Commons Sitting of 25 February 1914

Preamble
The House met a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain Guest) reported His Majesty's answer to the Address, as followeth:—
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chesterfied Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 6th March.
Market Rasen Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Metropolitan and Great Northern Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 6th March.
Port of London Authority Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill (by Order),
Taff Vale Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
The County Councils of Glamorgan (Glyn-Neath), Lancaster (urban district of Padiham), North Riding of Yorkshire (parishes of Thirsk and. Sowerby);
The Councils of the boroughs of Cardiff, Coventry, and Beverley;
The Urban District Councils of Bushey, Cowes, and Frome
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of St. John's College, Oxford, on the 9th October, 1913 (and sealed on the 14th November, 1913), amending Statute XV. of the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1913. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANDISE MARKS (PROSECUTIONS) ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 2nd January, 1914, relating to Official Prosecutions under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Thirteenth Annual General Report of the Department for the year 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Return presented relative thereto Ordered 24th February; Mr. Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Sir W. ANSON: I beg to present a Petition from the Trustees of the British Museum asking for a grant of public money to enable them to discharge their statutory duties.
Accounts ordered "of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914, and Return of the number of persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1908 to 1913, both years inclusive, together with a statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections and an account of the objects added to them in the year 1913."—[Sir W. Anson.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    TRADE DISPUTE (CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during a trade dispute at Christchurch, New Zealand, a few months ago, men of the "Psyche" and "Pyramus" were called into requisition and were paraded with fixed bayonets; that the ships' guns Were trained upon the wharves; and that unloading operations by strike-breakers were aided by the ships' searchlights; and whether this interference in a labour trouble was done With the knowledge and sanction of the Admiralty?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Sir, it is the fact that His Majesty's ships "Psyche" and "Pyramus" were present at Lyttelton, the port of Christchurch, during one period of the recent labour disputes. I have no exact information of the measures taken there, but they were adopted only at the express request of the responsible Government of the Dominion. The following telegram which was sent to the senior naval officer of the New Zealand Division of the Fleet on 28th October last sufficiently explains the Admiralty position:—
    "Common law obliges you, if act rally on scene of riots, to assist civil authorities on formal demand of magistrates. Admiralty policy is to avoid all interference in labour disputes, especially in Dominions. You should endeavour to avoid being in position where you are likely to be called upon to intervene unless you are personally satisfied that your presence is necessary to avoid bloodshed. Admiralty finds great difficulty in believing that such conditions exist at present, but you must use your own judgment."
    I may add that it has given the Board of Admiralty great satisfaction that it did not in fact become necessary for His Majesty's naval forces to come into actual conflict with any section of the community in New Zealand.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask 'whether any reply was received to the telegram from the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, of course, the senior naval officer acknowledged the receipt of the telegram.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in the event of a ship being in a neighbourhood where a dispute is likely to occur it should at once sail to get away from the possibility of being asked to take part as the answer appears to suggest?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is; and has long been the policy of the Admiralty to disentangle the Navy as far as possible from all disputes of this kind.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say, if any Colony desires the assistance of one of His Majesty's ships, that the officer commanding, if he thinks the possibility is likely to occur, is at once to sail away so that the Colony cannot have the advantage of his assistance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these questions are, as the lion. Gentleman will readily appreciate, matters of tact and discretion.

    NAVAL HOSPITAL, YARMOUTH.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a notice has been posted up at the Naval Hospital, Yarmouth, signed by Richard Millar, fleet surgeon, stating that applications in respect of pay and other questions from civilian employés in the hospital are to be sent to him by the 31st March next; whether in December last the employés' trade union sent a petition asking improved conditions of service, which was officially recognised by the Admiralty; and if he can state the reason for any proposed departure from the principle of collective bargaining?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. The notice in question is the preliminary to the annual hearing of petitions. Thereafter these will be heard by me either in London or the Yards, and in presenting them the workmen may have the assistance as usual of advocates not in our employment. In the case of an Establishment such as Yarmouth, where the number of employés is comparatively small, the men have the same right of petitioning as all others; and though it may not be possible for me personally to visit Yarmouth, the men can put their case to their local officers, and in any case in which they may consider it to be desirable to accord an interview to the employés or employé concerned, such employés or employé may, if they so desire, be accompanied by a person chosen by themselves, to assist them to state or argue their case.

    ARMED CRUISERS (WHITE STAR LINE).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked how many vessels belonging to the White Star Line have been armed with guns by the Admiralty; what is the estimated cost of arming such vessels; if any sum of money is paid annually or otherwise to the owners of the vessels in respect of their being so armed; and what steps have been taken to ensure that the vessels shall be available for the purposes for which they are armed in the event of war?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Twelve vessels of the White Star Line have been armed at the expense of the company, and no payment is made by the Admiralty. With regard to the last part of the question, the hon. Member is under a misapprehen-
    1740
    sion. No steps are being taken of the kind suggested, as it is necessary that the vessels should continue to follow in war as in peace their regular trading function, which is that of bringing supplies of food to this country.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Might I ask if the Admiralty, apart from any payment, are supplying materials to these vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. LEE: Is this a British or an: American company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer on the spur of the moment to questions of that kind. Notice should be given. The status of the company was carefully considered before the gulls were issued.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask whether there are any other companies put in the same position as the White-Star Line with reference to this question of supplying ships to the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of supplying ships to the Admiralty in time of war. My right hon. Friend will. I believe, realise that this process of arming ships has been confined to ships carrying food to this country in time of war for their self defence.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Might I ask the-right hon. Gentleman why he selects ships controlled. by a foreign nation to arm them for British purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is a correct version of the case, but if I am to give an answer on the exact status of the ships of the White Star Line I must have a question upon the Paper so that I can give the House authoritative information on the subject.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Do most of these. big White Star ships sail under the Blue Ensign?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I cannot answer that question.

    RYDE FAIRWAY.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether after having removed the obsolete battleship "Empress of India" from moorings in the fairway off Ryde, where she was a peril to navigation in foggy weather, the

    1741
    Admiralty have since seen fit to moor another obsolete battleship in exactly the same place; and, if so, when they propose to move her?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's ship "Resolution" has recently been moored in the position vacated by the "Empress of India" at the Motherbank. It is not considered that she is a danger to navigation in her present position, and it is not proposed to move her.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself ever crossed between Portsmouth and Ryde?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be no judge if had.

    ROSYTH NAVAL WORKS (HOUSING ACOMMODATION).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked how many men are now employed at Rosyth; what provision for housing them has been made by the Government; whether some of them are lodged in unsanitary conditions; whether there is a great deal of overcrowding; and what steps, if any, the Government are taking in the matter?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): About 3,500 men are now employed at Rosyth. No provision for housing has been made by the Admiralty. No complaints have lately been received of men being lodged in unsanitary conditions, or of overcrowding, since the contractor erected a hut village contiguous to the work for the accommodation of about 900 men.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain number of the men are still housed in houses which were described as very unsatisfactory two and a half years ago?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I have just told the Noble Lord that no complaints have lately been received of men being lodged in insanitary conditions, or of overcrowding.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has the hon. Gentleman, or anybody on behalf of the Admiralty, made an inspection recently of the conditions of housing at Rosyth?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: We are in constant and close communication both with the contractors and the officials at Rosyth,
    1742
    and it would I presume, be the duty of the Scottish Local Government Board to bring to the notice of the Admiralty any complaints.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I addressed to him: whether any inspection of the housing conditions at Rosyth has recently been made on behalf of the Admiralty?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I cannot answer that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice I will give him a full answer.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Admiralty purpose to lay out a garden city at Rosyth?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: That is a different question. It does not arise out of this.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will put down further questions on this point.

    AIRSHIPS (FIRING PLATFORMS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many of the new airships are equipped, or to be equipped, with firing platforms above the gas container for the purpose of attacking aeroplanes flying above them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A suitable armament will be provided for the new airships varying with the type. I can give no technical details.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of including in the Estimates details of the airships and of the number possessed by other Powers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We must consider how far details can be given. I see no objection to a statement of the numbers.

    PROTECTED CRUISERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many protected cruisers have been transferred to the sale or subsidiary lists since the beginning of 1913; and how many new vessels of this class have been completed in the same period?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Twelve protected cruisers have been transferred to the sale or subsidiary lists since the beginning of

    1743
    1913, and four new vessels of this class have been completed in the same period On the other hand, eighteen light cruisers are under construction.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: According to the right hon. Gentleman's figures have we not a net loss of eight cruisers since January, 1913?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By the process of subtracting four from twelve you get the result of eight. On the other hand, eighteen light cruisers are under construction.

    DESTROYERS IN COMMISSION.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether Germany has a larger number of destroyers in full commission in Northern Europe than Great Britain; and, if so, what is the reason for passing into the Reserve a number of ocean-going destroyers of the "Tribal" class?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be literally true but actually very misleading to say that Germany has a larger number of destroyers in full commission than Great Britain. This statement could only be made good if all German destroyers, including the school and the reserve flotillas, were counted as being in full commission and if all the British flotillas in active commission were excluded. The word "Reserve" is not appropriate to the Second Fleet into which the "Tribal" class have been gradually passed as new destroyers join the flotillas of the First Fleet.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: As a matter of fact has not Germany seventy-seven destroyers in full commission against our sixety-nine in the North Sea?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very misleading to take what is on paper as a true statement in that form.
    Mr. ASTORasked the number of destroyers which will be in full commission in Home waters when the destroyers of the 1912–13 programme are completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The present authorised establishment to be worked consists of four flotillas of twenty destroyers each, and one destroyer tender to the Fleet flagship. This number of eighty-one is expected to be fully reached when the de-
    1744
    stroyers of the 1912–13 programme are completed, but it may, of course, vary slightly from time to time.
    Mr. ASTORasked the number of destroyers now in full commission in Home waters, and the number of destroyers which Germany has in full commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have sixty-nine in full commission and eighty-five in active commission distributed between patrol and local defence flotillas. All these are manned without calling out Reserves. Germany has, at the present moment, in commission in Home waters seventy-seven destroyers organised in school, manœuvre, and reserve flotillas.

    FOURTH BATTLE SQUADRON.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the strength of the Fourth (Gibraltar) Battle Squadron was officially declared two years ago to be six ships, to be increased to eight if necessary; whether this force consists now of only four battleships; and whether and, if so, for what reason it has been decided to transfer the "Lord Nelson," "Agamemnon," and "Cornwallis," to the reserve on the completion of the "Marlborough," "Iron Duke," and "Benbow"?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not considered necessary on military grounds to complete the Fourth Battle Squadron this year, and it will also be more convenient to defer the completion of that squadron until it can be made a homogeneous formation composed entirely of the early "Dreadnoughts." The expression "Reserve" which the hon. Member applies to the Second Fleet is not correct. No men from the Reserve are used in the manning of any of these ships in peace or war.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: As a matter of fact have we not two battleships less than the right hon. Gentleman spoke of as necessary in 1912, and four ships less than he spoke of as advisable; and in view of these facts does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase the defensive force in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are developing the Fleet organisation in relation to that of other Powers, and our organisation will keep pace with this development, and is keeping pace with those developments.

    FAIRFIELD SHIPYARD.
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a complaint that in the Fairfield Shipyard cork-dusting on two torpedo-destroyers is being done by unskilled labour; whether he is aware that this work is done by 'skilled labour in the other yards in the Clyde area, and up till recently also in the Fairfield Yard; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter without delay and prevent any encroachments on existing recognised conditions in accordance with the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A complaint has been received and inquiry is being made.

    SHOREHAM HARBOUR (WRECK).
    Mr. CAMPIONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty. whether his attention has been drawn to the wreck that recently occurred off Shoreham Harbour, in Sussex, when the captain alone was rescued by the action of three men from Southwick; whether he is aware that the wreck was not observed by the Coastguards; whether he will state what arrangements exist for watching this part of the coast; and, seeing that this is not the first occasion when disasters have occurred here without observation, whether he will see that adequate arrangements for observations are made for the future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume the hon. Member refers to the case of the steamship "Miown." The lights of that vessel were observed by the Coastguard at Southwick between 2 and 3 a.m. I understand that at about 3 a.m. the green light disappeared and the white light remained burning, from which it was assumed that the vessel had anchored. The weather being hazy, it was not until 7.15 a.m. that there was sufficient light to enable the vessel to be distinguished as a wreck. The wreck was also observed at daylight by the crew of Kingston-on-Sea Coastguard Station. No distress or sound signals were made by the vessel. The crew of Southwick Coastguard Station consists of five ratings, and that at Kingston-on-Sea of six; every part of the coast between the limits of the stations is patrolled and visited once in twenty-four hours, and constant day and night watch is kept at the watch-rooms and from the beach when the station officer considers the weather sufficiently bad. In the light of what I have
    1746
    stated, I do not think that there is any evidence to show that the watching arrangements are not adequate.

    PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS (MEDALS).
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to grant the medals for general services in the operations carried out by His Majesty's Navy in the Persian Gulf in the years 1909 to 1912?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 12th of this month.
    Mr. WHELER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has been before the House for a year and a half? There were men severely wounded in these operations who have not received the medal which they think they are entitled to.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given a great deal of attention to this matter, and have carefully considered the importance of the operations referred to. I am now inquiring whether a general method which would cover all these operations of a similar character cannot be instituted. That is a very important step, which involves reference to many authorities, and no decision has been reached at the present time.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Would the operations in the Aden Hinterland also come under this regulation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume the Noble Lord is referring to the naval ratings engaged in the operations?
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: To all the men.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I rather think I have nothing to do with that.

    NAVY PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to alloying pensioned seamen and others below the warrant and subordinate ranks to commute part of their pension, a privilege which has been allowed to soldiers of similar standing for over twenty years, and to the warrant ranks in the Royal Navy for over forty

    1747
    years; and, if this privilege cannot be granted by administrative order, whether he will propose the necessary amendments to the regulations?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the commutation of the pensions of seamen and Marines has been fully considered, but the introduction of any such system was found to be inadvisable.

    Mexico (Death of Mr. Benton).
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he intends to leave the investigation concerning the reported murder of Mr. Benton by General Villa entirely in the hands of the United States Government?
    The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As will have appeared from the answer given yesterday, we wish to have a British Consul on the spot to participate in whatever investigation of facts can be made, and for that purpose the British Consul at Galveston has been instructed to proceed to El Paso, which is on the frontier, but I am not prepared to send him into the dangerous district until there is some assurance that he will be safe.
    Sir C. HUNTER: What status will the British Consul have in this investigation?
    Mr. ACLAND: He will represent His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. LLOYD: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that this investigation shall be as brief and conducted as rapidly as possible?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that has been our policy all through.

    British South Africa Chartered Company.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have the right, under Section 25 of the British South Africa Company's Charter, to appoint a director to the Board of the Chartered Company; whether this right has been taken advantage of; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Crown possesses the power referred to, but it has
    1748
    not been thought by any previous Government desirable to exercise it, and I do not, differ from their decision. The necessary control over the company's proceedings is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, better secured by the administrative machinery set up by Order in Council.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: In view of the present dispute as to the title to land in Rhodesia, is it not advisable to try and ascertain what are the aims and ideas of the company?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The object of the. question is to decide the rights rather than to ascertain the views of the company.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does not the. right hon. Gentleman consider it worth while to appoint a representative of the Government on the board of the company, having regard to the fact that the company's Charter expires in September' next?

    New Hebrides.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he received last year any Report on labour conditions in the New Hebrides; and, if so, whether he will make it public?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have received no general Report for last year on labour conditions in New Hebrides, but the question is one of those which still engages my most careful attention.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether Dr. Borgesius, the native advocate appointed under the Condominium Government of the New Hebrides, has complained that he is hampered in every way by the French officials from assisting the natives; whether the French officials have forbidden Dr. Borgesius going outside Vila, the capital, on business connected with. his office, contending that his duties, as set forth by the Convention, do not warrant his assisting natives otherwise than before the Joint Court; whether it is the contention of His Majesty's Government that Article 17 of the Convention was intended to convey that the native advocate is free to assist the natives in any way he can; and, if so, whether the Government will send telegraphic instructions to the British resident Commissioner to that effect?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The subject referred to is one of those which it is hoped may be discussed with the French Government. In order that the issue of that discussion may be as satisfactory as possible I would much prefer not, in anticipation, to enter into details in this House.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the extreme gravity of the statements which are coming here with regard to labour conditions in the New Hebrides, and can he give us any idea when these conversations in France are likely to take place or be completed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I realise the gravity of the reports. I could not give any further information as to when the conversations with France are likely to take place. Any question on that subject should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: May I ask whether it was recently disclosed in evidence in open Court in the New Hebrides that a plantation had changed hands, the assets, including implements, cattle, and thirty-three labourers, the labourers being valued at £50 each; and whether a total of £1,650 was actually paid for these thirty-three men and boys?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question on the Paper.
    Sir W. BYLES: I will do so.
    Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if negotiations are proceeding with the French Government for any change in the status of the whole or of some of the islands of the New Hebrides group?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. FELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety felt in Australia with regard to the statements that have appeared in the Press?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir. An answer was given in reply to a private notice question yesterday on that subject. There is no foundation for the anxiety that has been felt in Australia on the subject.

    Federated Malay States.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the banishment enact-
    1750
    ments of the Federated Malay States, a number of persons are undergoing imprisonment for indefinite periods who have never had any legal trial, but have returned to the Malay States after banishment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Under the Federated Malay States Banishment Enactment any person who has been lawfully banished from the colony of the Straits Settlements or from any Malay State is prohibited from entering the Federated Malay States so long as the term for which he was banished has not expired, and any person so returning may be prosecuted before the court, and if convicted, sentenced to imprisonment for a term equal to that for which he was banished. I may add that the working of the banishment system has had very careful attention, and that I am in communication with the High Commissioner for the Malay States on the subject at the present time.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these persons who have been banished, have been banished because they were suspected of inculcating the principles of trade unionism among the natives?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not sure that those high principles have yet reached that part of the world.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SOUTH AFRICA (IMPERIAL TROOPS).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War how much of the £779,500, which the 6,800 Imperial troops in South Africa cost annually, would be saved if these same troops were quartered in this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The cost would be reduced by about £140,000 a year if the present establishments of officers, men, and horses were quartered at home. I should, perhaps, add that that assumes that there would be no difficulty in regard to barrack accommodation, a matter I cannot deal with by question and answer. As a matter of fact, it they were all brought home the saving would be much less, owing to the increased barrack accommodation that would be required.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would the saving be only £140,000 if they were all brought home?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes; that is apart from the question of barrack room, which would still further reduce the saving.

