MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 08 April 1914 vol 60 cc1979-2045

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn, until Tuesday, the 14th April."

Sir J. D. REES

I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Blocking Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire [Outworkers under the National Insurance Act], and I ask does that exclude the consideration of the question of married women out-workers?

Mr. SPEAKER

I think it does.

Major BARING

May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Blocking Motion No. 12, put down by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh [Housing at the Winchester Depot]. I want to know if I will be in order in calling attention to the housing in Winchester outside the depots? The Blocking Motion refers to the depot at Winchester. I want to refer to the housing in the city of Winchester.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not quite understand what the difference is.

Mr. PRINGLE

The question of the housing at Winchester only arises from the depot there, and I submit that the question of the housing at Winchester could only be discussed in connection with the depots.

Mr. SPEAKER

It is a very clumsily drawn Blocking Motion, but I think it is effective all the same.

Earl WINTERTON

May I ask if it is a fact that the dictionary distinction of depot applies to military buildings and houses built actually on Government property in the barracks or in the ground adjoining the barracks, and whether it is not to the houses outside in the city that my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and having nothing to do with the barracks?

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to call attention to the fact that a number of troops have been moved into Winchester, and that by reason of the excess of the troops there is overcrowding in the city, and that seems to me to be covered by this Motion.

Mr. D. D. SHEEHAN

I confess I feel very strongly over the matter of representatives from Ireland, who wish to raise Irish questions, being precluded from doing so by having these Blocking Motions put down. I wish to raise the question of the administration of the Labourers Acts in Ireland, and the necessity for more money, which are matters of immediate urgency. It is bad enough that Members on the opposite side should put down Blocking Motions, but when it comes to Members from Ireland putting these Motions upon the Paper—

Mr. SPEAKER

What is the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make?

Mr. SHEEHAN

It is that I think, subject to your ruling, that I am entitled to raise the question of the necessity of the provision of additional money, and that that is not covered by the Blocking Motion, and, subject to your ruling I wish to raise that question.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid it is covered by Blocking Motion No. 90 [extending Labourers (Ireland) Acts].

Mr. SHEEHAN

I would submit respectfully that the provision of additional money is not really an extension of the Labourers Acts—it is not an extension of their effect or Clauses, and on that ground I think I am entitled to raise the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Blocking Motion is "to call attention to the necessity for immediate provision"—provision for what? It must be the provision of money for extending the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and that will be for more housing.

Mr. SHEEHAN

Well, the labourers of Ireland will know what took place upon this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order !" and Interruption.]—and now, since I am precluded from raising a question in relation to Ireland, I propose raising a question, of which I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade in this House, which has reference to the scandal of the Union Life Assurance Company. I have put a series of questions to the Board of Trade in reference to this matter, and the replies have been, in my view and judgment, eminently unsatisfactory. Here is a company formed no doubt in Canada, but which received £157,000 of British money from 745 shareholders. Every penny of that money has gone, and not one half-penny has come back. I think it is the duty of the hon. Member's Department to inquire into that matter and probe it to the fullest, to see whether it is not possible that the parties in London responsible for the flotation of this company and who assisted in the preparation of a fraudulent prospectus cannot be brought to the bar of justice, in the same manner as the Canadian Government are bringing those responsible to justice in Canada. There is a huge sum of money involved in this company. The way the operations of the company have been carried out from start to finish has been one huge swindle. It represents the savings of 745 people—in many cases the savings of a whole lifetime. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade will tell me that this is a Canadian company, and that we have no control over it. I put it to the representative of the Board of Trade that although it may be a Canadian company, honest British gold has been invested, and they were British shareholders. There was an advisory board formed here, and the Board of Trade ought to have some control over that. The prospectus was prepared and issued here in London, and therefore I submit that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into this matter. The prospectus from the very start was fraudulently prepared and consisted of the grossest misrepresentations, and it was a swindle from start to finish. Surely we are not to be told that there is no power to reach people who issue prospectuses of this nature ! The Canadian Government is doing its duty and bringing to justice those who have outraged the laws of that country, and the shareholders here should demand that similar treatment should be meted out to the culprits in this country. I think that is a reasonable demand. In the interests of British commercial honesty the representatives of the Board of Trade should at the very outset seek every opportunity of inquiring thoroughly into this matter.

Let us see how this swindle was perpetrated. A company promoter came over here to get money, and he went to people whom he knew had influence in insurance affairs. He went to Mr. William Schooling and got the assistance of that gentleman, and he went to Mr. Rusher, connected with the Prudential Assurance Company, and that gentleman also assisted in the preparation of this fraudulent prospectus and gave it his benediction. Mr. John W. Martin, seeing that he and his family had invested their own money in this fraudulent concern, and in order that they should not gull the British public, formed a London advisory board consisting of Viscount Maitland, Mr. [name not heard] and others, and these gentlemen launched this company on the confiding British public because of their names, and on their presumed respectability and representative capacity the British public invested £157,000. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and his representative tell me that they have no control and can get no information, but if they apply to the Finance Minister of the Canadian Government there is not the least doubt that they will get all the information they may require, and they will get the report of the official liquidator in Canada exposing the frauds. They have only to look up the "Canadian News" in this country and they will find all the operations of this company have been exposed from the outset. Not only have 745 people been swindled but some of them have been beggared and ruined, and surely it is only right that there should be an investigation into this matter. Surely this is a matter big enough for your attention and consideration ! I think the Government owe a duty to those 745 shareholders who have lost their savings to see actually what was done by Mr. Schooling and Mr. Rusher and all the others associated with him.

Out of this £157,000, £33,000 were touched by the promoters in England and it went into their pockets. Mr. Schooling himself got over £2,000 for whatever assistance he gave in the flotation of that company, and I think that is a gross scandal, and it is a matter which should demand attention and investigation. I trust the Board of Trade will no longer persist in its obstinacy and obduracy in this matter. There can be no question of the legal liability of those who assisted in the preparation of a fraudulent prospectus and the flotation of a fraudulent company, and there must be some way in which these people can be reached. It is not my duty to find out that way, but it is the duty of the Department in England to see that justice is done. In the question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade to-day I reminded him of what happened in the case of Jabez Balfour and Whittaker Wright when the same reluctance was exhibited as is being shown by the Department now, and it was only by pressure and persistency that these people were brought to justice. We shall bring the same pressure in this matter until we see that those who have wronged and defrauded the public have also been brought to justice. They have put £33,000 into their own pockets by a huge swindle, and it is not right or fair that they should go scot-free in the matter, and it is not right that the names of British insurance companies should be injured by these frauds. I think it would be wrong, and it would be a shame, if that were allowed. The matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is. Canada is showing an example to you in this matter. The moment Mr. de Beck, the editor-in-chief of the "Canadian News," brought the facts under the notice of the Canadian Government, that Government instituted an inquiry, and they found that there were grounds for taking action. They brought the matter into liquidation, and they have now instituted criminal proceedings against those involved on Canadian soil. Is it not right and just that those involved in this country should be pro- ceeded against in the same way. The purity of British administration demands that the guilty ones must be brought to justice. That is the demand which I make here. I say that it is the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the property of British citizens in this matter. I hold it is their duty that once they have established the fact that fraud has been commited—and we will put all the evidence they require before them—in connection with insurance matters, they should take steps to bring the guilty parties to justice.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)

This is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not the function of the Board of Trade to investigate and prosecute all forms of fraudulent promotions of companies. The hon. Member has drawn a false analogy between this case and the Jabez Balfour and Whittaker Wright cases. In the Jabez Balfour case the Board of Trade did make a representation to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. SHEEHAN

That is what I ask you to do now.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Because that case came before the Board of Trade through the ordinary operation of the Bankruptcy Law. The Board of Trade's powers to make representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions are practically limited to cases in which an order for winding up has been made or in which the Board of Trade has appointed an inspector. These are the only cases, practically speaking, in which the Board of Trade can make any investigations at all. In the Whittaker Wright case the Board of Trade did also make a representation to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he declined to prosecute. There was nothing further in the power of the Board of Trade, but a creditor claimed from the Court an order calling upon the Official Receiver to prosecute, and in that case the Official Receiver did prosecute. In this case no such machinery is available. This is a Canadian company, with no business in this country that I am aware of, but if the hon. Member is able to prove that any persons in this country were concerned in drawing up a fraudulent prospectus, why does he not convey his information to the Director of Public Prosecutions. With regard to the proceedings in Canada, he seemed to imply that they were set up on the score of the issue of a fraudulent prospectus, but so far as I can gather they were really set up on the score of misapplication of funds. I do not see that he or anyone is debarred from laying matters before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and, in view of the opinions which he has expressed, it is his plain duty to do so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

One of the few subjects not covered by the Blocking Motions is that of the non-commissioned officers and men in the Army who are now married off the strength of the Army, and who do not get privileges which attach to those who are recognised on the strength. I had the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this question on the Army Estimates on 12th March, and a short debate arose. I am now going to ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes whilst I try to ascertain from the Under-Secretary of State for War what the Government are proposing to do in the matter. I do not know whether hon. Members will remember that on that occasion there was a Division, and the Government majority fell, I think it was, to 37. They were saved by their faithful supporters below the Gangway, the Independent Labour party, although that party had professed to be sympathetic with the non-commissioned officers and men, and had promised to give gladly the help which they might have given on that occasion. The Leader of the Labour party explained the attitude of his party afterwards by saying that I was asking for a reform which I estimated would cost between £20,000 and £30,000 a year, and that the Government, on the other hand, had accepted the proposal, and had promised a reform worth double, namely, from £40,000 to £60,000 a year. That was quite inaccurate in both directions.

1.0 P.M.

It is quite inaccurate that I estimated the total final cost of the reform I suggested between £20,000 and £30,000. I said, and I thought I made the House quite clearly understand, that the additional allowances to the men would probably amount to £30,000. When the late Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) replied, he dealt not only with the allowances, but also with the contingent expense of building new barracks or new quarters for the men. If those contingent expenses are included, and they were not a necessary part of my proposal at all, then, of course, the figure will be very much larger. The explanation given by the Leader of the Labour party was good enough perhaps for his followers, and good enough for some of their supporters in the country, but it was not in the least an accurate representation of what in fact took place. I want to know now if the Regulations under which the men at present are governed are going to be altered. Let me remind the House what the War Office Committee said about these Regulations. The Report of Mr. Tennant was to this effect:— The present military Regulations, which do not attempt to solve the problem, but merely ignore it, are the worst possible method of dealing with the question and are in fact so illogical that they arc not now carried out. There is condemnation from the War Office's own Committee. I want to know what the War Office is going to do with those Regulations, whether they are going to be altered, and what form the alterations will take. The late Secretary of State for War, although he replied to me on that occasion, took great care to give no time and no date whatever. He never said that he was proposing to make any alterations in those Regulations at any time. All he said was that he was sympathetic. Sympathy is cheap. He said he hoped the House would not refuse the necessary funds when the time came for facing the additional cost to make provision for married soldiers. He continued:— You cannot go too quickly. That would defeat your own object, but we can go some of the road which is recommended here. I want to know how far along the road the Government propose to go. The late Secretary of State for War said:— We propose to adopt a large portion of the proposal contained in this Report for the extension of privileges to the wives of soldiers who are now regarded married off the strength"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 12th March, 1914, col. 1523, Vol. LIX.] 1.0. P.M.

Those are the only statements which were anything like promises to do anything at all, and the Under-Secretary will see that they were extremely vague. They did not foreshadow what alterations would be made in the Regulations. They did not say how many extra men were to be recognised as married on the strength. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what classes of men were to be recognised as married on the strength nor did he say when the recognition was to take place. I ask the Under-Secretary to be good enough to fill up the gaps, and to tell the House something definite with regard to the policy of the Government in connection with these soldiers. I want, if I can, to try and deal with another question which affects the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn). I have also given him notice that I was going to raise it. Here I have got to tread very warily, because those on the Back Benches opposite have done their best to lay traps and entanglements in our path to prevent us discussing anything which is connected in any way with insurance, but, if we cannot make a frontal attack, I will, at any rate, try to remain in order and turn the quarters of the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East. Fortunately, no one has thought it worth while to put down a Blocking Motion with regard to his speeches. I am not at all surprised. They have thought it worth while to put down a Blocking Motion with regard to Cabinet Ministers' speeches, but he is not a Cabinet Minister, and therefore I trust I shall be in order in calling attention to a speech he made in this House on 24th March last. He was speaking on a Motion connected with the Insurance Act.

