a stronger argument in favour of the Bill—that the more you develop our cotton-growing countries in the world the more you benefit foreign countries as well; and, as the hon. Gentleman is always in favour of doing what he can for foreign countries, perhaps that will be a consolation to him, and enable him to support this Bill this afternoon if it should go to a Division.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Some of the most remarkable speeches made in this House are delivered when there are the fewest Members present, and we have listened to one of those from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I never heard a more flagrant claim made for the expenditure of public money—
  Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It is not the expenditure of public money.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: For the expenditure of public credit for the purpose of particular industries within an area which the hon. Member and other hon. Members represent in one portion of England. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of accusing us on this side of the House of associating ourselves with Socialistic enterprises. I congratulate the Socialist party on so large an adhesion from the

  1865
  other side of the House as they have got this afternoon. I have always understood that these great industries ought to be developed by private enterprise. Now I am told, and asked to believe, that the men concerned in the great cotton-growing industry are to be relieved by a Grant of public credit, secured to them by the Colonial Secretary, to enable them to maintain a particular industry in particular parts of this country. I am not in the least sure that that industry deserves this kind of support. I am not aware, for example, that the wages paid in this particular industry are of such a nature as to warrant us making it easier for those engaged in it to secure the raw product.
  Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: Some of the highest and best wages paid in England are paid there.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman reminds me that some of the best wages paid in England are paid there, but also some of the worst are paid there.
  Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: Oh, no!
  Mr. J. HOGGE: There is one point I want to make in criticism of this particular Bill. Hon. Members opposite sink, when it suits them, the individualism of private enterprise and come to the State hoping for a loan. I am not against the expenditure of British credit in this way for many reasons. First of all, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (the Colonial Secretary) has been able to secure this credit from his colleagues on the Front Bench. Many of us would like some amount of credit for other purposes much more helpful to the Empire at home, if we could secure it, and when one finds, as the hon. Member for Pontefract has pointed out, that on a day previous to the House rising for Easter we are asked to agree to a sum of this kind, it rather indicates that the Government themselves are unwilling to have it discussed in the full House of Commons. For instance, there have been many efforts to secure loans for domestic purposes in this country. I will mention two for which credit has been asked to which the Government have never made any response. For instance, take the fishermen in Scotland. They have had a desire for a considerable time to have loans advanced to them—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot go through the number of persons who would like to have loans. He
  1866
  can deal with objections to the loan in connection with this Bill.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: I had no intention of going through them all. I only mentioned one in order to point the argument I was making, and if I am not allowed to mention one, I shall leave it and confine myself to the objection. There are two valid objections to this credit. The first is that it deprives other necessitous cases of similar credit because the Government, having parted with that amount of credit, are unwilling to increase their responsibilities, and I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that there are other objects as important as the object to be achieved by this particular Bill. I notice that the terms upon which this loan is given are very advantageous as compared with loans secured for other purposes quite as important in this country. For instance, the rate of interest is fixed at not less than 2¾ per cent., and a period of forty years is given for the repayment of such advances as are made. Even the method of repayment is given in an alternative way, for the loan can either be repaid by equal instalments of principal or by an instalment of principal and interest combined. I do not know that in this country we are able to get as favourable terms for, say, the development of locomotion in our great cities. Hon. Members will recollect the difficulties experienced in the promotion of a private Bill and the terms imposed upon leans to particular communities. I should like to know why these people are entitled to these advantages, and why they are not given to these local communities.
  It has been suggested in this Debate that some of these loans should be devoted to the provision of facilities in these Protectorates for moving about, and it was even suggested that sleeping cars should be provided as part of the rolling stock on the railways concerned in this Protectorate. The Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) reminds me that even restaurant cars were suggested as a method by which some of the money should be expended. I should like to remind the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Member for Suther-landshire (Mr. Morton) has throughout a long life in the House of Commons been trying in the case of every Railway Bill brought before this House to obtain facilities for the provision of sleeping cars on trains between London and Scotland upon terms consonant with the means of the average Scotchman. That has never been

  1867
  done, and it does seem preposterous that there is not the faintest possibility of some of this money being devoted to that purpose. In looking at this Schedule, I notice the maximum amount to be devoted for this purpose runs into a very considerable sum, something like £3,000,000. It is true that it is not given in actual cash, but in credit. I would like to remind the House that that amount of money represents the excess of income over expenditure in what is taken by the United Kingdom from Scotland. Practically what you are doing by this particular Bill is pledging the surplus revenue of one part of the United Kingdom to a Protectorate which has no connection with this country, and this at a time when the people of this country cannot obtain loans for purposes which I am not now allowed to discuss. These are my objections to this Bill, and I shall vote against it. I hope we shall have a Division. I think it is preposterous to use the credit of the British Empire in this particular way, while there are so many other objects to which this money could be usefully devoted in this country of much more interest to us, and which would develop our own particular countries in a degree which we wish to see them developed instead of this money being devoted to Protectorates which are not under our control.
  Colonel YATE: I think the House generally would like to join in congratulating the Colonial Secretary upon the satisfactory statement which he has made to-day regarding the proposed improvements in the Uganda Protectorate and on the East Coast of Africa. We may also congratulate ourselves upon the fewness in number of Radical economists in this House of the type of the hon. Member for Pontefract. I am glad to hear that so much money is to be spent upon the Uganda Railway and other improvements. I would like to see more money devoted to such objects. It has been proved to us that imports and exports and trade generally in these Protectorates is enormously increasing, and I hope that this Bill will prove to be a forerunner of others in order that the trade of our various Protectorates may be still further developed just as they would be if they were in the hands of a chartered company with more free access to money. The advantage to us of these Colonies for the supply of cotton and other commodities which we so much require is of vital importance not only to Lancashire, but to the whole country. I protest against the
  1868
  argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite that because there is not a certain sum of money granted by loans for certain purposes in this country, no money should be advanced to any of our Protectorates. That is a point of view that cannot hold water, and I trust the House will not listen to any such argument. I hope the Bill will pass, and I congratulate the Colonial Secretary on what he has done for these Protectorates.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: I am very much in accord with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite in what he has said. I think this is a case in which the credit of the State may very well be used. With such governments as those existing in Protectorates, there is not much chance of the money being raised in our great cities. The financiers in the City of London would not look very favourably on such a loan, whereas the Government can do it because it has some power over the government of these Protectorates, and they can rely on the principal and interest being well secured and duly repaid. These are new countries. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that such interests as those of cotton growing are to us Imperial. In Manchester immense exertions have been employed by the great cotton spinners to increase the area of cotton cultivation in the Empire. For a long time past the Government here and in India have done what they could to get cotton cultivated in India, and I believe it is being very well cultivated in Uganda and some parts of these other Protectorates. Better communication is urgently needed to establish a complete connection with the sea and the railway, and the improvements in the harbour at Kilindini is very much wanted for a great many purposes of cultivation. When these communications have been made capitalists can get up into these great plains, and they will be able to send their produce down to the sea. Money will then begin to flow into these Protectorates from the ordinary channels by means of arrangements made by capitalists in the City of London. It is very desirable at the start that these developments should be undertaken by the Government, because in this way we get good security for the payment of principal and interest. Indeed I do not see any other way in which it can be done except by adopting this expedient. I think that security has, in all human probability, been supplied, and I shall therefore vote for this Bill.
  Captain JESSEL: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), because they come forward as champions of economy. At the same time they are a little hard on those who are standing for economy on this side of the House. It seems to me a rather extraordinary thing that they should come forward as economists, and at the same time as supporters of a Government that is going to bring in a Budget that cannot be less than £200,000,000, whereas when the Unionists left office in 1906 the Budget was under £150,000,000. I do not want to pursue this theme, because we all agree that the lending of actual money and the pledging of our credit are practically the same thing. There is really no disagreement about that. Another point upon which I wish to express my sympathy is on the ground of socialism, because this, after all, is a form of municipal or State trading. There is another point contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract which I think is a perfectly fair one. He said that the Colonial Secretary would not say whether this was a Protectorate under British rule or whether it was not. I might point out to the hon. Member that as regards the raising of credit it does not make a very great deal of difference. Not long ago the Government advanced a sum of money to Persia. That is not a Protectorate, and it is under a foreign Government, and I do not think the hon. Member for Pontefract, when the discussion came on about this money being raised from the Treasury Chest Fund, made any objection at all to the action of the Government.
  Mr. BOOTH: I was opposed to it.
  Captain JESSEL: I do not know whether the hon. Member voted against it or not. There is another precedent which may appeal to hon. Members opposite, and it is the loan which was made to the Viceroys of Southern China during the Boxer revolution for the purposes of government. The amounts of these loans varied from £150,000 to one Viceroy to £100,000 to another. This, at any rate, is a precedent for lending money to foreign Governments, and there is ample precedent for doing that. It is an empty form of words to say that this British Protectorate is not part and parcel of the British Empire. I cannot quite understand why the Colonial Secretary has not seen somehow to disavow the fact, which must be perfectly
  1870
  Clear, that this is as much part of the British Empire as Lancashire. The reason this money is being given, rightly or wrongly, is for the benefit of Lancashire. It is to protect the great cotton industry of Lancashire, and, of course, all the Lancashire Members are exceedingly anxious to get this loan and for this Bill to be passed. I wonder hon. Members on the whole on the other side of the House are so keen in voting for this Bill considering what are its objects. I personally approve of it, because it is a growing Protectorate, and there is no doubt that it is important to one of the staple trades of this country, but I think that the followers of the Government will lay themselves open to a charge of inconsistency in this matter—I do not know that matters very much to them, because they are so often inconsistent—if they vote for this Bill. In conclusion, I must say that as this Protectorate goes on increasing, I think there is no reason for the Government to go on pledging our credit. When these developments have taken place, it ought to be put on such a footing that it ought to be able to go to the ordinary sources for getting money. I shall have much pleasure myself in voting for the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Harcourt.]

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. LYELL in the Chair.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions made by the Commissioners of Works in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to enable the London County Council to acquire certain lands and execute certain improvements in the City of Westminster, and for other purposes in connection therewith."—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to ascertain for the convenience of the House whether we had not better take the full discussion after the measure has been explained. I know, of course, that I am in order now in dealing solely with the money question, but at

  1871
  the same time it will only cause trouble to the Chair if we deal with that alone, and I wish to ask that my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill should, when he Moves the Bill, deal fully with this money question so that we may have a debate upon it. On that understanding I do not oppose this Resolution.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): It was not from any want of courtesy to my hon. Friend that I did not rise at once, but because I thought it would be more convenient if I spoke after some hon. Gentlemen who have objection to the Bill had spoken; but if he and the House generally desires me to speak now I will do so. The Bill is one for completing the improvement to the approach to the Mall through the Admiralty Arch at Charing Cross. The improvement would be undertaken in the first place by the London County Council, with the assistance of two other bodies, the Westminster City Council and the First Commissioner of Works. These three authorities will share the expense between them, and it is estimated that the net expenditure will not exceed £115,000. I assume that the other point on which the House will need to have some information after the question of expense, is the extent of the control of the design, because, of course, this improvement is undertaken in order to provide a worthy approach to the Admiralty Arch, and to ensure that the buildings which are erected on the Charing Cross side of the Admiralty Arch shall be of suitable design. That is provided for in the Bill, in one Clause of which will be found power for the First Commissioner of Works to exercise a veto over the design of the buildings to be erected on the site to be acquired. To sum the matter up, it comes to this: Three authorities, the Office of Works, the Westminster City Council, and the London County Council, are contributing the money, and the First Commissioner of Works is exercising control over the design. I do not think that there is anything else to be said to commend this Bill to the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: How is the cost divided?
  Mr. W. BENN: In three equal proportions.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should just like to know the method by which the Office of Works will proceed in this matter. We have lately been rebuilding a large portion of official London, and I think I shall carry the general opinion of the House with me when I say that those rebuilding schemes, on which we have spent such a vast amount of money, have resulted in a number of buildings of which the average Londoner who has any sympathy with or appreciation of architecture has no reason whatever to be proud. I am not going to criticise—it is too late to do that—the Admiralty Arch, although that might easily be done. The proposal is that these new buildings to be erected by these two large insurance companies shall be erected under plans provided by themselves and by their own architects. They are very large corporations, and no doubt they have available the very finest architectural skill this country can show, but even in the case of the Government themselves the resuit has not always been buildings creditable to this nation. I would like that we should, in the very centre of the Empire, our proudest spot, safeguard ourselves against any further extension of the architectural abominations which are a heartache and sorrow to many of us to-day.
  I do not think that the powers taken in this Bill are adequate. I think, considering the large contribution that is being made from public funds and from municipal funds, a larger control should have been exercised, and that a control should have been exercised in the very selection of the architect. See what is offered. Plans are to be bought—one probably for each company. How can you exercise anything like an adequate control or guidance in such a case? You may simply say, "These plans do not seem to us to be at all adequate to the enormous importance of the district in which the buildings are to be placed." You cannot then do other than begin to carve, chop, and cut them about by the suggestions you make, and in these suggested alterations you will be hampered by being met by the company demanding first and foremost, as will be only fair and right, that you shall not too much alter them, seeing that they have been designed under calculations bearing in mind the obvious necessities of the companies concerned We cannot discuss the

  1873
  policy of the Westminster City Council or the London County Council, but why does not the Office of Works simply say, "If you will tell us what your wants are, we will provide you with a general idea of what the fronts of these buildings looking out upon these great thoroughfares and in this great place of national importance should be." There is a veto to be exercised, but there is no initiative of idea or of a scheme, and I do feel anxious about this position. Some of my hon. Friends think that the whole scheme should be vetoed, and that rather than widen the Approach the Approach should be narrowed, to shut out the arch from the public view as much as possible. I do not share that view, but I do feel that in regard to Trafalgar Square, in this great Metropolis of ours, this House should walk warily, and that we should see that England expresses herself in the architecture there in a much more satisfactory way than in the majority of cases she has lately been doing.
  Mr. DAWES: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  It is with some little reluctance that I rise to move this Amendment. I do not wish in any way to obstruct the improvement, although I am bound to say that the history of the whole thing is not particularly creditable to any one of the parties concerned. In 1911, after a good deal of negotiation and a great deal of delay, the London County Council were driven, through the imminence of the Coronation procession, to come to a decision that a certain widening of the then very narrow Mall Approach had to be made, and in their negotiations they had to take the premises of certain insurance companies and other bodies. One of the premises was part of the premises known as No. 58, Charing Cross, which were built by the Liverpool and London and Globe Office. The London County Council Improvements Committee, in reporting what they proposed, stated that the Liverpool and London and Globe Office declined to negotiate for the sale of any part of that property unless they were given an option of repurchasing a certain part and also certain surplus parts which the London County Council acquired. At that time the London County Council were faced with the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company's refusal, and they were
  1874
  obliged to agree to these terms because the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company knew that the London County Council had no compulsory powers, and could, therefore, only negotiate. They also knew that the London County Council were in this difficulty, that they were obliged to provide the Mall Approach for the Coronation. They, therefore, came to this arrangement.
  7.0 P.M.
  There was an additional provision that if a further widening was not decided on by the London County Council before 24th June, 1912, this option was to take effect. The London County Council acquired the property, and they did nothing further before 1912. At that time, somewhere about March, 1912, the committee reported to the council that, owing to the difficulties with the Government and so on, they did not propose to do anything with regard to the widening, and they referred to the fact that this option of the Liverpool and
  London and Globe Company had become effective. At that very time they were negotiating with the Phœnix Insurance Company, owners of 57, Charing Cross, for the sale of part of the land over which the other company had an option. I only mention this, because it shows that by a most unfortunate muddle this transaction has been practically dogged by misfortune from the beginning until now. Eventually the county council, in February, 1913—and I will ask the House to note the date, because it happened to be just before the county council election—in view of the large amount of public interest recently devoted to the matter, reconsidered the decision they had come to a few months previously, that they would do nothing further, and they then decided to appoint a joint committee of officials of the Board of Works and of the Westminster City Council to see what could be done in the way of further widening. The conference met once or twice, and in July, 1913, the London County Council Improvements Committee reported that the conferences had been held and that a proposal had been put forward, evidently by the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company. At that time the County Council Improvements Committee appeared to have changed their view entirely about that company, for they said that the company were taking a sympathetic attitude, whereas before that they had complained that the company had presented a pistol at their heads and had insisted on