    CIVILTAN RECRUITMENT.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War as regards officers of His Majesty's Army in actual service, or on half-pay, or retired on pension, or with permission to use military rank, whether there are any, and what sort of Army regulations, rules, or station orders in force in Ireland, Egypt, or India permitting or prohibiting them from recruiting or drilling embodied ranks of civilian subjects where no sanction for such assembling of men has been given by the Crown or by the authority responsible to the Crown and Parliament?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman will find in the King's Regulations, paragraph 449A, the only standing Army Regulation which restricts the liberty of officers on full pay or half-pay in reference to private associations not recognised by the Army Council as forming part of the Army. This does not apply to officers on retired pay.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Secretary of State for War the present strength of the field ambulances and voluntary aid detachments, respectively, which would be available for service with the Territorial Force?
    Colonel SEELY: On 1st January the strength of the Territorial Force field ambulances was 10,945, all ranks. The present aggregate personnel of the voluntary aid detachments is 69,426.
    Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary of State for War whether the rifle ranges at Runnemede are to be closed; and, if so, what arrangement he has made, or proposes to make, to provide rifle ranges for the Regular and Territorial Forces of London and the London districts?
    Colonel SEELY: This range is privately owned, but there has been no decision to close it, so far as I am aware.

    OLD SOLDIERS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can
    1752
    see his way to provide in the coming Army Estimates that old soldiers who have served ten years or more with the Colours and who, through age or infirmity, are unable to maintain themselves should be granted a weekly allowance sufficient to keep them out of the workhouse and relieve them of the taint of pauperism?
    Colonel SEELY: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to alter the existing Regulations in the manner proposed.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I ask why?
    Colonel SEELY: There are very large financial considerations involved, as well as others which I cannot undertake to deal with at the present time.

    DOVER AERODROME.
    Viscount DUNCANNONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has arrived at a decision with regard to the request for compensation made by the proprietors of the Dover Aerodrome for the loss to them due to the Aerial Navigation Orders, 1913; and, if so, whether he will communicate it?
    Colonel SEELY: When a decision has been reached on the different points arising out of this matter, I will inform the Noble Viscount.
    Viscount DUNCANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now a year since the matter was brought to the notice of the Government, and, in view of the fact that those concerned are incurring a financial loss, will he endeavour to accelerate the decision?
    Colonel SEELY: It is a very big question. I do not know that acceleration would be in the interests of all parties concerned. I will certainly not lose sight of it.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether a second lieutenant of the Royal Field Artillery, who is attached to a battery for a period which may extend to eighteen months until he is posted to some battery, is not entitled to draw forage for a horse, whereas a Special Reserve subaltern draws forage during his attachment; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of providing for the forage for a horse being given at once to the former officer?
    Colonel SEELY: An officer of the Royal Field Artillery is entitled to forage for one horse under paragraph 123, Allowance Regulations, and I am not aware that any second lieutenant attached pending posting has been treated differently from other officers in this respect. If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind and will let me have the particulars I will cause inquiry to be made.

    ACTION AGAINST SIR EDWARD WARD.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to relieve Sir Edward Ward of the payment of the £2,000 damages awarded against him as a representative of the Army Council in the recent libel case; and, if so, under what Vote it will appear?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter pending the possibility of an appeal.

    GENERAL ANNUAL REPORT.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that the General Annual Report of the British Army shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament a clear week before the Debates are taken on the Army Estimates?
    Colonel SEELY: The Report will be in the hands of Members early next week.
    Mr. HUNT: Will that be something like a week before the Debate comes on?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a matter on which I cannot make a statement. I am not aware of the exact date of the Army Estimates Debate, but it will give full time. I should think something like a week, but I do not know exactly.

    MINIATURE RIFLE CLUBS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is vet in a position to state whether the Government will assist miniature rifle clubs in the provision of free ammunition?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the importance of encouraging the practice of rifle shooting amongst the younger members of the civilian population and of the value of the training in rifle practice given by the rifle clubs of the country, and
    1754
    in view also of the fact that many men who join or desire to join these rifle clubs are poor and unable to afford to purchase ammunition, he will recommend a Grant, either in money or in ammunition, to, efficient rifle clubs, and thereby enable men who could not otherwise afford it to become proficient in rifle shooting?
    Colonel SEELY: No decision as to the future position of these clubs in relation to the Army has yet been arrived at.
    Mr. GWYNNE: When may we expect a decision? It. is over a year since the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was considering it.
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot say the precise date when this difficult question will be settled.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will before another year has passed?
    Colonel SEELY: I will consider that.

    GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE FACTORY, SELBY, YORKS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War on what date the labourers employed in the Government Ordnance Factory near Selby, Yorkshire, received an advance of wages of 6d. a week to compensate them for the withdrawal of the three months' half-pay to which they were entitled when sick before the National Insurance Act came into force; whether the last advance of wages which they received was an advance of 1s. 6d. per week granted to them in February, 1913, to date back to 1st. July, 1912; whether this advance of 1s. 6d. was granted to them in order to bring their wages more nearly up to the trade-union rate of wages in the district; whether they were informed, and, if so, how that any part of this advance of 1s. 6d. per week was to compensate them for the withdrawal of their sick pay; and whether the present wages of such Government employés are at a less rate per hour than the trade union rate of wages for labourers in the district?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): An advance of 1s. a week was given from 1st April, 1911, of which 6d. was in anticipation of the Insurance Act, but as I explained on the 16th instant, did not involve withdrawal of three months' half-pay.

    1755
    The advance of 1s. 6d. a week given in February, 1913, was granted in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution of this House. The fact that compensation had been previously given was made clear by a War Office circular issued in July, 1912. The trade-union rate of wages is not in question, but I am making further inquiry as to the prevailing rates in the district.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any intimation was given to these employés that the advance was given in anticipation of the Insurance Act?
    Mr. BAKER: I have no reason to think that it was not made known.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to record all site values on occasions for the ascertainment of Increment Value Duty whether such duty is payable or not; and, if so, whether a purchaser can obtain information as to the amount of such recorded site value?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except in some instances where it is clear that no duty can in any case be payable. The particulars so recorded may be obtained by purchasers as persons interested in the land.

    Estate Duty Valuations.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Estate Duty valuations of real estate were outstanding on the 29th September, 1913; and how many such cases related to deaths which had taken place before the 30th April, 1909?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of valuations of the kind referred to by the hon. Member outstanding on the date mentioned was 16,040. The number of such cases which related to deaths before the 30th April, 1909, is not on record.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received complaints to the effect that
    1756
    cheques drawn for the suns of 30s. maternity benefit have, after presentation, been returned marked no effects; and whether effective steps have been, or will be, taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has received no complaints of the character referred to, but if the hon. Member will furnish him with particulars of any specific case he will be glad to make inquiry.

    ADMINISTRATION OF ACT.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to appoint this Session a Commission or Committee to inquire into the working of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Debate on this question which, as he is aware, will take place this evening on the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham.

    QUESTIONS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
    Mr. FELLasked who is the Minister responsible for the replies to questions relating to the National Insurance Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): For the present my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East has undertaken to reply to these questions, but the matter is under consideration.

    INVESTMENT (NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any moneys representing contributions paid under the National Insurance Act, and at the disposal of the Insurance Commission, have been, or will be, handed over to the National Debt Commissioners to finance the Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1903 and 1909; and, if not, will he state to what use they are being applied or how they are invested, and what is their total amount?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The sums paid over to the National Debt Commissioners under the National Insurance Act are invested in securities authorised by Parliament as investments for Savings Banks

    1757
    Funds. These investments include advances for Irish land purchase. Full details of the amounts so invested will be shown in the Statutory Annual Return of the investments made, which will be laid at an early date.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS' FUND.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether a deposit contributor who was over sixty-five years of age at the commencement of the National Insurance Act, and who has paid more than twenty-six contributions, is entitled to free medical benefit for the rest of his life?
    Mr. BENN: A deposit contributor is only entitled to such benefits as can be provided from the amount standing to his credit in the deposit contributor's fund (including the moneys provided by Parliament). It follows, therefore, that when a deposit contributor has passed the age of seventy, and further contributions are not payable in respect of him, he will not be entitled to medical benefit after the sum standing to his credit has been exhausted.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT (PAYMENT AFTER DEATH).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, in the case of an insured person who dies after an illness of a month, during which he was entitled to receive sickness benefit, but has not received it, his representatives are entitled to claim the amount of the benefit after his death?
    Mr. BENN: The answer is in the affirmative.

    MEETINGS UPON LICENSED PREMISES.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the concern felt by the friendly societies regarding the attitude of the Government towards their meetings upon licensed premises, he will give this House an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a resolution of protest from the Hearts of Oak Society against the Regulation of the National Insurance Commissioners to deprive the members of the friendly societies of their right to hold meetings at such places as the majority of their members consider convenient and advantageous; if in these Regulations there is an attempt to dictate to the societies on matters of procedure which ought to be left to their own judgment; whether the
    1758
    Regulation will apply only to the State sections of the approved societies; if so, whether it is proposed to disconnect the work of the two sections; and whether he will state why such Regulation has been made, having regard to the promise repeatedly made in this House and elsewhere by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no such interference would take place?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend intends to communicate further with approved societies on this subject, and will consider very carefully such representations as lave been made by the society referred to in the second question. In the meantime, no regulations have been or will be made.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Arising out of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and the fact that regulations have already been made for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment of the House to-night.

    RESERVE VALUES (VALUATIONS).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) whether any valuations have been completed in any of the one hundred societies in England and the nine societies in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in which reserve values have been provisionally claimed on the advice of the Insurance Commissioners; if made, what is the result of such valuations in each case; if not made, is it intended that valuations shall be made forthwith; and (2) whether the Insurance Commissioners have yet called upon any of the approved societies to reduce the benefits or increase the contributions, in view of the deficiences which are now inevitable in some societies?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford on the 16th instant, to which my right hon. Friend has nothing to add.

    INSURED PERSONS (SELECTION OF DOCTOR).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many insured persons had not selected a doctor for the purpose of the National Insurance Acts at the end of the first insurance year; and in how many cases had doctors been assigned to insured persons by insurance committees before that date?
    Mr. BENN: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, and could not be obtained without a special return from all insurance committees in Great Britain.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the hon. Gentleman no information in regard to what the insurance committees are doing in regard to medical benefit?
    Mr. BENN: There is no information which would be sufficiently accurate and extensive to be given in answer to this question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman not think the matter of sufficient importance to get the information?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member will put down a Motion for a Return it will be considered.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether, if an insured person becomes entitled to sick benefit in September and again in February of the following year, sick benefit is payable from the first day or the fourth day on the second occasion, having regard to the fact that the financial year closes on the 15th January, and to the fact that such a second illness is deemed to be a continuation of the first?
    Mr. BENN: In the circumstances stated benefit is payable from the first day. Under Section 8 (5) of the Act of 1911 a second illness is deemed to be a continuation of a previous illness in respect of which benefit has been paid unless a period of twelve months has elapsed between the two illnesses. The fact that the second illness does not occur in the same financial year as the first does not affect the question.
    Mr. WORTHNGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman have that made clear?
    Mr. BENN: No doubt an answer given in this House will make it clear.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received any report from the West Hartlepool Insurance Committee as to a statement of a member at a meeting of the committee on 21st January, 1914, that the sickness claims on his society were excessive, especially in the women's
    1760
    section; and whether the Government have evidence to show that the women's sections of approved societies in that district are in danger of showing deficiencies at the first Valuation?
    Mr. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him to a similar question on the 18th instant.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. Member inquire as to whether there-have been any excessive claims on this. society?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir, I will be very glad to make inquiry.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his-attention has been called to the case of Charles Day, of 54, Bell Street, Edgware-Road, N.W., a member of the London. Thrift Approved Society, of 134, Ladywell Road, Lewisham, S.E., who entered the Marylebone Poor Law Infirmary on the 12th January last, remaining there three weeks, and who is unable to get sick pay from his approved society because the society will pay only on the production of the doctor's certificate and the infirmary doctor and authorities refuse to give one; and whether any pressure can be brought to bear either upon the approved society or the infirmary officials so that this man may obtain his rights?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. My attention had not been previously drawn to this case. It is the duty of the medical officer of the infirmary, under the Local Government Board's Regulations, to give a certificate to the person on whom he is attending of the sickness of such person or the cause of his attendance on him, and I am calling the attention of the guardians to this requirement.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what the total sum is which has been paid in sickness. benefit to male insured persons up to 1st January, 1914; and if he will state what the total sum was which the Government actuaries estimated would be required for this benefit for these persons up to the date mentioned; and (2) what is the total sum

    1761
    which has been paid in sickness benefit to female insured persons up to 1st January, 1914; and if he will state what the total sum was which the Government actuaries estimated would be required for this benefit for these persons up to the date mentioned?
    Mr. BENN: The information asked for in the first half of the questions is not yet available. The sums spent in sickness benefit for the twelve months ending 11th January, 1914, will only be reliably ascertained when the accounts of the expenditure of all the approved societies and branches in the United Kingdom have been made up and audited. The figures asked for in the second part of the questions are:—

    £4,200,000 for men,

    £1,250,000 for women.

    Mr. CASSELasked whether, under the Regulations issued by the National Insurance Joint Committee, any person entering insurance after the 13th October, 1913, who is over thirty years of age at the time of entry, will only receive 5s. a week sickness benefit in lieu of the 10s. provided for under the National Insurance Act, even though it may not be due to any fault of his that he joined after the 13th October, 1913?
    Mr. BENN: The Regulations referred to merely give effect to the provisions of Section 9 (4) of the Act of 1911, as amended by Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1913.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was recorded in the last minutes of the Glasgow insurance committee that twenty-seven persons were awaiting admission to sanatoria, and that no less than 208 applications for sanatorium benefit were waiting consideration by the committee?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend's attention had not previously been drawn to the statement referred to. He is making inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the institution at Blackwall could be made available in twenty-four hours?
    Mr. BENN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars as to the institution.

    TUBERCULOUS PERSONS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Conference of the Poor Law authorities on 18th February last, where it was stated that such authorities have spare accommodation for tuberculous persons; and whether, in view of the fact that there is still a shortage of accommodation for insured tuberculous persons which is causing delay in their treatment, he will do his best co effect a temporary arrangement similar to that in connection with the Metropolitan Asylums Board, so that such spare accommodation may be utilised for them?
    Mr. BENN: It is not open to insurance committees to make arangements for the treatment of insured persons by Poor Law authorities. The case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board is governed, as the hon. Member knows, by special provisions in the 1913 Act.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the hon. Member think that an amending Bill ought to be brought in to make it possible for the Poor Law authorities to give accommodation to insured persons who cannot get in elsewhere?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Has the Metropolitan Asylums Board no spare accommodation?
    Mr. BENN: I could not answer that without notice.

    PANEL DOCTORS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether complaints have been made by Gloucester panel doctors that certain approved societies have failed to supply forms for medical certificates and have ignored requests for such forms; whether insured persons' benefits are thereby in danger of disturbance, refusal, or delay; and what the Government propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: The matter referred to had not previously been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, but he is in communication with the insurance committee and the approved societies concerned.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the allocation of insured persons to a doctor who has not been selected by them has given, and is giving, rise to discontent

    1763
    and dissatisfaction; whether surprise and dissatisfaction has been caused by the interpretation which has been placed by the National Insurance Commissioners on Form 110-I.C. to the effect that a person who has been allocated to a doctor whom he has not selected is deemed to have selected that doctor; and whether the Commissioners will issue, or cause to be issued, to insured persons a circular instructing them what steps they should take if they wish to change the doctor whom they have not selected but to whom they have been allocated?
    Mr. BENN: Under the Regulations none in force no allocation is carried out except upon the application of insured persons themselves. It was open to insured persons who were allocated to doctors last year to change their doctor at the end of the year by giving the necessary notice; and every opportunity was taken of bringing to the knowledge of insured persons their rights in this respect. It is still open to insured persons who omitted to take the necessary steps last year and who now desire to change their doctor to do so by consent, and the Medical Card issued to insured persons already on the lists of doctors contains full instructions on the subject.

    ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT DEFICIENCIES.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the statements of any societies or branches show a deficiency in the administration account for the period 15th July, 1912, to 12th January, 1913; if so, what is the number of such societies or branches; and what number of societies or branches have applied to the Commissioners to carry forward the deficiency in respect of the period from 15th July, 1912, to 12th January, 1913, to the year ending 11th January, 1914?
    Mr. BENN: For the reasons indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 16th instant, the Commissioners have no complete information as to the numbers asked for. The information in their possession, however, shows administration deficiencies for the period stated in 356 cases, treating deficiencies in branches of a society and deficiencies in more than one country, in the case of international societies, as separate deficiencies. Applications to carry forward have been received in 289 cases. In most of the cases so brought before the Com-
    1764
    mission which have so far been examined the deficiency is such that it can be included in the 1913 account without being likely to cause a deficiency on that account.
    Mr. CASSEL: Are we to take it in regard to the deficiencies that have occurred in 356 cases that they have been carried forward to next year?
    Mr. BENN: I stated that in most cases, so far as we know, the deficiencies can be carried forward without expecting that there will be a deficiency in the following year.
    Mr. CASSEL: In the other cases will the deficiencies be carried forward?
    Mr. BENN: I cannot say without notice.

    EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Thomas Novis, of Framfield, in the county of Sussex, having reached seventy years of age on the 2nd March, 1913, by a mistake as to his age continued to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act. of 4d. a week until the 7th October. 1913, and that his employer paid the corresponding contributions of 3d. a week, amounting to 10s. 8d. and 8s. respectively, and that the Commissioners, in spite of the fact that these contributions were paid under a mistake of fact, rendering the Treasury liable to an action at law for their repayment, and under circumstances that could never result in benefit to the insured, have refused to refund them; and whether the Treasury will at once order these overpayments to be repaid?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend regrets that it has not been found possible to identify the case to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will be so good as to give me further particulars I will have renewed inquiry made.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (PAYMENT).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Postmaster-General why no payment has yet been made to established sub-postmasters for National Insurance Act work; and when this payment will be made?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): It has been necessary to consider this matter in connection with a general revision of the Units Scheme on which the salaries of head postmasters and

    1765
    established sub-postmasters are based. The Departmental Committee who have dealt with the general question have now submitted a Report to me, and I hope it will soon be possible to settle the basis on which remuneration is to be made.
    Mr. HARVEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the remuneration will be retrospective.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I forget the exact terms of the Report of the Committee. I think that there is a definite paragraph on the subject.

    Customs and Excise Clerks.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the case of Customs clerks of the first class who, since the amalgamation of the Excise and Customs, cannot attain to the maximum salary of the next grade above, as they could before the amalgamation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before amalgamation Customs first-class clerks could only proceed beyond their own maximum of £400 if and when they were promoted to a higher class. Under the amalgamation scheme their maximum has been increased to £450, and they are eligible to be considered for promotion to higher posts. I see no reason for revising these arrangements.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if they proceed to competition for higher posts and fail, they are debarred from attaining the maximum scale in which they already are?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should rather like notice of that question.

    Rating Land Values.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he received any interim or advance Report from the Departmental Committee on the relations between local and Imperial finance with reference to the question of rating land values before he announced the Government policy in his speech at Glasgow on 3rd February?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative. The policy of the Government on this matter had already been announced years ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. CASSEL: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman is able to announce the policy of the Government on this question having regard to the fact that on 16th February, 1912, in answer to the hon. Member (Sir W. M. Aitken), he stated that it would not be fair to express an opinion on this matter until after the Committee had reported?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should rather like to see that question.
    Mr. CASSEL: I will raise this on the Adjournment of the House to-morrow.

    National Defence (Invasion Problem).
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has yet completed its re-examination of the invasion problem; whether its Report is already drafted; and how soon does he expect to be in a position to announce to the House the main conclusions arrived at?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The general lines of the Report have been agreed upon, and it is anticipated that it will be completed very shortly. A statement will be made in the course of the present Session.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of acquainting Members of the House with, at any rate, an outline of the main conclusions arrived at before they are called upon to pronounce on the adequacy or inadequacy of the provisions made by the Government for home defence in the forthcoming Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: do not know whether that will be possible, because, although the Report is drafted and the general lines agreed, it is not finally settled.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he could give even a hint as to whether the force required is either greater or less or unchanged from the previous Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will think about that.

    University of London.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Government intend to introduce this Session a Bill for the reorganisation of the University of London, in general

    1767
    accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on University Education in London; and, if so, whether that Bill will be presented as a separate measure, or as part of the measure for the development of a national system of education, to which reference was made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Pending the Report of the Departmental Committee on the University of London, I am not in a position to announce the intentions of the Government. It will probably be convenient and desirable to deal with this question in a separate measure.

    Inland Waterways.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any resolution on the subject of a Royal Commission on Inland Waterways (1909); and whether the Government proposes to do anything in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this subject on the 19th instant.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when a definite answer one way or the other could be given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the Noble Lord would look at the reply given by my right hon. Friend he will see the difficulties which surround the subject.
    Colonel YATE: Does not the reply referred to mean that the whole question is to be shelved indefinitely? Are the Government really going to do anything in the matter or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reply pointed out that to carry out the recommendations of the Committee would involve an expenditure of £20,000,000, probably more. The Government do not feel able at this moment to contemplate such an addition.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Government do anything to try to improve the present system?

    Government of Ireland Bill (Ministerial Proposals).
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that from the close of the Debate on the Address to the end of the financial year there are twenty-two Parliamentary days, exclusive of Fridays, and that this, according to the experience of previous years, is more than is, necessary for exclusively financial business required by law to be completed before 31st March, he can hold out any prospect that the Government's proposals for amending the Government of Ireland Bill will not be delayed beyond the close of the financial year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad if the transaction of the necessary financial business can be so accelerated as to render possible the explanation and discussion of these proposals before the close of the financial year.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: In the event of the Opposition giving facilities for concluding the financial business before 31st March, will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement before that date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not move the suspension of the Five-o'clock Rule, and make the statement on Friday afternoon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Many reasons.
    Mr. MOORE: If the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity in the Debate on the subject this day week, will he make a statement then?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Captain CRAIG: On behalf of the Prime Minister I will say—No, he will not.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will furnish the House with the latest direction given by the Treasury to the Irish Land Commission with reference to the rate of interest at which the Sinking Fund portions of Irish land purchase annuities are now deemed to accumulate, having regard to the rate of interest at which those payments into the Sinking Fund are now invested by the National Debt Commissioners?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The latest directions are contained in Rule 16 of the Irish Land (Finance) Rules, 1912.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will furnish the House with copies of the latest accumulation tables relating to Irish land purchase supplied by the National Debt Commissioners to the Irish Land Commission?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will circulate copies of the tables with the Votes. I may explain that these tables are simply an adaptation of the usual published table showing the amount to which £1 per annum, payable half-yearly, would accumulate at 2¾ per cent. and 3 per cent., respectively, over periods of years.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the investigation into the nature, origin, and mode of communication of foot-and-mouth disease which was instituted by the Board in India two years ago has been completed; if so, when it was completed; and whether and when the results of such investigation will be published by the Board?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Report is nearly ready for the Press, and will probably be issued in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what steps, if any, are taken by the Board on the occasion of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease to ascertain by bacteriological examination, culture, and experiment, or otherwise, the presence of germs of the disease in fodder, hides, bones, and other animal offals found upon the infected premises and proved to have been imported from foreign countries where the disease is prevalent?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: When an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurs in this country, no steps of the kind suggested in the question are taken by the Board, on account of the risk of spreading the infection. In this connection perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answers of Sir Stewart Stockman on pages 34 and 36 of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee which reported two years ago.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does it not necessarily follow that it is wholly impossible in every case to trace the cause of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The procedure suggested by the hon. Member has been found in practice impossible of adoption in this country owing to the reasons to which I have referred.

    Irish Land Stock.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the total amount of Irish land stock now held by the National Debt Commissioners and all other public Departments in Great Britain and Ireland holding that stock; the prices at which the stock has been obtained; the annual yield at those prices; the total revenue so far derived from this source; to what purpose this revenue is applied; and the effect on the duration or amount of purchasers' annuities under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 respectively?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In answer to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper 146 of 1913, which contains the latest information available. As regards the next three parts, I have not the information which would enable me to reply, and, as regards the last part, these stocks were acquired by various Departments by way of investment, and have no connection with the duration or amount of purchasers' annuities.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether it is a fact that purchasers in Ireland do not benefit by these transactions in money—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    Post Office Male Learnership.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any information of why the Civil Service Commissioners rejected Robert B. Simpson, who, at Wick on 27th February, 1913, had passed an examination for a male learner-ship in the Post Office, and who had also passed examination, afterwards by doctors selected by the Commissioners.?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Robert B. Simpson was medically examined by a medical officer of the Post Office, and, on his appeal, by a medical referee selected by the Civil Service Commissioners. It is not the fact that he was passed by the medical

    1771
    referee, and after careful consideration of his report the Commissioners found themselves unable to certify that Mr. Simpson was free from any physical defect or disease which would be likely to interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of the situation for which he was a candidate.

    Shetland Mails.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office contemplate entering into a fresh contract with the North of Scotland Steamship Company, he will give the County Council of Shetland and the Town Council of Lerwick an opportunity of considering the contract before it is finally ratified?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Lerwick Town Council were invited last December to offer their observations upon the proposed modification of the mail service to Shetland. I shall be happy to consider any suggestion of either the town council or the county council as to any provision to be included in the new contract, if its adoption would not involve an increase of expenditure.

    Orkney and Shetland Cable.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General when the breakdown of the cable between Orkney and Shetland occurred and between Orkney and the mainland; and if, in view of the inconvenience and loss which has been caused the two counties by the delay to the ordinary methods of communication, he will take into consideration the advisability of obtaining a second repair ship?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The breakdown of the cable between Orkney and Shetland occurred on the 21st of November, and that between Orkney and the mainland on the 8th instant. Of the two Post Office cable ships the "Alert" is suitable only for channel work. The larger ship, the "Monarch," has been engaged throughout the winter on urgent work on cables to Ireland. It was hoped to release her for dispatch to the Orkneys yesterday, but she has unfortunately met with an accident and must be docked. I am assured that the only private cable ship available is the "Telconia," and I have arranged for her to be chartered for dispatch to the Orkneys at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has
    1772
    been so long a delay in carrying out the repair of the cable between Orkney and Shetland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We had to repair the cables with Ireland. The weather was extremely stormy, and the work, I understand, has to be carried on from day to day. We have arranged for the "Monarch" to go and repair the cable to Orkney.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Postmaster-General when he intends establishing a telephone service to Dingle and Killorglin?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The matter is under consideration, but it seems unlikely that sufficient support could be obtained at Dingle to justify the heavy expense which would be involved. The number of subscribers thus far promised at Killorglin is eight, and it is found that nineteen would be required. Further inquiry is being made, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Post Office (Outdoor Staff Scales of Pay).
    Mr. WINGasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the raising of the status of the postmen in the Fence Houses district from the status of Class 4 to Class 2, thus bringing the postmen in that district into line with those in less populous and more advantageous districts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The general question of the classification of offices for the purpose of fixing the scales of pay of outdoor staff is about to be reviewed in accordance with the recommendation of the recent Parliamentary Committee on Post Office Servants, and in the meantime I regret that I cannot undertake to deal with individual cases.

    Parcels Post (Addresses in Irish).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked why parcels addressed in Irish have been refused by officials in the Post Office in Ireland; and whether instructions to this effect have been issued to the various Irish post offices?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No recent instructions have been issued on this subject, but there is a rule of long standing that a parcel addressed in characters other than those in ordinary use in the United Kingdom should not be accepted.

    Postal Employés.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the total number of persons employed in the Post Office Department of the State; and how many of these are in actual receipt of an increase of salary directly due to the Holt Committee Report?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The total number of persons employed on Post Office work is about 237,000, of whom about 31,000 are in the employment of sub-postmasters. The adjustments of pay consequent on the Holt Committee's Report have not yet been carried out, except in the case of the unestablished skilled workmen and unestablished labourers in the Engineering Department and the remuneration to scale-payment sub-postmasters (about 23,000) for insurance work.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: When will the new scale come into effect?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am in constant correspondence with the Treasury about the scales of pay. I am endeavouring to deal with the matter as speedily as I can.

    Sub-Postmistress (Bryansford).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the complaint with regard to the recent appointment of a sub-postmistress at Bryansford, county Down; and whether he can state the facts in connection with the appointment?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My attention has been drawn to a letter on this subject from. Lord Roden which appeared in the "Times" of 26th January. As the facts have been misrepresented in that letter, it seems desirable that I should make a full statement about the matter. There were two candidates for the sub-postmastership of Bryansford: one was fully conversant with post-office work, but the other had no knowledge whatever of it. Lord Roden, to whom all but one of the houses in the locality belong, supported the candidature of the latter, and I am informed intimated through his agent that he would enforce her selection by refusing to let a house to the other candidate. If his Lordship's nominee had been appointed, she intended, I am told, employing the other candidate as her assistant, and the latter would thus have had to do practically the whole of the work, but would have had to rest content with only a part of the emoluments. My predecessor considered such an arrange-
    1774
    meat would be indefensible, and in this view I entirely concur. Fortunately, the better qualified candidate succeeded in securing suitable accommodation in the one house in the locality over which Lord Roden had no control, and was appointed sub-postmistress. So far from it being the case that her selection was ill received locally, I understand from independent witnesses that the appointment has given general satisfaction. A number of the signatories to the petition referred to by Lord Roden in his letter now assert that they signed it under a misapprehension, and have asked that their names should be withdrawn.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. WILLIAM HARVEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that in some parts of the country conscientions objectors under the Vaccination Act, 1907, experience great difficulty in finding a justice of the peace who is willing to witness their declaration; that these people are either too poor to employ a commissioner for oaths or their hours of work and the distance necessary to be travelled are too great; that in many instances hard-working men have been known to travel long distances on a Sunday to a magistrate who was willing to sign their forms; and whether he is prepared either to take steps to compel all magistrates to sign exemption orders or else provide additional facilities for those who desire to avail themselves of the exemption afforded by the Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The President of the Local Government Board has asked me to reply to this question. One or two complaints of this sort have been received, but I have no reason to think that the difficulty is of frequent occurrence. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any particular cases where magistrates have refused to take the declarations, I will make inquiry; but he should understand that I have no authority to compel them to do so, and I fear I could not undertake to propose legislation on the subject at the present time.

    Carnarvon Board of Guardians.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether the Carnarvon Board of Guardians, at a meeting on 31st January, decided to send to the Local Government Board their resolutions in the Welsh language as a protest against the refusal of the Local Government Board

    1775
    to sanction expenditure on refreshments for members of the board; whether the present staff of the Local Government Board is capable of dealing with Welsh correspondence; or whether it is intended to meet the wishes of the Carnarvon Board of Guardians by appointing Welsh scholars to translate their communications into English?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Local Government Board have received no report from the guardians in the sense suggested in the question.

    Housing Conditions (Lincolnshire).
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a recent report an inspector of the Board on the housing conditions existing in thirty-four parishes of the Horncastle rural district area of Lincolnshire; whether the local authority have unanimously resolved that under the present state of the law it is impossible for the urgent demand for cottages to be met; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to. I understand that the council have decided to take no action in regard to the provision of cottages under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. until better facilities for the purpose are offered by the Government; and on the 11th instant the Board informed the council that, in view of the circumstances of the case, the decision of the council is not in the Board's opinion one that can be regarded as justifiable. The attention of the county council has been drawn to the case in view of the powers of county councils under the Housing and Town Planning Act., 1909. I may also refer the hon. Member to Section 10 of that Act. If a formal complaint is made to the Board under that Section, I shall be prepared to consider it.

AMERICAN MAILS (QUEENSTOWN).
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given private notice: Whether he is now in a position to accede to the request of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce for the establishment of a mail to the United States by the Anchor Line steamers in order to mitigate the disad-
1776
vantage to Glasgow and Scotland generally of the abandonment of the call at Queenstown of the Cunard Packets?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have now made arrangements by which, commencing next. Saturday, mails will be dispatched by the steamers of the Anchor Line sailing for New York from Glasgow and Moville on Saturdays. Letters for the United States, etc., may be posted for transmission by the Anchor Line steamers up to 11 am. at Edinburgh and 12.15 p.m. at Glasgow, as compared with the former time of 1.15 p.m. in each city for embarkation on the Cunard Packets at Queenstown. There will also be an opportunity for posting on Saturday morning in the North of Ireland for inclusion in mails to be embarked at Moville.
Earl WINTERTON: Will the widest publicity be given to the new arrangement, as there is a general lack of knowledge that the former position of affairs has changed?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will afford every opportunity I can for doing so.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland whether he has received any complaints from Scotland with regard to the embargo on the exportation of sheep from Glasgow to Dublin, and whether, in view of the fact that there is no trace of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland that embargo can be removed forthwith?
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Yes. I received the representations, but I am not at the present moment in a position to make any announcement.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the embargo is likely to be removed, as it is causing inconvenience to farmers?
Mr. RUSSELL: The whole question is being considered.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland?
Mr. RUSSELL: I made that as clear as I could on Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    To call attention on this day two weeks to the condition of the blind, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Wardle.]
    To call attention on this day two weeks to the condition of Ireland, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Burgoyne.]
    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    To call attention to the conditions of employment of agricultural labourers, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Francis McLaren.]
  BILL PRESENTED.
    SOLICITORS BILL.
    "To amend the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1906." Presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Sir Joseph Larmor; to be read a second time upon Monday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Mr. GILL: I beg leave to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Factory and Workshops Act, 1910, by reducing the period of employment in cotton factories to forty-eight hours per week."
  The cotton industry is the second largest industry in the United Kingdom. It employs over 600,000 workers, four-fifths of whom are women, young persons, and children. The subject of this Bill has been balloted among the different classes of workers in the cotton trade, and they have decided by very large majorities in favour of the reduction which is now proposed. In the skilled trades males and boys work from forty-six to fifty-two hours per week, while at the present time in the cotton trade the period is fifty-five and a half hours. In the last thirty-nine years there has been a reduction of only one hour per week in connection with the textile trades generally. When we consider the fact that during that period machinery has been speeded up to a considerable extent—no less than 20 per cent.—and when we consider that the industry is carried
  1788
  on at much greater pressure on the work-people than was formerly the case, I think we are entitled to ask that something should be done for their relief in this respect. The workpeople and employés pursue their calling in a very heated atmosphere. The cotton mills generally have an atmosphere ranging from 70 degrees to over 100 degrees, with the result that the people become excessively tired sooner than they would under a lower temperature. It is in order to secure the health of the workers and their increased efficiency that I ask leave to introduce this Bill. We think that the workers should have more time for relaxation than they get at the present time, besides which, if the period of work were reduced by seven and a half boars per week, they would have snore time not only for relaxation, but would be enabled to recuperate in a way that is not possible now.
  While the hours of labour have been reduced only one hour in the last thirty-nine years, the cotton mills on the Continent of Europe and in America have reduced the period of employment from seventy-two hours to fifty-eight hours in thirty years, a reduction of fourteen hours. Formerly it was this country which used to lead the way in regard to the period of employment, but now we only hold second place. In the State of Massachusetts they have passed a law, which is now in operation, fixing the hours of employment in cotton mills and textile mills at fifty-four hours a week, and probably they will extend that still further. The Bill which I ask leave to introduce proposes to effect a reduction of hours by easy stages of two and a half hours for three years. From the 1st of July, 1915, to the 1st of July, 1916, it is proposed that the period of employment shall remain the same as at present, except that, instead of starting work at six o'clock on Monday morning, the work shall commence at nine o'clock. From the 1st July, 1916, to the same date in 1917, it is proposed that the period of employment shall be the same as at present, except that the work should commence at nine o'clock on Monday morning and nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. In 1917 the Bill proposes to make a complete change. Instead of commencing at nine o'clock on Monday and Tuesday mornings, we propose to commence at 8.30 on Monday morning, and at six o'clock on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday mornings, and that work shall then close for