Mr. BOOTH

May I draw your attention to a notice on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse)? It is not a recent notice—it is called No. 3 on my Paper. [To call attention to the working and administration of the National Insurance Act, and to move a Resolution.] I submit that a speech made by a Minister on this particular question of the working and administration of the Act cannot be allowed to be discussed within the terms of this Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER

It depends on the nature of the criticism of the speech. It may be an objection to its style.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

Yes, it is to its style and to the irrelevancies contained in it. I should, of course, like to criticise the merits of the speech itself, and if you will allow me to do that I shall be delighted. But I am afraid that that would come within the Blocking Motion, and, therefore, I do not propose to discuss the merits of the speech qua insurance, but rather the manner of the speech and some things which are quite extraneous to insurance. I was going to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East avoided answering any of the arguments that had been put forward in the earlier part of the Debate. He avoided answering the specific questions that had been put to him in that Debate, and he preferred to make attacks on Members of this House rather than to attempt to answer their arguments. The hon. Member made a personal attack on me, which I propose to deal with for a few moments. He said:— Take the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway (Mr. Worthington Evans), and who knows the Act, and who ought to be able to talk fairly about it. He goes up and down the country telling people that twice the benefits would be given if the thing were properly managed. That is utterly untrue. I have never done anything of the sort. I wish the hon. Member were here. I have given him notice, and it is very embarrassing to speak about his personal conduct in his absence. It would have been more usual, at least, if he had attended to hear the statement I wish to make. The charge he made was that I had gone up and down the country saying that twice the benefits could be given if the Act were properly managed, and he then added:— How can you hope to get people to work with a will, and make the Act a success, when people who know the Act, and speak with authority, go up and down the country making statements of that kind?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1914, col. 329.] Of course it is a very flattering tribute to the influence of any speech I may make in the country that, notwithstanding the great and magnificent benefits of this Act, the Act cannot properly be worked because I make speeches in the country. But it is absolutely and entirely untrue. I never said anything of the sort in the country. What I have said is this, that those who are now compelled to insure as deposit contributors were getting in many cases twice the benefits under the old system, and they would have continued to get those benefits if they had not been forced to become deposit contributors. That, I submit, is perfectly true. It is the statement which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a statement which has never been contradicted, and I defy anyone now to contradict it. But that is totally different to the statement of which he hon. Member accuses me. One would have thought that if he were going to make a charge, which amounted to a charge of untruth, he would have had some foundation for it, and would have given some authority for it, or that he would have quoted some newspaper that had reported the speech which I was supposed to have made. He did not do anything of the sort. He based himself upon a leaflet which was written by someone else altogether, a leaflet which I had never even seen at that time, and which I only saw when he sent it to me three or four days ago. On examining that leaflet I find it does not purport to quote any words I actually used. It purports to quote an opinion of mine, but it does not give any authority for it. It is not a matter of great importance perhaps, but it is extremely unfair that any man with any sort of sense of decency should have charged another in this House with untruth unless he had some ground, some reasonable ground, for doing so. Of course the hon. Gentleman has been imitating the worst methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We can stand a good deal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer because his inaccuracies cause some amusement, but when the hon. Gentleman, in the sort of proportion of a squirt to a fire-hose, comes and makes statements of this character, there is neither amusement nor profit in listening to him. The hon. Gentleman then, instead of dealing with the subject-matter of the Debate, which he was supposed to be dealing with, and which I am precluded now from dealing with, went on to propound a large number of questions with regard to voluntary insurance. I imagine that subject is not out of order on this occasion.

Mr. PRINGLE

Does not the question of voluntary insurance involve legislation, and is it not therefore out of order to discuss it now?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not yet know what are the proposals of the hon. Member.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

I think I can keep myself in order. The blockers have not succeeded in touching this subject at all in any of their notices of Motion. I think I can keep myself in order, because I am calling the attention of the House to the speech made by the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, a speech in which he asked about half a dozen questions with regard to voluntary insurance. I submit I shall be in order if I comment on those questions, and to some extent reply to them—at any rate I will try. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted to ask some questions of the Opposition with regard to voluntary insurance.

Mr. EDGAR JONES

Is it not a fact that this may involve a possible scheme of legislation as an alternative to the present Insurance Act, and is it not therefore impossible to discuss it except as something which would require legislation in the future, and which consequently cannot be taken on this Motion for Adjournment?

Mr. SPEAKER

I would rather wait and hear what the hon. Gentleman has to submit.

Mr. MOONEY

Is not the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the subject of the administration of the Insurance Act, and is he not therefore making a speech on a question which is covered by a Blocking Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand he is calling attention to gross inaccuracies which he says were contained in that speech, and to its irrelevancies. I think he is entitled to do that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

Yes, this is one of the irrelevancies I want to call attention to. In the speech the hon. Member made on that occasion, in connection with insurance, he proceeded to ask a large number of questions with regard to voluntary insurance. That had nothing to do with the administration of the Act, and it is with the answer to some of those questions that I propose to deal. The hon. Member, with an air of great triumph, said, "What about sanato[...]a under a voluntary scheme?" Yes, what about it? I should, if I were dealing with that question, take out of insurance altogether the whole of the tuberculous cases. As the matter stands now, there is an enormous amount of overlapping in connection with the benefits actually given.

Mr. SPEAKER

That would require legislation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

Of course, I am trying to get through the entanglements which have been placed in our way. I can quite understand that the other side dislike very much any discussion on the present administration of the Act, and they hate still more any proposals that may be made for its amendment. If they have succeeded to the extent of stopping all discussion on the Insurance Act, all I can say is I hope their constituents will be pleased with their action, for it is just by discussion that amendments may be proposed for the benefit of the whole of the insured population. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I began to speak. I gave him warning I should speak, and I am sure he knew I was speaking, wherever he was, as my name probably appeared on the tape. I hope that now he will see fit to make what amends he can for a position he ought never to have taken up in making a charge that is absolutely unfounded and without excuse, for it is not a sufficient excuse to say that in some leaflet written by someone else, unconnected with me in any sort of way, a statement to that effect was made, when he could have easily, if he had chosen, attempted to verify that statement. He could have got the newspaper report, if there was a newspaper report, or at least he might have had the decency to ask me whether it was in fact true.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

On a point of Order. May I point out that the Blocking Motion refers to the National Insurance Act, 1911. Would it not be possible, as the Acts are known as the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1913, to refer to the administration of the Act of 1913?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Motion specifically refers to the National insurance Act, 1911.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

On the same point of Order. Motion No. 3 on the Paper refers to the working and administration of the National Insurance Act, but does not refer to any date.

Mr. SPEAKER

It says, "The National Insurance Act, 1911." There may be another one. There is Motion No. 69 [National Insurance Act].

Mr. PRINGLE

I was disappointed that the hon. Member—

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

On a point of Order. Will hon. Members be allowed to discuss the administration of the 1913 Act?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am now engaged in looking through the Motions.

Mr. PRINGLE

I was disappointed that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) did not move the Amendment he has on the Paper. There is a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the House with the proposal that he had set down. We all feel, in view of the beautiful weather we are having at the present time, that it is extremely unfortunate that this House should have such a short vacation.

We feel the grievance still more in view of the fact that Cabinet Ministers, more happily circumstanced than ourselves, are able to have a more extended holiday. While I do not quite agree with the hon. Member in extending it to the limit he has suggested, namely, Thursday, the 23rd, because such an extended holiday might interfere with very important business—

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

On a point of Order. I take it that the hon. Member is going to move the Amendment which is down in my name. Will that preclude hon. Members from discussing the Insurance Act, 1913?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not know what the hon. Member is going to move.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think the hon. Member might restrain himself.

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

May I call your attention, Sir, to Blocking Motion, No. 81? [Adjournment.] If the hon. Gentleman is not moving an Amendment, he is speaking to the necessity for a longer holiday, which is blocked by Motion No. 81.

Mr. PRINGLE

The point arises whether what I am going to propose will come under that Blocking Motion. It has not yet appeared what my Amendment is, and I was merely amplifying the argument, and pointing out that I sympathise with the object of the hon. Member in extending the holiday. I was saying that I felt it was asking too much of human nature, as represented by the Back Benches, that we should be called upon to come back here on Tuesday. I think it is of extreme importance that we should have an extra day.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is precluded from discussing that. He must move an Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE

Having stated my argument, I now beg to move, to leave out the words, "Tuesday, the 14th," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Wednesday, the 15th."

Mr. J. HOGGE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON

On a point of Order. Would it be in order for anybody to move that the holidays be shortened, having regard to the fact that you have put the Question that the words "Tuesday, the 14th," stand part?

Mr. SPEAKER

It would be open to the House to reject "Tuesday," and to insert "Saturday" if they please.

Mr. McKENNA

I hope that the House may be willing to adhere to the original Motion, and accept the date of Tuesday, the 14th. I quite recognise the force of the observations of my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that I should personally be only too glad to enjoy an extended holiday, but the difficulty in the way of increasing the length of the holiday at Easter is that if we do so we preclude ourselves of all hope of an extended holiday at Whitsuntide. My hon. Friend referred to the beautiful weather we are now having, but it is likely to be a little more beautiful in June, and we should have a better prospect of a more lengthened holiday at Whitsuntide. I hope, therefore, that the House will come to the decision to accept the Motion for the 14th.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I do not know whether the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment intend to vote for it in the Lobby—

Mr. PRINGLE

We shall divide the House.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

If they do, they will have my support, although I am anxious to put in as much work here as I possibly can. I have been looking carefully through the list of Blocking Motions on the Paper, and I observe that hon. Members opposite have omitted one subject of very great importance, and I now wish to direct the attention of the House to the administration of the Mental Deficiency Act.

Mr. SPEAKER

That hardly arises on this Amendment.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment did not give the House some reason for making such a proposition. He and those who act with him usually do give some reasons to the House for their actions, but on the present occasion I have not heard any. Let me point out that it would be a very great inconvenience to this House to extend the time after the date has been published on which the Government intend to call the House together again. There are such things in this House as Private Bill Committees, and they, no doubt, having seen in the newspapers that the House will meet on Tuesday, have made their appointments accordingly. Let it be known that these Private Bill Committees, when they are delayed, cost a great deal of money to the parties concerned in the Bills which come before the Committees. There are counsel to be paid, and witnesses to be summoned to London, and it would only be reasonable to expect hon. Members opposite to give some good reason why they propose this Amendment. I want to know also, as a point of Order, whether on this Amendment it will be possible for us to raise other questions than the Adjournment of the House, because if this Amendment be carried you may not allow us to discuss those subjects which are not met by any Blocking Motions on the Paper. I do not intend to oppose the Amendment. If it is open to me I wish to engage the attention of the House on a matter which I regard as a very serious inference, and which is not referred to at all by any of the Blocking Motions. I therefore hope that those who have initiated the Amendment will give some good reason, or any reason, why the House should agree to the loss of one day.

Mr. SPEAKER

It would not be open to discuss anything now except the prolongation of the holidays from Tuesday to Wednesday. That is the only subject now open for discussion.

Major BARING

I should have felt inclined under other circumstances to support the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle), but I find myself quite unable to do so, first of all because of the hostile attitude which he has adopted towards myself in the Blocking Motions he has put down, and, secondly, because coming down to the House to-day I saw on a placard a statement which made one feel even more ashamed of the present Government than most of us are. What was printed on the placard was, "Cabinet's Holiday Slackness." If the slight holiday winch is already allowed us has caused the Press to put that on a placard that every man may read, it is an insult to ask the House to extend the holiday by another twenty-four hours. I received further confirmation of my impression when I stepped into a 'bus and found seated in a corner one of His Majesty's Under-Secretaries of State in holiday attire and evidently prepared to go off at a moment's notice. On seeing me he stepped quietly off the 'bus and rushed into a Government office in White-hall, but his intention was quite plain to everybody, and I certainly could not offer to help him to enjoy any more holiday than the House has already allowed him, any more than I could venture to vote with

the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle), and if he goes to a Division I shall certainly go into the opposite Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 20.