  1875
  certain terms before negotiation. The scheme put forward by the Liverpool and London and Globe Company, and endorsed by the London County Council, provided that the company should give up a very small portion of land now enclosed by a hoarding and should be rehoused on the premises of the Phœnix Insurance Company. Not a single word was said to the Phœnix Company all the way through about this proposal. It had not been suggested that any part of the Phœnix Company's property should be taken except a small portion which was required for the highway, but the suggestion is that the Phœnix Company is to be expropriated by Act of Parliament for the benefit of a trade competitor who is to be put in their place. That is the proposal put forward by the London County Council, and it is a curious coincidence that, on each occasion, on which the Improvement Committee have brought forward this recommendation the discussion has taken place between two and three in the morning. I have had the greatest difficulty in getting information about this matter. I said the Phœnix Company had not been consulted before this recommendation was put forward. But there was an interview which Lord Peel, the Chairman of the improvements committee at that time, and now the chairman of the county council, had with the Phœnix Company, after all this had been decided upon, and he then said that, unless the Phœnix Company consented to be expropriated, and to have their land practically confiscated, he would go to Parliament, he had the Government behind him, the Government Whips would be put on, and they would practically have no redress.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: What is your authority for that?
  Mr. DAWES: My authority is the chairman of the Phœnix Insurance Company, and he wrote that in a letter which was forwarded to Lord Peel. If the Noble Lord is not satisfied with that, I will rely on what was said to myself in the county council, and that was that any opposition I might possibly offer to this Bill would not have the least effect. I think it was the Noble Lord himself who said that they had the Government Whips behind them. The matter again came before the London County Council at its last meeting before the Christmas recess, at about three o'clock in the morning, and I need not re-
  1876
  mind the House what sort of attention any matter is likely to receive at that hour. On that occasion an agreement was also asked to be entered into between the county council and the Liverpool and London and Globe Company. I venture to suggest it was one of the most extraordinary documents ever put before the county council. I may remind the House that the present site of the Liverpool and London and Globe Company is about 29 feet frontage, and this agreement was entered into within six days after the resolution of the county council had been passed, thereby showing that the whole matter was cut and dried before it came before the county council at all. Clause 3 reads:—
  "If the compulsory powers above referred to are obtained and the council shall have sufficient surplus land of the improvement for the purpose, the council will convey to the company in exchange for the land, coloured pink on the plan hereto attached, a site of equal area having a continuous frontage to Charing Cross and the approach to the Mall as intended to be improved, such site to afford building facilities at least equal to those possessed by the company's present site, and the frontage not to be less and to start not farther east than the centre of the party wall now dividing No. 57, Charing Cross from No. 58."
  And the consideration is to be nothing! The Liverpool and London and Globe Company are to pay nothing for this site. I do not know whether the House is going to adopt a principle of this sort. I did not wish particularly to bring this matter before the House. But I am perfectly certain that very few members of the county council, other than the members of the improvements committee, know anything whatever about the details of this matter. I feel, unpleasant as it is to say so, that the county council have been kept in the dark with regard to this proposal, and I cannot imagine that the Commissioner of Works has appreciated the effect of this very extraordinary agreement. I submit the principle underlying it is one on behalf of which the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was never intended to operate. I know of no precedent for land being compulsorily taken, not for a public improvement, but in order to enable a public improvement to be brought about in this way. What they want to do for the purpose of improving the highway they could do under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act.

  1877
  But they desire to move away the Phœnix Insurance Company and replaced it by the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, and to do that they go to all the expense of getting an Act of Parliament, although the Phœnix Insurance Company have assured the county council that they are most anxious to co-operate with them in carrying out the improvement, and have never held them at arm's length, but have always been willing to negotiate. I am very sorry that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson) is not here, as he would have explained much better than I can the position of the Phœnix Insurance Company in this matter. But he is detained at Oxford.
  I want to trouble the House with one personal matter. I have, unfortunately, incurred the displeasure of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne), who kindly takes an active interest in our London affairs. My Noble Friend told me the other day that I was not acting in the interests of my Constituents in this matter, and he more than hinted that I had some personal motive in opposing the Bill. As far as my Constituents are concerned. I represent a part of London where we have less than 1½ acres of open space to 58,000 of population. I doubt very much whether it would not be in the interest of my Constituents to oppose this on the ground that it is an extravagant and rather thriftless scheme, and that the matter could be arranged at much less expense. But I do not want to take that particular ground. As to the personal motive, I may explain that I am a shareholder in the Phœnix Insurance Company to the extent of 100 shares of £1 each. They were the shares of another company which was absorbed by the Phœnix Company. The firm to which I used to belong, and from which I retired before I entered the House, has for the last 130 years acted for the insurance company. That is the sole interest I have in this matter, and I venture to suggest that as my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father, and I myself all had business connections with the Phœnix Insurance Company, it is not unreasonable or improper that I should have been asked to put their case before the House. That is the long and short of it.
  I want to ask whether this House is going to approve of what I say is a new and very extraordinary principle, and one which, I venture to suggest, if it had come from any quarter except possibly the
  1878
  majority of the London County Council the Noble Lord the Member for Bath would have described as "robbery and confiscation." There is no justification for the proposal. 57, Charing Cross, the property of the Phœnix Company, is not required for the improvement, except a small part, and the company are willing to negotiate with the county council or the Office of Works, and has said so in writing. No one who knows the Noble Lord or Lord Peel would for one single second suggest the proposal was not absolutely honest and straightforward; but I do say that if this principle is once established you set a thoroughly dangerous precedent—a precedent no one can think it is desirable to set by saying, "We propose to do so-and-so; if you refuse our offer we have only to go to Parliament and get Parliamentary powers. It was never intended these powers should be obtained in this way, or that people who had had land in their possession for a large number of years should be expropriated so that a rival and competitive company might be put in their place. The only reason I have ever heard suggested for this scheme is that the Liverpool and London and Globe Company have now got a corner site and are therefore entitled to this consideration. But neither the Liverpool and London and Globe Company nor the Phœnix Company had originally a corner site, and I fail to to see that one company is more entitled to a corner site than the other. While I do not wish to divide the House against this Bill, I think we are entitled to some assurance from the Government that at any rate, as regards this agreement, when it comes before the Select Committee of which I presume the hon. Member for St. George's - in - the - East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) will be a member, they will at least be neutral in regard to this unfair and unbusinesslike plan.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I rise to second the Amendment, for the purpose of getting an adequate discussion on this Bill. I have some slight connection with the Phœnix Company myself, and I have been asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford to say a word on behalf of the company. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dawes), has very fairly stated the reasons for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I am authorised to say on behalf of the Phœnix Insurance Company that they have not the smallest objection to facilitating the securing of

  1879
  this public improvement, but what they do object to is that a site which has been in their possession for over 100 years should suddenly be taken away from them by Act of Parliament and given to a trade rival which has not been in that neighbourhood nearly as long as they have. Neither of the companies was originally in possession of a corner site, and therefore this company which has held this freehold for so many years, naturally takes very strong objection to any agreement being made behind their backs that they should hand over their freehold site to another and a rival company which has occupied a much smaller position for a much smaller number of years. The Phœnix Insurance Company had received no communication from the London County Council when this bargain was made with the Liverpool and London and Globe Office. They have expressed to the London County Council their willingness to co-operate in every reasonable manner to bring about a proper and satisfactory entrance to the Mall Approach. They are perfectly willing to come to terms on any reasonable understanding. The hon. Member for Stafford (Sir Walter Essex) raised a very reasonable point as to the erection of new buildings.
  I do not myself know whether the county council propose to erect the buildings themselves and sublet them to the insurance companies, or whether they propose to let the insurance companies themselves build them; but I think I can say on behalf of the Pliœnix Company that, if the site is sold to them again and they have to erect the buildings, they will be only to glad to carry out, so far as they possibly can, the wishes of the Commissioner of Works in regard to the design of the buildings. I fully agree that it would be most undesirable that unsightly and ill-proportioned buildings should be erected on the entrance to the Approach. I am quite sure that this particular company would give every reasonable undertaking to carry out the design approved by the Commissioner of Works. I must again utter a protest against this appropriation of a site that has has been held by a very ancient company for well over 100 years, and the attempt to force an Act of Parliament upon this House to give that site to a trade rival. I hope that if a Second Reading is given to the Bill that an undertaking will be given by the Government to have the
  1880
  whole of this matter thoroughly and impartially thrashed out in Committee. The company are ready to abide by the decision of an impartial Committee, and I hope we shall have a reasonable settlement.
  Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: It was quite unnecessary for my hon. Friend (Mr. Dawes) to have said what he did in explanation of his position, because the House knows he has taken up the attitude he has taken in what he regards as the public interest, but I submit to the House with confidence that the view he has put forward is one which cannot be defended by anyone who like myself has formed an entirely independent opinion, far away from the scene, and who is not in any way connected with the London County Council or with either of these companies. The Liverpool and London and Globe Company, in view of several authorities to whom I shall refer, has behaved throughout this transaction not only with propriety, but with great magnanimity.
  Mr. DAWES: Oh, oh!
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: My hon. Friend laughs, so I will tell him why I say that. Before the Coronation, at a time when the county council had no compulsory powers when they were absolutely at the mercy of the owners of the adjoining property, the Liverpool Company, without a penny of profit to itself, and incurring in the transaction a considerable loss, voluntarily offered to surrender a sufficient part of its property to enable the necessary widening to be made for the Coronation procession to pass through. The only bargain that the county council made with the Liverpool Company was that if at the end of twelve months it was ascertained that all the land was not required which had been so surrendered by the Liverpool Company, the Liverpool Company should be given the right to repurchase what it had sold under this arrangement. In the meantime, at great inconvenience to the company, and I believe at some pecuniary loss, they carried on their business in this truncated building—the remaining portion of the premises in which they had formerly carried on business. What happened at the end of the twelve months? The widening was made, sufficient property was taken out of that surrendered to enable the whole of this public work to be done and to meet the occasion at that time. The county council then gave notice that they did not require the surplus piece of land which

  1881
  was then upon their hands, and the Liverpool Company exercised their option of acquiring it and proceeded to pull down the truncated part of their building, and to rebuild their premises. They went to a large expense in getting out architect's plans, which were submitted to the county council and approved. They incurred architect's and surveyor's charges, they wholly demolished the remainder of their building and sank the foundations of the new edifice. Then, apparently, public feeling grew, and there came about a public demand, which was advertised a great deal in the Press at the time, that a really satisfactory opening should be made and the original widening extended.
  In that position of things what was the attitude taken up by the Liverpool and London and Globe Company? They might, if they had been out to make money, have continued building and then have made an extensive claim for compensation for disturbance. That is what would have been done by people who were anxious to get the uttermost farthing out of a public authority. They did nothing of the kind. They agreed to stop building and to take temporary premises opposite, the only bargain of any kind that was made with the county council being that, in consideration of doing that public service and of saving the increased burden which would have been thrown upon the people who would have had to pay the compensation ultimately, the county council should give them not better premises, but premises with precisely the same area and in the same relative position. The whole of the cost to which the Liverpool Company had been put by the dislocation of its business through the transfer to other offices in temporary premises, and the temporary rent they were paying—the whole burden of that was to be undertaken and borne by the Liverpool Company itself, and under this agreement they did not receive one penny of compensation. It is a little hard, in these circumstances, that it should be said that the Liverpool Company have been actuated in this matter by anything but the highest civic spirit and the desire to do what in the public interest they rightly considered to be the proper thing. The agreement to which my hon. Friend has referred as being made in December was really not made in December at all. It was formally assented to in December by the London
  1882
  County Council. My hon. Friend forgot that on 23rd February, 1913 the arrangement was made to which I have referred. The agreement was contained in a letter. I am referring to the agreement as to the substituted site, the removal to temporary premises, and the company's receiving no compensation for disturbance. The whole of that agreement had been made between the parties in February, and had actually been acted upon by the Liverpool Company, and they had removed their business to the temporary premises upon the faith of it.
  Mr. DAWES: May I read the resolution of the county council of 17th December, 1913? It runs:—
  "That a conditional agreement be entered into with the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, Limited, in connection with the completion of the Mall to Charing Cross improvement, providing for the reinstatement of the company on a site fronting on Charing Cross and the Admiralty Arch Approach; that the Improvements Committee be authorised to settle the details of the agreement; and that the seal of the council be affixed thereto."
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: I agree. What I said was that the bargain was contained in the letter of 23rd February, which was embodied in a more formal agreement which was approved in December. I should like to point out this: the conduct of the company has been criticised in regard to this matter. This agreement went before the improvements committee, and was brought up for the approval of the council, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Dawes) moved that the agreement be referred back.
  Mr. DAWES: The agreement has never been before the county council.
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: It was a draft agreement which I think was put before the county council in December.
  Mr. DAWES: No.
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: At any rate, the basis of the agreement was brought before the council on 17th December, and a debate upon it ensued. Lord Peel, in replying to a criticism made by my hon. Friend with regard to the conduct of the Liverpool Company—it is not suggested that Lord Peel had any interest of any kind in the transaction, and he was a man occupying a very responsible public position—said in regard to the conduct of the two companies, and, as the voting afterwards showed, with the entire approval of every member present with the exception

  1883
  of nine gentlemen who voted in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment:—
  "The position of the committee is a very simple one They felt that the Liverpool and London and Globe Company had acted very well and with a considerable amount of public spirit in this matter. They had at the request of the Improvements Committee held their hand when they might have built and made the position far more difficult….I should really not be representing the feeling of the committee unless I used very strong language to express their firm determination that they would not be dealing with this matter in the way an honourable public body ought to deal with a company like the Liverpool and London and Globe Company if they did not recognise and put into writing that moral obligation into which they were considerably bound towards the Liverpool and London and Globe Company. They took the strong and high line that it would be a very bad thing for public policy if great public bodies like the county council did not act up to the letter of the moral obligation into which they had entered, and tried to ride oft on purely technical grounds. For that reason solely, and from no desire to give preferential treatment but to be perfectly fair to other companies they decided to enter into this arrangement."
  Mr. DAWES: When was that?
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: On the 17th December. In July, the question had been raised. Lord Peel was then still more emphatic in answering the observations of my hon. Friend. He said:—
  "It is not for me to praise or blame. I only say this that neither this council, nor the Government, nor Westminster, owes anything whatever to the Phœnix Assurance Company for the way they have behaved. They stood, and perhaps they are entitled to stand, on the strictest business principles, but I am here to testify that they have not shown, in the course of these negotiations, anything approaching a degree of civic or patriotic spirit. I must absolutely dissociate myself from the statement that they deserve in any way special treatment or any special consideration from the council. They were out to drive a hard bargain, and they tried to drive the hardest bargain they could. I do not blame them, but I want to put clearly on record this fact, that while the other company with whom we dealt showed a very reasonable spirit, the Phœnix Company held out for the uttermost farthing."
  Captain JESSEL: From what document is the hon. Member quoting?
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: From the speech made by Lord Peel in the county council on the 29th July, 1913. At an earlier stage Mr. Cyril Cobb had also spoken of the public spirit of the Liverpool and London and Globe, and Mr. Whitaker Thompson, the chairman of the Improvements Committee, said:—
  "He desired to voice on behalf of the Improvements Committee, their sense of the very considerate way in which they had been met by the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company."
  That brings me to the last point—how can it be suggested that the Phœnix Company is being unfairly dealt with in this matter? They have not gone out of their way to give the slightest assistance to public bodies in their desire to complete this work, which is in the public interest and
  1884
  is a public necessity. But, notwithstanding that, they are placed in precisely as favourable a position as the company which has made all these sacrifices to achieve that end. Here are two companies, one with a frontage to the corner of Spring Gardens, and the other next door to it. The scheme is to move back both offices a few feet from the position they now occupy, so that they would continue to occupy the same relative position, and both of them will have suffered, if there is any disadvantage in the move at all, to precisely the same extent. I do not know that the hon. Member (Mr. Dawes) appreciated the force of the case which the Liverpool Company are in a position to make. The only point he made in answer to it was that the land on which the Phœnix office stands is land on which it has stood for 120 years. That is not really material, because the site which they will be given in substitution will be of precisely the same value as the site they now occupy, and, what is more important to commercial corporations of this character, they will stand precisely in the same relation to each other as they stand at present in regard to their respective sites. I ask the House to take the view that the Liverpool Company, so far from deserving the animadversions which have been passed upon it by my hon. Friend, is deserving of some recognition for the public spirit they have shown throughout this transaction, which has already been recognised by the leading members of the county council, to whose speeches I have referred.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I should not have intervened had the hon. Member (Mr. Dawes) not directly referred to me. I do not think any hon. Member who has been associated with him would impugn his motives or would suggest that in this matter he has not acted with the utmost propriety; but that is quite a different matter from admitting that his case has got a basis in fact when he represents the position of the Phœnix Insurance Company. I think it would be very inadvisable for the House to try and judge between the relative merits in this matter of these two great insurance companies. I suggest that this is a matter which, if it require investigation at all, ought to be investigated by a Committee upstairs. There is only one point I wish to make on the general question as regards these two sites. The London