  1789
  the week. We believe that this is absolutely necessary for the purpose of improving the health of the workpeople, and of creating greater efficiency. Seeing that this measure is backed by hundreds of thousands of operatives connected with the cotton industry, I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gill, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Albert Smith. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to -be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  HOPS BILL.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg leave to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in brewing."
  I make this Motion not for the first time. My justification in asking for a few moments of time of the House, in introducing this Bill, is to enable me to point out, as I think should be pointed out, that matters which have proved to be a subject of contention and given rise to opposition to previous measures introduced for the same purpose, have, I think, been entirely eliminated from the Bill which I ask leave to introduce to-day. These contentious matters were, firstly, certain provisions in previous Bills which provided for quite a different subject from that of substitutes, namely, to mark imported hops. Although I should like to see legislation compelling the marking of imported hops, yet, at the same time, opinion is divided on that subject, and, therefore, I am dropping it from my Bill this Session. Secondly, a great deal of discussion and dispute has arisen from time to time with reference to the amending of what I may call the prohibition Clause of this Bill. In some Bills the clause was so wide in effect that it would have interfered seriously with the legitimate operation of the brewing industry, and that is not desired. I think that the wording which I propose to adopt while, on the one hand, entirely preventing the use of any substances for brewing in substitution for hops, on the other, will not prevent the legitimate and necessary use of chemical substances for the purposes of cleansing and disinfecting, and so on. That I am justified in my belief is shown by the fact that I am supported in this matter by two of the most prominent
  1790
  Members of this House connected with the brewing industry.
  4.0 P. M.
  As to the use of substitutes against which the Bill is aimed there is no doubt that in many quarters there has been some exaggeration as to the quantity of substitutes used, and as to the competitive effect which their use has had upon the hop trade. I do not wish to fall into that error of exaggeration to-day. According to the brewers' returns for 1911, only some 5,000 lbs. weight of substitutes were employed. That figure has increased to 15,000 lbs. Although the official returns for the year just completed are not yet available, I am informed that the figures for 1912 have increased, and that, therefore, there is some reason to believe that the use of substitutes at the present time is a growing practice. It is further well to bear in mind that although we have no special reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures in the brewers' returns, yet at the same time there is no power to enforce disclosure of those matters, and, therefore, there is the possibility that the figures do not show the worst. I would further remind the House that those objection able substitutes are not used in any case by the better class of brewers, and that the great bulk of the brewing industry are quite prepared to see their use prohibited by Parliamentary enactment; another ground for asking the support of this House to this proposition is the matter of public health. The Select Committee on the Hop Industries reported in 1908 that in a number of cases hop substitutes had been found which contained large quantities of arsenic and antimony, which were injurious and dangerous to public health. They further reported that—
  "It seems clear that no substance having at once the aromatic flavouring, preservative, and precipitating properties of the hop is known to science."
  They specially condemned those hop substitutes most commonly in use, and drew attention to the fact that
  "Growers and brewers appeared to be generally agreed that hop substitutes can be safely dispensed with. They cannot in any true sense supply the peculiar properties of the hop, they introduce an unnecessary and a foreign element into the process of brewing, they may be the source of dangerous contamination, and, in the opinion of your Committee, their, employment should be prohibited by legislation."
  Although there were three draft reports submitted to that Committee, all three agreed on that point. The demand for this Bill is further supported by continual agitation among the hop growers and the hop

  1791
  trade. It is supported by the principal brewers, and during the last two or three years it has been supported, not only by pledges of His Majesty's Ministers, but by the introduction of more than one Bill by them; and it is in the hope that the early introduction of a private Member's Bill for this purpose may lead to the passing of this small but much desired reform that I may ask leave to introduce this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courthope, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Hewins, Captain Clay, Mr. Ronald M'Neill, Captain Clive, Mr. Edgar Home, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Wheler, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Wright, and Sir George Younger. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  SUPPLY.

    ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1913–14).
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (MILITARY WING).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £196,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, namely:—

    £

    Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

    30,000

    Vote 6. Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    35,000

    Vote 7. Supplies and Clothing

    15,000

    Vote 9. Armaments, Aviation, and Engineer Stores

    216,000

    296,000

    Deduct Appropriations-in-Aid

    100,000

    £196,000

    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR Colonel Seely): This Supplementary Vote is rendered necessary by two main causes, the first being the retention of Indian troops in China, and the second being necessary additions to the military aeronautical service. With regard to the troops in China, there are now about 2,300 native
    1792
    Indian troops stationed in Hong Kong. Their presence there has been rendered necessary by the disturbed situation in China, and, although we had hoped to withdraw them earlier, and therefore did not budget for them remaining there during the whole year, as events proved we were not able to take that step in consonance with the public interest, and, therefore, I am obliged to ask the House to vote this Supplementary sum rendered necessary for their retention. I hope and believe that the retention of those troops whose pay and provision naturally' fall upon Indian funds, except when they are in China for Imperial purposes, when it falls on our fund, will not be much longer necessary. My right hon. Friend the, Foreign Secretary agrees that we may make arrangements to withdraw them if nothing unforeseen occurs in April next. I shall be glad to give any explanation of this item later on in the Debate, but I do not know that the Committee would wish for more information about it at present.
    Mr. LEE: Is this provision to carry on to April, or is it just for the financial year?
    Colonel SEELY: This Supplementary sum carries us on to the commencement of the next financial year. We had hoped to withdraw them earlier, but in point of fact, they are carried on until the beginning of the next financial year, the 31st of March. With regard to the other item, that for aeronautics, I am asking for a considerable sum, and the Committee may well ask me to justify such under-budgetting with regard to this Service. So rapidly is the science advancing, that I do not believe it is possible to forecast what your demands may be. I believe that every other country which is interested in military aeronautics has found it necessary to snake further provision owing to the growth of knowledge of aeronautics, and we have followed suit, and for similar reasons. But there is one reason for this increased Vote which does not apply to other countries, and that is the transfer of the Airship Squadron of the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps to the Navy. The Committee may ask how does the transfer of military airships from the Army to the Navy involve a Supplementary Vote for the Army, as one would naturally think the contrary would be the case. The reason is as follows: For the purpose of transfer the airships themselves and their hydrogen - producing plant and so forth were valued at a sum

    1793
    of £65,000, but, of course, no actual cash transfer takes place when a transfer of this kind is made between one Government. Department and another, but it would not have been proper for me, having obtained the sanction of the House of Commons to eight squadrons for our aeronautical service, to reduce that number to seven. Therefore orders were given to put in place of the Airship Squadron a squadron of aeroplanes which, for reasons I will give in a moment, are considered more suitable for Army purposes and Army administration and management.
    I therefore gave orders for the immediate provision of the necessary aeroplanes when the transfer was effected. Those aeroplanes are of special type and designed for a special purpose. They are being constructed at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and they will shortly be ready. There will be three types of them, which I think will be of value to the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps. The reason why we decided to transfer the airships from the Military to the Navy Wing was as follows: In the progress of aeronautics it became apparent that so long as airships were required we must have, not only more airships for the United Kingdom, but larger airships. Our military airships are remarkably efficient for their size, but as the science progressed it became apparent that we undoubtedly were at a disadvantage, for various technical reasons, owing to the great growth of the size of other airships. The question then was, Should both Departments, the Navy and the Army, take on this formidable business of increasing our lighter-than-air craft, or should it be done by one Department? It seems to us quite clear—and I am quite sure that the decision was right—in a matter of this kind, where you have one service, it is much better, if it is possible, to arrange to have it managed by one Department. That being decided, the question was which of the two Departments should manage our airship service. It seemed to me, and to those whom I consulted, that without doubt it was more akin to the Navy to navigate great air-ships than to the Army. This does not mean in the least degree that our military officers had shown themselves incapable of managing our airships, for the exact contrary is the case, since, whatever view may have been held with regard to the inadequate number we have had, I think there has been general agreement that the re-
    1794
    cord of our military officers who navigated our airships is a remarkable record both as to skilful navigation in the most difficult country that there is for aerial navigation, namely, this country, and also for the quite astonishing absence of serious accident either to the men or to the balloons themselves.
    This has been recognised by the First Lord of the Admiralty in that he has given posts of great importance and responsibility in the aeronautical airship service to those officers of the Military Wing who have been transferred to the Navy Wing; nor does it mean that the Army has finally decided that it does not require airships at all. That- may well be the conclusion in the years to come, but it is not the final conclusion now. The difficulties of providing airships for an Expeditionary Army like ours, which must needs cross the sea except for purposes of home defence, are very great, but are not perhaps insurmountable. Therefore what this means is that the Navy will hold at the disposal of the War Office -such number of airships, if any, and of such character as it may be decided that the Army requires for military purposes. I do not think that I need add anything further to this question of the transfer of the military airships to the Navy Wing of the Royal Flying Corps from the Military Wing. I do believe that this division of functions will tend greatly to efficiency. The Army now is devoting, and will continue to devote, its whole efforts to the heavier-than-air service. I may be asked what is this division of functions. No such statement can, of course, be final, but, as at present advised, the Government are of opinion that the proper division should be as follows: The Navy Wing of the Royal Flying Corps should be responsible for the whole of the lighter-than-air, that is the Airship Service, the Military Wing should be responsible for the whole of the heavier-than-air, that is to say, the Aeroplane Service, with the exception of the seaplanes, which seem to be more suitable to the Navy. Those seaplanes will be specially designed to operate in conjunction with ships, and in the neighbourhood of naval bases and naval forts, and for naval purposes which can be best described by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, as I anticipate, will be obliged to come to the Committee for a Supplementary sum for the Air Service for his Department also.

    1795
    That seaplanes can play a great part in naval warfare there can be no doubt. For the present, the Army has the larger part by far of the heavier-than-air service, and some 'will say that it is the easier task, in that the problem of the seaplane is one of immense difficulty. Without saying anything to trench on the Department of my right hon. Friend, speaking as the Chairman of the, Air Committee, which has under its supervision both.Services, I think it is almost certain that we are ahead of all other nations in our development of seaplanes. The next reason, and there are four, for this supplementary sum is that we have found it necessary greatly to increase the number of spare parts. The third reason is that we have found it necessary greatly to increase the number of new aeroplanes. The fourth reason is that we have found it necessary to create an Inspection Department. It will be seen that the first reason I have o given is a change of policy, as we believe, in the direction of efficiency. The other three reasons are a continuance of the original policy, with a view to efficiency, but most especially in the interests of safety. This provision, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to agree, and which I hope the Committee will now sanction, has not failed of its object. Its principal purpose was safety. In the provision of spare parts there is one very obvious way of making flying more safe, but nobody realised how much greater was the requirement of spare parts than in any other kind of internal combustion engines. A comparison with the motor-car is often made. In point of fact, an aeroplane requires a far greater provision of spare parts, a far more rapid replacement, and far more constant care, than any other internal combustion engine.
    With regard to aeroplanes, for the same reason we have found it necessary greatly to add to the number of new ones and to strike off a great number of old ones. Machines which were thought to be safe a year ago are in many cases now considered unsafe. It may be convenient if at this point I tell the Committee what is the strength of our present areoplane fleet as the result of the expenditure which I am now laying before the Committee. Other nations consider it desirable to keep the number of their aeroplanes secret. We see no advantage in doing so, at any rate, So far as the aeroplanes for the squadrons and for the Central Flying School are con-
    1796
    cerned. When I last addressed the House on the 30th July we had in possession 113 aeroplanes. Since that date we have struck off fifty-two, and added of new aeroplanes 100, which makes a total now in possession of 161. The Committee may well say that to strike off so large a number as fifty-two, nearly one-half of the aeroplanes that we had only eight or nine months ago, is a very strong step which demands justification. I think it is justified by the event. The aeroplanes we then had were as good as we could get, but they are nothing like so good as the aeroplanes we can get built now; and although it is a drastic thing to do, and no other nation as far as my information goes has done anything so drastic as to strike off nearly one-half their available strength, I think it was right, and I hope the Committee will agree, in view of the great probability that by taking this course we should minimise the risk to life and limb of the officers and men of the Royal Flying Corps. This, I am glad to say, has been the result.
    I have not the precise figures for the number of miles flown by the military wing of the Royal Flying Corps since the 30th of July, but it is well over 100,000. They have taken part in manœuvres—not only divisional manœuvres in this country, over very difficult country, very wooded, with rivers and trees, which make the risks of flying appreciably greater than in open country; but also in grand manœuvres and in manœuvres in Ireland, for which they flew across St. George's Channel, and whence they returned. During that time—and I think this will astonish the Committee; it would have seemed incredible a year ago—excluding Saturdays and Sundays, which are not flying days, though in fact flying often takes place on Saturdays, there were only six days on which flying did not take place. On every other day our aeroplanes have been flying. When one reflects on the winds in this country, the broken nature of the country, and the great gales which we have experienced, often lasting for days in succession. I think it will be agreed that it is a remarkable record that on every day except six our aeroplanes have been up in the air. That is what has been done since the 30th July. I am glad to say that during the whole of that time there has not been one single fatal accident to an officer or man of the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps. I much regret that there was a fatal accident to an officer under tuition. There was also a very sad

    1797
    accident to a civilian, who was engaged in experimental work, only the day before yesterday, when returning from certain experiments which were being carried out. But with regard to the Military Wing itself, of whose performances I have given this brief account, there has not been one single fatal accident to officer or man. So far as I have been able to understand, there has been no single case of serious or any breakage of any main part in the air. I believe the reason for this is that, not only we have scrapped so many of the older aeroplanes—although those that we have scrapped are of precisely the same type as those in the possession of foreign countries which have taken up aviation—but also because we have insisted on putting safety far higher than is the case in any other country. That is justified, not because we are more fearful of risks, but because we think we ought not to take risks if no useful purpose is served by it, and also because this is a more difficult country to fly in than any of the Continental countries. The gusts are more violent owing to stronger winds and the more broken nature of the country.
    This is the record which has, in a large measure, resulted from the expenditure. It results also, in equally large measure, from the skill of our pilots. Although there is no precise sum taken for pilots in this Vote, so far as I am aware, I may be permitted, without going beyond the Rules of Order, to say that our pilots continue to show that skill and daring which have been acknowledged by all who have investigated our aeronautic work. The fourth reason for this Supplementary Estimate is the creation of an Inspection Branch. This is also part of our scheme to make our aeroplanes as safe as they can be made. In order to do that, you have to test every part, however small, of the aeroplanes. It has to be inspected and tested during manufacture as well as when completed. The difficulties in which manufacturers and makers are in consequence are very real, and I fully sympathise with them. But safety was considered by us to be the first consideration, and many of the manufacturers of aeroplanes whom I have seen, or who have seen my officers, fully appreciate the necessity for this rigid inspection, and, indeed, approve of it. The creation of an Inspection Branch, while ensuring safety, will greatly mitigate the difficulties by reference to a central point of all questions as to safety, and the steadfast strength of different materials of which the machines are manufactured.
    1798
    In regard to the policy to be pursued in connection with the new aeroplanes which we have bought, and those for which provision is made, either in this Estimate or in the Estimates I shall shortly present, I told the Committee on the 30th July that we had made arrangements to accelerate the provision of the squadrons considered necessary by the Committee of Defence. I am glad to say that with this supplementary sum, if the Committee are good enough to vote it, and with the provision which I shall shortly present to Parliament in the Army Estimates, we shall be able to complete the whole of the eight. squadrons in men and machines—if not in all respects in regard to mechanical transport and se on, for which I do not believe there will be time, apart from money—by the end of the corning year. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Lee) asks what that means in total number. It means that we shall require 250 aeroplanes, fifty for the Central Flying School and 200 for the Military Wing. I may be asked why we require 200 for the Military Wing, seeing that in the White Paper presented to Parliament we said that of efficient aeroplanes per squadron there should be twelve. The reason is this: We have come to the conclusion, after watching the monthly returns for many months now, that if you want to have ten aeroplanes ready at any given moment, you must have twenty in your possession. That may sound a very large number. It differs greatly from the estimates formed as to the number of locomotive engines required, in regard to which I have some figures here, or even of those comparatively frail machines, taxi-cabs, of which an hon. Member has given me some particulars. There you require only a comparatively small percentage over and above the number that you want to have ready on a given day. But with aeroplanes, experience has taught us that if you want one you must always keep two. Therefore, we want 200, in order to have 100 ready at any given moment. I ought, perhaps, to add a word in regard to the method by which we shall acquire this number of 250.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Biplanes?
    Colonel SEELY: Whether biplanes or monoplanes does not arise at this point. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information on that question. I may say that the great majority of the machines are biplanes, though we have some mono