Division No. 62.]	AYES.	1.30 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	O'Malley, William
Adamson, William	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Alden, Percy	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Hazleton, Richard	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Hewart, Gordon	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Higham, John Sharp	Pratt, J. W.
Barnes, George N.	Hinds, John	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Hudson, Walter	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Boland, John Pius	Johnson, W.	Radford, George Heynes
Booth, Frederick Handel	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Bowerman, Charles W.	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Reddy, Michael
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brace, Wiliam	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Kelly, Edward	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Brunner, John F. L.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Kenyon, Barnet	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Chancellor, Henry George	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Lardner, James C. R.	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Clancy, John Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Robinson, Sidney
Clough, Wiliam	Leach, Charles	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Roe, Sir Thomas
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Rowlands, James
Cotton, William Francis	Lundon, Thomas	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Crooks, Wiliam	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Scanlan, Thomas
Crumley, Patrick	Maclean, Donald	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Cullinan, John	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Shortt, Edward
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Macpherson, James Ian	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dawes, James Arthur	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Delany, William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Sutton, John E.
Devlin, Joseph	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Donelan, Captain A.	Meagher, Michael	Tennant, Harold John
Doris, William	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Thomas, James Henry
Duffy, William J.	Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Molloy, Michael	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Toulmin, Sir George
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Fell, Arthur	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Wardle, George J.
Ffrench, Peter	Mooney, John J.	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Field, William	Morgan, George Hay	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Morrell, Phillip	Webb, H.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Morison, Hector	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Gill, A. H.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Muldoon, John	Whitehouse, John Howard
Glanville, Harold James	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Goldstone, Frank	Nolan, Joseph	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Norton, Captain Cecil William	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Hackett, John	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Yeo, Alfred William
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Hancock, John George	O'Doherty, Philip
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	O'Donnell, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hardie, J. Keir	O'Dowd, John	Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Goldsmith, Frank	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bird, Alfred	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Royds, Edmund	Worthington-Evans, L.
Norton-Griffiths, John	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Rees, Sir J. D.	Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)	Pringle and Mr. J. M. Hogge.
Rolleston, Sir John	Winterton, Earl

Main Question again proposed.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

I beg to move, after the word "April," to add the words "at 10 o'clock a.m."

I so far agree with the hon. Member opposite in his desire that Members of this House should earn their salaries with the least possible waste of public time and labour, but I think what we ought to do in a matter of this sort is to meet earlier rather than later. We all know how much pressure is felt in connection with the discharge of business in this House, and I think the least we can do is to meet at a timely hour in order to get through as much business as possible. The right hon. Gentleman read a long list of Bills, all of which require careful attention, and I am quite sure that if we meet at a timely hour the business on Tuesday will be more likely to receive proper attention.

Mr. JOHN EDWARD GORDON

I beg to Second the Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA

I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman is serious in proposing this Amendment. If the House meets at ten o'clock in the morning and sits until eleven o'clock at night, that will make a very protracted day; and even if he does not consider his fellow Members on these benches, he might remember that there are Mr. Speaker, the officers of the House, and the various servants of the House, all of whom would be kept here thirteen hours. They would have to come back on Monday night from their holiday. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON

The right hon. Gentleman is very unconvincing in what he has said. I have not so long an experience of this House as some hon. Members, but I have been here long enough to be a convinced believer that this House should meet earlier. On many Motions for the Adjournment, and on Motions to report Progress, I have advocated as strongly as in my humble power that it is very difficult for the House to get through its business at the hours when we generally do it. I have urged on general principles that it would be very much better to meet earlier in the day than we do at present. The old argument against the House meeting in the morning was that it was not possible for hon. Members who belong to the legal profession to be present and to give their assistance in the House if we met earlier. I believe I am right in saying—my hon. and learned Friend near me will tell me if I am wrong—that the Courts will have a holiday during next week, and therefore the difficulty, so far as members of the Bar are concerned, really does not exist. They would be able to come down here on Tuesday next at ten o'clock just as easily as other Members. I wish to bring forward another argument in support of the proposal, namely, that by the recent setting up of the system under which there are more Standing Committees—a system which the House will recollect was an alteration or reform initiated by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman—it is now quite a common thing for a large proportion of Members of the House—very much larger than was the case when I first became a Member ten years ago—to be sitting and serving on Standing Committees and Private Bill Committees. I am bound to say I think there is a good deal in the argument of my hon. Friend that the House should meet on Tuesday next at ten o'clock. The Home Secretary talked of the inconvenience which would ensue to Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House if we met at ten o'clock, but I should have liked very much to know why we met at twelve o'clock to-day. Is it that the Members of this House are in such a hurry to get away as early as possible? If that is the object of hon. Gentlemen, they defeat their own argument by opposing the proposal to meet at ten o'clock on Tuesday. If, as I understand, the object of the Government is to get away as quickly as they can, and to get back as late as they can, which appears to be their object, judging from the absence of Ministers at recent Debates, all I can say is that I do not think that kind of attitude will impress either the House or the country, which the House is supposed to represent, and it should not be encouraged. I think there is very great reason to object to the absence of Ministers to-day, and I see no reason—

Mr. SPEAKER

The point now under discussion is whether the House should meet on Tuesday next at ten o'clock.

Earl WINTERTON

I really do not see why we should not meet at ten o'clock, except that the Foreign Secretary is fishing somewhere, and that his train would not enable him to get here in time for an early sitting of the House on Tuesday. If that is the only reason—

Mr. MacVEAGH

On a point of Order. Is there not a Motion on the Paper to call attention to the absence of Ministers, and, that being so, can the Noble Lord discuss the absence of Ministers now?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord could not discuss that matter by itself, but he is referring to the subject now in order to enable the House to see how desirable it is that Ministers should be present.

Earl WINTERTON

All I say is that I do not defend the absence of Ministers at the sitting of the House on Tuesday next, even though they may have long distances to come before they can reach the House. That is no reason why we should not meet at ten o'clock, and why we should rather meet at a quarter before three o'clock. The Home Secretary made a reference to the very great strain which attendance at the House involved. I would point out that the House had a Recess which began in the beginning of August last year and continued to 10th February this year. We are always told by Members of the Government that this is the most strenuous Government of the most strenuous Parliament that has ever met. All I can say is that if the House had a Recess from the beginning of August last to the beginning of February this year, I cannot see why hon. Members should not come here at the hour when reasonable people—I do not say that hon. Members are not reasonable—enter upon business outside to do their work. If it is suggested that the House is so slack that it cannot sit at ten o'clock, instead of a quarter before three o'clock, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the whole matter, and bring in another Motion that this House should adjourn until further notice.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I rise for the purpose of explaining that the views expressed by the Noble Lord are not shared by all Members on these benches, and that for the first time since I have been in this House I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

On a point of Order. May I ask whether this discussion does not come under the rule as to trifling with the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have heard many others which have been a great deal worse.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

It would be absolutely impossible for many Members of this House to attend on Tuesday if it met at ten o'clock instead of in the afternoon.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I wish to explain the vote which I gave on the last occasion, and that which I am about to give on this occasion. On the last occasion I voted against the Government because I was told that that was the proper way of expressing my view that the holiday was too long, and a logical sequence would be to vote now against the Government, so as to secure the utmost curtailment of the holiday which is possible. I wish to make perfectly clear that I am not in favour, as a general rule, of meeting at this early hour, but that I am in favour of meeting at an early day. The hon. Member suggested that this discussion was trifling with the House, but I may remind him that we are receiving £400 a year, and I am sure that he is the last person who would do otherwise than earn to the utmost farthing any remuneration which he received. Therefore, seriously, I think that it is important that we should keep up as far as possible some semblance, at all events, of anxiety to return to work as soon as possible. I do not want to deal with the question that Cabinet Ministers ought to work the same number of hours as we do. When people who really wish to get through the business of the House are met by a whole string of Blocking Motions, it is a very great temptation to Members on this side to use legitimately the forms of the House to discuss questions which they are perfectly entitled to discuss. I do not propose to do that, and I only point out that we might discuss the question of the attendance of Cabinet Ministers and the attendance of Members as a whole, but. I do submit that if there is any trifling with the House the trifling consists in using this wholesale process of blocking in order to prevent the discussion of questions which ought to be discussed.

Mr. JAMES HOGGE

Who started it?

Mr. RAWLINSON

I only make these remarks to justify myself in my two votes upon this occasion, because, if I found myself in the same Lobby with hon. Members opposite, it would require a certain amount of explanation.

Major BARING

It is my duty to my Constituents to support my hon. Friend, both by vote and voice, in his Amendment. There is a matter affecting the poorest classes—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion.

Major BARING

As I cannot raise this Amendment, I wish to raise this question at the earliest possible opportunity, and as they have given some opportunity by suggesting that the House should meet at ten o'clock on Tuesday, I therefore have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

Major MORRISON-BELL

I desire to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend as regards the action of hon. Members opposite who have put down Blocking Motions.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot discuss that now. The only question now is whether the House should meet at ten o'clock or at a quarter to three.

Major MORRISON-BELL

In reference to the question before the House I find myself more in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State than with those who support this Amendment, because, however Members themselves may be ready to meet at ten o'clock in the morning, this course would involve an enormous amount of trouble to others, who perhaps have less leisure. I refer to the officials of the House and others. If the House met at ten o'clock on Tuesday, it would mean that Gentlemen who live any distance away from the House would have to return to London on Easter Monday, which is a most inconvenient day. So on this occasion I shall be under the necessity of supporting the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 188.

Division No. 63.]	AYES.	[1.54 p.m.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Bird, Alfred	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Rees, Sir J. D.	H. Craik and Earl Winterton.
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Royds, Edmund
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dawes, James Arthur	Hayden, John Patrick
Adamson, William	Delany, William	Hazleton, Richard
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Devlin, Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Donelan, Captain A.	Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Doris, William	Hewart, Gordon
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Duffy, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Barnes, George N.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hinds, John
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Hogge, James Myles
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Fell, Arthur	Hudson, Walter
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Ffrench, Peter	Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Boland, John Pius	Field, William	Johnson, W.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bowerman, Charles W.	Fitzgibbon, John	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Brace, William	Gill, A. H.	Joyce, Michael
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Kelly, Edward
Brunner, John F. L.	Glanville, Harold James	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Goldsmith, Frank	Kenyon, Barnet
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Goldstone, Frank	Kilbride, Denis
Chancellor, Henry George	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Lardner, James C. R.
Clancy, John Joseph	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)
Clough, William	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Leach, Charles
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Hackett, John	Levy, Sir Maurice
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hancock, John George	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Cotton, William Francis	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Lundon, Thomas
Crooks, William	Hardie, J. Keir	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Crumley, Patrick	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Maclean, Donald
Cullinan, John	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Macpherson, James Ian	O'Malley, William	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sheehy, David
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Shortt, Edward
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Meagher, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Sutton, John E.
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Molloy, Michael	Pratt, J. W.	Tennant, Harold John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Thomas, J. H.
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Mooney, John J.	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Toulmin, Sir George
Morgan, George Hay	Pringle, William M. R.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Morrell, Philip	Radford, G. H.	Wardle, George J.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wason, Rt. Hon. E.(Clackmannan)
Morison, Hector	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Reddy, Michael	Webb, H.
Muldoon, John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Nolan, Joseph	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Robinson, Sidney	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Yeo, Alfred William
O'Doherty, Philip	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
O'Donnell, Thomas	Roe, Sir Thomas
O'Dowd, John	Rowlands, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Scanlan, Thomas

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. ROYDS

I wish to call attention to the effect of the Finance Act, 1909–10—the "People's Budget"—on housing, and I wish specially to draw attention to the Report of the Land Inquiry Committee. I am satisfied, after reading the Report, that we have made a further advance. In the first place, the Committee appointed to inquire into that matter admit a serious shortage of houses; they admit, in fact, that there is a house famine at the present time.

Mr. BOOTH

May I draw attention to a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield, to call attention to the administration of land valuations and the Finance Act of 1909–10, and to move a Resolution? I submit that what the hon. Member has said comes within the scope of that Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Member (Mr. Royds) has not yet gone far enough in his remarks to enable me to decide that they come within the scope of the Motion.

Mr. ROYDS

I am not calling attention to the valuations; I am calling attention to the effect of the Finance Act, 1909–10, on the housing of the people in this country, which is quite another matter. I said that we have made a certain advance in the Report made by this Committee, who admit that there is practically a house famine at the present time. We have taken a step further also in this direction—that the Committee admit that the People's Budget was in itself a serious check to building. We have got so far. I propose to call the attention of the House to what are the views of the Committee on that subject, because they go into figures and state facts which I think minimise unfairly and inaccurately the effect of the Budget on housing. I take, for instance, page 75 of the Report, where it is stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in the House of Commons, on 15th January, 1913, that the apparent decline in housing accommodation was largely due to the periodical re-valuation of houses.