  1885
  County Council has not acted in a manner which is not usual in such transactions. We are asking power to acquire certain lands, part of which are required for this great public improvement. There will be surplus lands, and we shall have power, I hope, to dispose of them not to the advantage of this or that insurance company, but in a manner which is best calculated to promote the interests of the ratepayers. I suggest to the House that the whole proceeding of the London County Council in regard to these two insurance companies has been in accordance with the usual practice in this matter, and they are not showing any preference to one insurance company over another. I should be the last to wish to judge between two insurance companies, but I feel that it would be a dereliction on the part of anybody who is conversant with the facts not to acknowledge freely the handsome manner in which the London and Liverpool and Globe Company have met us from the very beginning of this business. They have met us in a very generous and accommodating spirit. To say that for one company is not to suggest that the Phœnix Company have not behaved with the utmost propriety. They approached the matter perhaps in a more businesslike spirit, and from a more strictly businesslike point of view than the London and Liverpool and Globe, but the Phœnix Company have done no more than to attempt to obtain what they considered their rights in this matter, and I do not suggest for a moment that that company has not behaved with the utmost propriety. The point I wish to make is that it would be unwise for this House to attempt to judge the merits of the agreement that has been alluded to. It is a matter proper for investigation upstairs, and, furthermore, as I think the hon. Member (Mr. Dawes) himself will admit, throughout these negotiations the London County Council has not departed from custom and practice in the matter.
  Mr. BOYTON: There is another side of the question on which I should like some information. clause 9, Sub-section (2), says:—
  "The contribution of the Commissioners of Works under this Section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and out of other moneys at the disposal of the Commissioners, in such proportions as the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine."
  1886
  This, I think, is an improvement of a national rather than a local character, and I should like to know from what sources the money will be forthcoming. It seems rather hard that the London County Council should be called upon to make a large contribution and that the Westminter City Council should be called upon to make a contribution, because the council will have to levy a rate and also pay interest on the sinking fund, and likewise the Westminster City Council will have to levy a rate and also lose the rates on the buildings which hitherto have existed on this spot, so that they are paying both ways. I should have thought this Government, of all Governments, would in this case have introduced the question of betterment. I do not know from what source—I hope I shall be informed—the Government will raise the money. I am hoping that the Government will ask the Crown Estate Commissioners to contribute very liberally to their share of this outlay, because it is nothing really to the Crown Estate. In a short time a large portion of the properties of this area is reverting to the Crown. There is Carlton House Terrace, and the increased rent derived from the site of one or two clubs in Pall Mall and in the immediate neighbourhood will be sufficient to pay the interest on this total outlay.
  Therefore it seems to me exceedingly hard that the inhabitants of London, for what I regard as really a national improvement, should be called upon to make a rate contribution. The eastern side of the square belongs to the Crown. In a few years that reverts, and there, again, the unearned increment accruing to the Crown from the falling in of the leases on that side of the square is more than ample, probably, to pay the whole cost of this transaction. Then, again, in the first part of the Bill power is taken to raise £215,000. I understood the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say £115,000. I take it that out of the £215,000 £100,000 reinstatement money is going to be earned, so that the total cost will be only £115,000, of which the Government undertake to provide a third. But under the original arrangement they were only going to provide, on an estimated cost of £215,000, a half of a third. I see that their expenses now will be strictly limited to a third of £115,000, which is, roughly speaking, the £38,000 mentioned in the Bill. It is hard, indeed, that Londoners should be required to put their hands in their pockets and permanently to lose, not only the money that is

  1887
  to be provided for the immediate purchase, but to lose rates and building charges for all time. I do not think the increased value of the adjoining property will altogether compensate for the money they are to provide now. In the case of the Crown their riches are untold. They are coming into a colossal increment, and surely, for once, they will regard it as a national, and not a local, improvement, and provide the whole of the money.
  Mr. BOOTH: I did not intervene earlier, because an interesting point was raised between two insurance companies. I certainly think it is somewhat of a tragedy, that in matters of this importance one should lose sight of the main problem. Surely we ought to have a word of justification from the Front Bench as to why a great and wealthy city like London should come sponging upon the provinces for its improvements. The figure which London cuts in this House naturally makes the Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne) thoroughly ashamed of it. Again and again it comes here as if it was a poverty-stricken village. It does not think it necessary to justify, or take the trouble to explain, that it is dipping its hands into the public purse. There are many other cases besides London which could do with street improvements. I represent a small borough with a historic castle, where the streets are very congested. Suppose every town or every part of London were to come forward in the way that Westminster and Spring Gardens have done to-day, and want public money to be spent. Surely it would be intolerable. My complaint repeatedly against the London authorities has been that they do not rise to the dignity of their position. They will push their responsibility upon anyone else rather than take it on themselves. That is true again and again of the London County Council, and there is no Member who has been in the House for a few years who has not noticed that every time the London County Council is mentioned, it is trying to push its responsibilities on to some other authority or trying to make someone who ought not to contribute towards its expenses. That is what it is doing here. There was a time when London, we all thought, would lead the municipalities of the world. They engaged in the great Kingsway scheme, and, all credit to them, they footed the bill. They talked then about street corner sites and frontages, and sites they would have to let,
  1888
  but they took the responsibility. They made their great scheme, and nothing that London has done in modern times did so much to enhance its reputation as a great city than the Kingsway scheme. Now they come to a small tinkering improvement at the corner of Trafalgar Square. How can they say that the taxpayers of the West Riding, whence I come, have any interest whatever in cutting the corners off these buildings and indulging in an architectural improvement at the corner of Trafalgar Square?
  What is the object of it? It cannot possibly be called a national object any more than a street improvement in any central site in London can be called national. One would have thought there was something specially devoted to people who come up from the provinces in connection with it, in which case there might have been a vestige of an excuse, but not a title of an argument has been produced. Simply the Londoners think it is a natural thing that England should pay their debts. Are we prepared always to be put to shame by Manchester, Birmingham, and Glasgow, and the bigger municipalities of the North? They talk about the expense, but I notice that one of the three contracting parties in the Westminster Council. I am a ratepayer in Westminster, and I do not think our burdens are very heavy. I think we might well share our burdens with some of the poorest parts of London. I find that I am asked here by one of the wealthiest cities to come forward and support a Bill to give a sum of money for a little street improvement. I say it is a pitiable figure for the Westminster Council to cut. Part of this expense will come on the entire community; part of it will fall upon the village where I live and pay rates. There the rates are 10s. 8d. in the pound, and the place has neither gas, water, nor a public library. Westminster, where I am also a ratepayer, has much smaller rates, and yet a great deal of public expenditure is given in its district. Still it is not satisfied. Like the daughter of the horse leech, it is still crying for more. This shows that its appetite grows by what it feeds on. The hon. Member asked that the whole of this expense should be borne by the ratepayers of the country. I say that such an impudent claim as this could not have—
  Mr. BOYTON: I say that the Crown was the proper party to pay the money.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is not Pontefract still under the Crown?
  Mr. BOYTON: The Crown is not the ground landlord in Pontefract.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is exactly what it is. The Crown is the ground landlord there, and I would point out that it draws mining royalties. It asked an exorbitant price for ground for a public school, and the local authority had to go to a private landlord for ground. We found him a more reasonable landlord than the Crown. That is almost the invariable rule. I know that it is sometimes like going out of the frying pan into the fire, but after all, private owners, at least the majority of them, are subject to reason and consideration. With the Crown it is almost impossible to negotiate. It is selfishness personified. The hon. Member quotes the Crown, and yet he fails to recognise that the revenues of the Crown are the revenues of the nation. I suggest that it is very undignified for the hon. Member, representing as he does one of the richest puts of this great Metropolis, to come here asking money for this purpose as a poverty-stricken beggar —asking poor villagers in the North of England to come to his rescue. That is, I think, a fairly legitimate summary of his speech. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, naturally thought it his duty to say nothing, just as if it were after eleven O'clock. The hon. Member would not give a word of explanation of the Bill. Why? It is public money that is being spent, and, therefore, the matter requires very little attention. When he tries, he can really explain very voluminously, and he can do his subject justice, but, such is the fashion nowadays, when the hon. Member is moving a Bill of importance he chooses to remain silent. I have protested against this before. I said two years ago, a year ago, and I say again now, that I will never allow the Government to move an important Bill without a word of explanation. I do not care how urgent the present Bill may be. There is something due to this House. It never struck the hon. Member, perhaps, that anybody was concerned in this matter except two insurance companies. The fact that there are ratepayers in the country seems to be forgotten since he built the noble staircase. For the monuments he is going to place in the Green Park he thinks that it is desirable that public money should be spent.
  I wish to warn the hon. Gentleman as to this policy, because I think the goodwill of the provinces is worth money to
  1890
  London. The feeling is growing all over the country that it is unfair to those districts which feed and keep London going, that they should be eternally asked to foot the bill. Is it not enough to pay for the parks at the public expense? Is it not enough that London is made the seat of government, and the seat of law, and that consequently there is a great drain from the country into the Metropolis? Is that not enough? All we do in that way means attractions to London, and increasing the rateable value. When any little ornamental work is to be done we are asked to pay. The money is not asked for the children who are growing up in the slums. It is to have an architectural fad worked out. When the work is completed and the money spent, will they have the courage to walk past it? The cultivated taste is shocked, pained, and grieved by some of these buildings for which the public have to find the money. I say that the attitude of the London County Council and the Westminster City Council is one to be severely deprecated. I doubt whether there is any county council or borough council in the country which, having the same responsibility, would cut the same pitiable figure as these councils do in this case. Let the representatives of London and Westminster take some pride in their work, and not keep getting into difficulties of all kinds, with the result that they have to come here, sometimes for large sums, and sometimes, as they are now doing, for a miserably small sum, putting themselves in a position of indebtedness to the entire ratepayers of the country. I say that the London County Council first, the Westminster City Council next, and the Government third, ought to be ashamed to bring in this Bill.
  Mr. ALFRED BIRD: I would make a very earnest appeal to-night to the House to let this Bill pass the Second Reading. We are all conscious that the entrance to the Mall, as it now exists, has been for some years practically a national disgrace. I do not wish to go into the past, or to say upon whose shoulders the blame rests for that prolonged condition of affairs. When I came on the scene in connection with this matter I found three authorities at hopeless variance, and I had the greatest difficulty in unravelling all the entanglements which they had got into in respect of the various negotiations. I had to approach first one, and then another, and, by the exercise of whatever little tact I may

  1891
  possess, to reconcile them to meet one another and discuss the feasibility of putting an end to this state of affairs. I do say that any Members defeating or delaying this measure will find themselves accountable to a very serious public opinion if some action is not taken to put an end to the present condition of the entrance to the Mall. I wish to assure the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex) that he need have no anxiety as to the way in which the architectural elevation of the new buildings will be dealt with. I would call his attention to Clause 4, which contains these words
  "shall take all due steps to secure the erection upon the said lands of buildings or other structures in accordance with designs, sections, and specifications submitted to and approved by the Commissioners of Works."
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: But not initiated by them.
  Mr. BIRD: I would further explain that a committee was appointed by the three bodies, consisting of the Earl of Plymouth and Sir Reginald Blomfield—gentlemen well known and well experienced in matters of this description, and I am sure the nation may place every confidence in their judgment. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes), I am bound to say that if he had my experience in bringing the authorities together he would not have been so ready to rake up the past, as he has been, in connection with this matter. I can assure him that the subject will be perfectly safe in the hands of the Committee to be appointed in connection with the Bill. I do think that it is taking up the time of the House unduly to discuss these matters in the way they have been discussed to-night. These are purely affairs for the Committee. I conclude by once more appealing to the House to allow the Bill to go through to-night, and not to prolong the unhappy state of affairs which exists at Trafalgar Square at present.
  Captain JESSEL: I wish to reply shortly to the unjustifiable attack on the local authorities of London which has been made by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). The hon. Member seems to me in rather a fault-finding mood this evening, because he not only attacked the local authorities of London, but he ventured to
  1892
  find fault with the Government itself. He scolded the representative of the Government, and denounced the methods adopted in dealing with this question. As regards the London County Council and the Westminster authority, I myself think that there is very little blame to be attached to them in the matter. I quite disagree with the lion. Member for Pontefract that this is entirely a local matter. It is not; it is a national matter. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Boyton), the Crown is landlord in the whole position. I do not know why the hon. Member for Pontefract went for the Crown in the way he did in his own district. I suppose the Crown there is a bad landlord from the way he seemed to attack the Crown. At Pontefract they seem to have cut off one monarch's head. I do not know whether it is on account of that tradition, or because the Crown is the ground landlord there that they have such an animosity against the Crown. Whatever may be said in the matter—
  Mr. BOOTH: It was not the Pontefract people who cut off the King's head there. They are loyal.
  8.0 P.M.
  Captain JESSEL: I think the hon. Member is quite unaware of the fact that we in Westminster pay higher rates than in any other city in the Empire. We pay over £2,000,000, of which the city of Westminster itself only spends £300,000. I think, therefore, if the people of Westminster as a body contribute £1,750,000, it is treated badly by the people of London if we are to contribute ourselves one-third of the whole cost, while in addition to that Westminster pays its share of the rateable value of London. If there is one body to be commended in this matter, it is Westminster. As regards the London County Council the appeal put forward by the hon. Member for Walworth is, "I cannot see what interest my Constituents have in this matter; they do not come up often to the West end of London; they are poor constituents." Some other hon. Members made similar appeals. I think that the matter has now been more or less amicably settled. It is only owing to the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, whose good offices were used in the tactful way which distinguishes him to bring all the high contending parties together, that we have arrived at the happy issue to which I hope