    1799
    planes. It is a great mistake to suppose that the biplane is a slow machine and the monoplane a fast one, as I shall presently show. Not only do we want two machines for every one that is to be available on any given day, but we reckon from experience that you must, count the life of an aeroplane as two years. Therefore, every year you must replace one half. We require even to maintain our eight squadrons 125 aeroplanes per year. These we can get in the United Kingdom. Of the 100 which we obtained since 30th July we obtained, I think it was, thirteen from abroad and eighty-seven in this country. These are approximate figures. I can assure the Committee—and I know they will be glad to hear it—since, quite apart from any question of the relative merits of trading abroad and at home, on which we might differ, it is undoubtedly necessary to get all warlike material whenever you can within your own borders. I can assure the Committee that I have satisfied myself that the condition of the industry is such now that we can quite easily get all the aeroplanes we want to maintain the present establishment in this country—and a great many more, too, if required. In regard to engines, as the Committee know, a competition is to be held in the near future, with a considerable prize and orders to the amount of nearly £50,000, for a British-built engine. I cannot prejudge the result of that competition, but I know enough of what is being done to be able to say that we also could get all the engines we require in this country within a very short period of time.
    The problem of getting aeroplanes and engines in this country sufficient for our needs is, in my judgment, solved. I may be asked how much do you propose to construct yourself—as you do in the case of Woolwich and the Government dockyards—at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and how much do you propose to construct through private firms. I do not wish to lay down precise figures, but to state our general policy. We propose that the larger proportion—the much larger proportion—shall be constructed by private firms, and that the smaller proportion shall be constructed—and has been constructed lately—by the Royal Aircraft Factory, thus leaving the Royal Aircraft Factory free to do work which is more important to us—namely, the construction of experimental machines—machines of a special type, the details of which
    1800
    we do not wish to become known, and also repairs which they can do very well. This is the state of the aeroplane industry so far as it affects military aeronautics, so far as I have been able to give it to the Committee in this short space of time. I do not think we need fear in regard to the capacity of this country to produce aeroplanes and engines. I may be asked, and rightly asked, by people in all quarters of the House who carefully scrutinise expenditure, how does it come that for the provision of a comparatively small number of aeroplanes, 250, you will want sums which, if we are to take the standard of expenditure of this year, must amount to a very considerable figure—many hundreds of thousands of pounds? How does it come to be so expensive to maintain an air fleet? The reason is that these machines must be regarded, not as birds with a little mechanical power added, and therefore comparatively cheap, as they were, curiously enough, when the great pioneers of this industry, the Wright Brothers, first flew in the South of France, before that, flying in America. An aeroplane is like a modern high-power motor car, and much more expensive.
    The size and power of the engines increase daily. The average speed of the aeroplanes now in our possession is between sixty-five and sixty-six miles an hour, and I may say, incidentally, that this is a speed much greater, so far as my knowledge goes, than the average speed of the aeroplanes of any other country. That means high engine power, and anyone who owns a motor car knows that if you are to have an engine of from 80 to 120 horse-power, it is a most expensive thing. It wears out, too, far more rapidly as against the motor car. You save the cost of tyres, but the cost in every other way is far greater. The aeroplane must have at least two mechanics constantly in attendance. For all these reasons, concerning which I will gladly enter into detail if any hon. Member doubts whether it is necessary to spend so large a sum on military aeronautics. I do not believe it can be said that we have been other than wise and economical in our management, so far as it is possible to save money in a concern where every saving, if it is a saving on strength of material in any degree, however remote, may mean an added risk to human life.
    I may be asked why do we want this aeroplane service at all, or if we do want

    1801
    it, why so big a one That question has been put to me by many persons. It is quite true that these proposals, which I now put before the Committee, will give us an aeroplane service much larger in proportion to the size of our Army than that possessed by any other Power. But I conceive that it is wise that we should have a much larger proportion than any other army. Our Army is a very small Army, and for that reason, in matters of this kind, it is well to be equipped on a greater scale. I may be asked whether really this fleet is any good—as I was asked the other day. Of that there can be no doubt whatever. The power of vision from the air is astonishing. One is sometimes told by those who do not understand the subject, that if a man in an aeroplane keeps near enough to the ground to see what there is below, he will be brought down by the guns or rifles of the enemy. That is a complete delusion. At a height of 5,000 feet, which is under a mile, one can see quite clearly on any ordinary day every detail of the landscape. One can see, for instance, not only roads and hedges, but where there are two horses or one in a waggon or cart moving along the road. One can see men walking along the streets of a town. How easy then it will be to see, as it has been to see, what are the troops winch you are observing. I go so far as to say, having given some personal study to this matter—and I think military opinion will be disposed to share this view—that the commander of any army without aeroplanes, when faced by another army with aeroplanes, if things are anything like equal in other respects, is doomed; he cannot escape. Every movement except by night, or in a dense fog, or in a dense wood, will be recorded. All this we have seen in the manœuvres this year. But it will be still more the case in actual warfare, unless my judgment is at fault. In manœuvres it is easy to adopt ruses de guerre to hide under hedges, and so on, as Sir James Grierson told the troops to do: "If you cannot find a hedge, hide yourselves under your blankets, and make a noise like mushrooms." These ruses de guerre cannot be practised in war when the men are weary, when you must get on, and where there is always hurry and haste in order to avoid disaster. Therefore it seems clear that every large movement of troops in future will be absolutely known to the opposing commander unless conducted in the dead of night, in a dense fog, or in a thick wood. This being so, the end of this business no man can foresee,
    1802
    but I conceive that hon. Members here, whatever views they may take on armaments in general, would not wish us to be left behind in a matter of this vital importance. I do honestly believe that the efforts which are being made by the officers who have conducted this aeronautical service have been not without success. The separate Department which I established under the control of General Henderson, has now been at work for several months, and I believe has attained a great deal of efficiency. We have certainly pilots as good as any in the world. I believe it to be true that our aeroplanes, if less in number than some, are certainly faster, and are certainly much younger, for the average age of the whole fleet is under nine months, and more air-worthy, as they must be, seeing the difficult country over which they have to fly. On the whole I do believe that we have made satisfactory progress. I hope we shall make still further progress in the years that are to come. I think we may even now say that we are in possession of a military aeronautical service not unworthy of the British Army.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman before he sits down deal with the other heads — the important question of mechanical transport?
    Colonel SEELY: I thought, it would not be convenient for the Committee that I should go into detail in any particular item, but I will do what the hon. Gentleman asks me at once. The mechanical transport vehicles are those vehicles which are required for the squadrons. I think the hon. Member has seen them at manœuvres. They convey not only the spare wings for the aeroplanes, but other necessary things. On page 3 (at the top) of the Estimate the explanation shows what the items are for. China (Indian troops at Hong Kong) accounts for some of the Vote. The mechanical transport vehicles for the aeronautical service; which, I think, the Committee will agree are vitally necessary to keep your squadron efficient, accounts for the rest.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain whether 'the composition of the squadrons has now been changed, and increased from the original eighteen aeroplanes each?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. The hon: Member will have apprehended that we shall want 200 for eight squadrons, which means 25 per squadron.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to Move to reduce the Vote by £100. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day is more satisfactory than in previous speeches on this subject, though he has been preaching during the latter part of his speech entirely to the converted. I think that certainly those on this side of the House are quite prepared to agree with what he said with regard to the absolute importance of the aeroplane in modern warfare, and that we should not merely have aeroplanes, but an efficient force of aeroplanes. I do not know that it is necessary to labour that. I could not help feeling, however, that throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me saying so, reminded me some-what of Jack Horner. He takes rather a pride in the plums which he pulls out, and he is perhaps rather too much inclined to assume that our aeroplanes are better than all others in the world. I am every bit as patriotic as he is, but I am not quite sure whether it is desirable in this House of Commons on the part of a Minister who is responsible for the Army quite so publicly to state the mode in which our aeroplanes and material are better than those of other Powers. I think I will be able, before I sit down, to show, not that our machines are worse, but that other nations have quite as good machines. I should like, before I deal with the actual machines, just to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the four reasons that he gave for the new Estimate. These were: alterations to airships, spare parts, increase of aeroplanes, and Inspection Department. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to forgive me for saying that the burden of our speeches upon this side of the House last year were the three last subjects to which he alluded. We insisted over and over again upon better and proper provision for spare parts, and for increasing the number of aeroplanes, and for the creation of an Inspection Department. We welcome the provision for these now, and we welcome the alteration that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I will not trouble the House by dealing with the Inspection Department. It is very admirable and essential, and I do not think there will be two opinions with regard to it. Perhaps I may say with regard to the Inspection Department, I take it that the officers of that Department will be quite free and independent of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and that they will inspect the work of the Royal Aircraft Factory
    1804
    with the same correctness as that of the private manufacturers. I trust I have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman in saying that. If he does not admit that, I must say I think it is essential that the Inspection Department should be made entirely independent of the Royal Aircraft Factory. Here you have a large factory increasing its output month by month now, going on to make aeroplanes, and if there is an Inspection Department to inspect the work of the ordinary trade manufacturers, and if that Inspection Department is responsible in time of war to the country, they must be in an independent position in regard to the Royal Aircraft Factory as well as in regard to ordinary aircraft manufacturers.
    I want to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary change the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to airships. I quite agree that a very rapid movement is taking place. But the right hon. Gentleman was so strong eleven months ago in regard to the provision of airships for the Army, that I think some little more information ought to have been given us as to why he has changed round and no longer wants airships in the Army. I cannot regard the suggestion a.; satisfactory, that if the Army wants areoplanes they are to send a coastguard over to the Navy and say, "If you please, we want three or four ships to use in our movements. We are going to send an Expeditionary Force here and there, and we want to borrow some of your airships." That is not satisfactory. If an Expeditionary Force goes out of this country in the case of European War—I am not dealing with small native wars, but with an Expeditionary Force that has to leave our shores for some European country—it will only be at a time when the Navy is in grips with the enemy also. It would be very hard upon the Navy for the next five or ten years, during which God preserve us from a Continental War, if they had the whole of the airships in their charge working with their battle squadrons, and becoming part of the personnel of the Royal Navy, that the Army should demand the loan of some of their ships. I am not sure what the position of our Army would be in such circumstances. Men who give themselves up to the Army have to remain in the Army, and ought, if they desire, to continue in the Army. But in, such circumstances, with all the airships with the Navy, they would be forced to become officers of the Royal

    1805
    Navy also. The Airship Department will become absorbed in the Navy, and rightly so, and we must have a larger provision of airships than at the present time. At the same time, when the moment comes, and when the Army writes or telephones to the Navy for a number of ships for the Army, I think it is more than probable that the Navy will say, "We are very sorry, but the protection of our shores is the duty of the Navy, and we must use these airships to compete with those of foreign countries." It is an evitable consequence. The right hon. Gentleman himself only nine months ago in dealing with this subject of airships made it perfectly plain that the country, had need of airships. I remember asking him why they did not have big ships, and he flattened me out, to use a colloquial phrase, and said perfectly distinctly—
    "Our Army is an Expeditionary Army, and to use airships would be unnecessary. These gigantic engines could not be taken there with the Army. We are therefore decided"—
    I hope that "we" meant the Army Council as well as himself—
    "that the Army should have some dirigibles which can be packed on motor cars or ships and sent away when we like. These we have got."
    He made a speech—I did not read it—but he said in it that our dirigibles or aeroplanes were, like all the right hon. Gentleman's air property, superior to all others. I doubt that.
    Colonel SEELY: There were no others.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that is perfectly true, and therefore these particular airships or dirigibles were superior to any others in the world—that is to say, superior to nothing. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to any score he makes upon that ground, but he went on to tell us:—
    "We propose to continue these small dirigibles, but, the Army has no intention of embarking upon large dirigibles."
    And he went on to say:—
    "We want airships that we call pack up and send away with our Expeditionary forces."
    The Army cannot to-day pack them in parts or send them away, because the Navy would be using them when we wanted them. Ours is an Expeditionary Army, if it is anything at all. We shall have to use it for sending out as an Expeditionary Force. Where are those machines to be packed up and sent with it? I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman he might suggest to some of his
    1806
    colleagues that they could make very good use of some of the airships.
    We had a Debate yesterday on Somaliland. If he could pack up one of these small airships on a motor lorry and send it to Somaliland, I venture to suggest it would be of very much more use than a couple of Camel Corps. One of those small machines, no good for European warfare, would be of the very greatest use if sent oversea to Somaliland, or for stopping the raids on the north-west frontier of India. There are occasions when the Army does want airships, but the right hon. Gentleman has given them all away to the Navy; but !he has got a credit in hand of £65,000. It is too soon, I venture to suggest, for the right hon. Gentleman, as head of the Army, to discard airships for Army purposes. The development is very quick and very rapid. The use of them by the French and German armies is increasing and growing, and it is putting our Army at a very great disadvantage not to give us the immediate use of them, and to be able to lay our hands upon them at the moment when we want them. I should like to suggest, when he made that statement, that it is natural for the Navy to take charge of the airships, that he ought to remember that the French army and the German army have airships, and that all these great airships are machines for the military in Germany, and not for the naval forces. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but I think the House should know how enormously airships have advanced. Only last autumn one of the German airships was twenty hours afloat in the air at a height of over 5,000 feet. You have no aeroplanes that could do that. Germany has now fourteen airships against France's seven, and we have, so far as our Army is concerned, nothing whatever to put against that particular force if at any time there should be war. I do not lecture Germany in any way, but, in dealing with military matters, one has to estimate the possibilities of war with another country.
    5.0 P. M
    I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about another change of policy he made without consulting the House of Commons. He made his change as to airships without consulting them. He has not told us what took place, or what negotiations went on between the Army and the Navy on that subject. He has not told us whether he had any trouble in overcoming the reluctance of the Army Council, and I think we are entitled to know whether the

    1807
    Army Council, who are responsible jointly with the right hon. Gentleman for the defence of these shores, cordially approved of the action he has taken in handing them over to his colleague, the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have had another very remarkable change of front with regard to construction of airships at the Royal Army Air Factory. There are two schools of thought, of course, in regard to the manufacture of aeroplanes at the Royal Factory. One school may be right, or the other may be right; but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to change his views without a little more explanation to the House. During the last eighteen months the right hon. Gentleman assured us, in the most unequivocable manner, it was not his intention to manufacture aeroplanes at that factory. In March, 1912, speaking of the Royal Air Factory, he said:—
    "It will make experiments and make repairs."
    We questioned him later on, and he said the same thing. I asked him in October, 1912,
    "Whether the Royal Air Craft Factory which hitherto existed for experimental purposes was to he utilised in manufacture on a large scale, and if that was so, what was the reason for the change in policy?"
    And he answered:—
    "No, sir. There is no such intention."
    I asked hint again whether there was not a chance of such a change taking place, and over and over again he said, not merely in answer to me, but in answer to many lion. Members on this side of the House—and the statement went out to the country and to aeroplane manufacturers—that it was not intended to compete with others in regard to the manufacture of aeroplanes. This is a question of vital importance. Either our manufacturers know definitely or not. Hon. Members who have not heard me on this question before, will perhaps allow me now again to say that I have no interests of any kind or description in aeroplane factories, either financially or otherwise. I want to make that perfectly clear, but I want the House to realise the enormous importance of having here, as in France and Germany, a satisfactory number of aeroplane manufacturers who are prepared to manufacture aeroplanes for this country. There is no other market except the military one, and the naval one. There is no private market for aeroplanes at all. If the aeroplane manufacturers are to continue to exist,
    1808
    they can only do so by orders from the Army and Navy. A year ago there were 400 or 500 men employed in the Royal Factory. To-day, if I mistake not, I think the right hon. Gentleman has got nearly 1,000 men, and only the other day he admitted to me, in reply to a question, though not giving any notice of a change of policy then, that he had given orders for the manufacture of twenty-four aeroplanes of a particular type in his own factory. I think they are to be called the "R.E." in contradistinction to the "B," but they are a type that could be made outside the factory as well as in it. I am not saying definitely that it is not desirable in the interests of the State to have an aeroplane factory of our own, but it is absolutely necessary to the other aeroplane manufacturers of the country that they should have definite knowledge of this fact. The right hon. Gentleman told us he is going to have a competition for aeroplane engines of British manufacture; that he is going to offer a prize of £5,000, and that he is going to give orders following that competition approaching £50,000. That was the statement made a year ago when proposals with regard to the competition were first promulgated. Was there not a circular issued by the War Office to engine manufacturers warning them that that guarantee of an order was not to be absolutely relied upon? The mere prize of £5,000 is no good to either a large or a small manufacturer to induce him to put up the very elaborate plant needed for the making of one of those elaborate engines, which one might almost call a human engine, so marvellous is its construction. You cannot expect them to put up such a plant unless they are assured of adequate orders in addition to the prize. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it perfectly clear before the Debate closes that if the successful engine is a good one, there is to follow a definite order of £40,000 or £50,000.
    I would like to ask how many of our aeroplanes are fitted with English engines I know we have the Renault engine and one or two other types, but in time of war we should not be able to get these foreign engines at all. Throughout the whole of last year the right hon. Gentleman was priding himself upon his aeroplane fleet. As a matter of fact, the moment a bullet went through one of those engines, or they went wrong by a jar, he would be unable to get