Mr. BOOTH

The hon. Member is making a complaint about the land valuation, and I submit that he has now mentioned a matter which comes within the notice of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I had better make it clear to the hon. Member that he is not entitled to discuss legislation on this occasion. The subjects usually open are subjects connected with administration for which Ministers are responsible. Clearly, any matters of that kind for which Ministers are responsible are covered by the notice of the hon. Member for Wakefield. The hon. Member cannot discuss the subject in the air, but must discuss something for which a Minister can be brought to book.

Mr. ROYDS

Quite so. The hon. Member took exception to what I said when I mentioned re-valuation, but the revaluation to which I referred was for rating purposes, and had nothing whatever to do with valuation under the Finance Act. He took it for granted when I mentioned valuation that I was out of order.

Mr. BOOTH

You mentioned the Budget.

Mr. ROYDS

This valuation is a re-valuation for rating purposes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is because of something that occurred under previous legislation, and is not under the administrative control of the Government.

Earl WINTERTON

Is it not open to any hon. Member, on the Adjournment, to suggest possible future alterations in an Act of Parliament? It has constantly been done on the Adjournment, and attention has been called to laches in administration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am obliged to the Noble Lord, and if I have been careless in that respect in the past, I will be more careful in the future.

Mr. ROYDS

I desire to call attention to the effect the administration of this Act has had on housing, and I intend to confine myself to that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not permissible, as it is discussing legislation.

Mr. ROYDS

In discussing the effect of the administration of this Act, surely I am not discussing legislation !

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is covered by the Motion of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

Mr. ROYDS

That is confined to valuation, and this has nothing to do with valuation.

Mr. MacVEAGH

If the hon. Member proposes to talk about the housing of the working classes, that is covered by Motion No. 24.—[Mr. Edgar Jones: To call attention to the Administration of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the work of local authorities.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think the hon. Member can get his speech in either on legislation or administration. Legislation is out of order, and administration, I think, is covered by the Motion of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

Sir J. D. REES

As I am not able to raise the subject which I wished owing to a Blocking Motion, and I can quite understand the reluctance of the Government to allow me, I beg leave to refer to two subjects which I am informed are not blocked.

Mr. ROYDS

On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Blocking Motion to which you referred is No. 24?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

To that in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

Mr. ROYDS

That Motion is to call attention to the administration of the land valuation under the Finance Act. I am not calling attention to that, but to the effect the administration of that Act, not the valuation, has had on the housing of the working classes of this country.

Mr. MacVEAGH

That is covered by the other Motion.

Mr. W. THORNE

Sit down, and let us get home !

Mr. ROYDS

I am sure it is not important to the hon. Member.

Mr. W. THORNE

Sheer obstruction !

Mr. ROYDS

I am calling attention to the effect of the adminstration of the Act on the housing of the working classes, and not to the valuation at all. This is quite another question altogether.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member suggest that the administration has not been in accordance with the Act? He began by saying he wished to discuss the effect the Act had on the housing of the working classes. That clearly is a matter for legislation and not administration. Unless there is some allegation that the administration has not been in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. ROYDS

I think I could point out plenty of cases in which the administration of the Act has not come within the four corners of the Act. It has, indeed, seldom done so, and nobody knows what the four corners of the Act are. It is an Act no one understands, and there have been dozens of test cases.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now clearly discussing the Act.

Sir J. D. REES

I propose briefly to call attention to two subjects which I was informed by Mr. Speaker the Blocking Motions do not exclude. They are two subjects which I may say will take the House far away from what they have been considering. I refer to the prevalence of undetected political crime in India, and the present necessity for dealing with the opium stocks in Shanghai. I would have to go back some distance, but out of consideration for the circumstances of the House—

Mr. MacVEAGH

Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss the question he has now indicated in view of the appearance of Motion No. 55 on the Order Paper?—(Mr. James Hogge: To call attention to the Administration of India.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There, again, I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to put in the forefront of his speech the actual point which he wishes to discuss.

Sir J. D. REES

I did not venture to trouble the House without having brought the matter before Mr. Speaker, with special reference to the Blocking Motion to which the hon. Member, whose newborn interest in India I do not undertsand, has just called attention. I desire to refer to some extremely serious matters which have occurred, and which indicate that some special action is required in India, and which show that matters are not progressing at present in the manner in which the House would wish.

Mr. BOOTH

On a point of Order. I submit that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), to call attention to the administration of India, in view of what the hon. Member has already said with regard to undetected crime, and in a general way that the administration of India wants overhauling, clearly renders him out of order.

Sir J. D. REES

That Motion was, no doubt, intended to have that effect, but it was so clumsily drawn that it only operates to exclude the consideration of the administration of India in the sense of the body which carries on that administration, the Governor-General of India in Council with his subordinate officers, and the way in which one acts on the other. That is the sense in which the word is used. I submit that it cannot exclude a reference to the failure of the Judiciary in India at the present moment to deal with political crime, or to the necessity of disposing of the accumulated opium stocks at Shanghai. That is my submission, and it was already before Mr. Speaker.

Earl WINTERTON

Possibly, Sir, you were not present when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling. His ruling, as I understood it, was that a notice of Motion could be drawn in such general terms that it practically had no meaning at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] He was asked in reference to the notice to call attention to foreign affairs, and to move a Resolution. I respectfully suggest that, although this has been a rather frivolous afternoon, there are some very important points which, if left as they are, may have very serious effects on the future of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order !"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

Earl WINTERTON

I will submit my point of Order, if you will keep order for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am unable to follow that there is any point of Order.

Earl WINTERTON

I have never been in the habit of being bullied by anyone.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the Noble Lord has sufficiently put his point.

Earl WINTERTON

No; you do not allow me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Noble Lord is referring to what Mr. Speaker said earlier in the proceedings. I heard what Mr. Speaker said as to the necessity in such a case to wait and see what were the exact points brought forward. That is exactly what I am doing in the case of the hon. Member for East Nottingham.

Sir J. D. REES

I wish to call attention to the fact that in the early part of this year, or at the end of last year, a train was held up by armed brigands in India, in the fashion familiar in past times in territories in America where there was practically no administration. That is an occurrence which reflects very much upon the administration—

Mr. BOOTH

On a point of Order—

Sir J. D. REES

May I proceed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member for Pontefract will allow the hon.

Member for East Nottingham to proceed a little further, we shall see what is his point.

Mr. BOOTH

He has used the very words of the notice of Motion.

Sir J. D. REES

My desire is to comply with the rules laid down by the Chair, and not by amateur chairmen of the House. The occurrence to which I have referred is one which ought to be brought before the House of Commons. It is quite a new feature in Indian affairs that a train should be held up by armed brigands. The Under-Secretary has no doubt the circumstances in his mind. I shall be glad if he will give the House an assurance that the perpetrators of this terrible outrage will be brought to justice, and that firmer administration will render a repetition of it impossible. At the end of January last an inspector of police in Calcutta was shot dead in broad daylight in a great thoroughfare. A youth who was arrested with a smoking revolver in his hand—a young Bengali—underwent his trial and was acquitted. Therefore I must assume that he was innocent. I regret that this valued servant of the Government should have been assassinated in a manner only paralleled by the assassination of Sir Curzon Wylie in London a few years back. These cases, with one or two others to which I will briefly refer, show that something is amiss with affairs in India. There is an extraordinary laxness prevalent which I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain. I recently asked him whether any steps were to be taken to deal with the jury system as it now exists, and under which the perpetrators of these outrages escape.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is clearly covered by the notice of Motion to which reference has been made.

Sir J. D. REES

I will leave it at once, and refer to the fact that ten political outrages have taken place within a few days in Eastern Bengal. On the rivers there respectable merchants in pursuit of their avocation have been robbed and murdered. That is another occurrence which goes to prove my case that at the present moment the prevalence of undetected crime in India calls for some special measure of attention at the hands of the India Office. Only to-day I had occasion to put a question to the Under-Secretary of State asking what had happened in regard to an assault committed by a Bengali youth upon a young lady who was sitting with another member of her own sex in the Maidan in Calcutta. The Maidan corresponds to Hyde Park in this country.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That clearly comes under the administration of India.

Sir J. D. REES

Then I will leave that. I am not in any way endeavouring to evade your ruling. So anxious am I to keep within the Rules of Order that before I ventured to raise these matters in the House I submitted the point to Mr. Speaker, together with the Blocking Motion, which no doubt avails to exclude subjects which the Government are ashamed to have discussed. I hope that I am in order in pointing out that on the introduction of the Indian Budget a few days back the finance member of the Governor-General's Council made some statements of the utmost gravity, having a most adverse bearing upon the conduct of the Government in regard to the opium question, and particularly with regard to the disposal of the accumulated stocks in Shanghai, which have been exported in perfect good faith by Indian merchants. Those stocks are now held up in Shanghai—which is hardly under the administration of India—by the Chinese Government, contrary to the treaty agreement which the Indian Government and to the very great detriment and loss of honest merchants, European and native. It is difficult to pick one's way through these Blocking Motions, but my submission is—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am afraid that this question is covered by the notice of Motion in reference to foreign affairs.

Sir J. D. REES

On a point of Order. It was in regard to that very Motion that Mr. Speaker said that its generality was of such a character that it really imported nothing but a kind of vague desire on the part of a person who was incapable of formulating what he really meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I submit that, although they may not be the exact words of the Speaker—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I may remind the hon. Member that I was in the House when Mr. Speaker's decision was given.

Mr. CROOKS

I will never believe you any more.

Sir J. D. REES

I submit that, although my words may be a paraphrase of what Mr. Speaker said, they perfectly faithfully reflect his meaning. I submit that the holding up of the stocks of opium, exported by Indian merchants, in Shanghai, where we have no jurisdiction, cannot come under the head of foreign affairs in such a way as to be prejudiced by the indeterminate and indefinite notice of Motion of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. I did not propose to go at any length into the question, but I thought it quite possible that you would allow me to proceed so far as I intended, which is very little further than I have got.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am afraid that each Member would claim the same indulgence. I cannot make any distinction between one and another.

Earl WINTERTON

On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if your ruling is—that, because this broad Resolution has been put down—the like of which I have never seen—to call attention to "all" foreign affairs, that it therefore rules out all discussion on every subject outside this country? Mr. Speaker, in referring to this matter, and in reference to the phrase "all" foreign affairs, said: "I do not see what control we have over the affairs of other countries." If this Resolution is going to rule out all discussion of foreign affairs I shall certainly, when the House meets again, with or without a Resolution, call attention to all affairs in heaven and earth. The Resolution makes our whole proceedings a farce.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It certainly is a wide Resolution. There are things for which our Ministers are not responsible. We must confine ourselves to those for which they are responsible. It appears to me that the Motion does cover responsibilities for which the hon. Member for East Nottingham wishes to call Ministers to book.

Sir J. D. REES

With all respect—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the ruling has already been made quite plain.

Sir J. D. REES

If I am not allowed to speak, then I suppose I must not. I am very far from wishing to be contentious—indeed, that is the last thing I wish to be. But may I submit to you perfectly clearly that our Ministers do not, and cannot, deal with this matter or control it? That is my case—part of my submission. If I cannot deal with the matter, I must leave it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the Minister cannot control it, then let us get on to other ground.

Mr. J. D. REES

I leave it there, Sir. India, China and around the world being out of order, may I hope that the city of Nottingham is not also altogether under a ban? In that case there is a matter that for a few minutes I shall be glad to bring before the House. It is connected with the telephone service.

Mr. BOOTH

No. 37 on the Order Paper !

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am afraid the hon. Member has been anticipated by Notice of Motion No. 37 (Mr. Whitehouse.—Telephone Service) on the Order Paper.

Sir J. D. REES

I refer to the Post Office telephones.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is covered by the Notice of Motion to which I have referred.

Sir J. D. REES

I have not been able to read the whole of these Blocking Motions. I have been unequal to it. But I was under the impression that a case connected with the administration of the Post Office in Nottingham might possibly escape the attention of hon. Members who desire to prevent exposures in connection with administration for which they are responsible.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Dr. Chapple !

Sir J. D. REES

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I thought the hon. Member had finished.