  1893
  the House will give its approval this evening. The different matters which have been referred to are, I think, matters for the Committee upstairs. I notice that the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East is looking anxious about this Bill. I trust that he will not think that I would be guilty of obstruction, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
  Mr. DAWES: In reference to the observations of the hon. Member who quoted Lord Peel's remarks, and after the criticisms which he made, I may point out that the chairman of the Phœnix Company, Lord George Hamilton, wrote to Lord Peel:—
  "I do not understand how you can reconcile your words with the statement that I more than once made to you that the Phœnix Company were ready to co-operate with the London County Council in promoting this improvement, and that they had no intention either of driving a 'hard bargain' or exacting from the London County Council the full amount of the compensation to which they might be legally entitled. On both the occasions on which I met you, you put into the mouth of the Phœnix Company these words. On both occasions I emphatically repudiated that we had any such intentions."
  It is only fair to Lord George Hamilton that I should say that, and I will now ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:
  "That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill:
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  "That Three be the quorum."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I point out that this is rather an unusual Committee for a Bill of this kind? I do not think that it is a very good procedure. When three are selected by the House and two by the Com-
  1894
  mittee of Selection I do not like to suggest that they should all attend, but we are entitled to ask that fair consideration should be given to these two companies. They may have the fate of their West End branch decided by this Committee with only three present, and I think that that is too small a number considering the importance of the case. I am sure that the House would not want the slightest injustice done to either company. I do think that the five members should all be present, and I do not know whether you intend to take this matter up to-night, but I would like to move to delete the words, "That Three be the quorum."
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects to those words, he can move to leave them out.
  Mr. BOOTH: I will move to leave out those words, in order to get an assurance from the Government that they will not take a decision unless the five members are present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will put the Question down to the word "records," and afterwards I can put the other Question.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Question proposed, "That Three be the quorum."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask for an explanation on this point?
  Mr. BENN: I believe that it is usual to have a quorum of three on these Committees, but if the hon. Member wishes I shall be glad to give him an assurance that we shall endeavour to secure a full attendance of every Member of the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  INEBRIATES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I am sure that the House will remember the Bill of 1912 dealing with this subject. That Bill obtained a Second Reading on the 9th July without a Division. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman), who was a member of the Committee which investigated the question in 1908, took part in the discussion on the Bill of 1912, and was able to support it, and I think that practically unanimous support was given to the Bill on that occasion. At any rate, whether the support was unanimous or not, there was no vote against the Second Reading. This is a question which, I think is recognised by everybody, must be dealt with. We have had three Committees inquiring into it, in 1872, in 1903, and in 1908. This Bill is only carrying into effect the recommendations of these three Committees. I will not trouble the House now with what each Committee recommended, but I can assure the House that this Bill does not in any way go beyond the recommendations of these Committees. There were two Acts upon this matter, the Act of 1879 and that of 1898. Perhaps the House would like me to say a word as to why the present law has failed. First of all, the definition of a habitual drunkard is entirely unsatisfactory. A great many of the magistrates have come to the conclusion from the definition that in order to be an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Act a person has to be more or less feeble-minded and more or less akin to a person out of his mind. In the Bill before the House that definition has been extended in the way in which anyone who reads the Bill will see.
  The second difficulty was that in order to come within the Act a man must be four times convicted. There are a great many cases which should be treated, although the person has not been four times convicted, and in addition there may be people who have been four times convicted, but there are no central records to establish that fact. A further point is that magistrates hesitate about throwing upon anyone the responsibility of providing accommodation. Then it is also necessary, in order that he may be dealt with
  1896
  summarily, that he should give his consent to be so dealt with, and that would not often be got; and there was also the absence of that after-care which we think essential in these cases, because after spending very often a considerable time in one of these reformatories or homes, unless there is after-care for that man, all the work is undone directly he goes out of the institution. The Bill also proposes to deal with what may be called the non-criminal inebriate. At present the non-criminal inebriate can only be admitted to an institution upon his own application. That application is not as frequently made as one would desire. The real purpose of the Bill is to suggest two mild alternatives. It is to enable a man who does not really want to go to a retreat to come and give an undertaking to abstain from intoxicating liquor. Although on the last occasion some humour was provoked by the suggestion, as it was a new thing, we know perfectly well that when men are let out on probation, very often for a period of six or twelve months, it is a condition of the probation that they shall abstain from intoxicating liquor, and the experience of the hon. Member for Cambridge University is that that is a very useful power, and in a great many circumstances it works extremely well. The second alternative is that the man should submit to a voluntary guardian.
  It is only when those two methods have been refused or have failed, that the man is sent compulsorily to a retreat. It is proposed that the definition shall be extended so that abstention from intoxicating liquor shall include abstention from drugs, which the House will admit is very important, and also with regard to the criminal inebriate, instead of having a sentence of three years—for it is a very curious thing that in the practice of magistrates three years, which is the maximum sentence, is very often regarded as the minimum sentence—it is proposed in this Bill that if the inebriate has not been in a reformatory before, he may be sentenced to six months, and, if he has been in a reformatory before, the sentence will be not less than one year, and not more than three years. These are the main provisions of the Bill, and I have now to say a few words about the finance. At present the arrangement is, in criminal cases, where the man has been convicted on indictment, the Treasury pays the whole of the expenses, whether he is sent to a State or to a certified reformatory.

  1897
  When he is sent to a certified reformatory under Section II. the Treasury pays 8s. 9d. per week, and in special cases where a great deal of money has been spent on the institution, 10s. 6d. per week. It is proposed that when the inebriate has been committed to a State reformatory, the Treasury shall be responsible for the whole of the cost, and when he is committed to a certified reformatory the Treasury shall pay half the cost and the local authorities the remainder. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to adjust these matters, but we submit to the House that to divide the expenses equally in the case of persons sent to a certified reformatory is an equitable way of dealing with the matter. Having explained briefly the provisions of the Bill, I beg to Move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Member say what is the difference between this Bill and the Bill of last year?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Practically it is identically the same Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should have been greatly surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not given some explanation of this Bill on its reintroduction, and I am only sorry that he has not taken the opportunity of replying to the many criticisms which were made when the Bill was previously before the House two years ago, and when, in fact, although the hon. Gentleman then made a preliminary statement, there was no reply made by any Member of the Government subsequently, in spite of these numerous criticisms and of the fact that the Debate ranged over two Parliamentary days.
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE).
  Mr. LYELL: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the system of the alternative vote in Parliamentary Elections is urgently needed in order to do away with the admitted anomalies of minority representation."
  The Motion I have placed on the Paper I am now moving in the hope of eliciting
  1898
  from the House of Commons an expression of approval for a certain reform of our electoral system, known as the Alternative Vote. I do not think that anybody in this House believes that our present system is really satisfactory. But before attempting to commend any reform of it to the House, I think I should say a few words about the unsatisfactory nature of the evils of which we complain, and of the particular remedy it is proposed to apply. Most of us have had some experience—sometimes through our fault—of what are roughly known as three-cornered fights, and I think very few of us, to whatever party in this House we belong, think that they have really satisfactory results. I do not say that in any party spirit whatever. I do not want to make any party points; in fact, I specially wish to avoid doing anything of the kind, because I am going to try and show that our present system is really unsatisfactory to all parties, and I would like if I can to enlist the sympathy and support of all parties in endeavouring to remedy it. Of course, it is perfectly true that if we look at the present situation only, the Liberal party is one which just now suffers most and is hardest hit. I am perfectly willing to make a present of that to hon. Members opposite. But if they think that that is a very good reason for stereotyping our present system, I beg of them to take rather longer views. I think that would be taking an extremely short view.
  It is within the political memory of most of us that the Conservative party itself was acutely divided on the fiscal question, and that we had Unionist Free Traders and Unionist Tariff Reformers fighting one another, and standing for the same single-Member constituencies. Only a short time before that the Liberal party was split from top to bottom upon the subject of the South African war; and I think he would be a very bold man who would prophesy that perfect unity was likely to reign for ever within the ranks of either of the great historic parties. Therefore, I submit that if hon. Gentlemen opposite take the view that they would retain the system because it is detrimental to the Liberal party, they would be taking a very short view. It occasionally happens that in a three-cornered contest, under present circumstances, one or other of the candidates gets the majority of the votes cast. In that case, of course, all those evils which we associate with the system do not arise. But that is not a very common

  1899
  circumstance. As a general rule, no candidate in a three-cornered contest gets an absolute majority, and it is then we say that an unsatisfactory state of things comes into existence. If the Liberal wins, the Conservative Press at once urges, with a great deal of force, that there was an anti-Government majority. If the Conservative wins, the Liberal Press urges, with no less force, that the majority have voted in favour of all the items on the Government programme. If a Labour representative wins, both Liberals and Conservatives say that an anti-social majority has been recorded by the constituency. Therefore, I suggest that our present system is not really satisfactory to anybody.
  Having described the evils of the present system, let me say a very few words about the remedies we propose. We are not trying an absolutely new-fangled experiment which has never been put into practical operation anywhere. The system which I am commending to the House has been now for some years in actual operation in two Australian Colonies—Queensland and Western Australia—and from all accounts we hear that the Alternative Vote is working very fairly, smoothly, and well. The Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the electoral system, after stating objections to the system, goes on to say:—
  "We have set out these objections in full, if not at undue length, because it is desirable that no more should be expected from the system than it is able to give, but, when all due weight has been given to them, the Alternative vote remains the best method of removing the most serious defect which a single-Member system can possess—the return of minority
  candidates. and accordingly, we recommend its adoption in single-Member constituencies."
  Let me explain the Alternative Vote. We may suppose that the elector is invited to indicate his preference by putting a single cross to the name of his candidate. He indicates his preference by means of a cross or figure 1 against the name of the candidate whom he wishes to see returned, or least wishes to see kept out, whichever way one likes to put it. And then, if he so desires, he can express what is called a special preference by putting against the name of the candidate he thinks next best to be returned, the figure 2, and against the name of the third candidate the figure 3, and so on. Let me explain for a moment how it works out. When an election takes place, the candidate who has received the least
  1900
  number of what we may call the first choice, as expressed by a cross or a figure, is eliminated; he is treated as a defeated candidate. His ballot papers are then examined to see what preferences are given by the electors who voted for him as regards the other candidates, and those ballot papers are then divided among the remaining two candidates until one or the other gets an absolute majority of the votes cast. This is rather a difficult matter to explain lucidly in a few words, and perhaps I may make it a little clearer by giving an imaginary illustration. Let me suppose that three candidates are standing for a single-Member constituency, and be it remembered that the Royal Commission did not recommend the application of the alternative vote except in single-Member constituencies, and the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington had in charge this year and last year expressly provides that it should not be applied to any except single-Member constituencies.
  We have three candidates for a single-Member constituency, A, B, and C. It is found on examining the ballot papers that on the first preference expressed A has received 4,000, B 3,500, and C 3,000. It is clear that 10,500 votes have been cast, and that, therefore, the highest number polled, which is 4,000, is not an absolute majority of the constituency. As C has received fewest votes, he is therefore eliminated and treated as the defeated candidate. All his papers are examined to see what second preferences have been indicated. These second preferences are examined, and it is found that 2,000 second preferences have been given to B, and 1,000 second preferences to A. A has now 4,000, his original number, plus 1,000, making 5,000. B has 3,500 first preferences, plus 2,000 of C's second preferences, making 5,500. Therefore, B has an absolute majority of the 10,500 votes cast, and is therefore elected. It will be seen at once that this has the same effect as the system of second ballot as practised in France and Germany, and in most other countries where the single-Member constituency is adopted. Suppose that the second ballot had been applied to this election C would be eliminated in exactly the same way because he would have got the fewest votes in the first instance. An election would have taken place a week after the original elections, and all such voters as originally had given votes to C would be invited to make a preference

  1901
  between A and B. By the system which I am attempting to describe they exercise the preference at the same time as they cast the original vote. I think we shall all agree that if we have got to make a choice between the second ballot and the alternative vote, that the alternative vote gives a very much better result. I think most of us have had experience of the lassitude and weariness and fatigue which comes over a candidate towards the end of a long and hotly contested election. I think very few of us would contemplate the prospects without a shudder if we were told that no definite result had actually been arrived at, and that we were to return to another week of oratory and canvassing, and the prospect of making the same point and answering the same questions for the fifth, fiftieth, and five-hundredth time, which is a distinguishing feature of so much of our electoral life.
  The Resolution which I am moving speaks of the evils, admitted evils, of minority representation, and by that I mean not that I think minorities should have no representation at all, but that they should not have, as they have in certain instances in single-Member constituencies, monopolised representation. It has been pointed out to me that the phrase I have used is rather ambiguous, because the expression, "minority representation" has really got a special meaning of its own. The system of proportional representation exists for the purpose of giving to minorities—not, indeed, a monopolised representation, but precisely the representation to which they are entitled by their numbers. Let me say at once, here and now, that the system which I am attempting to advocate is in no way inconsistent with or antagonistic to the system of proportional representation. There is one great and essential difference between these systems, and that is that the alternative vote is a system which can only be properly applied to single-Member constituencies. The feature of proportional representation, the essential feature, is that it is a root-and-branch attack on the whole system of single-Member constituencies, and you cannot work it unless you sweep away single-Member constituencies, and adopt a system of large, multiple constituencies which return six or eight or even ten Members.
  Therefore I would like to point out that there is no quarrel whatever between the alternative vote and proportional representation. The alternative vote is an attempt to mitigate the evils of the present
  1902
  system, while proportional representation would be the substitution of an entirely new system, starting on an entirely different plane. There is, I think, this to be said. It is true that the alternative vote, if it were adopted, might, to a certain extent, lead to proportional representation, because it would make the voter accustomed to mark a paper one, two, or three, as he would have to do in proportional representation, instead of with a simple cross. Some people have told us that it would be extraordinarily difficult to educate the voter up to this method and to make him understand it. I venture to differ from those persons. I think that as long as you are able to explain to the voter that all he has got to do is to mark a ballot paper as he would mark a race-card—that is, his fancy to win and his idea as to second and third place—then, I think, there would be no difficulty in explaining the system to him. In any case, I understand that that particular difficulty has not arisen in either of the places where it is now tried.
  This morning there has appeared on the Order Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell). As we all know, the hon. and gallant Member has identified himself in this House with conspicuous industry and no small measure of success with the cause of redistribution. I would like to point out to him that redistribution would be no remedy at all for the particular evil about which we are complaining. If he were to succeed in getting every constituency in this country mathematically equal in numbers, this evil of the split vote would still exist. The present system of single-Member constituencies dates from a time when there were only two parties in each constituency, and it is quite clear to every one of us that that time has utterly passed away and will never return. The Labour party has now made its appearance. It has every right to make its appearance, and it has got every right to stay, and it has got every right to make itself heard and represented in this House, and, if it so please, to contest every single constituency in this country. Of that there is no possible doubt. It follows from that, as we are now working under a system which was originally devised at a time when there were only two parties in this country, and as that condition of affairs has now entirely passed away, we have got to adapt our machinery to the new

  1903
  conditions, which have come to stay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has embodied in his Amendment a quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission from which I have read an extract. He asks us to say that
  "this House declines to add unnecessary complications to an electoral system on which a Royal Commission has reported that none has been devised more simple for the elector, more rapid in operation, more straightforward in result, advantages in an instrument for use by a large electorate of varying intelligence which it is difficult to overestimate."
  Most of us have got experience of large electorates of varying intelligence, although we do not always agree as to which are the most intelligent. I have no doubt whatever that the constituency which returns the hon. and gallant Member is one of a very high degree of intelligence, but most of us have in our experience struck some of the denser patches, and opinions vary as to the one which displays the greatest degree of intelligence. Be that as it may, if anybody read the hon. and gallant Member's quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission, and if his knowledge of its recommendations were limited to that quotation, then I think he would go away with a very false idea as to what those recommendations were, because he would think that the Royal Commission had recommended and set the seal of its approval on our present system. If anybody reads the passage from which the hon. Member takes his quotation, he will find that the very next sentence reads:—
  "But it suffers from the defects of its merits, a certain brutality and a roughness of justice which its opponents call by a harsher name, besides other defects to which, perhaps, no virtues correspond."
  A little later on they point out how the present system under certain circumstances absolutely results in the return of the least popular candidate in a three- or four-cornered fight. They tell us that the disadvantages of the present system have been pointed out by the representatives of both great party organisations which strongly pressed for reform. We have these evils before us now, and I have endeavoured to show what they are. I now venture to commend to the House this system by which they may be remedied. The Royal Commission in their Report say, as regards the alternative vote:—
  "We recommend the adoption of the alternative vote in cases where more than two candidates stand for one seat. We do not recommend its application to two-Member constituencies, but we submit that the question of the retention of such constituencies, which
  1904
  are anomalous, should be reconsidered as soon as opportunity offers. Of schemes for producing proportional representation, we think that the transferable vote would have the best chance of ultimate acceptance, but we are unable to recommend its adoption in existing circumstances for elections to the House of Commons."
  On that recommendation of the Royal Commission we found our case at the present moment, and I ask the House to set the seal of its approval on a system which is proposed as a remedy for our present discontents. I beg to move.
  Mr. WILES: I rise to Second the Resolution which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
  I should like, first of all, to thank him for using the opportunity which he has secured in the ballot in support of a Bill dealing with the Alternative Vote, which I have brought in several times, because, as I have not been successful in the ballot, my Bill has not had any chance of getting forward. I think that all parts of the House will agree that the time has arrived when some change must be made in our mode of elections, and I hope that we shall pass this Resolution unanimously. It may be said that this is a party move because, admittedly, at the present time the system which we propose might be of more advantage to the Liberal party than to any other party. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out, all parties in the past have suffered very severely from three-cornered contests. The Conservative party did so particularly, not only in 1886, but in 1906. In the latter year the Liberals gained seats in Birkenhead, where a Tariff Reform and Free Trade Conservatives were fighting; in Greenwich, where the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) was defeated by a split vote; in King's Lynn, where a well-known Member of this House, Mr. Gibson Bowles, was defeated by a split vote; and in the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield. In all these Divisions seats were lost to the Conservatives through split votes. I myself fought in a three-cornered contest in 1906, but I was more fortunate, because I obtained a majority over both the other candidates I think, therefore, that we may ask all parties to support this Resolution. Most of our Friends in the Labour party are. I believe, in favour of some reform. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) attended a dinner at which I was present some months ago and made an excellent speech in favour of some reform in our methods of election. The Labour party might say that this system would be of no advantage to them. Possibly not at