    1809
    fresh engines to replace them. It is absolutely essential for the life of an Army and the maintenance of an Aeroplane Corps that we should get these English aeroplane engines, and the right hon. Gentleman should devote even more time to the perfecting of an English engine than to the other parts of the aeroplane force to which he referred. I want to allude now to the number of machines. The Committee will remember that on the last occasion I was unable, through illness, to be present when the Committee discussed the question of the number of aeroplanes. I had made certain allegations with regard to the number owned by His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman used the figure of 120 efficient aeroplanes, which he lowered to 100. I do not want to go back on to that topic. He has given us fresh figures to-day and they prove that he had not anything like the number of 100 efficient aeroplanes in the month of July last year. I think that is conclusive.
    I want to call attention to the question of monoplanes, and I do not want to do it harshly. We had given to us in the various statements made by the right hon. Gentleman extending over the earlier part of last year, a certain number of aeroplanes, including a certain number of monoplanes. The number included 28 monoplanes, and they were for the time being under a ban, the right hon. Gentleman having got a fright because of a certain accident, and he got a Committee to consider this question. Nevertheless, he had those monoplanes, and he included them as efficient machines, and he told us at the time that they could be used, that they were efficient, and that they could all fly. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and myself saw what machines there were. Included in the list of machines we were shown were the 28 monoplanes which the right hon. Gentleman had been saying month after month could fly and were really efficient machines, and, can it be believed that, after the House rose last year, between the rising of the House in August and Christmas, the whole of those 28 monoplanes which were reported to the House as being able to fly, and which had been included by the right hon. Gentleman in his total of efficient machines, were scrapped and knocked off the slips. Either they were efficient, or they were not. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to come down to this House and tell us that he had a certain number of efficient aeroplanes in-
    1810
    cluding these monoplanes, when he knew, or ought to have known, that they were not efficient, and as soon as the House of Commons had risen he was going to strike them off the list. They have now gone, and are no longer in the number of efficient aeroplanes.
    The right hon. Gentleman now boasts that he has struck off fifty-two machines, which last year he said were efficient, and which we wasted our time in going down to look at. What have we got now? He says we have 161 aeroplanes. I will not discuss what condition they are in. He had 113–he struck off fifty-two, and that left sixty-one, and he has added 100, which makes 161. Therefore lie has made this admission, that for every one aeroplane you must have two, because you have always one in dock. I suggest that out of 161 machines he could not put more than eighty-one in the air to-morrow morning, or upon any given morning, without stopping the ordinary work of polishing some of the others up and tuning them up for the purpose of inspection. He has admitted that you must have eighty spares for eighty efficient machines. Today we have only eighty machines, and what use is that to meet the fleets of either Germany or France? Where are those eighty machines? The right hon. Gentleman talks about his eight aeroplane squadrons. An aeroplane squadron consists of twelve machines with six spare machines—that is, eighteen of the best machines to form one squadron. Now he tells us he is going to make the number twenty-four or twenty-five machines to each squadron, and in doing this he is only doing what France did more than a year ago. France has always had one spare for each machine. Have we got to-day three or four squadrons, fully equipped with their twenty-four machines in flying order, ready to take the field to-morrow morning?
    The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to give us eight squadrons, which is one more than he promised last year. No. 3 and 4 Squadrons are on Salisbury Plain, but I do not think there are eighteen machines in either of those squadrons, and those are the two best squadrons he has got. I do not believe one of them is full up, as it should be, with eighteen machines, to say nothing of twenty-four" with transport and spare parts ready to take the field. The No. 5 Squadron, which is at Montrose, is certainly not in an efficient state, because there are less than

    1811
    ten machines. I could almost say there are only eight machines at Montrose, instead of the eighteen or twenty-four which ought to be there. Nos. 6, 7, and 8 Squadrons do not exist at all, and they are not in the air, although they are in the right hon. Gentleman's brain, and only there. It is very difficult for us to proceed in this matter, as we are not allowed to move an increase in the Vote. We do not really want to make party capital out of this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] We do not want to make political capital, but we do want to make patriotic capital. We have been fighting this question with the utmost force in order that we might help the right hon. Gentleman, and I have never said one word in derogation of the Royal Army Flying Corps, and I appreciate to the fullest extent the magnificent work those men do, taking their lives in their hands day after day. What I do say is that the provisions which this country makes for them is not sufficient.
    I would like to refer for a moment to what has been done in Germany with regard to aeroplanes during the last year. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have an air fleet larger in proportion to our Army than any other country, but that has absolutely nothing to do with it. We have an air fleet very much less than France or Germany, and if we are to be content with an Army infinitely smaller than the armies of great Continental nations, we at least might have an Air Service equivalent, if not better, than those nations. In Germany the National Flying Fund last year received £361,725. The House will remember that only a few years ago Germany collected £305,000 voluntarily for Zeppelin airships. These figures are taken from to-day's "Times." I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of one other question with regard to Germany. He admitted with regard to airships that Germany has taken an enormous stride forward, and to-day she holds the records for flight distances of the whole world. A German military aeroplane has been up during the last few months for 16 hours 20 minutes on a nonstop flight; another has been up for 14 hours 17 minutes; and another for 16 hours.and 1 minute. Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect what that means. German military aeroplanes and airships can keep up flying continuously for 16 hours with supplies of petrol and oil, and every-
    1812
    thing necessary for that length of time. I gravely doubt whether any one of the right hon. Gentleman's machines—I do not say that they are not as good—could do better than that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have not at the present moment an aeroplane that could do anything like that in the way of a non-stop flight. These are all military machines, not private machines, machines made during the last two months, certainly during the last year, and all built in Germany, including the engines. Everything is made there exactly on the lines that I have tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to follow here, on the lines of what I may call a self-contained aeroplane system. I give these remarkable figures in to-day's "Times," because whenever the right hon. Gentleman sees anything in the "Times" which supports him he generally comes down to the House and calls attention to the fact. This money has been expended in training, in equipping, and in giving prizes to aeroplane constructors and pilots in Germany. Forty-seven constructors were asked to compete, and nineteen were chosen. They were paid £400 for each pilot they turned out satisfactorily from the military point of view As a result of this encouragement, up to 10th February one-hour flights had been made by 369 pilots, two-hour flights by 203, and three-hour flights by 122. Up to the same date one of the airmen was awarded £4,000 for flying 1,300 miles between twelve in the morning and 11.55 p.m., and others received very large sums. The right hon. Gentleman told -us just now that our Army had flown, I think, 100,000 miles during last year.
    Colonel SEELY: No. The exact figure for last year was 188,000 miles for purely military aeroplanes. I was trying to tell the Committee what the distance was since 30th July, when I made my last statement, and that is over 100,000 miles.
    Mr. JOYN SON-HICKS: At one military aerodrome alone in Germany, at Johannisthal, there were 36,817 flights on 336 days, lasting altogether 4,097 hours. The Committee can easily make a calculation, knowing the pace at which aeroplanes go, say, forty miles an hour. One aerodrome has exceeded the total of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel SEELY: It is a small matter, and I only want to get at the facts. This 100,000 miles consists of flights of long duration; it excludes all short flights, like aerodrome flights.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Cross-country flights?
    Colonel SEELY: Long flights, not these short flights.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of aerodrome flights. He has seen the article in the "Times," and I take it that these flights were not confined at all to aerodrome flights, but were flights made by military pilots emanating from the Johannisthal military aerodrome. The only means we have of protesting against the insufficiency of the Estimate is, of course, the very ridiculous one of making a reduction. We cannot move an increase. I should like to see an increase of at least £250,000, but I am obliged to move a reduction of £100 for the sake of getting a Vote. I move the reduction as a protest against an inefficient Aeroplane Service. I move it, because, whilst I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable advance during the last six months, I do not think that he or the Cabinet sufficiently realise the vital importance to our country of an Aeroplane Service which will be equal to any other aeroplane service in the world. The Cabinet know that we on our side are prepared for a much larger aeroplane Estimate when the Budget of next year comes forward. I do earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we do not want to make party capital out of it, but to encourage him to meet the demands which must be made upon hint by the Royal Flying Corps. We shall throw no obstacle in his way, but do everything we can to put our country on a level with, if not above, other countries in this matter.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should have taken the step that he has, because no one recognises more fully than he does that this arm and the preparations for this arm are in a state of transition, and that it is most important, when things are in a state of transition, that we should not simply spend money wildly, but should try to make steady progress, and to develop the type instead of merely multiplying the machines. He spoke in various ways of it being in a state of transition. He spoke of the development of the flight, of increasing the length of flight, and of increasing the time spent in the air; and I was astounded that one of his criticisms should relate to
    1814
    the group of fifty aeroplanes which have recently been discarded. He put to the Secretary of State for War one of those questions which really hardly arises from the practical standpoint. He said that at a certain point of time last year either these machines were efficient or they were not efficient, and he asked: "Was the answer Yes or No?" I really think that in the matter like this we ought not to apply that kind of logic chopping. After all, questions of efficiency or inefficiency are not questions of an absolute yes or no. They are questions of the degree of efficiency, and when, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the average period of efficiency of an aeroplane cannot be taken as more than two years, it is obvious that every machine undergoes very great changes in relative efficiency in a very short time. That argument is still further strengthened when one remembers that it is not only that the machine becomes old and perhaps dangerous to use, but that it is outclassed by new inventions. Anyone interested in the matter must have been struck with the rapid changes both in practice and theory.
    I was much interested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the general organisation of the service, and in reference to the plan that airships and seaplanes should belong to the Naval Wing, and that all ordinary aeroplanes should belong to the Military Wing. That is a development which may gradually come about, but I venture to think that, before long, we may see a still further development which I foreshadowed some years ago in this House, and that the whole of the arrangements of aviation will ultimately form a distinct branch of the Service, and, perhaps, a most important one. I think it may very likely come to that. The distinctions between machines used for military and machines used for naval purposes are not so very fundamental as might at first appear. I quite agree that the arrangements for landing on the water, for remaining on the water, and for rising from the water, are in many ways essentially different from those for machines performing the same functions on land; but, after all; the power of navigation is the same in both circumstances, and the various mechanical parts are practically the same. There is another point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I am sure must appeal to Members of the House, and more so as it was endorsed by the hon. Gentleman. As between two armies, one

    1815
    of which is provided with aeroplanes and airships—it matters not which for this particular purpose—and the other of which is not so provided, the one which is not provided is foredoomed to disaster. I think that may be taken as a well accepted fact. If we admit that, we see that in future combats both sides will provide themselves with airships, and we see further that the shortest way to victory on the part of either side will be to destroy the enemy airships. Therefore, the first and possibly most critical stage in any general engagement may be an engagement between the airships themselves. That strengthens my argument that in the course of time aircraft should become a distinct branch of the Service, treated as a distinct branch, rather than as connected with one or other of the Services.
    The relations of aircraft to the Army in the field were brought out by the right hon. Gentleman from his personal experience in what I am sure was a very striking manner. I have made a very considerable study of this subject, though I regret to say not from the point of view of practical flying, not having had that opportunity. I was rather surprised to hear the detail with which the country and the people on the country can be seen from such a great height as that he made. That, of course, is a most important factor. I need hardly call attention to the somewhat similar experience in naval flying in connection with a recent visit of the First Lord of the Admiralty to a naval station. It was found that on the sea very much the same sort of thing happened. You could follow and shadow and locate a submarine in a very remarkable way. If the airship can locate and follow the submarine, then it would almost seem as if the submarine would be at the mercy of the airship, just as the herring is at the mercy of the gannet. I mention this to show how closely connected the various Services are, and yet how important it is that the Air Service should take a leading part in connection with both military and naval warfare. I venture to think that what has been done has been done along sound lines. I do not share the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman. He spoke, for instance, of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and apparently desired that no machines, except possibly experimental machines, should be made there, but that the making of machines should be confined to those men who compete for prizes and who, we all
    1816
    agree, do most efficient work. I venture to think he would hardly expect the Secretary for War, or any other Minister, to take up any such position as this, and to undertake not to manufacture at the Royal Aircraft Factory.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I said that. The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman had, over and over again, taken up this attitude: "I am not going to manufacture at the Royal Aircraft Factory." If he is going to change that policy he ought to give notice to the manufacturers, who have, on the strength of the official statement that he does not intend to manufacture, increased their plant for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I understood the hon. Member to make his criticism because my right hon. Friend was manufacturing at the Royal Aircraft Factory. I am bound to say, considering the enormous development of the Air Service and the increase in the number of craft, I do not see there is any obligation on my right hon. Friend to warn manufacturers, and I think the Royal Aircraft Factory may manufacture and still leave the private manufacturers the same volume of orders as before. In any case it was merely a declaration of his idea of what he would do. There was no undertaking whatever, and no responsible Minister would ever bind himself not to manufacture these craft. It would be a very foolish thing to do. because if anyone were to do it he would put himself in a position—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but may I quote the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman on this question on 7th March, 1912. a reply which has never been altered. The question was:—
    "Whether the under-Secretary will say how many aeroplanes he expects to manufacture in the Aircraft Factory before the 31st December this year?"
    The answer, given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, was:—
    "As I have already explained to the House, the functions of the factory are to repair damages, to alter or improve those aeroplanes which have been already obtained, and to make experimental machines. It is not intended for the manufacture of aeroplanes on any large scale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th March, 1912. col. 552, Vol. XXXV.]
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: That is a statement of what, in fact, was being done two years ago, without any undertaking or pledge whatever. It was a statement of the intentions of the Minister with regard

    1817
    to a factory which had just been, started. I had no idea the hon. Gentleman's evidence was so weak until he actually produced it. Then so far as engines are concerned. After all, if my memory serves me right, with regard to British engines, a very considerable proportion of the prizes which have been promised are for competitions with a view to securing a satisfactory British engine. That is the principal thing for which prizes are being given, and I fail to see how more could be done in that direction. A point has also been raised with regard to the manufacture of engines abroad. I know that a number of these engines are manufactured abroad, and they are perhaps the best engines obtainable. Undoubtedly they are the best for this particular purpose, but I should like to point out that the fact that an engine bears a foreign name or is being manufactured abroad does not imply that it cannot be manufactured here. We may not be able to manufacture it here for various reasons connected with the patent laws, but, while a good deal is done by the recent Patent Act to prevent patents being obtained in this country in order to secure the manufacture here, nevertheless there are facilities for the compulsory working of licences in this country in that connection, and I venture to call the very special attention of the Secretary for War to the necessity of seeing that all patented inventions which can possibly be used by this country should be made available, and that they should be as accessible at all times as the patent laws will admit. If the Act does not give us the right to make use of the inventions on fair terms, there should be some alteration of the law in that respect. I believe, if we can move in that direction, it will be of great value to this country for this important service.
    Something has been said with reference to airships. I know that these ships have been increasing in size. I dare say the old airships would not compare very favourably with the later ones, although they can remain a long time in the air. It seems to be the fact that the airship has not been making the same rapid progress as the aeroplane, particularly for military purposes, and that the aeroplane is developing much the faster of the two. I doubt, indeed, whether money is wisely expended in the multiplication of airships when aeroplanes cost so much less. We have heard that the life of an aeroplane is not more than two years, but then the life of
    1818
    an airship, with the leakage of gas through the envelope, is very much less. There was a recent instance in which an airship was purchased and after a very few months became, for all practical purposes, obsolete, and had to be abandoned. I certainly think that attention should rather be given to inventions for destroying airships. We heard the other day of an invention by which a weapon can be discharged at an airship which, if it touches the envelope, will set the whole machine alight. I think the authorities have been perfectly right in concentrating on the aeroplane rather than in spending money for airships, which appear daily to be becoming obsolete. I cannot close these few remarks without expressing my great regret that in the course of events, it should be necessary that the development of this great invention of air navigation—one of the greatest in the progress of the human race—has been connected with the arts of war rather than with the arts of peace. But I venture to hope that the progress we have made with it for military and naval purposes may also work out in other ways, and that the increasing communication through the air may draw nations more closely together, so that in days to come, although we now contemplate the matter mainly from the military aspect, we may see still greater and more far-reaching effects in promoting the arts of peace and good will.
    Mr. LEE: I do not want to take any lengthy part in this Debate, because the ground is so exceedingly narrow. In dealing with Supplementary Estimates, while considerable latitude is always given to the responsible Minister, who is permitted necessarily to stray more generously from the strict lines than other Members, I think it is better to wait until we have the whole proposals of the Government with regard to this particular service before us, as we shall have when the Estimates are produced, before we make our main criticism—always supposing such criticism becomes necessary. But there are one or two points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman we ought not to pass by without comment. May I say at once that, in our opinion, the statement which he has made to-day has been vastly more satisfactory to us than the statements which he made to the House during the course of last Session. At the same time, I do not want it to be inferred by him that we regard the present state of affairs with respect to aeronautical progress as