Sir J. D. REES

No, Sir. Do I understand you to rule that I cannot refer to the administration of the postal telephones in the city of Nottingham?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is so.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I hope I may be able to insinuate myself between these Blocking Motions, and to escape the correction of the Chair.

Mr. CROOKS

We will look your number up.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I desire to call attention to the administration of the Labour Exchanges in connection with the employment of nurses. A fortnight ago I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether employment was found for nurses through the Labour Exchanges. In reply he told me that twenty-four nurses had been found employment by the Labour Exchanges. I asked several days ago how the Labour Exchanges distinguished between nurses who were qualified and those who were not. The right hon. Gentleman said that was largely left to the discretion of the employés in the Labour Exchanges. I want to call attention to the very serious responsibility that that reply involves. A sick person requires a trained nurse, sends to the Labour Exchange, and the Labour Exchange takes upon itself the responsibility of sending a trained nurse to that sick person. I want to know from the Board of Trade how the qualifications of that nurse to attend that sick person are determined. It is a very grave thing indeed.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

On a point of Order. Would not it require legislation to give the Labour Exchanges power to inquire into the qualifications of the nurses?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I cannot answer that definitely off-hand.

Dr. CHAPPLE

On that point of Order. I am going to ask the Board of Trade to instruct the Labour Exchanges not to supply nurses to anyone who applies, because the responsibility is too great. The Labour Exchanges are unable to distinguish between the qualifications of one nurse and another. I invite the Board of Trade not to take upon itself the responsibility of allowing Labour Exchanges to find nurses for the sick. Surely that is a matter of administration, and does not certainly require legislation ! It only needs a simple instruction from the Board of Trade to the Labour Exchanges that in the matter of the professional services of nurses to the sick, not being qualified to determine who are nurses and who are not, that they should not find employment for such persons. I am doing this in interest for the sick. There was a case reported in the "Times" yesterday of a young woman who, wearing a nurse's uniform, pleaded guilty to theft. The chief constable said she had been a hospital nurse, but she had no qualification whatever. She was posing as a hospital nurse, and she got twelve months' imprisonment. If such a young woman walked into a Labour Exchange and asked for employment, I ask what would be the reply of those in charge of the Labour Exchange? Would they take upon themselves the responsibility of determining that because that girl had on a nurse's uniform she was a trained nurse, and that therefore they could find employment for her, and send her to attend the sick? If that is so, a very grave responsibility is assumed by the Labour Exchanges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Can the hon. Gentleman show me that the Board of Trade under the Act administratively could exclude persons from the register of unemployed persons?

Dr. CHAPPLE

I presume it is within the power of the Board of Trade to instruct the officers at the Labour Exchanges that since they are not able to determine whether a woman was a qualified nurse or an impostor, they should give instructions that a nurse applying should produce her certificate of qualification before employment was found for her.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There is no such discriminatory power. All the Labour Exchange can do is to supply such information as is given to them. They are not a Court of Inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTSON

It is quite clear the Board of Trade has no power to make any such inquisition such as the hon. Member asks for in the case of nurses, nor in the case of members of any other profession.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

In that case it is quite clear that it would require legislation and therefore it is not in order to discuss it now.

Dr. CHAPPLE

Is it within the scope of the Labour Exchanges to find employment for any woman even if she was a convicted criminal, and send her to attend the sick?

Mr. ROBERTSON

It might be so.

Dr. CHAPPLE

Then the Labour Exchanges have no discrimination at all, if they take upon themselves the responsibility of sending a criminal out to attend the sick.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member must bring in a Bill to amend these matters.

Mr. MORRELL

I hope I shall be more successful than the hon. Member who has just sat down in my efforts to draw attention to a serious case that has already attracted the attention of the House of Commons on other occasions, but in respect to which new circumstances have arisen making it important that it should be further discussed. The question was raised last year in this House, and it was raised again in the Indian Debate. Since that time new facts have come to light, and I therefore think I am justified in asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India for some explanation in regard to it.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to Notice of Motion No. 55 ["To call attention to the administration of India"], and may I ask whether it is in order, in view of that, to discuss the question of administration in India?

Mr. MORRELL

On that point of Order, may I suggest you must interpret this rule in a reasonable way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I say in a reasonable way with all respect, because hon. Members have not interpreted it in a reasonable way, and I think that the only way in which I could be anticipated by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is that I should discuss substantially the same subject as that of which he has given notice. He, in this Motion, proposes to discuss the administration of India, and the whole Government of India.

Mr. MacVEAGH

No, no; that was not his object. His object was to stop Rees.

Mr. MORRELL

My action cannot be blocked except by a Motion covering substantially the same ground. I have here the procedure, and I think it is quite clear there can be no anticipation unless the subject to be raised is substantially the same as the one of which notice has been given.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member requires to show that it does not come within the Notice of Motion. It may be a small point, but the wider one anticipates a great number of smaller ones.

Mr. MORRELL

Then the point is a good one—that it is impossible to have any Motion on the Adjournment if a Member put down a Motion to discuss the affairs of the world? I venture to submit very respectfully that you are bound to consider what the meaning really is that is to be put upon these Motions and the way in which they can be discussed. My hon. Friend puts down the Motion to discuss at an early day the administration of India. It is conceivable that that may include the whole of India, but the mere fact that this case occurred in India is quite a small point—the question is a question of the administration of justice in the British Empire.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am sorry for the hon. Member, but I must apply the rule equally all round. You cannot raise individual cases—what applies to one applies to the hon. Member for Burnley as well.

Mr. MORRELL

With all respect, I would like to direct your attention to the Memorandum prepared by Sir Courtenay Ilbert on this subject of Blocking Motions, in which he goes into their whole history. This was presented in evidence to a Select Committee in 1907, and if you read through the whole of his evidence I think it will be perfectly clear that it does not apply to such subjects as I wish to raise.

Mr. MARSHALL

May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to Motion 91? [To call attention to the unfair operation of Blocking Motions and Bills.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am afraid No. 91 does deal with that question.

Mr. W. THORNE

I want to ask you, Sir, what the general public outside will think of the foolish way in which we are doing our business?

Mr. MORRELL

I may, at any rate, put this before you. It is clear that the only way in which I could be anticipated is by raising the same subject as the Motion, and the subject must be substantially the same as that Motion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The answer to that point is that it must not come within the Resolution of which notice is given.

Mr. MORRELL

May I ask whether there is any case where a subject has not been able to be raised because covered by such a Motion as this?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member will look up the record of 1904–5 I think he will find there is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I think I have discovered a subject not covered by the Motions on the Paper—

Mr. EDGAR JONES

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Has not the hon. Member already made a speech upon this Adjournment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has spoken upon an Amendment.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

And the subject to which I want to call attention is that of the Mental Deficiency Act of last year. We have been told this Act is only in force for about a week, but so far as the Board of Control and the officers and inspectors appointed by the Board are concerned, the Act has been in force since the 1st of November last year. I very much regret that neither the Home Secretary nor the Under-Secretary is present here to-day, for they are, strictly speaking, responsible for the administration of the Act. We are accustomed at the present time to the absence of Members on the Front Ministerial Bench. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Opposition Front Bench?"]

Mr. CROOKS

But for the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee the Front Opposition Benches would be empty.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

The Act has been enforced since the 1st November, and the inspectors have practically taken no steps to put it into force. The local authorities who are expected to put the Act into force, have received practically no draft Regulations from the Board of Control.

Mr. DOUGLAS HALL

There are no more copies of the Order Book in the Vote Office, and therefore I cannot tell what subjects are in order. Would it be in order for me to move the Adjournment of the House until some more Order Books are printed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member will come to the Table he will find an abundance of them.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

The local authorities at the present time are entirely at a loss to know what steps they should take under the Mental Deficiency Act, or what is going to be the cost imposed upon the ratepayers. When this Bill was being discussed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) strongly opposed it, because they thought it would be an unnecessary and dangerous interference with personal liberty. The House was assured by the Home Secretary who was in charge of the Bill, that there was no need to be alarmed in that respect, and nobody would be locked up and treated as a lunatic. He also told us that these institutions would be on an entirely different basis from the ordinary lunatic asylum. What has happened? The local authorities are handing over the administration of this Act to the ordinary Asylums Committees, and therefore are treating these mentally deficients on the same basis, and placing them in the same class as the ordinary lunatics. The right hon. Gentleman has issued these draft Regulations, and I would recommend hon. Members to look at those Regulations, and they will see that they are practically the same as those which have been issued for the administration of lunatic asylums. These people are being treated in the same way as ordinary lunatics. Let me read one or two of the Regulations which have been issued and sanctioned by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman told us that these people were not to be treated as lunatics. Regulation 99 provides that the patients shall be allowed to write letters at reasonable intervals, that every letter to or from a patient may be read by the superintendent, and if the contents are objectionable, or if it is thought undesirable that the intercourse should be maintained with the person to whom the letter is addressed, it should not be forwarded. I could quote a large number of other paragraphs showing conclusively that these people are treated in the same way as ordinary lunatics in our asylums, and that was not the intention of the House when we passed the Act last year. I think we are entitled to an explanation why the right hon. Gentleman issued these Regulations, which are contrary to the spirit of the Mental Deficiency Act. The Regulations deal not only with correspondence, but with treatment and visits to these feeble-minded people, and the Regulations are really objectionable. The Home Secretary told us last year that no one need be alarmed, and no one would be alarmed, if this Act were passed. I should like to read to the House an advertisement which appeared in yesterday's "Times." It is headed:— Mental Deficiency Act.—Advertiser having small freehold, much desired by others already benefited, is threatened under above Act; advice anil counsel urgently needed alone.

Mr. BOOTH

Was that in a comic paper?

Mr. GOLDSMITH

It was an advertisement which appeared in the "Times," and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Pontefract, who expressed such deep concern on a former occasion for these poor people, should ask if this advertisement came from a comic paper.

Mr. BOOTH

It is a comic advertisement.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Pontefract now agrees that these feeble-minded people should be treated in the same way as lunatics. If he does, all I can say is that he has changed his mind since last year, when he moved all those Amendments in Committee, and he must have been doing so not merely with the desire to benefit those unfortunate people, but merely for the purpose of obstructing the progress of the Bill. We did our best last year to have the Bill so amended that these people should be treated better than ordinary lunatics, and I hope we shall have some assurance that some of these Regulations will be amended or withdrawn, and that feeble-minded persons will be treated as the House intended they should be treated, and not as coming under the Lunacy Acts.

Dr. CHAPPLE

Just now I was ruled out of order because it was held that the subjects I was advocating required legislation. I have now made myself familiar with the Clause in the Act, and it says:— The Board of Trade may by any such means as they think fit collect and furnish information as to workpeople seeking engagements. I was asking the Board of Trade to collect information with regard to nurses, and keep lists of those who have qualifications, so that when employers wanted sick nurses they would know who were trained and who were not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member was not very skilful in putting his point. Perhaps he will be able to do better next time.

Mr. LYNCH

I wish to raise a point which may be to some extent covered by Blocking Motion No. 33 [Administration of the Diseases of Animals Act with reference to tuberculosis, swine fever, abortion, foot-and-mouth, and other animal diseases]. I put you on your guard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at once, so that you may clearly see that I do not run counter to those Blocking Motions. I do not intend to speak directly on the question of foot-and-mouth disease, but I do intend to protest against the great injustice done to my own Constituency and to the people of the whole of the county of Clare by placing a bar on the free inter- change of perfectly sound animals on account of a vague suspicion of disease in some other parts of Ireland. If that were ruled out of order, I think I could raise a larger question, and that is the staffing of these great Departments in Ireland, which deal with public business and the suggestion that there should be imported men of larger knowledge of Irish affairs, more scientific training, and, if possible, with a certain luminosity of mind. This again is involved in the greater question of the administration of every one of the great public offices in this country. We are being overrun by officials. [Cheers.] I am glad that finds a responsive echo. I would venture to put this in a most concrete form. We pride ourselves on being a great Imperial people, and look down upon our neighbours the French as a somewhat degenerate people, but I would venture to cite a representative, perhaps not the most noble of that people, who lived 100 years ago. I would name Napoleon Buonaparte, who, sitting two hours in his bureau in the morning, would do more solid and effective work than these great Departments in Ireland do in two years.

Mr. W. THORNE

May I call your attention to Resolution 48 (British Empire Administration). Surely Ireland is in the Empire?