  1905
  the present time, but I think that ultimately it will be of advantage, not only to every party, but to the nation as a whole. Only last week the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), speaking at Glasgow, made a remark about the Prime Minister bringing in a measure to deal with three-cornered contests. The Bill which I brought in was supported by the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Mr. A. Henderson) on lines which have been pointed out by the Mover of the Resolution.
  The question has been considered for many years by experts in electioneering, whose evidence was given before the Royal Commission, and I think we can come to the conclusion that there are only three practical solutions of the difficulty—proportional representation, the second ballot, and the alternative vote. I agree with my hon. Friend that this proposal will in no way put a stop upon the proportional representation system. Personally, I think proportional representation is the ideal system for elections, and, although I am supporting this proposal very strongly, that does not weaken by one iota my faith in proportional representation—in fact, I should say that this was one step towards proportional representation. But if we were to ask for that great reform now, it would be such a drastic change, and would effect such a revolution in elections, that I am not at all sure that the country would be ripe for it. I feel sure, however, that they would welcome the alternative vote. Under the proportional representation system we should have to do away with single-Member constituencies, we should require a redistribution of seats, and a Boundary Commission would have to be set up. I hope that we shall have before long an example of proportional representation in the Parliament in Ireland, where it is proposed to elect Members of the Senate upon that principle. The second ballot system has been used perhaps more than any other where three-cornered contests have been dealt with. They have it in France, Germany, and several other countries on the Continent. Under that system the two men who receive most votes, if one of them has not a majority of the votes polled, are voted upon at a second election, which is held usually a week afterwards. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that is a very expensive way of dealing with the matter. It involves a horrible waste of time, and a
  1906
  big waste of energy on the part of the candidates, and it is a very great strain on one's supporters that they should be asked to go through a second election—in fact, I think there would be a great deal of difficulty in finding candidates ready to go through two exciting contests. We all know the heat of a week's electioneering, and to have an exciting penultimate round with a super-heat at the final would absolutely put an end to reasonable politicians lives.
  Therefore, we are brought back to the system of the alternative vote, under which you all get the advantages of the second ballot without any of its disadvantages. Voters would go calmly into the booth and express their preferences at once. They would mark their first choice, and then, if that man were not elected, their vote would be transferred to the candidate against whom they put the figure 2. No redistribution is necessary. A certain number of seats will exist as they do now, although I admit, as the hon. and gallant Member on the other side will no doubt tell us, how necessary redistribution is! We agree with him that it is necessary; but this is a little reform which can be carried out rapidly. It is a step towards all those other great reforms. It can be carried out so rapidly and so easily, and without the least upsetting of electoral conditions! Its great advantages are that the whole of the voting can be put into one operation. One argument against it is that the voter would have to learn how to do this. It has been put very clearly by my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution. He has stated that a voter usually knows how to make a racing card, and will therefore soon know how to mark his voting paper. My experience of the electorate is that they are not nearly so dense as politicians are fond of making out. After twenty-five years of free education there are very few illiterate voters, and I think we have arrived, or are arriving, at the time when the illiterate voter need not be counted. It does not need a great deal of education to put a cross or the figure 1 against the name of the candidate whom you like best, and then the figure 2 against the second candidate.
  It has been argued that the papers will be very difficult to count. That is an argument which hardly needs any consideration at all. They may take a little longer to count, but we work very long hours at election times, and it does not

  1907
  matter very much whether we stay up to eleven or eleven-thirty p.m., provided the result is more satisfactory! There will be no greater expense. Possibly what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, when we brought in a Bill to extend the hours of polling, may be said again. He took up the cudgels for the returning officers and their staff. But we do not have elections every week, or every month, or every year. The returning officers are well paid, I believe. If they are not well paid we must arrange to pay them better. If their staff is not paid properly, by all means let them be paid for the work that they do. These arguments are absolutely futile. All opposition is very trifling compared with the improvement which this alternative vote would be if brought into operation. Until it is done we shall never get in Parliament a true reflection of the feeling of the country.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words, "this House declines to add unnecessary complications to an electoral system on which a Royal Commission has reported that none has been devised more simple for the elector, more rapid in operation, more straightforward in result, advantages in an instrument for use by a large electorate of varying intelligence which it is difficult to over-estimate."
  9.0 P.M.
  In dealing with the Motion which the hon. Member has put before the House, I wish, of course, to deal with it entirely from the point of view of the alternative vote. I only say that because I see that the hon. Member is surrounded by devotees of proportional representation. I shall endeavour to deal with this question without unnecessarily bringing in party politics, and in the same spirit in which the hon. Member moved the Motion. It is very difficult, however, in a way, for hon. Members absolutely to eliminate the party point of view. It is so obvious that the difference between the hon. Member getting his Alternative Voting Bill before the next election and his not getting it quite easily means sixty votes on a Division. On a private Members' night we are all very friendly, but we cannot quite ignore that point of view when dealing with the party opposite. That does not mean, however, that one cannot put one's
  1908
  case without unnecessarily exasperating the feelings of hon. Members opposite. It will be necessary for me at the outset to refer to what happened at the annual conference of the Liberal party at Leicester in 1908, I think it was. There the National Liberal Federation passed unanimously a resolution for the early adoption of the second ballot. I am not aware as yet whether that resolution has ever been eliminated from the party programme. We shall very likely hear to-night, possibly from the right hon. Gentleman, in what position exactly his party stands on this question of the second ballot when he states his attitude towards the Motion before the House. So far as I know, that Resolution has never yet been taken out of the party programme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I, therefore, without going into the question of the second ballot—and I shall not go into the question of the details of the alternative vote, because both the Mover and Seconder of the proposal have put them clearly before the House—give the opinion of a gentleman whom I think everybody will admit is an expert on these questions, Mr. Humphreys, of the Proportional Representation Society, on the second ballot, before I dismiss it. In a letter dated 23rd February last, which appeared in the "Morning Post." Mr. Humphreys says:—
  "It is now known that the second ballot brings in its trains more evils than it cures. To its universal condemnation on the Continent"—
  And this answers the point that the hon. Member made about the Colonies—
  "we can now add the verdict of New Zealand and New South Wales. In both colonies it has given intense dissatisfaction. In New Zealand, the Second Ballot Law passed in 1908 was repealed last year. After five years both politicians and the public had had enough of it."
  That, I think, dismisses the second ballot. I imagine that the second ballot has been very quietly dropped, and is no longer on the party programme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is necessary really to consider the view held by experts on the second ballot, because the second ballot and the alternative vote are so very similar in character that everyone must admit that in condemning the one you condemn the other too. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, I hope what I put before the House will help hon. Members to qualify their "No, no!" But before, I leave the question, may I refer briefly to another congress, the Trade

  1909
  Union Congress, held in September of the same year, 1908. Instead of doing what the Liberal party did, going blind on the second ballot, they took a cautious attitude, and said—I am quoting again from Mr. Humphreys' book, (page 81):—
  "The Trades Union Congress at its meeting in September, 1908, less eager to pronounce in favour of a reform of such doubtful value, 'passed a resolution in favour of an authoritative inquiry into proportional representation alternative vote, or second ballots, so that the most effective means of securing the true representation of the electors ‖."
  I do not know when the inquiry was set up, but there was an inquiry set up, and that inquiry reported to the Labour party at Glasgow at the recent Conference—that is, six years later. I quote from the "Daily Citizen" of 30th January. The question really then was not second ballot, as it may be with the official Liberal party, but the question was between proportional representation and the alternative vote; and after a day's very interesting debate, and after a great deal of explanation from hon. Members and gentlemen entitled to give an explanation, the Congress came to a vote, and there voted for proportional representation 704,000, and against 1,387,000, and proportional representation was beaten by 683,000—a very substantial majority. And what happened to the alternative vote when, after six years, a vote was taken. The result was still more remarkable, for there voted in favour 632,000, and 1,324,000 against, so that the majority against proportional representation was 683,000, and against the alternative vote 692,000. I must say for myself I entirely agree with both verdicts, but it only shows how very much more cautious and sensible the Labour party was than he Liberal party. The Labour party had taken time to think about what the Liberal party went for bald-headed, and now apparently the Liberal party are prepared to go for the alternative vote, which is also discredited. I do not wonder at the heading which the "Daily Citizen" put to these Debates:—
  "Labour Electoral Iteform—Astonishing result of brilliant debate at Congress."
  I agree it was an astonishing thing. The Labour party are further than Liberals on this question. They have got away from the second ballot, and they are now hesitating between the alternative vote and proportional representation; we have yet to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite exactly where the Liberal party are. Let me very briefly refer to the alternative vote, not to give an ex-
  1910
  planation of it, but to try and connect up what I said about the second ballot with the alternative vote. I really cannot give a better source of authority than Mr. Humphreys. Towards the end of his letter, in the "Morning Post," of February 23rd, he says:—
  "In more recent years the alternative vote is favoured, but recent three-cornered contests have made it clear that the alternative vote will result in many of the worst evils associated with the second ballot, and, indeed, it is nothing more than the second ballot in condensed form."
  And Mr. Anderson, the former chairman of the Independent Labour party, writes, in an article in the "Manchester Guardian":—
  "So far from getting rid of any of the real difficulties, the alternative vote adds to them some fresh difficulties of its own."
  9.0 P.M.
  So I think a case for the alternative vote has yet to be made out. From my point of view, I believe substantial justice is done if you redistribute on equal areas and let the majority in these areas get the seat. I come now to another point which I consider very important. Of course, what we are really anxious to know in this Debate is what is the attitude of the Liberal party, because from the speeches that have been made we do know in a certain sense what the Labour party think of it; so in order to help hon. Members to come to a decision I will give a short quotation of what is thought of the alternative vote in the Labour party. The gentleman who opened the debate at Glasgow, Mr. Fred Knee, gave a very good reason from the Labour party point of view. He said:—
  "If the Liberal party were sweet on that, it was one reason why the Labour party should be chary of it."
  And Mr. Anderson in the same Debate is reported to have said:—
  "The alternative vote would be disastrous for the Labour party."
  And winding up the Debate, the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. George Roberts), who concluded it, said:
  "When he contemplated the alternative to proportional representation, that is the alternative vote, he could not doubt that method would be disastrous to the Labour movement."
  I only quote these extracts showing the Labour view, as perhaps these opinions escaped the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he might like to know them. I come now to my chief objection to the alternative vote. I am going in these arguments to use only what has appeared in public print. I do not wish in the least to introduce any party heat into this matter, but I look upon this objection

  1911
  which I am about to put as vital. My whole point of view of our complicated electoral system is this: I deny in toto and absolutely, and I will give reasons, that there are more than two parties in this House. I deny in toto that there is a Labour party in this country. If that seems brusque or harsh I will give chapter and verse for it. Legislation in this House is carried by two parties, and two parties alone. Why? Because there are only two Lobbies, the "Aye" and the "No" Lobby, in other words only an "Aye" and a "No" party. In this House there are two parties—the Government and the Opposition.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are there more than two Lobbies in the French Chamber?
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Would the hon. Member like to introduce the French system of groups which has meant eight, if not nine, Governments since 1910. I do not want it here. The safety of this country is that there are two parties, and I would rather see the Liberal party in power for twenty years than see the French system introduced here.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: When there was only one party in this House, were there two Lobbies?
  Major MORRISON-BELL: My historical inquiries do not extend so far as to enable me to answer the hon. Member, but for the last one hundred years, or during the lifetime of the hon. Member, there have been two parties. I want to treat this argument seriously, and I put this forward quite seriously. I know there is what is called the independent member. There was a Gentleman in this House, an independent Member, whom I suppose everyone in this House admired for his courage and brilliancy, and that is Mr. Harold Cox. I cannot think of anybody to be compared with him except the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I quote Mr. Harold Cox as being an independent Member, and in order to see how far an independent Member can show his independence, I have taken pains to study Mr. Harold Cox's Division Lists. I took the year 1908, because that volume looked considerably thinner than any of the others, and, as far as I can gather, I find that Mr. Cox voted in 220 Divisions in the 1908 Parliament, and I can only find that he voted in twenty-one Divisions against his party. I challenge anybody to point to a man who
  1912
  could be considered more independent in this House than Mr. Harold Cox was. We all like to be thought independent, but you might as well talk about the independence of a goalkeeper in a football match who every now and again turns round and kicks a goal against his own side. I defy anybody to point out an hon. Member of this House in regard of whom I could not at once say whether he is an Aye-Lobby man or a No-Lobby man. I am going to support the point of view that there are only two lobbies and two parties in this House by a quotation from the speech made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) at the Glasgow Conference, reported in the "Daily Citizen" of 30th January. He said:—
  "Every Labour Member in the House of Commons knew he was dependent for his seat upon the good will of those who belonged to other political parties. (Cheers.) So long as Labour Members were returned by Liberal votes, as nine-tenths of their members were, they had no right to expect independent action from their members in the House of Commons. (Cheers)."
  I do not know whether the proportion of nine-tenths may be taken as correct or not, but no doubt the hon. Member for Blackburn has stated what is the fact. You have a Labour party in the House, but you have not got a Labour party in the country. The majority of voters are either Conservatives or Unionists, or Liberals or Radicals, and though you have your Members in the House of Commons they might just as well call themselves anything else, because they are bound to go into the Government Lobby. I have further authority for this statement in the speech delivered in the same debate by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) the Leader of the Labour party. Speaking later in the same debate the hon. Member for Leicester is reported in the "Daily Citizen" to have laid about him with Blue Book and Royal Commission Reports for his cudgels. He thwacked Mr. Anderson smartly and then he turned and belaboured Mr. Snowden.
  "We are told we are going to be independent in Parliament. We are not."
  Thus spoke the Leader of the Labour party. It would be impossible unless the Members of the Labour party continually voted with us to be independent. This is how our laws are made. Mr. Speaker does not call upon various Members by party, but he says, "Ayes to the right and Noes to the left," and as long as you make your laws like that there are only two parties in this House. In the "Labour Leader" of 19th February, 1914, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) wrote an