    1819
    entirely satisfactory, although he has shown a substantial improvement in the position, an improvement for which we must be as grateful as we can. I would like, if I may, to join unreservedly in the tribute which he has paid, not for the first time, to the officers who are engaged in this service. I think he was probably justified in saying that the officers of the Royal Flying Corps are second to none in the world now, not only in their courage, which is a point that does not require demonstration, but in their actual technical ability. Certainly from the little I was able to see of their work during the Army manœuvres last autumn, quite obviously, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, whether the country was wooded or complicated by rivers, which made the use of aeroplanes exceedingly difficult, the aeroplanes were always coming in with information, which, I think I may say without giving cause for international offence, was not so markedly the case at the German manœuvres, which I had an opportunity of witnessing in the previous year. I am anxious to join in the well-deserved tribute the right hon. Gentleman paid to these officers.
    Then I come to a line of debate which the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of falling into. He puts a number of questions to himself, questions which, as far as I know, are never put to him, either by us or by his Friends behind him, and which he is able to frame as he chooses and to answer entirely to his own satisfaction. He says, for instance, "If I am asked whether it is necessary to have aeroplanes at all, I should reply," and so on. But no one would think of asking such a question, because everyone, even the most ardent reductionist of armaments, must admit that if you are to have an Army at all it is necessary it should be fully equipped with all modern requirements. I really think, therefore, that is a question which we need not argue. Of course this service is essential. The questions whether the right hon. Gentleman has given us the best value for our money, and whether he is spending enough on that particular arm, are the points which actually interest us here. Next, I come to the question of the new departure in policy with regard to Army airships. It is a highly technical question, and its consideration is a good deal complicated by the effect of Treasury control over the expenditure. It has always been
    1820
    easier for the right hon. Gentleman's colleague at the Admiralty to extract money from the Treasury than it has been for the Secretary for War. I am, of course, not reflecting on the relative abilities of the two right hon. 'Gentlemen in importuning. But the change of policy is so startling from that which the right hon. Gentleman emphasised to the House last year, when, he dealt, particularly forcibly, with certain criticisms of my own. He then said that the War Office knew exactly what it wanted, that it had made up its mind on the airship question, and that it wanted a small airship for purely military purposes and had got it. He took pride in that fact. Now he tells us that the Army does not need small airships and that, although a final settlement of the question has not yet been arrived at3 he has already given them up and he is going to send a postcard to the Admiralty to ask that Department to lend him an airship when he requires one for the purpose of a war. That, of course, is obviously impossible in practice. If we assume a great Continental war, in which we were taking part, within easy reach of these shores, it might be practicable for the Navy, if they had them, to send airships to take part in Army manœuvres. But the British Army does not exist mainly for the purpose of taking part in large Continental wars. Its long history shows that by far the greater portion of its work is in what we used to call small Colonial wars, which are waged, not only far from this country, but also far from the sea—little expeditions against native tribes in Africa, India, and other places—and it is ludicrous to suppose that if we were going to take part in one of these expeditions it would be possible for the War Office to persuade the Admiralty to send them an airship manned by officers and men of His Majesty's Navy.
    Colonel SEELY: In order to elucidate the question, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that even if the airship belonged to us, the Navy would have to carry it for us to any particular quarter?
    Mr. LEE: That is a very different thing. It is also true that the Navy would have to carry the Army to the port of debarkation. But you would not infer from that that in the case of need the Navy would take over the work of the Cavalry. They are not really accustomed to that class of work.
    Colonel SEELY: They are.
    Mr. LEE: But not to operating with military forces.
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, they are.
    Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if an airship would be a kind of minor satellite of the earth which would be capable of bringing purely military information to the commander of the forces. I do not think it will work out satisfactorily. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman has not given us a satisfactory reason for this departure in policy. While I agree that he stated more than once that these small airships he has had hitherto would be obviously useless in a Continental war, when they had to face the great Zeppelins, Parsifals and ships of that description, they must be of the greatest possible assistance in dealing with problems that might arise on the North-West Frontier of India. The possibility of having to land somewhere in the mountain regions of the North-West Frontier of India or the plains of Afghanistan is one which any airman, however intrepid, might very well shrink from, whereas the small airship need not land, and would play a great part in any Indian trouble, and would act not only physically, but morally in hostilities of that description. However, the right hon. Gentleman tolls us that the matter is still under consideration, and I sincerely hope that the Army will not finally and definitely abandon the use of small airships for purely military purposes until the matter has received a great deal more consideration, and the opinion of those who have to take part in these small wars has also been ascertained.
    Before I pass away from the transfer of responsibility from the Army to the Navy, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the actual status of the military officers who are transferred to the care of the First Lord of the Admiralty. We hear a good deal nowadays about Army officers being transferred to the Navy. There is some talk about the Garrison Artillery officers being transferred. It would not be in order for me now to go into that question, but I am naturally interested, because, having been a Garrison Artillery officer, I should have been annoyed and miserable if I had thought I should ever be sent to sea. We ought to be told what will be the position of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps who are about to be transferred to the Navy. Will they continue to be Army officers or will they be Navy officers? If they are no
    1822
    longer to be Army officers, how will their prospects as to promotion, ultimate pension, and reward be affected? They must obviously be affected a great deal, because there cannot be the same opportunity of rising to the higher ranks in the Flying Service as if they remained in the ordinary ranks of the Service. There will be a good deal of anxiety among the officers who have to make transfers until that point is made clear.
    I come to the question of aeroplanes. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly shown us that the position has been greatly improved by his policy of accelerating the completion of the eight squadrons for the Expeditionary Force. I am very much relieved to know that within a measurable time, at any rate, those eight squadrons required for the Expeditionary Force will be complete, although I should like to ask him what he means exactly when he speaks about those squadrons being on a war footing? I cannot help remembering that last year we were told that the squadrons then in existence—No. 3 in particular—were on a war footing. When No. 3 was inspected by my two hon. Friends it was found that out of this squadron, which was supposed to be on a war footing, there were only ten aeroplanes in all, of which two were not completed, two were not war machines, and only six were available. We want to know whether these eight squadrons are to be on a war footing on that basis, or on a real war footing, with a full equipment of machines always available; otherwise the right hon. Gentleman has not really improved the position at all.
    I want to come to a point I have raised before, which has assumed much greater importance, because of certain remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is this: even if he has got his eight squadrons for the purposes of the Expeditionary Force, what aerial equipment is there left over, or does he propose to provide, for the Home Defence Army, which will have to attend to the military defence of these islands if the Expeditionary Force, with its eight squadrons, has been sent abroad. He has not touched on that point at all. I must remind the Committee of the extremely singular admissions the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of his speech this afternoon, and the very startling language he used with regard to the hopeless position of a military force which was not supplied with proper aerial equipment. He said that a force that

    1823
    had no proper equipment of aeroplanes, if confronted with a force which had a proper equipment, other things being equal—I shall have a word to say about that in a moment—would be doomed, and could not possibly escape. That is a very strong description, and I believe it is perfectly justified. He is assuming that other things are equal—that is to say, that the quality of the troops on each side is equal. Then he says that the force which did not have an aerial service would be doomed and could not possibly escape. What would be the position of our Home Defence military force in the event of its having to deal with an invading army which was admittedly superior in training and experience of war, and which was fully equipped with aeroplanes and, possibly, airships? However well it might be led, however strong the position it might hold, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, it would be doomed and could not escape.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Other things being equal.
    Mr. LEE: The only possible assumption to be based on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the troops were of equal quality on each side.
    Mr. TENNANT: Numbers.
    Mr. LEE: Does the hon. Member who interrupts me really suggest that the numbers of the defending force would make it unnecessary for them to have accurate and early information about the movements of their enemy? I know that he is a high military authority; but does he really mean that by saying, "Other things being equal"? The thing is perfectly absurd. That brings me back to the main point, namely, is the right hon. Gentleman going to make any provision whatever for the aerial equipment of the Home Defence Army. I contend it is more necessary to them than to the Regular Army. If they operate at all in war, they are going to operate in this country, which is peculiarly enclosed, therefore making it exceedingly difficult to detect the movements of troops, far more so than in any Continental country. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to suggest that the Home Defence Army is to have that additional handicap, on the top of all the other handicaps with which they have to deal, placed upon them by the
    1824
    absence of any aerial service. That is a very serious point to which he ought to direct his attention.
    Colonel SEELY: I have done so.
    Mr. LEE: I do not deny that he has directed his attention to it, but he has not vouchsafed to the House of Commons any of the conclusions at which he has arrived. This is a point upon which we ought to have information. He gave us details of the various additional services upon which he expected to spend this extra money, but I did not hear him say anything about what I might call the ground staff, that is, a better supply of mechanics. He told us that every aeroplane required two mechanics. That is no misstatement of the facts. I also understand that one of the great difficulties in forming the Army, Flying Corps has been the difficulty of getting suitable mechanics who would be willing to submit to military discipline, and to whom the service is sufficiently attractive. Is he, in this Vote, making special provision for the supply of a larger and wholly adequate staff of mechanics, because without that the best flying men in the world are not only incapacitated, but may be exposed to quite unnecessary risks. I should like to back up what my hon. Friend said about the necessity for the Inspection Staff being entirely independent of the aircraft factories. It is only fair and right that the products of a Government factory and of the private factories should be subjected to independent inspection. We all know that there has been a certain rivalry set up between the Government factory and the private factories, and I do not think it is fair that the private factory should be inspected by officials of the rival manufacturing department. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that into consideration.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is one point on which I have not-found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, if I rightly understood what he said. I, personally, have the strongest objection to this country raising national flying funds, or funds for presenting "Dreadnoughts" to the British people, or anything of that description. I think it is the business of the Government and of the taxpayer to provide what is necessary out of the taxes. It is not the business of private individuals, who are expected to support hospitals, scientific research, athletic funds, and a thousand and one other demands, also to take off the shoulders of

    1825
    the Government the business of providing for the defence of the country. I hope, therefore, that no encouragement will be given to a policy which may have been adopted with success in other countries, but which I do not think is a sound policy, and which will certainly always meet with my opposition.
    May I now address a more personal appeal to the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite me, and join in the appeals which have been made to them by Members on their own side, having demonstrated to the world, what was entirely unnecessary, that they are men of courage, not to make it a constant practice to expose their valuable lives unnecessarily to the risks which are entailed in what is no doubt an exceedingly delightful occupation. If it is absolutely necessary for Members of the Government to go up in aeroplanes, we might suggest a list of gentlemen who could be better spared. But we do not want to do even that. I have a strong feeling on party questions, but I really think the two right lion. Gentlemen have sufficiently demonstrated their courage. If it was a case where it was necessary to restore morale in the Service, owing to a series of accidents, I should only applaud the action which has been taken. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has now shown that that is in no sense necessary—recruits for the Service are coming in in as large quantities as we could possibly desire—I hope that now the business of flying may be left to those whose proper business it is to engage in it. I only wish to add that we have by no means concluded the remarks which we may have to make on this general subject. When the Estimates come forward I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the line that he has dealt with the whole question of aviation, and that it is not necessary to say any more. He has dealt with one particular aspect of it which arises on the Supplementary Estimates, but it will be necessary for us to return to the subject later, when we have the whole scheme of the Government before us, and are in a better position to judge whether the national requirements are being thoroughly satisfied.
    Sir W. BYLES: To one with no knowledge of flying, and with very little of shooting, and who is an enemy of all war, this development of the science of aviation in relation to the art of war, which has been disclosed in this and some former
    1826
    Debates, is certainly interesting, and I may say startling. A friend of mine, an eminent man, wrote a book a few years ago, having studied the art of war, to prove that war was rapidly becoming impossible. He pointed to smokeless powder and the longer range of rifles and guns, and other things, and said it would make war so deadly that it would end itself. I wonder what he would have said if he had lived to see the development of this science of aviation. Perhaps so far as he was right, one who holds my views ought to rejoice in this development, because it would add to the perils of conflicts between nations, and might by its deadly nature bring war to an end. But I have a desire to put another point of view. I came down here, and looked at the Army Estimates, and the money that we are asked now to vote, with a feeling of hesitation to go into the Lobby for this Vote, or, indeed, to vote any money at all for the Army. I had that inclination because eminent men to whom one is taught to look up with respect are going about the country declaring that the Army is disloyal.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is now dealing with a general question which does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Sir W. BYLES: I will not pursue it, but you will allow me to put this question. If I feel hesitation in voting this money in support of the defences of the country, will not my Constituents wonder why? Is it not in order to explain my vote and to tell them on what grounds I withhold it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is outside this Committee. It does not arise here.
    Sir W. BYLES: Then I will not pursue it at all.
    Major MORRISON - BELL: I will not comment at all on the remarks of the last speaker, who says he is against all fighting, except to ask him if he realises his inconsistency in coming to the House and saying that every year, as he does, when he does not practice what he preaches in his own Constituency?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those remarks of the hon. Member were out of order, and there is no need to comment on them.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. In

    1827
    a passage which, I think, struck the whole Committee, and which was reinforced by the hon. Member behind him, he told us how one force, provided with aeroplanes, opposed to a force without aeroplanes, was practically doomed. I agree with him there, but what I wanted to ask was this. It is obvious that no first-class Power today will attempt to undertake any warfare without being provided with these aeroplanes. I think the right hon. Gentleman has told us that any action would be preceded by an action between either airships or aeroplanes, and it is obvious that the object would be to drive away or destroy the aeroplanes of the other. Can he tell us whether there is any advance made at all towards arming these aeroplanes? Have they, thought out the subject at all in what way they are to arm these aeroplanes, because it is obvious that one aeroplane cannot ram another in the air, and it can only be done by having some method of offence—guns, or something else. It is a very important question, and one which should not be neglected, because I see other nations are already engaging in this direction.
    Colonel GREIG: One or two comments occur to me on the speeches we have heard. The first is what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee). His concluding remark shows the difficulty which we labour under on this side of the House in satisfying hon. Member's opposite. He complained of the courageous course which had been adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary for War in getting intimate first-hand knowledge of this new development of military and naval defence. If these right hon. Gentlemen have not done this—we all recognise the courage with which they have done it—we should have been told by hon. Members opposite that none of us, especially Members of the Government, knew anything whatever about the subject.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood me. I said it was quite unnecessary. No doubt there was no harm in doing it up to a point, but the time had now come when it might be stopped.
    Colonel GREIG: I quite agree, but I also wish to point out that hon. Members can never be satisfied. I will now pass to what was said by the hon. Member who
    1828
    opened the Debate. He objected to the disclosures made by the Secretary for War as to the numbers of our aeroplane fleet. He said he did not think it was quite advisable to make all the disclosures which had been made.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never said any such thing.
    Colonel GREIG: I gathered the impression that the hon. Member said that disclosure was not wanted at the present time.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never. said any such thing.
    Colonel GREIG: We will see to-morrow. I should like to know who has been most inquisitive on this point during the last six months.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask your protection. The hon. Member has put into my mouth a sentiment, and I never said anything like it. When I get up and inform him that I never said anything of the kind, he calmly says he will wait and see to-morrow morning.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): It is always usual to accept an hon. Member's statement.
    Colonel GREIG: I certainly do, but I certainly understood him to say it had gone far enough. I will pass from that. With regard to this change in policy as regards airships, I have no particular expert knowledge on the subject, and I dare say most hon. Members are in the same position; but I had an opportunity during the recent manœuvres last summer of seeing something of the dirigibles and the work of the aeroplanes, and the conclusion I drew from what I saw was that the actual dirigibles that we have were very excellent machines and admirably managed, and the paraphernalia and necessary adjuncts were most admirable. But what impressed me was the enormous amount of baggage and impedimenta and other necessary details which would have to accompany these machines, and the House must recollect that these are what are called small airships, and are nothing like the enormous machines that foreign nations have. They are large enough when they are on the ground, but they are relatively very small ones. The amount of impedimenta that they have to carry about with a moving Army, constantly shifting their base, is to my mind a very great

    1829
    argument against having them. One can quite well understand handing them over to the Navy where they will have permanent bases on the coast, and where possibly in time we may also be able to start airships from warships, though I very much doubt it. They have not even got to the point of starting aeroplanes from warships. But to expect the Army to carry about with it all this enormous amount of impedimenta must, I think, drive conviction home to the mind of anyone who has seen it, that it is a very wise departure on the part of the War Office to hand over these machines to the Navy. As for the suggestion of the military critic which we have heard from the other side (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that this sort of thing should be sent out to Somaliland to replace the Camel Corps there with, I suppose, a number of scouts clinging round the outside of the machine, the thing is perfectly ridiculous. One other point; the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) said, "Suppose you have got your complete establishment for your Expeditionary Force of the Regular Army, what are you going to do about the Territorial Force?"
    Here is another point of view which hon. Members opposite, and those who are occupied in the campaign against the Territorial Force, ought to take into consideration. They say, "Assume that the whole Expeditionary Force is abroad, that all the aeroplane service has gone abroad; assume that our Navy has been defeated, and that a foreign army had invaded this country; assume everything possible against our military position—what are you going to do?" To begin with, it is hardly probable, though it may be possible, that at the same moment when we have the whole of our Expeditionary Force abroad, our Navy should be defeated, and that an actual invading army should be coming in here; but assuming that something of that kind was possible in this country, it should be remembered that voluntary effort is supplying practically the whole of our Home Defence Force. I do not know to what extent the Army Council has pursued the consideration of this subject, but it appears to me that it would be perfectly possible in connection with the Territorial Force to form an aerial section in order to supply this necessary equipment. If hon. Members would only encourage the Territorial Force and get it on a firm basis, so that these further developments could be obtained, I have no doubt that a Territorial Defence
    1830
    Force such as I have indicated would soon be provided. I will not deny that hon. Gentlemen opposite are actuated by patriotic motives in their efforts, but I wish to point out that we have this demand made by them for extraordinary and enlarged expenditure for defensive purposes, though whenever we come to the question as to how the funds are to be provided, we are immediately attacked, opposed, and told that we are the most extravagant people in the world. All I suggest is that when we come to discuss these questions, and when hon. Members ask more money for the provision of a Home defence aerial squadron, they should also give us some suggestion as to the source the money is to come from.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Greig) into the discussion as to where the money is to come from. Neither will I follow him in his military arguments, which, as a civilian, I fail to understand. So far as I could make out from him, a defeat of our Navy would be possible if we had an Expeditionary Force abroad. I do not see that the two things have anything to do with each other.
    Colonel GREIG: It was an assumption made by the hon. Gentleman in front of him (Mr. Lee) that our Expeditionary Force might be at war abroad, and that an invading force might be coming into this country.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why should our Navy be out of the way then or defeated? If the hon. Member has read history, he will have found that Nelson was out in the West Indies chasing the French when we were threatened with invasion. But assuming that it is quite possible we might have an expedition abroad, and that our Navy might be defeated, then the hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, there is the Territorial Force, and we might have airships and aeroplanes for that force." But you have to get them. You cannot make them on the spur of the moment after the defeat of the Navy has occurred. He may be right in saying that there should be aeroplanes in connection with the Territorial Force, but you must have them now and not later. Personally, I am very sorry that anybody ever invented aeroplanes; but I suppose the right hon. Gentleman shares my view that, having been invented, we must do our best to keep up with the times and see that we have a proper number of aeroplanes. The