Mr. LYNCH

May I interpose and say that cannot affect the question of a pier at Kilbaha?

Mr. MORRELL

Is it not perfectly clear according to the ruling given in my case, in which you ruled that a notice as to the administration of India covered every village in India, that a notice here as to the administration of the British Empire must cover every conceivable subject that can be raised in this Debate, because the administration of the British Empire must mean the administration by the Government of the British Empire? Is it not perfectly clear that we are precluded by this Blocking Motion from continuing this discussion in any way?

Mr. W. PEARCE

May I ask whether there is really a British Empire at all? The Dominions of the King might be called "The Monarchy, Limited," but they certainly cannot be described as "The British Empire."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I take it that the Motion means that the King's Dominions other than those of the United Kingdom. I would, however, call the hon. Member's attention to the preceding Motion, where an hon. Member has given notice, No. 47, to call attention to the state of Ireland. He appears to be anticipated there.

Mr. LYNCH

I wish to keep within the Rule, but would that preclude me from pointing out the remarkable neglect to supply a pier at Kilbaha?

3.0 P.M.

Mr. MORRELL

I understand you regard the British Empire there geographically. May I ask you, so that I may be clear for future occasions, if a notice of Motion calling attention to the administration of affairs by His Majesty's Government would not entirely rule out all these questions?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

When I am occupying the Chair temporarily, I only deal with matters actually arising. I certainly would not give a ruling wider than the immediate circumstances required. With regard to the hon. Member's point, I think that he is debarred from raising the question of a pier.

Mr. LYNCH

The pier was only one of a number of questions which I desired to raise with regard to the neglect of my own Constituency. I will take it on much wider ground, and suggest a form of the British Constitution necessary to meet this case. Very often the very decay of an Empire may be traced, not to mere material facts such as Gibbon put forward in his account of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," where he attributes that decline and fall—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

We can only deal with matters for which Ministers can answer on these occasions.

Mr. LYNCH

May I say, in two words before I sit down, that if a competent man were placed in charge of the administration of West Clare, such as myself, I would guarantee to do in six months more effective work for the good of West Clare and the general benefit of Ireland by progressive and productive work than this Government has done during the whole of its career.

Mr. COWAN

I hope to be more fortunate than some of my predecessors on both sides of the House. The point to which I wish to draw attention is one which I do not think can be debarred by any Blocking Motion. I desire to raise a matter arising out of a question which I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and which appears upon the Order Paper this morning. The answer which I received does not appear to me to be an adequate or satisfactory answer, or in any way sufficient to meet the case as stated in the question. A naval officer, G. D. H. MacKinnon, Lieutenant, R.N., has sent out a postcard in the following terms—

Mr. MOONEY

Is not this covered by Notice 42, which deals with the discipline of the Regular and Territorial Military Forces of the Crown?

Mr. COWAN

This is a naval officer.

Mr. MOONEY

Then it would be covered by Notice 41? [Existing and proposed methods of recruiting for the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am not able to appreciate yet whether this postcard is a matter of discipline or not.

Mr. COWAN

In order to make the matter perfectly clear, I will ask the House permission to read a letter which I received together with this postcard. The letter says:— I enclose for your perusal a card sent to me with instructions to forward a number of similar cards to the men of my section in the National Reserve. I am a sergeant in No. 1 Company of the Hammersmith Battalion, and the officer who signs the card has just taken over the company. As I feel that I cannot send these cards, it being, I take it, no part of my duty to do so, I am returning them to the officer. The card runs thus:— Special Request. March 30th, 1914. Will you meet me on Saturday, April 4th, at 2.15 p.m., at Brook Green, Shepherd's Bush Road, to take part in the protest at Hyde Park against the employment of British troops to force Home Rule upon Ulster.

Mr. HAMILTON

I submit that the object of reading this letter is to point out to the House, and to the public, that the person who wrote it was disobeying the ordinary regulations as to discipline?

Mr. COWAN

I submit I should be allowed—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member suggest that this is covered by Nos. 41 (Recruiting for Naval and Military Forces) or 42 (Military Forces—Discipline)?

Mr. HAMILTON

By No. 42.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I will give attention to that point.

Mr. COWAN

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain to the House my object in reading the postcard. The concluding sentence is:— I hope every military man who loves his King and country will support me. Naval and military decorations to be worn.—(Signed) G. E. H. MCKINNON, Lieut. Royal Navy. In reply to a question I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary told the House that this officer is retired, but that he is also receiving pay. It is in the power of the Department to suspend that pay or to withdraw it altogether. I am told that the writer of this letter, who had been instructed by his superior officer to take part in a political agitation—who had been instructed by that superior officer to send out these postcards to every private in the section—this non-commissioned officer is in danger of being compelled to resign his position in the company because he has refused to carry out the instructions of his superior officer. I say that, under these circumstances, it is only right, becoming and seemly, in view of all that has occurred in this House during the past fortnight, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should place this House in possession—

Earl WINTERTON

If what the hon. Member is saying does not refer to discipline, may I respectfully ask what it does refer to?

Mr. MacVEAGH

May I call attention to the fact that the notice as to discipline only affects the Regular and Territorial military forces of the Crown, whereas my hon. Friend is raising a question which affects a naval officer?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

As I understood it, it was a reference to the Regular or Territorial Army.

Mr. COWAN

No, I was referring to an officer of the Royal Navy. Had it been the case of a military officer, I should not have ventured to bring it forward. I say we may reasonably call on the First Lord of the Admiralty to suspend or withdraw the pay of this ex-naval officer who has been using, or rather abusing, his influence and position in order to induce officers and privates in His Majesty's service to refuse to do certain things which it is true they have not been asked to do, but which, if they were asked to do, then they would be compelled by the rules of the Service to do.

Mr. AMERY

There is one subject of some considerable importance in regard to which hon. Members opposite have not put down any Motion—possibly on tactful grounds. I mean the continually increasing difficulty with which we in this House have to contend in our proceedings, owing to the habitual prevarication of his Majesty's Ministers—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not a charge which I can allow to be made.

Mr. AMERY

Owing to the manner— [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the charge had been made, of course I should have called upon the hon. Member to withdraw it. It is a matter entirely within my province.

Mr. AMERY

I will amend my words and say that, owing to the manner in which information which this House has a right to receive is habitually withheld—

Mr. BRADY

Is it not desirable that the matter raised by the previous speaker should be disposed of before this House proceeds to discuss another question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not a question within my control. If a Member catches my eye, and is called upon, he is entitled to raise his point.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Is not this subject covered by the Motion on the Paper calling attention to speeches of His Majesty's Ministers?

Earl WINTERTON

This refers to the absence of speeches.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has not yet put me in possession of his point.

Mr. AMERY

I do not propose to refer to speeches only; there are a great many other ways of giving or withholding information besides making speeches. The point I wish to raise is this: Again and again this House has debated important questions under the impression that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the subject was before it, but a little bit later, owing to information received from someone outside, or owing to information extracted by supplementary questions, it is found that the Debate has been carried on under entirely false impressions, the time of the House has been wasted, and the matter has had to be raised again.

Mr. LAMBERT

Is not this point covered by Notice of Motion No. 30 [Procedure of the House]?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That deals with another matter.

Mr. AMERY

The practice of putting supplementary questions has largely been forced on Members of this House owing to the fact that the first question hardly ever gets an adequate, correct, or truly informing answer. If I may I will draw attention to one question only which I asked the other day of the Home Secretary as to whether the policy which General Paget outlined in his answer to the War Office—

Mr. EDGAR JONES

Is there not a Blocking Motion on the Paper covering the whole matter affecting General Paget?

Mr. AMERY

I did not propose to raise that point. The question was whether the removal of certain stores had been begun, and the first and only answer I have had clearly implied that nothing had been done—

Mr. McKENNA

Will the hon. Member read the answer?

Mr. AMERY

I have not got it, but I am quite clear in my recollection. I will accept the contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman if he will produce the answer.

Mr. MACPHERSON

Is the hon. Member in order in withholding information from the House?

Dr. CHAPPLE

May I ask if, in view of No. 27—[General Sir Arthur Paget—Instructions]—the hon. Member is in order in calling attention to the instructions given to General Paget?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has not got so far as that.

Mr. AMERY

I was not going to call attention to the instructions. The first answer clearly implied that nothing had been done, and it was not until the fourth or fifth supplementary question that I did extract the fact that, in pursuance of the original policy, the ammunition had actually been packed. Let me recall some of the instances of the disadvantages which we are put to by the policy of Ministers. Eighteen months ago, in October, 1912, we had a Debate on a question which was very much exercising the public mind at the time. It was as to whether Ministers had speculated in Marconi shares. We had a number of answers given with great emphasis and great earnestness, Ministers laying their hands upon their hearts—

Mr. CAWLEY

Is the hon. Member in order in referring to speeches of Ministers?

Mr. AMERY

I do not wish to refer to their speeches. All I can say is that an impression was created in this House, in the mind of every Member, that there had been no investment by Ministers in any Marconi shares.

Mr. McKENNA

Will the hon. Member quote the speech?

Mr. AMERY

The then Attorney-General said he had never—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to things for which present Ministers are responsible. I understand that the hon. Member is really giving an illustration of something which he wanted to put forward. I shall be obliged to him if he will come to the point, so that I can see whether it is in order.

Mr. MOONEY

On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member is attacking the method by which Ministers give information to this House, namely, their way of answering questions. Is not the answering of questions part of the procedure of this House, and is not that covered by a Motion calling attention to the abuse of procedure, which is exactly what the hon. Member is doing?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That point has already been raised. I take it that questions of procedure deal with the question of the Standing Orders.

Mr. MOONEY

Is it your ruling that questions put to Ministers are not part of the proceedings of this House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There is a difference between proceedings and procedure.

Mr. AMERY

To come back to my point, the House was entirely misinformed and put under a false impression in consequence of which a Committee of the House laboured for many months. There was a great deal of public feeling, and a great deal of trouble caused in this House, and at the end of that time, but with great difficulty and labour, we extracted the fact that we had every right to know that day in October. There was some mental quibble or reservation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I asked the hon. Member to come to the point for which present Ministers are responsible. Perhaps he will put his preamble at the end instead of at the beginning.

Mr. LYNCH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. AMERY

I was putting illustrations of the manner habitual among Ministers in dealing with information. Among the Ministers I referred to are the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not here at this moment.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

On a point of Order. I beg to call your attention to Motion No. 60 [Cabinet Ministers' Speeches], which is to call attention to the speeches of Cabinet Ministers, and especially those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I understand that the hon. Member is dealing with answers to questions, not with speeches.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The hon. Member referred to the October Debate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not go back; he must deal with matters under the present control of Ministers.

Mr. AMERY

I understand that you, Sir, do not consider the subject of Ministers' speeches and the subject of misleading information to be entirely synonymous and as covering entirely the same ground. I might mention also their questions and interjections in Debate, and interviews with newspapers which appeared on the same matter. But to come back to my first illustration. I only wish to say one thing further, that the mental reservation as between American and British Marconi shares has been disposed of.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have already twice invited the hon. Member to deal with matters under the present control of his Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. AMERY

I will then come to certain answers and interviews of the Prime Minister during the last few weeks relative to certain very important matters. On 22nd March the Prime Minister gave an interview to the "Times" newspaper, in which he declared that beyond two small cruisers carrying a detachment of troops from Dublin to Carrickfergus, no naval movement of any kind had taken place. On 24th March my hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington Evans) asked the question—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am afraid the hon. Member has been anticipated by Motion No. 56 [Army and Navy (Distribution, etc.)].

Mr. AMERY

I do not presume to discuss the subject matter of that Motion. I am only dealing with the misinformation conveyed to the newspapers and to this House. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) asked a question in regard to torpedo-boat destroyers, and the Prime Minister answered:— I know nothing of eight torpedo destroyers. On 25th March, when the newspapers had some reference to naval movements, which they, apparently, had discovered, the Prime Minister again said, speaking about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, that there had been no such movement whatever, beyond the modest movement of two cruisers. Yet an hour before the Prime Minister made that statement the First Lord of the Admiralty informed this House that the Cabinet had a fortnight before sanctioned this movement, and that the Prime Minister himself had countermanded that on Saturday, that is, the day before he gave his interview to the "Times."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is there anticipated by Motion No. 56. He cannot get round it by his ingenious methods.

Mr. MACPHERSON

If an hon. Member is called to order five times during the course of his speech, is he entitled to proceed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member had better leave that to me.