  1913
  article entitled, "A Great Labour Gain," in which he makes this comment:—
  "The one important thing about this action of the Labour party in embracing Mr. Kenyon is, What sort of a Labour party are yon going to make out of such material as this? Has the Independent Labour party struggled all these twenty-one years, have its tens of thousands of men and women sacrificed and laboured to get a Labour party in Parliament, composed of Mr. Barnet Kenyon, Mr. W. E. Harvey, Mr. W. Johnson, Mr. J. G. Hancock, and others who might fittingly he classed with them? You say you want a fighting policy in the House of Commons. You want something done in Parliament which will mark off the Labour party from the Liberals. And your executive and your party caucus fill the party with Barnet Kenyon to do this fighting and to show how very different we are from the Liberals. I am not going to offer any suggestions as to what the Independent Labour party should do. I will wait and see what it will do."
  That leading article was answered next week by the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), and he said what he was more or less bound to say, considering that the Labour party cannot act on their own, and in view of the fact that they are really the left wing of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said:—
  "Under these circumstances, what other course was open to the executive of the Labour party than to admit Mr. Kenyon to membership in the party? Mr. Philip Snowden seems to contend that the executive ought to have insisted upon his resigning and seeking re-election as a Labour candidate. Resignation would undoubtedly have been the heroic course, but I repeat that in building up a Labour party, where the elements are so mixed, it is common sense rather than heroism which must dictate the course of action."
  You may call yourselves what you like, but you are a Labour party consisting of a lot of generals—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): How does the hon. Member connect all this either with the Resolution or the Amendment which he is going to move?
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I was endeavouring to connect this with the alternative vote, and I was arguing that it would complicate your electoral system, because it was no use making preparations to elect three parties when there are only two, and I was endeavouring to give quotations to prove that my point of view was supported by the hon. Member for Blackburn, the hon. Member for Leicester, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. I shall always oppose any tampering with our system, whether it is in the shape of the policy of the alternative vote or proportional representation, for the reason that I do not want to have a lot of groups in this House. I want two stable parties to carry on the Government of this country, and therefore I say that this House would be ill-
  1914
  advised, especially as the alternative vote is so very discredited generally, to commit itself, either to the alternative vote, or, I go further, and say to proportional representation. There is only one independent party in this House, and it is composed of those right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Speaker's Chair. They are independent because they do not go into the Lobby. Nobody else can be independent. You must either be an "Aye" or a "No"; you must either be for the Government or for the Opposition; you must, in the present-day term, be progressive or non-progressive. You cannot be independent. You are sent here to support a party and keep a party in office, and we on this side to try and put that party out. For those reasons, and on that broad principle that there are only two parties, I beg to move this Amendment, and I trust sincerely that the House will accept it.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: I rise to second the Amendment.
  I ought, I think, at first to explain to the House that I sat on the Royal Commission whose report has been quoted. I confess I coquetted with the alternative vote. It has a specious attraction for the rather young, and, when it was put before me, I confess I yielded to its seductions, especially as when compared with the glaring demerits of the proportional vote, which we had discussed at great length, it seemed to me comparatively innocuous. Further reflection has modified that view. Of all the systems compared with the second ballot, I think the alternative vote is rather better, because the alternative vote is the second vote rolled into a single election. You have not got the disadvantage of a second election, or the trouble of bringing the people up to the poll, and also the opportunity for those most unpleasant intrigues familiar to us all. Therefore, if you want under any system a second choice, I think the alternative vote is the best, but I do not approve of it, because I regard an electoral fight as a struggle between two policies, to which you can only say "Yes" or "No." There really is no third course. An election is not choosing the best men to come to Parliament. There lies the great mistake of proportionalists. It is not as if we went throughout the length and breadth of the land, and picked out all the best men in the professions and trades to come here. We do not do that. It is partly that, and partly a struggle

  1915
  between two conflicting ideals. It is much more ideals than men, and I think that ideals are more important than men. When you come to a big clash between two ideals, say, Free Trade and Protection, you do not choose the best men of necessity, you go for that policy which you think will suit the country best, and for that there are not grades or varieties. It is either a plain "Yes," or a plain "No." For that reason the single-Member constituency, with all its faults, and they are great, and with all its defects, and they are plain, does suit the necessities of our electoral contests far better than any of these fancy systems.
  It always seems to me that these fancy franchises can show a very good paper case, but when you come to examine them you find the working out is exactly the opposite of that which is claimed. Take as an illustration proportional representation. We are told that it would break up the party system, and that the best men would be sent here. I believe in the party system, and I think that it is the best system. Assume that it is not, and you can show to demonstration that proportional representation will increase the party system. Take a simple case. Take Birmingham, with its seven Members. It would be one constituency. Supposing one of the smaller parties, the Labour party, wish to fight in Birmingham, they can now take one or two seats, and they can concentrate all their force of speakers and posters and Press campaign on those two seats. If the whole seven seats were rolled into one and they wanted to fight, they would have to spread their energies over the whole of the seven seats, whereas the two big parties who are always fighting the seven seats gain by the concentration, by the unity of effort, and by the power of throwing all their forces into a doubtful seat. All that is against the small party, who diffuse their force, and who lose the power of attacking what they think are favourable seats. Just the same is true of the alternative vote. It will not help the small parties at all. In so far as it operates at all, it will go against the Labour party, and all small parties in this House, for in the end the two big parties with their great organisations will get the advantage.
  Just take the case which the Mover of this Amendment quoted. He gave a case in which an election was held with three candidates and where the second on the
  1916
  poll was ultimately returned at the top. At first sight, that seems rather absurd. It seems to me like "Alice in Wonderland." After all, the first man ought to win. I believe that would happen. I do believe now that the Labour party, with its large choice of single-member seats, can choose a good seat and often win it; but I believe, if we had the alternative vote, that they would find that when their man got first, he would in the end be defeated. All the arguments used in favour of the fancy franchise break down in practice. Then, again, what is the position of Parliament, and what are the conditions under which Parliament works?
  We hear a great deal of the independent member, but we do not see much of him here, and I am very glad that we do not. If a man cannot work with his fellow men, his place in not in Parliament. If we want to live a life without any give and take in human affairs, always getting our own way to the last, I say that we had better go and live in a desert. If we want to get things done, we must make allowances for our fellows; we must know that they have desires and wishes like ourselves, and that we can only get something by giving way here or there. If you want to do things you have got to work with men. That is the great defence of our party system. It is an absurd travesty to say that our party system is one which compels a man to surrender his convictions and to give up all that he holds dear and to accept a lower standard of morality than that which rules him in private life.
  The real truth is that when you act with any large body of men you must expect them to get their way just as often as yourself, and also that you have to give way to them. If you get done one hundredth part of what you expect done, why, it is all you can hope for. It is your only way of getting anything done. When we see the conditions of political life here we also see that it is not good to compare with foreign countries. On the Commission on which I sat we were very much impressed by the case of Belgium, and we were told that the system, which answered well in that country, would answer well here. But there they have not the big issues we have to deal with here. They have administrative questions, and when their Parliament is returned at the same election there are lists of supplementary members; there are no by-elections; there is a fixed date of

  1917
  re-election, and the whole body partakes more of the nature of a board of guardians. Although I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of any foreign country, I must say that our issues here and our contests are on a far bigger scale and a much wider basis than theirs.
  We have to recognise that the great questions that move us are questions that do not admit of any variety of opinion. You have to make up your mind one way or the other, and so when you examine the system of the alternative vote you see that even as with the second ballot at one stage there has to be a clean division. On the second ballot that division into Ayes and Noes comes after the first election, but in the case of the alternative vote the division into Ayes and Noes comes at the same time as the first election, because Members in marking their papers will say, "If our man does not get in we will back A or B, as the case may be." We may here and there have a man sitting for a constituency who has not a majority of the votes, but, taking the result of what the Commission called rough justice, and looking all over the Kingdom and seeing the number of constituencies of all sorts and kinds, with all their different parties, it is far better to leave them so with all their varieties, because any small party which comes up, like the Anti-Vaccination party, really has a much better chance than if you go in for a system which, though at first it seems very plausible and calculated to help that much belauded but little copied individual the Independent Member, really has the opposite effect.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Reference has been made to the proceedings at the last Labour party council, and I wish to say at once that I am now speaking as an individual Member of this House and not as an official representative of the party to which I belong. The Labour party, like every other party in the House, is very sharply divided on this question of electoral reform, and therefore I am prepared to make the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke a little while ago a present of every allusion he made to us in that particular, except on one point. I do not think he is quite justified in laying it down that there never can be more than two parties in politics, and never more than two policies. I think we have to recognise that a third party has come to stay, and I am sure he will accept it from me that, in the opinion of that third party, it has a policy
  1918
  and principles distinct and apart from either of the other two parties in the State. I am in no way speaking disrespectfully in this matter, but I do suggest that if this were an occasion on which it would be in order, I could demonstrate that point. I think the advent of this third party into politics has rendered some change absolutely inevitable. Nobody can defend a system whereby men are returned here on a minority vote: I do not care whether those who succeed in this respect come from the party opposite, or from hon. Members above the Gangway on this side, or from among my own colleagues. I have often said that I want an electoral system which will secure to each party in the State a representation proportionate to its numerical strength in the country, and I cannot conceive any other democratic principle than that. To-night we have recognition of the fact that some change is desirable. The hon. Member for Durham has told us that when on the Commission he recognised that some change was necessary and that he coquetted with the alternative vote. Now he tells us that unless we are prepared to work in general harmony, we ought to be outside the House. I hardly see the force of that, because whether I am sent under the alternative vote system, or the proportional representation system, I am sure we can work harmoniously together.
  Nevertheless, while considering that a change is desirable, I do not think we should take the hon. and gallant Member seriously if he said he is in favour of the retention of the present system. Even he desires to make some change and, generally, he advocates the redistribution proposal, but I think the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution effectually disposed of that as a remedy for the unfortunate circumstances we encounter in three-cornered contests by pointing out if we had constituencies of uniform, equal arithmetical proportions, you would not then get over this difficulty of Members being elected for this House on a minority vote. I think I may take it there is a pretty general agreement that some change is desirable, and the alternative vote has been submitted as being calculated to effect the general desire of all parties. I agree that the second ballot principle is practically dead, although I do not know whether the Liberal Federation have expunged it from their programme. That, however, is no

  1919
  concern of mine. It may well be that any adaption of the second ballot, called the alternative vote, was not so prominent in those days, but I am certain we shall be told that the Liberal party is sufficiently up-to-date to discard the second ballot and embrace the principles of the alternative vote. In the course of the observations I am going to address to the House, I shall have to advance some objections to the alternative vote from the standpoint of my party, and not from the point of view of the mere partisan. I wish to point out that my party is only entitled to representation here, proportionate to its strength in the country. It is entitled to that and no more, and I have always made that admission in considering this question of electoral reform. In respect to the alternative vote, what the hon. Member for Durham has objected to as between the first election and the second election, not the second ballot, must inevitably occur in respect to the first and only election under the alternative vote.
  Mr. HILLS: I did not put it quite so strong as that.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: Under the second ballot we might get over the first election without those bargainings or those understandings which the hon. Gentleman regards as being not altogether desirable as between the first and second test. That point may appeal to him as between the second ballot and the alternative vote. Nevertheless, taking the whole thing into consideration, undoubtedly the alternative vote is simpler, more economic, and certainly more effective for the purpose that most of us have at heart. I have for a number of years been a supporter of the principle of proportional representation. This is hardly the occasion upon which to argue the case for "P.R." at great length. In fact, I confess to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in recent years I have got a bit weary of arguing "P.R.", not in this House, but in contests with my colleagues of this party. What do we desire here? I apprehend it should be our purpose to secure representation in this House for every party in the country. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment agreed that that was so. At any rate everybody will acknowledge that a party like the Labour party, which has assumed definite and distinct dimensions in the country, is entitled to representa-
  1920
  tion in this House. The hon. and gallant Member may argue that in this House the party must co-operate with one or other of the large sections of the House, but that is a proposition distinct from the position in the country.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I argued that the hon. Member for Blackburn was returned on general votes and not Labour votes.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I might as well deal with that at once. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite justified in that criticism of the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was taking the case for proportional representation and claiming that by that principle Members of the Labour party will come here elected by Socialist and Labour votes. He was trying to prove something entirely different from that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was trying to prove. Let me get back to the point I want to make. I claim that each party in the country is entitled to representation here, provided it has the requisite strength in the country. I confess I do not know how strong the Labour party is in the country. The electoral system is so confused that we have no definite data as to the respective strength of all parties in the country. At the moment I am not concerned with that, but I say that, given a reasonable following in the country, this party has a right to representation in the House of Commons. The alternative vote will not secure that for us. It is quite possible for a combination to prevent our having a representative at all.
  Take the hon. Gentleman's illustration of the City of Birmingham. Under the present circumstances, we might be one-third of every one of the seven constituencies, and yet never get a representative in this House for the City of Birmingham. Under the alternative vote, there is no assurance that our prospects would be any better; but, under proportional representation, if we had one-seventh, or rather, just over one-sixth, of the electorate of the City of Birmingham with us, whatever the attitude of any political force towards us, we would be certain of getting our representative in this House. The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood the position. He argued as if we should be fighting each seat, and having to make the same proportion of expenditure and endeavour, as if we were

  1921
  fighting seven distinct single-member constituencies. Such is not the case. We have sections in every one of those constituencies. All those sections would be at work. We should not have to concentrate on any restricted area. We should know, if we had the quota in that constituency, that we should secure our representation accordingly, and that if we had got the quota, we should demonstrate that we were not entitled to that representative. Therefore, it must be seen that the principle of proportional representation would, at any rate, afford a minority party or a small party the chance of securing representation in this House.
  Mr. HILLS: May I point out to the hon. Member that it squeezed out the smaller parties in the only two countries where it has been tried, for the reasons that I gave?
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I do not think so. The Belgian illustration has simply shown that the parties there get a representation proportionate to their strength.
  Mr. HILLS: The two big parties do.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I happened to be in Belgium a short time since and made some inquiries there, and although I gathered that they are not all satisfied with the Belgian system, for my own part I am free to acknowledge that the Belgian system, as the hon. Gentleman himself urged, was not quite applicable to the circumstances in this country. I am not here to argue any particular adaptation of proportional representation. My only purpose is to deal with the broad principle of that idea. Under the alternative vote there is no assurance that the smaller parties will have any chance at all, and I object to an electoral system which compels any party in the country to risk its chances of representation merely by the attitude of the parties towards it. We often hear criticisms of the so-called lack of independence on the part of hon. Members of this House, or even of some parties in this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to give us a very simple way of demonstrating our independence—all we have to do is to transfer our allegiance to the party opposite and we should thereby demonstrate that we were fully independent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that the Labour party must be allowed to shape its own policy. I believe in proportional representation,
  1922
  because, in my opinion, it would make for that larger measure of independence. Certainly it would free the parties in the country. It would make for greater independence there, and when men are elected on that more independent principle in the country, they would certainly be freer to act in this House. I quite agree that when we are here we must conic into co-operation with other parties in order to carry out practical purposes. I want to emphasise this: Just in proportion as the Labour party grew, so it would have its influence on the legislation framed by the party in power. When the party opposite were in power and they wanted the support of the Nationalist party, of course they shaped their measures with a view to getting that support. Supposing we were a party as large as the Irish party and the Liberal party was in power, necessarily the Liberal party would have to have regard to the numerical strength of this party in the framing of any legislation they purposed introducing. Therefore, of course, if you have a group system—a third party and a fourth party, as we have in this House —just in proportion to the ability of the third or fourth parties to get representation in this House, so undoubtedly they are able to effect a proportionate influence on the legislative achievements of this Assembly. The House of Commons has already made a departure. The principle of proportional representation has been incorporated in the Home Rule Bill. Of course, the hon. Member and myself are not quite agreed as to whether that Bill is going to be carried into law and become effective in operation, but, at any rate, we shall have a very interesting experiment there.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Proportional representation working in three-Member seats.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am not concerned as to the exact numbers. I am only dealing with the fact that the House has applied the principle in respect of the Irish problem. I should like to see the experiment applied to the large cities of this country—places like Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. I recognise the difficulty of getting the electorate to adapt themselves to a new and somewhat complex system immediately, and therefore I should like to see this experiment carried out. I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Wiles) that we have no right to assume a