Mr. AMERY

With all respect, I do not wish to enter upon the subject matter, but upon the manner in which Ministers responsible to this House have informed, or, rather, misinformed, this House with reference to that subject matter. That particular question of the manner of Ministers' treatment of the House has not been the subject of any Blocking Resolution.

Mr. EDGAR JONES

Would it not be a possible and proper presumption to make with regard to Motion No. 56, which calls attention to the distribution and movement of the Army and Navy, and to move a Resolution, that that very Resolution might be a Resolution referring to the very thing the hon. Member is trying to deal with?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I cannot take a hypothetical point like that. The hon. Member (Mr. Amery) will now see that I have had to intervene with him three or four times, and that he must not indirectly try to raise a question which is not directly in order.

Mr. AMERY

I do not wish indirectly to raise any question, but I wish to raise very directly, and I submit that under the Rules of Order I am entitled to raise very directly the question of the misinformation and deception of this House by His Majesty's Ministers, and to submit such instances as will, without going in detail into the subject matter, recall to the memory of this House points upon which they have been deliberately misinformed.

Mr. GLADSTONE

Is it in order for an bon. Member to use the expression "deliberately misinformed"?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to use that expression. I have already reproved him for using similar phrases, and I trust he will not repeat them.

Mr. AMERY

The practice has been one of considerable economy in informing the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The charge is not one against a particular Member of the House, or I should have called for its withdrawal. I would ask the hon. Member not to repeat phrases of that kind.

Mr. AMERY

If I may come to another instance, again we were informed that certain movements which did take place were confined entirely to the modest and necessary carrying out of a War Office letter of March 14th. It has since turned out, in answer to a written question, that the letter of 14th March was acted upon by General Paget in a certain way which I need not go into.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have allowed the hon. Member a great many tries, but really he has not succeeded in bringing in a matter which is not covered by the Motion.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

Is there not a very clear distinction between discussing the movements of the Army and Navy, which are covered by No. 56, and the information given by Ministers with regard to those movements? Would it not be possible to submit to the House that Ministers have committed grave faults in withholding from the House information which the House ought to have, and would not that be a totally separate question from the actual movements themselves?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not say that it would be impossible to make it so, but the hon. Member has certainly not succeeded. He is most distinctly dealing with a question which obviously is covered, "To call attention to the distribution and movements of the Army and Navy." Of course, that means Ministers' responsibility in that respect, and the only thing that the hon. Member is discussing is Ministerial responsibility. The hon. Member has over and over again been drawing in questions of that kind, which are really covered by the Resolution.

Mr. AMERY

I do not wish to call in question Ministers' responsibility in that matter at all. The only point I wish to make is that a very vital document with regard to this action was withheld from this House and accidentally came to light several days after the Debate.

Dr. ADDISON

Is it in order to charge Minister with not communicating to the House, in answer to a question, private and confidential documents?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That does not appear to me to be a point of Order. The fault of the hon. Member is that he is not coming to the point quickly enough. I think he has a good point.

Mr. AMERY

I will leave the particular illustration I was just giving with this conclusion, that the House in discussing the White Paper, and in discussing these movements, was put at a very grave and serious disadvantage by the absence of a number of telegrams, letters, and other documents which ought to have been printed in the White Paper, and of which the House ought to have been informed.

Mr. BRADY

May I ask if the whole speech of the hon. Member is not directed to a Department over which the Secretary of State for War has charge, and, although he has been elected to this House, he has not yet had time to take his seat, and whether it is in order to argue about the matter when the Minister is not here?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There are Ministers present who can answer.

Mr. AMERY

I will leave the question of movements. There was a question of these paragraphs which were withdrawn. I do not want to go again into the details of the discussion which occupied the House for a good many days the week before last, but I will draw attention to a particular point, namely, the want of coincidence between information given in this House and information given in the other House in respect of these paragraphs. I know it has already been before the House that Lord Morley admitted a collaboration with the late Secretary for War. I do not wish to deal with that point, but there is one point in regard to the information given or withheld from the House to which attention has not yet been drawn. The statement made in the House of Lords by Lord Morley with regard to his collaboration—

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I desire to ask whether this reference to Lord Morley's speech is not covered by the Motion on the Paper to call attention to the speeches of His Majesty's Ministers?

Mr. AMERY

It was not actually a part of Lord Morley's speech; it was part of a written statement by the late Secretary of State for War, which Lord Morley was reading out to the House of Lords, and it was in that statement that the reference to collaboration occurred. When the Secretary of State for War made that same statement in the House of Commons there was no allusion to that collaboration, and twenty minutes after the Secretary of State for War had finished, when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) was speaking, and asked whether any other colleagues of the Secretary of State for War had known about the matter, the Prime Minister, not in a speech, but in an interjection, in answer to my right hon. Friend, said that no colleague had been aware of those two paragraphs. I submit that that is an extraordinary proceeding.

Mr. McKENNA

Will the hon. Member quote the Prime Minister?

Mr. AMERY

I think that passage is entirely within the recollection of the House. The actual words are not very material. They referred to the fact that Lord Morley had been consulted and had assisted in the revision of those two paragraphs. That is the only point, and a very clear and simple point, in regard to which an actual quotation is surely not necessary. As far as one can judge, this was actually included in the written statement of the late Secretary for War, and I should imagine that the Prime Minister would have been told about such a vital question, and yet in this House, not only was it left out by the Secretary of State for War, but the Prime Minister definitely declared that none of the late Secretary of State for War's colleagues knew anything at all about that matter. Again, after it had leaked through down that passage to this House that Lord Morley had made some admission and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) referred to it, the First Lord of the Admiralty got up and explained—

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I desire to ask your ruling as to whether these references to speeches by Ministers are not covered by the Motion on the Paper to call attention to the speeches of Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is pointing out a discrepancy between a statement made in this House and a statement made in the other House. Would not that be in speeches of Cabinet Ministers?

Mr. AMERY

In most of the cases to which I have referred they have been interjections in answer to questions contained in speeches on this side, but in some cases in answers to questions at Question Time, and in other cases even when they have been contained in speeches they were at the very beginning of the speech in immediate answer to a question raised at the end of the preceding speech. I do not wish to traverse any rule dealing with speeches in general. I only wish to deal with a point which is within the recollection of the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to my right hon. Friend, said that as a matter of fact Lord Morley had had no real share in this transaction, but happened to come into the room.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that is clearly a reference to differences in speeches, which includes short speeches, as well as long speeches, and observations by Cabinet Ministers not agreeing. I think that is covered by this Blocking Motion.

Mr. AMERY

I will not go any further into that point, but I think I have made sufficiently clear the very serious disadvantage under which this House and this country suffer from the habit which seems to be growing more and more upon Ministers of not conveying the real facts to the House of any matter on which it seems inconvenient to them to bring the facts forward. I do submit that this House ought not to be a sort of Chamber of criminal investigation intent upon dragging facts out of Ministers—[Interruption]—scrutinising every item microscopically, and seeing if a reference to shares in this company is also a reference to shares in another company—[Interruption]—and whether a reference to certain movements refers to movements which are countermanded at the last moment. [Interruption.] From the point of view of our Debates, it would be immensely better if we could have faith that the statements made were unvarnished statements made without quibbles. [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Gentleman is still criticising the speeches of Ministers, and comparing them.

Mr. AMERY

I am criticising their whole conduct in not informing the House, whether through newspaper interviews or speeches, and pointing out that this leads to our wasting time in futile Debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. KELLAWAY

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order for an hon. Member to continue when he has already been called to order twelve times?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is really continuing on the same lines, and I must ask him to observe my ruling.

Mr. AMERY

I am just concluding.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member was referring to the difficulty of obtaining information, and stating that the information given is not correct. Surely that must come within the scope of the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. AMERY

I was just concluding. I had already referred to the great inconvenience caused to the Debates in this House. I wish to call attention to the great inconvenience caused at Question Time, and the impossibility of getting adequate answers to the principal questions, which compels the asking of supplementary questions, which, I know, interferes with the time available for questions to be asked by other Members of the House. I know also that the asking of supplementary questions is not particularly encouraged by yourself. I submit that we have great difficulty in obtaining information. The whole point of my much interrupted remarks has been that it is difficult to get information, and that this is a difficulty which Ministers have no right to impose upon this House. In connection with matters of plain fact affecting Ministerial conduct, and not affecting the security of the country in connection with foreign affairs, this House is entitled to honest and straightforward answers, which it does not get.

Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)

I am desirous of bringing to the attention of this House a matter which I think will be rather interesting, connected particularly with a large industry in which we are interested, and that is, the merchant shipping of this country. I have recently made inquiries through the Board of Trade, and endeavoured to elicit from them—

Mr. MACPHERSON

On a point of Order. There is a Motion down on the Paper on this matter.

Mr. W. CROOKS

There is a Bill before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER

I would like to know how the hon. Member is going to develop his speech?

Mr. F. HALL

I find this afternoon one has to be particularly careful to keep within the various Blocking Motions that have been placed on the Paper by hon. Members, and, therefore, Sir, you will perfectly realise how difficult it is to come to the actual point if one has to keep within your ruling. I think many Members of this House are unaware of the facts as to the size of the British shipping industry in this country as compared with foreign nations. I may be asked what bearing that has on any particular Motion that may be brought before the House. I recently asked the President of the Board of Trade to furnish figures to this House with regard to the actual tonnage of the shipping of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, France, Germany, Russia, Scandinavian countries, and even such a small country as Colombia. If the House will bear with me, it will realise the importance of the question to which I desire to draw attention with regard to the registered tonnage of ships owned in the British Colonies, the United Kingdom, and other countries. We have been informed that it may be necessary in the near future to go into a question with regard to dealing with important matters such as, for instance—[An HON. MEMBER: "War !"] An hon. Member suggests war. That brings to my mind at once the question with regard to our naval policy, and with regard to our merchant shipping policy.

Mr. EDGAR JONES

On a point of Order. May I point out that there is a Bill dealing with this subject?

Mr. SPEAKER

What is in that Bill?

Mr. F. HALL

The hon. Member is no doubt an excellent prophet, but I think that at present he has come to a conclusion rather too hurriedly. I was not desirous of dealing with that matter, and I am perfectly aware that a Bill of that nature is before the House. Although I am not quite certain, I think that under these circumstances I might be debarred from discussing it, but that is not my idea. My idea is to draw the attention of the House to the enormous difference in the tonnage of the shipping of this country and the shipping of the other great countries which I have mentioned.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member takes the responsibility of raising that question, he must keep within the scope of the rulings already given.

Mr. F. HALL

I will be able, if you will bear with me for a moment, to show the House—and more particularly to one of the Secretaries of State, who has jurisdiction in this matter, and who will be eventually compelled to give it his attention—that this is a matter which affects this House. We have been informed that it will be necessary in the near future in connection with the capture of British ships to introduce an International Prize Court. You will at once realise how absolutely essential it is—

Mr. MacVEAGH

Is the hon. Member, in discussing this question, acting in violation of the Notice, "To call attention to merchant ships unwittingly breaking blockade"?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is right.

Mr. F. HALL

I am not desirous of drawing attention to the special case of any ship of this country willingly breaking blockades, but that brings to my mind that it will be advisable in this House to discuss the question as to British ships breaking blockades, not willingly, under special circumstances which are provided for in our international law.

Mr. SPEAKER

This is a question of the breaking of blockades.

Mr. F. HALL

No, Sir, I venture to suggest that, under certain circumstances, even a British ship, or a foreign ship, when breaking a blockade, would not be willingly breaking it, because there are certain regulations in the International Code that permit ships under certain circumstances. For instance, ships that have met with an accident, or are short of food or water, when they are not belligerents and have not contraband on board. Therefore the question of breaking blockade does not come within the category of ships that willingly break blockade.

Mr. SPEAKER

The matter to which I would wish the hon. Gentleman to direct his attention is: What does he say the Government have done or have not done so far as they have administered or mal-administered that particular law?

Mr. F. HALL

His Majesty's Government have not protected the interests of British shipping where in the circumstances to which I have referred the blockade has been broken, and Ministers have admitted in this House that it was necessary that compensation should be paid. In fact, the Government have communicated with foreign Powers and asked in specific cases that compensation should be paid. I would suggest in those circumstances that His Majesty's Government would not have interfered in the case of any British ship which had willingly broke the blockade, and therefore I do not think that there is much difficulty in proving that this is a matter which involves the assistance of one or other Member of the Government. One hon. Member has drawn attention to the case in which ships have willingly broken blockade, and, provided I am in order, I would like to draw attention to one particular case in which a British ship was compelled to break blockade by seeking a port of safety, her machinery having broken down, and was practically assisted into the blockaded port by one of the officers of the Italian squadron.

Mr. SPEAKER

Now I understand the hon. Member, and it seems to me that the matter to which he refers is covered by notice No. 76.

Mr. F. HALL

I have very carefully considered that notice. The words which it contains are "unwittingly breaking the blockade." I have looked up the dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word "unwittingly," and I cannot see how the literary translation of that word can be brought into questions with regard to a ship in the circumstances which I am desirous of bringing to the attention of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER

From the account which the hon. Member gives, I think that this blocking notice will exactly cover the case.

Mr. F. HALL

If you will allow me, I will put the circumstances before you, and you can decide whether the point which I desire to raise is in order. The facts are these: On the 19th of April, 1912, a British ship left Liverpool for Bombay in ballast. She was fixed by charter to load cargo from Bombay at Marseilles. Unfortunately, a crack was found in one of her cylinders. The chief engineer reported this fact naturally to the captain, and the captain in his wisdom decided to make for the first port which he could reach. It is well known that at that time there happened to be operations between Italy and Turkey, with the result that many of the ports in the Red Sea were blocked. Hodeida, one of those ports, was reached at twelve o'clock at night. When the captain dropped anchor the ship was five miles from the port, and I therefore suggest that she could not come within any blockading line, because it is generally admitted that the three miles limit is to be the line of demarcation even in regard to blockaded ports. I asked recently a question on this very point: Whether in the event of an International Prize Court being established the voting power would be according to the register tonnage in each country, and, if not, what method would be adopted, and what were the blockaded areas in the Red Sea at the time to which I referred. I was told to refer, as I often have been told, to certain books in this House. After careful searching I found that information from the Italian Government, dated the 6th of April, 1912, declared an extension of the blockade of the Ottoman Red Sea littoral from the 8th of April, 1912, to any port on the coast north of Lobeiha within 15 degrees north latitude, and 42 degrees longitude east of Greenwich. If we look into that we find that it is not giving a line from the shore seawards, but is simply a line from one part of the shore of the Red Sea to the other.

Mr. SPEAKER

Was that ship within that line?

Mr. F. HALL

Yes, and so was every ship that passed up and down the Red Sea, coming from the east of this country, or going from this country to the East.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that comes within the notice of Motion.

Earl WINTERTON

There is one matter which I think does not come within the purview of Motions on the Paper, namely, the administration of the Forestry Department; but I wish, first, to ask a question with regard to cotton growing in the Soudan, though I do not know whether that comes within the Resolution referring to the administration of the British Empire in all foreign affairs?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think the question of growing cotton in the Soudan comes within the Motion, so far as I know, but I will read it through again.

Earl WINTERTON

I only wish to ask the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary, whether it would be possible in a White Paper to give some information as to how the money voted last year, £3,000,000, for the development of cotton growing in the Soudan, has been expended, and I also wish to know what amount has been devoted to irrigation. This is a matter of great importance and interest to the cotton industry in this country, and especially to Manchester; and I think it is not going too far to say that the Grant to which I refer was instigated by the cotton industry. The question to which I wish to call the attention of the House has reference to the administration of the Forestry Department of the Department of Agriculture. I have carefully searched the list of Motions, and I do not think the ingenuity of hon. Members below the Gangway has enabled them to put one down on that point. I am not, nor would I be in order in doing so, going to suggest an increase or a decrease of the Forestry Grant. My first question is whether the money which has already been voted has been spent to the best advantage. We all know that recently there has been a great deal of discussion in the Press, especially in the Ministerial Press, on the subject of afforestation, and it is suggested that there are large potential opportunities for the country in the direction of afforestation.

Mr. PRINGLE

May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is a Motion on the Paper for Wednesday fortnight, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. A. MacCallum Scott), to call attention to the question of afforestation?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not see any Motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman.

4.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON

I looked at the Paper very carefully and did not see such a Motion, but, if there be one, it refers to another State Grant, whereas I am alluding to the existing Grant, to which, I think, I am entitled to refer. The point I wish to make is, that there are already thousands of acres of land under the Department of Woods and Forests which are not utilised to the best advantage. I happened the other day to be motoring through the New Forest, where I saw that thousands of acres had been recently planted with Scotch firs. Everyone who knows anything about forestry knows that Scotch firs are quite uneconomic, and, at any rate, there is not such a demand for them, nor is there likely to be in the future, as to bringing a fair return. I think it is laid down by the best forestry experts that the trees which pay best are larches and ash. In view of the statements made in the Press—in the "Daily News," among other journals, which had an article stating that thousands might be spent in wages, and thousands might be spent in afforestation in England, with the prospect of a very good return in the future—I ask why the Government have not utilised the land which they have now under their control to better purpose? Anyone who goes through the New Forest and compares the miserable and scanty trees seen there with the magnificent forests of Germany, France, Belgium and Denmark, must be struck by the fact that in this country the Government have not used the Grown lands to the best advantage. As a matter of fact, in the Debates which have taken place in this House on the subject, no excuse has been put forward for the neglect of this most important matter. I very much hope that the money at present granted will be utilised to better advantage than it is now. In connection with this matter I would further suggest that assistance might be given by the Department to private individuals in planting trees. A great number of landowners are now planting trees, but I am quite ready to admit that, with all their great interest in afforestation, we are still very much behind Germany and France in that matter. It may be said that landowners in planting trees are doing so for their personal benefit, but it will be seen that it is also of great advantage to the country, while I may further remark that private individuals who are spending money in this direction are really doing something which is more for the benefit of posterity than for their own immediate benefit. In this work of planting trees it would be well if private individuals had the advantage of the advice of the Government experts. I understand that there is already one inspector, receiving a salary of £400 a year, who is going in future to travel about the country, giving advice where it may be required. I very much hope that he will travel about, and that a report will be laid before the House. I suggest that in the future there is money to be made for the country by afforestation, and I submit that it is the duty of the present Government, who are specially responsible in the matter, to publish all the facts known to them on the subject, at the same time giving some explanation of the tremendous contrast—to our disadvantage—between the forests of Belgium, Germany, and France, which are magnificent, and, I understand, bring in a large sum of money every year, and our scattered and scanty forests under Government control at the present time. In particular, I would ask why, instead of larch and ash, they have planted such trees as Scotch firs, and other firs, which are not of economic value? If I do not get a reply, I am not entitled to object, because I did not give notice on this subject. I had given notice to half a dozen Members on subjects on which I was unable to speak.

Mr. McKENNA

The Noble Lord has made a very interesting speech, which, with out disrespect to those who preceded him, I may say was much more welcomed by the House, and listened to with far greater attention than some earlier observations. As the Noble Lord himself has practically said, he unfortunately, owing to some oversight, failed to give notice to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who would certainly have been here to reply. I know the Noble Lord will not expect from me more than to say that I will certainly bring the matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend the very interesting statements which he has made. I will only say we on this side of the House would be extremely glad if all questions of afforestation were not treated as party questions. With regard to the other subject mentioned, that of the

Soudan Loan, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he can give the Noble Lord the information which he desires. May I suggest to the House while we have had an amusing and perhaps interesting Debate that the time has come when we might now take the Motion. All relevant topics that could be discussed under the Rules of Order have been, I think, attempted, and I therefore suggest we might come to a decision.

Mr. CROOKS

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided.

Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Gulland, Major Morrison-Bell, and Mr. Rawlinson were named as tellers; but after the Division, Mr. Illingworth, Dr. Addison, Major Morrison-Bell, and Mr. Rawlinson presented themselves at the Table, and the figures were announced as follows: Ayes, 172; Noes, 22.

Division No. 64.]	AYES.	[4.8 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Nolan, Joseph
Adamson, William	Hardie, J. Keir	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barnes, George N.	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Doherty, Philip
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Hazleton, Richard	O'Dowd, John
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Hewart, Gordon	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Higham, John Sharp	O'Malley, William
Boland, John Pius	Hogge, James Myles	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Bowerman, Charles W.	Hudson, Walter	Outhwaite, R. L.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Johnson, W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Brunner, John F. L.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Pratt, J. W.
Chancellor, Henry George	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Joyce, Michael	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Clancy, John Joseph	Kellaway, Frederick George	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Clough, William	Kelly, Edward	Pringle, William M. R.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Radford, G. H.
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)	Kilbride, Denis	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lambert. Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cotton, William Francis	Lardner, James C. R.	Reddy, Michael
Cowan, W. H.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Leach, Charles	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Crooks, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Crumley, Patrick	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Cullinan, John	Lundon, Thomas	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robert, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Delany, William	Lynch, A. A.	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Maclean, Donald	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Devlin, Joseph	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Robinson, Sidney
Donelan, Captain A.	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Doris, William	Macpherson, James Ian	Rowlands, James
Duffy, William J.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Scanlan, Thomas
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Meagher, Michael	Sheehy, David
Ffrench, Peter	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Field, William	Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)	Sutton, John E.
Fitzgibbon, John	Molloy, Michael	Tennant, Harold John
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Gill, Alfred Henry	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Toulmin, Sir George
Glanville, Harold James	Mooney, John J.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Goldstone, Frank	Morrell, Philip	Wardle, G. J.
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Morison, Hector	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gulland, John William	Muldoon, John	Webb, H.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Hackett, John	Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Whitehouse, John Howard	Wing, Thomas Edward	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)	Yeo, Alfred William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Mr.
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Young, William (Perth, East)	Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)	Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Winterton, Earl
Craik, Sir Henry	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Worthington Evans, L.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Rees, Sir J. D.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Royds, Edmund	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major
Fell, Arthur	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Morrison-Bell and Mr. Rawlinson.
Goldsmith, Frank

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

On a point of Order. May I ask if the tellers ought not to hand in the figures at the Table, and if the tellers who were named did so tell in the last Division?

Mr. SPEAKER

I had the names of the Government tellers from the Whips. The hon. Member who stood second in the row (Dr. Addison) acted as a teller, and therefore, in order to avoid taking the Division again, I said that we had better treat it as a fait accompli and take the numbers from him. It is irregular.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn till Tuesday, 14th April."

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 21.

Division No. 65.]	AYES.	[4.15 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Fitzgibbon, John	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Adamson, William	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macpherson, James Ian
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Gill, Alfred Henry	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Gladstone, W. G. C.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Glanville, Harold James	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Goldstone, Frank	Meagher, Michael
Barnes, George N.	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Molloy, Michael
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Hackett, John	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hardie, J. Keir	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Boland, John Pius	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mooney, John J.
Bowerman, Charles W.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Morrell, Philip
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Hayden, John Patrick	Morison, Hector
Brace, William	Hazleton, Richard	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Muldoon, John
Brunner, John F. L.	Hewart, Gordon	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Hogge, James Myles	Nolan, Joseph
Chancellor, Henry George	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Hudson, Walter	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Clancy, John Joseph	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clough, William	Johnson, William	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Doherty, Philip
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Dowd, John
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cotton, William Francis	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Joyce, Michael	O'Malley, William
Crooks, William	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crumley, Patrick	Kelly, Edward	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Cullinan, John	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Outhwaite, R. L.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Kilbride, Denis	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Delany, William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Lardner, James C.R.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Devlin, Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Donelan, Captain A.	Leach, Charles	Pratt, J. W.
Doris, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duffy, William J.	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lundon, Thomas	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Pringle, William M. R.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Radford, G. H.
Ffrench, Peter	Maclean, Donald	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Field, William	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Reddy, Michael	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Sheehy, David	Whitehouse, John Howard
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Sutton, John E.	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Tennant, Harold John	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thorne, William (West Ham)	Wing, Thomas Edward
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Toulmin, Sir George	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Yeo, Alfred William
Robinson, Sidney	Wardle, George J.	Young, William (Perth, East)
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Rowlands, James	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Webb, H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Scanlan, Thomas	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)	Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Winterton, Earl
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Worthington Evans, L.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Rees, Sir J. D.
Fell, Arthur	Royds, Edmund	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	H. Craik and Mr. Goldsmith.

Adjourned accordingly al Twenty-four minutes after Four o'clock, till Tuesday next, 14th April.