  1923
  low order of intelligence on the part of the general electorate. In your rural district councils, you impose upon the agricultural labourer a scope of selection which is certainly quite as perplexing as anything contemplated under the system of proportional representation. In London, of course, you have your borough elections, which involve a very similar thing. The case for the alternative vote has been urged to-night rather as a stepping stone towards proportional representation. I do not know whether it would be so or not, from the point of view of these hon. Members, but I am certain that experience of the alternative vote will give rise to such an emphatic demand from the Labour forces of the country that proportional representation would very soon have to be adopted in substitution for the alternative vote. Therefore, my purpose in rising is to say that, as we generally admit that some change is inevitable, I recognise, with those, who are promoting this Resolution, the absolute necessity of some change, and that the return to this House of Members on a small minority vote is indefensible.
  I have gone into three-cornered fights and have almost felt ashamed of myself when I came here to find that the net result of my advocacy has been the return to this House of persons who are less acceptable to me than some others before the constituency. I want the situation to be left free, so that the natural right of the party with which I am associated may be carried out without involving the consequences that we all regret and deplore, but, as some change is inevitable, it should be a change of a character which will secure fair representation in this House, and when we have large third parties their ability to come here should not be dependent upon the attitude of other forces in the constituencies. In my opinion the alternative vote would not secure such representation. If you feel that the two-party system is the only one which can be advocated, and that there ought to be an understanding between those two parties to crowd out other parties, I can understand your position, but if you admit the right of a third party to come here, our electoral system must be adjusted accordingly, and in my opinion neither the second ballot nor the alternative vote will secure that, and further, in my view, I do not know of any other system than
  1924
  that of proportional representation which will secure it. I am in a difficulty to-night. I could not support the Resolution with great enthusiasm, and I have an even stronger objection to the Amendment, and therefore I feel that for myself I shall have to keep out of the vote. I wish to emphasise again that I am only speaking for myself and not on behalf of those with whom I customarily act.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I do not speak as an adversary of proportional representation, but it appears to me to involve a vast scheme of redistribution, because I cannot admit that it would be fair if it were applied in a sectional manner, and that there is one class of constituency, such as the very large cities, where an exceptional minority representation is secured, while there are vast areas in the country in which the present system would continue. I cannot see that it would be fair, unless it applied all round. I must join in repudiating the two-Lobby theory for constituencies which was advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Morrison-Bell). What he wants is that there should be only two parties, and he says there are only two parties, and he wishes our system of voting to be such that there shall be only two parties represented in this House. I do not consider that the constituencies desire that. It is quite evident that they do not want machine-made politicians of two-patterns only to be sent here. The hon. Member (Mr. Hills) says that great questions do not admit of diversity of opinion. He says there is an "Aye" Lobby and a "No" Lobby. You are either in favour or you are against. But you do not have single questions going before constituencies. You have many questions on which each party may contain Members who have diversity of opinion—the Tariff, Land, Education and Social Reform. I do not think the hon. Member will find that the whole of the Members of his party agree with him on these matters. We ought to try to secure that every opinion should have an opportunity of expression in the electorate, and that Members should not come here as delegates, but as representatives, and the representatives of various interests should bring their opinions here to the point of argument and of decision. Here, of course, there are only two Lobbies, although there is a third course of abstain-

  1925
  ing, which the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) finds convenient this evening. But elections take place before discussion in this House has matured opinion, and we have had a specimen of the maturing of opinion in the hon. Member (Mr. Hills) who, on this very subject, finds that his opinions have developed within the last year.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Morrison-Bell) condemned alike the second ballot and the alternative vote, and he gave us, not arguments, but the opinion of certain persons which may be of value in that condemnation. Even if on the whole he were right, I still hold that there is an evil existing in each of the constituencies that is affected, and even if it nullified or counterbalanced itself by the average on the whole Kingdom, the local injustice would remain, and I think the effect on the constituency is bad. There are some of my own Friends who argue that the adoption of the alternative vote would increase the number of three-cornered contests. That, I think, is a party argument. Their use of that argument shows that the present system is not merely unjust where multiple candidatures exist, but that a variety of interests in a constituency are stifled by the present system. It is also said that while it secures that the worst candidate will not be selected, it does not secure the best. I do not know that we are required to do more than to ask that we shall have the best available improvement on the present system, which permits the election of the worst and does not secure the best. With the alternative vote I think there probably would be a small minority of cases in which the best candidate would be barred. I think we must all join the hon. Member for the Honiton Division in desiring that we should not make this Debate take too much of a party character. It must be a test of our faith in representative government whether one can lift one's argument above party. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that the adoption of this reform might cost sixty votes on a Division to the party opposite. They either desire to settle the whole question or to preserve their sixty votes. I do not know whether the Bill foreshadowed in this Resolution would or would not be in all cases to the advantage of the Liberal party.
  10.0 P.M.
  I think the primary thing we should endeavour to secure is that the minority in the United Kingdom should not have a majority in this House, and I think the
  1926
  absence of some such device increases the danger of the present system, and does not secure that the majority shall rule. No doubt hon. Members are familiar with the instances given in the analysis of the votes during the last quarter of a century which appears in the Report of the Royal Commission. Careful redistribution and registration reform are necessary to secure, under the present system, that the law of averages should give us that security—the security that a majority of votes give a majority of Members. The most glaring faults are, in my opinion, plural voting and the return of minority Members in the case of a plurality of candidates. I think it is pretty certain in this Parliament that we shall see the reform of the first abuse, and I think we shall act wisely if we secure the second. But if the Opposition desires that the whole question shall be dealt with, the Opposition, in my opinion, can secure that. No Liberal Ministry could refuse facilities to deal with the whole question. Let us have redistribution with one vote one value. One vote one value is not a monopoly of the party opposite. It is just as much desired by the party in this part of the House, and, in fact, by parties in all parts of the House. We should also extend the reform of the franchise by new registration arrangements to secure one voter one voice, and provide for multiple, candidatures. I do not consider that this Parliament will have fulfilled its duty unless it does something considerable to decrease the anomalies of our present system. If we cannot do the whole of that which is necessary, it is no argument for the continued existence of one anomaly to say that others are left. Multiple candidatures are a growing experience. I think they are a sign of vigorous electoral life. I think they are inevitable if the views of every class are to be duly represented here and adequately canvassed in the constituencies. I do not think you can. forbid, and I do not think you would be wise if you endeavoured to forbid, and tried to stop propagandist candidates. There are whole areas of social reform which cut across party lines, and the only way of developing public opinion is for what are called propagandist contests to take place. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the Resolution, for I feel that it is the duty of this House to secure, so far as it can, that its successor should have as broad a basis as possible of electoral support.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: We have had a very interesting discussion, and this question has been dealt with from many points of view. I wish to put a point rather different from those which have already been stated. I presume that the object of our system of election is to secure that each constituency shall send to this House the man who represents the majority of the electors. Our main object in electing Members is to have, as fairly as possible, representation of the opinions of the whole country. Hon. Members have justified the existence of the present system on the ground that it brings about a kind of rough justice. That rough justice is secured by the establishment of injustices in different parts of the country which cancel one another. It is no comfort to me if I am suffering injustice to know that somebody in another part of the country is suffering injustice, even although he belongs to another party. An elector in any particular electoral area who is represented, or misrepresented, by a Member who has secured a minority of votes in that constituency suffers under a grievance which this House ought to remove. The Royal Commission gave instances of gross injustice. There was one very remarkable case during the election in 1909. In the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield 12,889 votes were cast in the election. The Member who was returned secured 3,531, and about 9,000 were disfranchised in consequence of the unjust operation of the present system. The injustice arises from the system enabling a relative instead of an absolute majority of votes in the constituency to decide. The extent to which that injustice is felt is much greater than appears at first sight. I have looked through the by-elections of 1912 and 1913. In 1912 there were twenty-one by-elections, and in 1913 there were also twenty-one. In 1912 five were three-corner contests, and in the following year seven were three-corner contests. As the result of these contests seven Liberals sit in this House by minority votes, two Tories sit by minority votes, and in only two cases—the case of Reading, where a Tory Member was returned, and the case of Chesterfield, where a Liberal-Labour representative was returned—was an actual majority vote registered in favour of the candidates who were returned.
  There is a rankling sense of injustice on the part of electors who take all the trouble not only of voting, but of working for candidates whom they favour, when
  1928
  the operation of the electoral law is such as to deprive them of the fruit of the labours which would come to them but for the existence of that injustice. Will the establishment of this system of alternative voting rectify that? The second ballot has been spoken of. It has been practised in Europe and some of our Colonies, and it has been found not to effect the result for which it was established, and an hon. Member suggested that because the second ballot was condemned, and people were abandoning it, that that was in itself a condemnation of the alternative vote. I suggest that the alternative vote will do in most cases what the second ballot has set out to do and has failed to do. The alternative vote will secure to the Labour party, a better opportunity of representation in this House. It will enable them to put up their candidates in many more constituencies than they contest at present, and to test the constituencies and ascertain their strength without risking the return to this House of Members who, in nine points out of ten, are opposed to them. And it will enable them to return Members who, in nine points out of ten, are with them, and who only on the tenth point differ from them.
  It will give labour an opportunity to establish its strength throughout the country, and will lead, I believe, to a very large access of numbers to the Labour party in this House, and will more or less do away with the wrong which now exists, which compels any member of that body, who, giving his first preference to the nominee of his own party, desiring to see representation of his own party here, is deprived of giving his second preference, and is thereby in many cases compelled to send back to this House a Member who, in nine points out of ten, will vote against his principles. The Royal Commission was very emphatic. I learn that the hon. Member for Durham has gone back on the opinion which he expressed as a member of that Commission. The Commission consisted of two Conservatives, and two Liberals, and of representatives of some of the great Departments, and representatives of Colonial opinion. It was not in any sense a party Commission. It examined members of all parties, and came to an emphatic conclusion. That conclusion was very emphatic indeed. In three separate places in their Report they give it as their opinion that the alternative vote really would effect to a very large

  1929
  extent, the purpose for which it is proposed. On page 305 they say—
  "It was almost unanimously recommended to us by the men of wide practical experience, and diverse political opinions, whom we consulted."
  On page 307 they say—
  "The alternative vote remains the best method of removing the most serious defect which a single-Member system can possess, the return of minority candidates, and accordingly we recommend its adoption in single-Member constituencies,"
  and in the very last paragraph they repeat
  "We recommend the adoption of the alternative vote in cases where more than two candidates stand for one seat. We do not recommend its application in two-Member constituencies, but submit that the question of the retention of such constituencies should be reconsidered."
  I do not believe that in any system of single-Member constituencies you can have anything like proper representation in this House. It is quite impossible under any such system. Even with the alternative vote you might have a minority of electors electing a majority in this House. The only system which to my mind can possibly make this House a real mirror of the opinion of the country is a system of proportional representation. The hon. Member opposite said just now that proportional representation in a constituency like Birmingham would add to the difficulties of small parties. He said that it is quite impossible for small parties to work a constituency like Birmingham, with six or seven representatives. On the contrary, I contend that whereas in a constituency like Birmingham a small party may have an insufficient number to elect any one Member under existing conditions, if they were able to poll all their members for the whole of the large constituency, they might quite easily get a total sufficient to enable them to secure representation in this House. While, therefore, I support strongly the Motion for the adoption of the alternative vote, I do not regard it as a solution of this question, and I hope to live to see the day when we shall realise the importance of making our system really representative, and I believe that that can only be done by the adoption of the system of proportional representation.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I rise to take, to some extent, the same point of view as my hon. Friend the last speaker, but I should like to consider for a few minutes the suggestion which has been made from the other side of the House that redistribution would be a cure for such evils as exist under our present system of representation, and that, with an adequate sys-
  1930
  tem of redistribution, we should not need to go further. No system of redistribution, however just and equal, would get over the difficulty that where you have three parties contending for one seat, or more than three parties, or different members of the same party contending for one seat, it is extremely likely that the minority of voters in that single constituency will get the representation. That is a fundamental injustice, and no redistribution can possibly get over that difficulty. Then, again, no redistribution can get over what is, to some extent, the same difficulty on a wider scale, namely, that, taking the country as a whole at one General Election after another, the proportion of Members returned for one party and another is hopelessly out of proportion to the strength of those parties in the country. Sometimes at a General Election you will get a very large over-representation of the party which has cast a majority of votes. Occasionally, but not so often, you actually get the result, as in 1886, that the party which is most numerous in the country gets the minority of the seats in this House. It is not sufficiently known that in 1886, if you allow for the unpolled constituencies, there was probably a majority of a little over 50,000 voters in this country for the Home Rule parties, although the Unionist party got a majority of, I think, 104 seats in this House.
  No redistribution of seats can get over that. One of the most eminent statisticians has gone into the whole question, and it is quite clearly proveable that the redistribution of seats cannot get over that difficulty. No redistribution of seats will get over the cruel injustice that some parties are not represented at all in this House, and that people live and die in a particular place without ever being represented in this House. A man lives in a constituency and votes regularly, and for the whole of his lifetime he is represented by somebody who represents the exact opposite of everything that he wants to have voiced in this House; and you have parties, comparatively small parties, that can never get representation in this House at all. No system of redistribution will get over those difficulties. If you carry your redistribution out consistently in single-member constituencies, it will make the position of affairs much worse than it is at present, because it will multiply the cases where there are three parties struggling for one seat, and very

  1931
  nearly annihilate the representation of that which is the smallest party in this House at the present time, I mean the Labour party, which now largely owes its representation in this House to the fact that it gets one seat in certain two-Member constituencies.
  If, on the other hand, you take the alternative vote which has been proposed to us, it would in many ways be a step forward. In the first place, it would secure that the man who is returned for a particular constituency should be the nearest possible approach to a representative of the majority of the constituency, and, if they are so divided that there is no one party which has an absolute majority of the whole, at any rate, they will have the opportunity of choosing the man who comes nearest to representing the majority of the constituency. There would be much greater freedom for the parties in putting up candidates in the different constituencies, and it would not have the unfortunate effect, as at present, that people are restricted in their choice to two candidates for neither of whom they care. You may have a man who is a convinced Socialist, and he has before him two Individualists, a Liberal, and a Conservative, neither of whom he wants. Then you may have a man of what are called moderate opinions, who has the choice of voting for one of two candidates, one of whom, to his mind, may represent the destruction of the Constitution, and the other the destruction of the trade of the country. His only choice is to vote for one or the other of those two. But the alternative vote would give parties greater freedom of putting up candidates, and at the same time give the electors much greater choice in the candidates for whom they are able to vote.
  The advantages, from the party point of view, would be by no means all on one side of this House. It is a great mistake to suppose that on the second choice the Liberal candidate would get all the Labour votes. That would not be so. Either the Liberal or the Conservative candidate might sometimes get the majority. What is more, the Conservative might, in many cases, get a large proportion of the Roman Catholic votes on the second choice. Votes given to the Liberal on the Home Rule issue would on the second choice very often be given to the Conservative on educational issues. Also, I think there is no doubt that the
  1932
  Labour party would benefit in many cases, because there would be cases where people would vote for the Labour candidate who did not do so before for fear of letting in a man whom they disliked more than they disliked the Liberal candidate.
  On the other hand, I think that, although this alternative vote is good, it is not good enough, and it has very many blemishes which have not been dwelt upon in this House to-night, and the first of them is that it would not give representation to any comparatively small party widely distributed throughout the country. You have the fact that at the present time the Labour party, which has hardly anywhere a local majority, is, nevertheless, widely distributed throughout the country as a whole. If you take the fourteen three-cornered by-elections which have taken place in this country since the General Election at which there have been officially recognised Labour candidates, the results are, in round figures, that the Liberals gained 87,000 votes; the Unionists, 76,000 votes; and the Labour party, 45,000 votes —not a very great difference in the size of those parties, especially between the Liberals and Unionists. The result in those fourteen seats has been that the Liberals got nine seats, and the Unionists five. The Liberals have got far more than their proportion of those fourteen seats, and on the other hand the Labour men have not got a seat at all, which is clearly a great injustice taking them as a whole, and perfectly just if you take the particular seat, because the object of our electoral system is to find the man who represents the largest body within the particular constituency.
  If, however, you add the results of those seats, it works out a very great injustice. That would not be put an end to under the system of the alternative vote, which would however introduce another evil almost as great, because, while it would not give the minority, the smallest party, its just share of the representation, it would give it the perfectly unjust power of deciding, in practically every case, which of the two other parties was to get representation. If the Labour people had chosen consistently in those fourteen elections to give their second vote to the Liberal party they would have excluded the Unionists altogether from representation in the whole of those fourteen seats. If, on the other hand, they had chosen consistently to give their second vote to

  1933
  Conservatives in those fourteen seats then they would have given thirteen of the seats out of the fourteen to the Conservatives, and in only one case would the seat have been left with the Liberals. It is quite clear you are not giving the Labour party that to which they are justly entitled, but are giving them another power to which they are not justly entitled. What we want is just and real representation of the people of this country. I believe that men of all parties and of all opinions can agree upon that point. I venture to say that neither the present system, nor the present system redistributed, nor the alternative vote system can give it to us. I hope we shall rise to a higher view of this question than that suggested by the hon. Mover of the Amendment when he spoke of one system or the other costing one party or the other sixty seats. That is surely not the way we should look at it. I rather would commend to the House the words on this subject of the Prime Minister when he spoke at St. Andrews in January, 1906, and when he said:—
  "It was infinitely to the advantage of the House of Commons, if it was to be a real reflection and mirror of the national mind, that there should be no strain of opinion honestly entertained by any substantial body of the King's subjects which should not find there representation and speech. No student of political development could have supposed that we should always go along in the same old groove, one party on one side and another party on the other side, without the intermediate ground being occupied, as it was in every civilised democratic country, by groups and fractions having special ideas and interests of their own. If real and genuine and intelligent opinion was more split up than it used to he, and if we could not now classify everybody by the same simple process, we must accept the new conditions and adapt our machinery to them, our party organisations, our representative system, and the whole scheme and form of our Government."
  That, I venture to think, is the true broad-minded generous view we ought to take of this question. I think that we can only get that by a system of proportional representation, but this alternative vote before us to-night will. I believe, be a distinct step in advance, and will give us, in spite of some disadvantages, many advantages, and I do not know how we are to get to the ideal system of representation of which the Premier speaks except by following this line. This alternative vote will familiarise us with a variety of political ideals and get us out of that pernicious view that everybody
  "Who is born into this world alive
  Is either a little Liberal
  Or else a little Conservative,"
  and will show us that there are great varieties of difference; and, secondly, it will familiarise us with the machinery,
  1934
  of the transfer of votes, for I think the Mover of the Motion, if I may say so, laid undue emphasis upon the difference—from the point of view of machinery at any rate— between the alternative vote and the proportional representation system. After all, the machinery is exactly the same, as far as the elector is concerned. He marks his paper in exactly the same way. The difference is that once you have got the alternative vote in single-Member constituencies, you go on to group your constituencies together, and thereby get a complete system of proportional representation. That is the only additional step to be taken after you have adopted the alternative vote. It is in the belief that we shall undoubtedly take that further step, with most admirable results so far as the public life of this country and the power and representative character of this House are concerned, that I support the Motion to-night.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I rise on behalf of the Government to say that we welcome this Debate. We feel that the time is fully come for the views of the whole of the Members of this House to be expressed upon a subject of this character. We do not desire on this occasion to regard the question from a party standpoint. The Government Whips will not be named as tellers, and no influence will be brought to bear by any Member of the Government to induce Members to go into any particular Lobby. The object which the Mover of the Resolution had at heart was obviously to try and secure that Members of Parliament should be elected in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the constituents in the different electoral divisions. From his words, it might be conceived that he was also interested in protecting the rights of minorities. I think that the truth lies in considering the question from both standpoints. We ought to look at the question from the standpoint of whether the alternative vote is a device which would secure minority representation, and also of whether it would protect the majority from the consequences of a split vote. Looking at the matter from the first point of view, I would remind the House that minority representation is, no doubt, an excellent thing in itself, and I feel that the alternative vote also is an excellent thing in itself. But the alternative vote does not, and cannot be, expected to remove any grievance from

  1935
  which minorities suffer. If it had any effect at all in that respect I think it would rather add to their grievance.
  Take the case of Wales in 1906. At that election Wales returned Liberal or Labour representatives to this House, and not a single Conservative representative, although there must have been something like 60,000 Unionist electors in Wales and Monmouthshire. Under the present system it is possible that in a three-cornered contest the minority might occasionally be represented, although they could not secure representation in a straight fight. But if you had the alternative vote it would be impossible, in a case of that kind, for a minority representative to be returned. Mr. Gladstone defended the single-Member constituency—he was mainly responsible for introducing the proposal into this House—on the ground that it would secure a fair representation of minorities. In the fulness of his experience, and with his unrivalled insight into electoral conditions, he held the belief that both parties under a system of that kind received a reasonable representation in this House. He regarded the wholesale return of Conservatives in a county like Kent as being a set-off against the wholesale return of Liberals in a county like Norfolk, or the West Riding of Yorkshire. His belief in actual practice has, I think, been proved to have been very well justified, because we see all kinds of opinions represented in this House, even with the three or four—call it, if you like, five or six—parties which at present compose the Membership of this House. We see also represented in this House the views of various bodies or particular interests held by a certain limited number of people. One has only to look at the Bills that have gone up to Grand Committee—the Plumage Bill, which embodies largely the view of hon. Members who seek the safety of the white egret; the Bill for the protection of grey seals, and the Bill for the protection of worn-out horses. There are individuals in the country who take a very strong view upon these particular questions that perhaps do not take a very comprehensive view of the very great issues which are before most Members of this House. I believe, therefore, after all, that these views really do find representation amongst the Members of this House.
  Since 1884 there have been two very distinct tendencies in connection with our representative system. One is that the
  1936
  majority in the House has tended to be enormously in excess of the majority in the country. Take the election in which the Conservatives were returned—I take the figures from the Blue Book—in 1895. The Conservatives produced a majority, excluding Ireland—and in the evidence given before the Royal Commission—Ireland appears to have been excluded very largely because of the very large proportion of uncontested seats, of 211, while the voting strength in the country only warranted a majority of 37. If we take the Government majority in the 1906 election, exclusive of Ireland again, it was 289. Yet the electoral majority by which that was obtained under a system of proportional representation would only have given a majority of 77. These discrepancies only direct attention to the minorities, who chiefly suffer by them. Let me give a similar analogy in connection with the present Government. At the last General Election the Government majority was, exclusive of Ireland, 63, whilst the votes cast only justified a majority of 28. It is very easy to find arguments for these discrepancies. One mathematical expert who gave evidence before the Royal Commission pointed out that under the doctrine of chances, if 5 votes out of 9 were given in favour of a particular party, in the actual working out of our system, as it at present operates, it would mean that there would be a majority in this House in favour of the party whose voting power in the constituency was as 5 to 4. Whether that can be borne out scientifically or not I do not venture to say, but I think it has been well said that it is advisable in the interests of the country that the Government should be returned to power with a sufficient majority not only to enable it to govern, but to administer with some possibility of continuity and without its being imperilled every few minutes of its life that it might be dismissed by a snap division.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We do not pay any attention to that at present.
  Mr. PEASE: I think probably too much attention has been paid to it in the past, and that it is only on important occasions that it should carry much influence with the Government of the day. I admit that excessive disproportions are undesirable, and the question is: what is the remedy? Many Members of this House have advocated proportional representation. I believe that would be difficult to carry out, be-

  1937
  cause all the systems I have studied are somewhat complicated; and in addition to that they might tend to diminish the power of the Government, which ought to be reasonably strong in office. Then again, the other change which has occurred is that of the larger number of three-cornered contests, and these contests have been increasing. At the last General Election there were only five three-cornered contests, and, I believe, in these five, if there had been an alternative vote, no alteration could possibly have taken place in the result secured at the General Election, but in the by-elections that have occurred since that General Election, the figures are somewhat startling.
  There have been seventy-two by-elections in Great Britain; there have been nine unopposed returns. Out of fifty contested elections twenty-two, or very nearly one-half, have been three-cornered contests, and of these twenty-two in six only has there been a clear majority in favour of the candidate returned as the representative of the Parliamentary constituencies, and in sixteen a minority representative has been returned, that is to say, that in 25 per cent. of the contested seats and in 22 per cent. of the total by-elections, individuals have been returned at by-elections to this House who do not represent the majority of the electors who voted in these elections. The hon. Member for Haggerston, I think it was, alluded to the case of Attercliffe in 1909. There was another celebrated case, that of the Colne Valley. In that election, not 30 per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of the candidate returned to represent that constituency. Of course, it may be said that, after all, these candidates with the alternative vote might have been returned. That, no doubt, is true, but the point is that the electors themselves do not know whether that representative has the majority of the electorate behind him. Such electoral incidents seem to me to somewhat discredit this House as a representative body. It forces us to look outside the House for the real meaning of the elections, and to indulge in arithmetical speculation. We all know how, on the morrow of the elections the party Press indulge in various figures to prove that every election is a moral victory, or to explain away the loss. It is much more satisfactory to an hon. Member of this House to be able to march up the floor and take his seat feeling that he can say that the electors have chosen
  1938
  him before all his competitors. If he can say that after a straight fight, if he can say that he has a majority of the electors behind him, he is in a much stronger position to express the views of his constituency than he would be if he only represented a minority of the votes recorded at his election.
  Any system which enables discrepancies of this kind to occur obviously requires reform, and the alternative vote has this eminent advantage over the second ballot, that it telescopes the first and the second elections into one; it avoids all the disturbances to trade, the intrigue of a second election, and it secures the same personnel in the votes which are recorded. The issue is not varied, and, therefore, I can tell the hon. Member for Honiton that the electoral experts of the Liberal party agree with the experts of his own party in discarding the second ballot. Most of the electioneering experts in this country believe in the alternative vote, and have discarded the second ballot system as one which ought not to be adopted in this country. The alternative vote was strongly recommended by the Royal Commission, which has already been quoted by the hon. Member who moved this Resolution. I do not believe the alternative vote will meet every conceivable case. You might have a case where you have two extreme men returned at the head of the poll, and you might have a third candidate who took more moderate views on both sides of political questions very nearly receiving the same amount of support, and yet if you had the alternative vote you might have every single vote cast for those two candidates who tied for the first place recorded in favour of the third man, who is obviously the most popular man, and who would most adequately represent the Division.
  At the same time, I believe that the alternative vote is a step in the right direction. It would be an educational step towards proportional representation, which many individuals desire to see on this side of the House. The great object of an electoral system is that it should be intelligible. There is a great flaw in any system which permits a candidate to be elected against the wishes of a constituency, but it is a graver flaw if the system is not intelligible to the ordinary elector. What I am anxious for is that our next step should be one which the electorate can understand, that it shall not be complicated, because that would

  1939
  deter electors from even attempting to record their votes, and a large number of votes would be spoiled, and the issue would be confused. The alternative vote does conform to the requirements of simplicity; it works well in Queens-land and Western Australia, where it has been tried, and it is an honest attempt to deal with a real and admitted evil. But there is a central preliminary which must be observed before it can be tried here, and that is that you must get rid of the twenty-seven double-barrelled constituencies which we at present possess. It is not popular. Well, if it be any offence—
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: No, the offence is the proposal to get rid of them.
  Mr. PEASE: You must get rid of these constituencies which return two Members. It is necessary that there should be single-Member constituencies all round if this alternative system of voting is to be given a fair trial. I believe that it will remove a real evil, that it will reduce, if not altogether abolish, minority representation, which is a growing evil in this country, and, for my part, I accept the Motion, and I shall be prepared to support it in the Division Lobby if any hon. Members challenge a Division.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I want to associate myself with the Motion that is before the House, but I want to make it perfectly clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) that in doing this I am speaking solely for myself, and not for my colleagues on these benches. This is one of those questions on which there is a very interesting division amongst the Members of the Labour party, and, not only amongst the Members of the Labour party in this House, but also in the Labour movement in the country. I think that the Debate has clearly demonstrated that all sections of the House now realise that there is existing to-day a very serious electoral evil. Ever since I have been a Member, especially in important Debates, I have heard it repeatedly said by Members of the two Front Benches that this House ought always to reflect the opinions of the people of this country. I am quite sure that Members of all sections of the House have only to give our electoral system a moment's consideration to be convinced that under existing circumstances that is well nigh impossible. It
  1940
  ought to be possible for all sections of the community to find representation in this House. We are very far from that, and we shall not realise it to the full even if we accept the Motion that I am going to support in the Division Lobby this evening. I am fully convinced, however, that the operation of the alternative vote will be a very important step in the right direction. If the evil is admitted, as I have already said that I think it has been admitted to-night on all sides of the House, what are the different proposals that are put forward to remedy it? The supporters of the Amendment suggest that redistribution would assist in providing a remedy. In my opinion, to redistribute and to do nothing more would only intensify the evil so far as small groups, and especially so far as a party like the Labour party, are concerned. I can quite understand hon. Gentlemen opposite hanging on to the question of redistribution and not being particularly anxious to go very much further. We have only to look along those benches when there is anything like a full percentage of the Members present, and we can count a number of Members who occupy their seats in this House to-day on a distinct minority vote of the constituency for which they have been returned. I remember when I came here eleven years ago I occupied exactly the same position. I came here as the result of a three-cornered contest, one, I am sorry to say, of the very few cases where the member of the Labour party succeeded in obtaining more votes than the separate votes recorded for the candidates standing in the name of the two older parties. We have a large number here to-day, and therefore, so long as that continues we can quite understand that there is no very strong desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to alter the system. When I come to this side of the House I find there is an indisposition to do anything very thorough, because the result at nearly every by-election was that the most effective weapon against the Labour party in the election has been the cry that working men should not vote for the Labour candidate, as if they do they will secure the return of the Conservative candidate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And a very good result, too.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no doubt the hon. Member for the City of London is very sincere in that interjection. But

  1941
  at the same time, that is not giving full and free opportunity for the electors to be represented in this House by the candidate or member of their party in whom they have the greatest confidence. It seems to me we shall never be in a proper position until that result is made absolutely certain. If the evil is there, what are the remedies suggested? Redistribution is only going to intensify the evil, because the more constituencies you create under existing circumstances, the greater will be the disadvantage under which the smaller parties or groups will labour.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Redistribution was not mentioned by me.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I was not suggesting that the hon. and gallant Member had advocated it. But what are the remedies that have been suggested? My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North-West Durham, suggested that possibly a remedy might be found in connection with what is known as proportional representation. I hold this opinion, that if ever we get proportional representation in this country—and I do not deny that it has advantages—it certainly has advantages where the minority are concerned—if ever we get it, I am of opinion we will only reach it by having experience of the alternative vote. None of the supporters of proportional representation have pointed out to us to-night the very serious difficulty that there must be associated with the application of that system. I may point out what to my mind are very considerable disadvantages. First of all, I think to ask small groups that ought to have representation to contest under proportional representation some of the constituencies the advocates of proportional representation say must be set up, would be to impose a burden on small parties and groups which would be intolerable. The most formidable objection is: Has any one really suggested a satisfactory application of proportional representation to our by-elections that so frequently occur? The evils of the status quo come out most prominently in connection with by-elections. I have not heard a single advocate of "P.R." who was prepared to state a reasonable remedy for the difficulty of by-elections, or devise a plan whereby "P.R." could be applied in the event of
  1942
  by-elections taking place. Some say that we should not have by-elections. Some say we should have lists of candidates who should succeed. That is not going to be very popular with the electors. I find that in the great majority of cases, when a vacancy occurs, there is always a section in the constituency who, if the money can be provided by fair means, are going to try conclusions and see exactly what the result will be. Having regard to the difficulties of "P.R." I am driven to the conclusion that the House would be acting most wisely, in order to get out of the difficulty in which we are placed, to give a trial to what is known as the alternative vote. I am certain that until we have something in the nature of the second ballot—and I can see objections to the second ballot—until we have something akin to the alternative vote, which has been tried in some of our Colonies, the Labour party will be the party of all the sections in this House which is going to suffer most.
  Figures have been quoted to-night of the number of three-corner contests. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to the number of three-corner contests at the last General Election. The number he quoted is no indication whatever. After all, the Labour party has to have the same regard to the electoral circumstances, and until they are put in a position where they are free to nominate in as many constituencies as they can find money with which to run their candidates they are not having their contests in this country under the free conditions to which, as a party, they are entitled. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which we can be placed in a proper position is to get ourselves out of the very serious condition arising out of the electoral status quo, and so far as I am concerned I shall do everything in my power to alter the present system. Although I see the difficulties of "P. R." I would rather have "P.R." than the present system, but I would like to get "P.R." by giving the preference to the alternative vote. I therefore support the Resolution before the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Malley, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Adamson, William

  Gulland, John William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hackett, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hancock, John George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, George Keynes

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brace, William

  Hinds, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hodge, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir Wiliam Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Johnson, W.

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sheehy, David

  Clynes, John R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sutton, John E.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Cullinan, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wardle, George J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Webb, H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Molloy, Michael

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Duffy, Wiliam J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Field, Wiliam

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Dowd, John

  Lyell and Mr. Wiles.

  NOES.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Pete, Basil Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

  Daiyrmple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Morrison-Bell and Mr. Hills.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. GRETTONrose to continue the Debate.
  It being after Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceedings, the Debate stood Adjourned.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.