    1831
    hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) criticised my hon. Friend because he said that about eight or nine months ago the Secretary for War had stated that certain machines were efficient, and that these machines had since been scrapped. The hon. Member went on to say that although these machines were not absolutely first class, still they were efficient in a certain degree. He missed the point altogether. What my hon. Friend said was that we were told eight months ago that these were the best aeroplanes money could secure. I would like to ask the Secretary for War a question from the financial point of view. I see that the amount to which this Vote is Supplementary was £2,027,000. An increase of £216,000 is asked for aeroplanes. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that £2,027,000 was originally intended for aeroplanes, because the amount apparently includes armaments, engineer stores, etc.? The point of my question is this: If there was any very large amount in the original Vote for aeroplanes, an increase of £216,000 is a very large one. It looks, on the face of it, as if there had been a very bad budgeting on the part of the financial officials at the War Office.
    With regard to the factory, I am not able to agree with my hon. Friend. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to have a factory for the manufacture of aeroplanes. I hope he is not going to manufacture the whole of the aeroplanes in it, because if we were in such a position as to require an increased output, we must have private people to whom we can go, and you cannot expect them to keep up factories unless they occasionally get orders. I think that it is essential, in the interest of economy, that we should have a factory of our own, so that we may be able to check prices when tenders are sent in by private manufacturers. In this matter I think the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing an absolutely right course. I wish to know what happened to the fifty-two aeroplanes to which the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division referred. Were they scrapped or sold? If so, what did the right hon. Gentleman get for them? If they were sold as old iron, the criticism of my hon. Friend was very good, for it would appear, from their being so disposed of, that they were not efficient. That is what my hon. Friend has been saying for a, longtime. In regard to the Navy
    1832
    I am not an expert, and I should not like to express a very definite opinion on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought the Navy were more fit to navigate airships than the Army.
    Colonel SEELY: I said it was more akin to their functions. I think it is.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hitherto the Navy has not gone into the air, and the Army has not gone into the air. It is a new thing for both, and I rather agree with my hon. Friends that in time of war we should have Army airships. The right hon. Gentleman has greater opportunity than I have for knowing what should be done, and it may be that he is right, but it does not seem tome a reasonable thing in carrying on the defence of the country to entrust to the Navy what properly belongs to the Army, and vice versa. I wish to know why it is that the engines of aeroplanes wear out so quickly. I understand that they only last two years. That seems a short time. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why in the case of a motor car an engine will last for a considerable number of years, while in the case of an aeroplane an engine lasts such a short time?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The statement made by my right hon. Friend earlier in the afternoon appears to have produced only a limited sense of satisfaction in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is very difficult to please. He admitted that considerable progress had been made with respect to aeroplanes, and he endeavoured to obtain some of the credit for himself, but he was not at all anxious to allow any credit to my right hon. Friend. The (hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Lee) was more generous in his expressions, but even he was at some pains to safeguard himself against anything like positive praise. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has asked two or three questions, and I will deal with them first. He wished to know how much of the £2,000,000 voted originally was intended for aeroplanes. I am afraid it is impossible to disentangle that figure and give it alone. The original Vote covers a great deal besides aeroplanes. The hon. Baronet asked what had happened to the fifty-two machines which had disappeared since July last. On the question which has been raised as to the value and efficiency of these machines I would only add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the

    1833
    Member for the Tradeston Division, that it is not only a question of the efficiency of the machines, but also a question of safety. They may be quite efficient, but at the same time have just an element of risk attaching to them, and as we have gradually raised the standard of our aircraft it was considered that the standard of safety in these machines was so low as to condemn them. The best possible use has been made of them in the circumstances. As they were tainted with an. element of danger it would have been a very wrong thing to sell them in the open market. They have been dismantled, and such parts as were serviceable as spare parts have been kept. In that way they have been put to proper use.
    The hon. Member for Fareham dealt with the question of airships and the Navy. He called it a startling change of policy. In regard to the criticisms made in respect to that, I would say that it obviously must be an essential part of such an arrangement that so long as the Army require airships, as at present they do, they must be provided by the Navy. The hon. Member for Brentford spoke of the rapid development that is taking place in regard to aeroplanes, and the justification for the change is that development will be all the more rapid if conducted under single control. With regard to the position of the officers which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), I can assure him on the authority of both my right hon. Friends that the position of those officers will certainly not be less advantageous under the new arrangement. They have had a perfectly free option as to whether they would transfer or not, and I believe that all except one decided that they would. I cannot state the precise arrangements which have to be made, because a number of technical points are raised by this transfer under the Naval Discipline Act, and so on, but I can give an absolute assurance that the officers will be in no way damaged, but will rather gain an advantage by the change.
    Mr. LEE: Are they transferred permanently? Will they leave the Army and become Naval officers, or are they merely lent to the Navy for a certain period, and then returned to the Army?
    Mr. BAKER: The question is not settled yet, because a number of difficult points arise in regard to Commissions and so on, but they follow the Airship Service, and whatever is legally necessary will have to
    1834
    be done, and everything will be done to see that their condition is, if anything, improved by the change.
    Mr. LEE: If an officer transfers permanently, he will lose the possibility of promotion to higher ranks, such as that of General, and even perhaps that of Field-Marshal, and he will be absolutely excluded from rising to high commands in the Navy. Therefore it is important to know at this stage whether the transfer will shut him off from the possibility of rising to higher ranks in the Army, or whether it is only a temporary transfer, and that he will go back to the Army and resume his place in the line of promotion?
    Mr. BAKER: I have given the hon. Member the assurance that their position is not going to be prejudiced. He will agree that it would be very wrong of me to try to develop it, when I say that the matter is not settled. It has, first of all, to be put on a proper legal basis. The hon. Member for Brentford dealt with the question of the number of English engines. I am afraid that the answer to his question will not be very satisfactory. If the records of the aviation service are examined it will be found that the number of British engines offered to us was extremely small. That, I hope, is going to be remedied by this competition, which takes place in a few months' time. On that the hon. Member wished to know why the promise of an order for £50,000 was not made definitely. I am not sure what he meant. Does he really suggest that we ought to take £50,000 of the taxpayers' money and say that whether a machine is serviceable for its purpose or not, that money is to be handed over to the English maker? He must see that that is not quite reasonable. What has been promised is if the engine produced is of use for Army purposes orders for that amount will be given to the makers. The point raised with regard to the consistency of my right hon. Friend in reference to the manufacture of aeroplanes in the Royal Factory has been fully dealt with. As to the extent to which the original intention has been departed from, I can perhaps make it a little clearer by giving a few figures. Of the 100 new machines which have been added since last July, I think the Committee was told that eleven were made abroad and eighty-nine were made at home. Of the eighty-nine which were made at home eighteen only have come from the Factory and seventy-one come from private firms. That is the

    1835
    small proportion, but I do not gather that the hon. Member was opposing the policy of manufacturing to a certain limited extent in the manufactory itself. We know from unfortunate experience that aeroplanes have not come in as quickly as we would wish. There are various causes not due to the changes made in the course of construction by directions from the official side, but due to the fact that contractors themselves had over-estimated their power to produce these machines, and we have been put to great difficulty in keeping up our numbers. The general attitude which the War Office propose to adopt is well known. There is no intention entirely to cut off orders and to manufacture on an enormous scale, but we must in our own interest prtoceed to a certain point, and the hon. Member himself and other Members who have asked for explanations will agree that, on the whole, that is the wisest and best course to adopt.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The hon. Member seemed dissatisfied with us for not having complimented the Secretary of State for War on the increase in the aviation service. It is no duty of hon. Members on this side to compliment the Secretary of State for War, but, having said that, I am sure we see that a great advance has been made in this respect; but that advance was due very largely to the criticism directed against the Secretary of State for War from this side, notably by the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Lee), for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), and for Wells (Mr. Sandys). I would like to dissociate myself from the remarks on both sides of the House as to Cabinet Ministers going up in aeroplanes. I think the reputation of both these Cabinet Ministers does not require any further enhancement from the fact that they went up in an aeroplane, but I think that to ask them not to do so is to interfere unduly. With regard to these Estimates, there is one point on which I would like to ask the hon. Member for information, and I also desire to ask him with reference to the mechanical transport for these aeroplanes. The year before last £42,000 was voted for mechanical transport. Last year in the Army Estimates there was an increase of something like £62,000 for that very Service. Now we are asked to vote another £35,000.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I think that the hon. Gentleman is now referring
    1836
    to a question arising on Vote 6. We have already passed that point. Vote 9 is now before the Committee and we cannot go back
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the explanation of the hon. Member, and the fact that we shall have another opportunity of raising the question on the general Estimates, I shall be glad to withdraw my Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: The opening remarks of the Secretary of State for War gave expression to his increasing hopefulness that the supply of aeroplane machinery was becoming increasingly possible in this country. I am not at all sure that the meaning of the expression which he used may not be this: that we have already come to the time when within the four corners of this country engines could be set up that would be equal to all probable demands that might be made upon them. I suppose that he is still prepared to leave himself open to the best that the world has to show us along this line as in any other. But I should have been glad if he could have given us a line indicating the progress that our mechanics are making in this matter so that we might see how far we might hope to supply this industry within our own border. I was glad to notice the tenacity with which both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member stuck to the point as to their unwillingness to say what was to be done with these transferred officers. After all, if in a service which is in its very babyhood, as aviation is, increasing knowledge requires the country to ask from such splendid fellows as are working this service for us, a change from one side to another, it is necessary for them to take certain risks and chances. If it is decided in the interests of the country that they should go from he Army to the Navy, or vice versa, I think that to drive the line too closely in the interests of these men, splendid fellows as they are, might possibly hamper the great efficiency in future of this branch of the Service.
    Mr. LEE: I feel bound, after the last remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford, to make a protest against the attitude adopted by him towards the officers. It is very easy for him to get up in this House and say that these officers should take their risk of being transferred without regard to what their future may be. It does not make any difference to him. It makes

    1837
    a difference to them. I do not think that any officer should be asked to make any change with regard to his own position until it is clearly explained to him how his future will be affected. The Financial Secretary, in dealing with certain questions which I put on that point, was not able to give satisfactory information. I do not blame him for that, because it was obvious that he did not know. The matter probably is not settled. I do not propose on this occasion, therefore, to press the right hon. Gentleman to go any further, beyond saying this, that I shall raise it again when the Army Estimates come on, on the main Vote for Aviation. But before the right hon. Gentleman gets his Vote, I do ask him whether he will undertake to make a perfectly clear statement as to the position of these officers when the main Estimates are explained, because It is not sufficient from the officers point of view to be told by the Under-Secretary that nothing will be done to affect their position. That has been said over and over again in the history of the Army.
    When I was serving in the Royal Artillery, and when what they called the bifurcation of the regiment was undertaken, we were assured solemnly by the Government of that day—I forget whether it was a Conservative or a Radical Government, but it makes no difference—that the officers who were transferred permanently to the Garrison Artillery would not suffer in any way, either in their prospects or promotion. In three or four years that hope was entirely falsified, and officers who were made to transfer on the strength of that assurance from the Government have been permanently and fatally affected in their prospects since then, and there is no reason why what happened on that occasion should not be repeated. At any rate, the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given us is, I think, not really sufficient to justify these officers in making such a grave change, which may affect their whole future, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, at a later date, clearly to explain, if he wishes these officers to transfer, whether or not their ultimate prospects and career will or will not be affected, or in what particular their career will be affected; because, otherwise, it is not fair to ask them to transfer and to subject themselves, as suggested by the hon. Member opposite, to risks which we have no right, as the House of Commons, and, indeed, the country has no right, to call
    1838
    upon them to incur. It is our business to see that their future is adequately ensured.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that the interests of the whole Service are greater than those of the individual.
    Mr. LEE: The highest interests of the Service are maintained by protecting the highest interests of its officers.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: In regard to the matter in which you ruled me out of order, Sir, perhaps I may now be permitted to say—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot refer to that point, for, even though the reduction has been withdrawn, we cannot go back to the consideration of the subject to which it related.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. You have now, Sir, to put the question of the whole Vote, and on that is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to speak in regard to that portion of it to which he objects, because certain things have not been done?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can vote against the whole Vote, certainly, but he cannot debate an item previous to that on which a reduction has been moved. The Rule is that when the Question has been proposed, either to omit or reduce any item, no Motion can be made or debate allowed on a preceding item.
    Colonel SEELY: I have been asked whether I will make a fuller statement in regard to the officers who have been referred to. I shall be very glad to do that on the Estimates. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on which he was ruled out of order, I will send him a memorandum which will fully explain the whole matter.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    Class III.—REFORMATORY AXD INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the

    1839
    Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."
    Mr. HOARE: I have one or two questions that I wish to ask the Under-Secretary to the Home Office before we decide upon this Vote. The Committee will notice that the amount is really much more than £5. The £5 here refers to an incorrect Estimate. On the one side, the expenditure side, there is a sum of £3,400, and on the receipt side there is an amount of £1,500. This estimate, therefore, shows that about £6,000 was wrongly estimated when the annual Estimates were drawn up for the amount of £280,390. The Estimate, therefore, is a more serious one than immediately appears, though hon. Members see that there is only the sum of £5 at the head of the page. In regard to the questions which I am going to ask the Under-Secretary, I should like to say at once that my criticisms of industrial schools and reformatories with which these Estimates are concerned, are in no way hostile. I do not think that any branch of public work can show better results than our industrial schools and reformatories. In the last report which was issued, only a few weeks ago, it was shown that, so far as industrial schools are concerned, no less than 88 per cent, of the boys who have left them during the last three years are reported to be in regular employment.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter for the general Estimates, not for the Supplementary Vote of £5. We can only discuss the cause for this increased Grant asked for from the Committee.
    Mr. HOARE: I was only referring to the matter by way of illustration. The Committee will see that there is a large increase in the number of committals to these schools, and I want to ask to what that increase is due. Various reasons would suggest that the number of children committed to the industrial schools should be diminishing rather than increasing. I am aware that when the Children Act came into operation it was expected that more children would be committed to the industrial, schools. But that Act came into operation four years ago, and I think, therefore, it cannot be said that there can now be any unexpected increase of
    1840
    committals as the result of that Act, which came into operation on the 1st of April, 1909. There is another reason why one would expect, at first sight, that the number of boys and girls admitted to these institutions would not increase. There was a time when a large number of truants were committed to these schools, but as a result of the efficient way in which the school attendance laws are now administered, the truants, at any rate in London, have almost wholly disappeared. Two of the truant schools have actually been abolished in London. That would suggest that the number of children committed under the Truants Act would be diminishing, and that the Home Office, far from wanting provision for more children in industrial schools, as estimated, would want less provision. There is another reason still. In the footnote at the bottom of this page of the Estimate allusion is made to the period of good trade through which the country is passing. There again you would have thought that the result of the period of good trade would be a diminution in the number of children committed to industrial schools and reformatories. At one time I was engaged closely upon work connected with the committal of children in the county of London, and I was much struck by the fact that in a very large proportion of those cases the reason of the small crimes or misdemeanours for which the children were committed was poverty. But in view of the good trade of the last year one would have supposed that the reason of poverty would not have been so insistent, that children for instance would not have been driven into petty thefts of food, which was a very common source of committal to industrial schools, and that there would have been no unexpected rise in the numbers for which provision was made in the Annual Estimate.
    In that connection there is one further question I should like to ask the Undersecretary. I have seen it stated that the picture palaces have added to the number, and that the reason of the addition is, that during the last year there have been committals to industrial schools and reformatories, due to thefts of small sums of money with the object of getting into picture palaces. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether that fact is supported by his statistics, and whether there is any substance in their complaint. If there be, it would be in

    1841
    some sense an explanation of the increase which this Estimate involves. In studying the last report of the industrial schools, I notice also that the number of children committed to the Scottish schools is decreasing. I think that is due to some legislative change in Scotland. That also would strengthen what I have been suggesting, that all these various factors, separately or combined, would tend to the diminution rather than to the increase of the children in those institutions. I observe that the last available figures show that the number of girls committed to those institutions is increasing at a greater rate than is in those of boys. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to state the reason for that. The increase in the number of girls no doubt accounts to some extent for the expenditure anticipated in this Estimate of £3,400. It would be interesting to know why it is that more girls are being committed to industrial schools than boys. I come now to the item connected with the receipts:—
    "Owing to the activity of trade and consequent general employment, the amount received in respect of parental contributions has been larger than was anticipated"
    7.0 P.M.
    I should like to ask, in that connection, how has it increased. Is it due to more stringent administration, and is it not a fact that during the last two years the officials, whose duty it is to collect the contributions from the parents, have been much more energetic in their efforts? Would it not be more correct to say that the £l,500 increase in the receipts was due to this increased activity as well as to the period of better trade to which reference is made? There is one further question, and that is whether any of this increase is due to the fact that better pay is being provided for the medical officers connected with industrial schools and reformatories. I understand that they are most inadequately paid at present, and I should welcome this Supplementary Estimate if I felt it was due in any degree to an increase in their pay, I have asked these questions in no spirit of hostility, and I do not intend to move a reduction if I receive a satisfactory answer from the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that Supplementary Estimates upset the calculations of the preceding Budget. This item to-night is only for £5, but it is very similar to the Vote we had on the Census, where the real increase was hidden by Appropriations-
    1842
    in-Aid. This Vote is asked for the reason that there has been a large and unexpected increase in the number of children committed to those schools. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary will give a satisfactory reply, but I should have thought that the increase would have been pretty steady, and that the Department would have been able to calculate fairly accurately what the requirements were for the coming year. The increase now asked for amounts to £3,400, and out of this a sum of £1,895 will be met through savings under sub-heads of this foot. Will the Under-Secretary kindly say what those-sub-heads are on which those savings have been effected, as otherwise the hon. Gentleman would have had to ask for a larger amount.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The discussion of this Supplementary Estimate raises a question of considerable importance, and it is extremely unlikely that we shall have any opportunity of discussing the industrial schools and this precise Vote during this Session. The question which is raised even within the narrow limits of this Vote is that the number of children committed to these industrial schools has increased so largely that you are obliged to ask for £3,400 more. That increase has upset your calculations, and has shown that the anticipation of the experts of the Home Office have been entirely deceived. The fact that the numbers at these industrial schools and reformatories, instead of decreasing rather show an increase, raises a point of very great importance. My lion. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) said he believed it was quite natural that there should be a slight increase.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Normal increase.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I entirely dissent. Why should there be an increase with all you are doing and have done for education? Why should you constantly have an increase in the number of those who are treated as criminals, and who are brought up not in the family, but are taken away from out of the hands of their parents, and put into these industrial schools? I would ask the Committee to note what has been the record of the numbers committed to these schools, and it will be seen that there has not been that normal increase which my hon. Friend supposes. I find that in the year 1861 the number of boys committed to industrial schools was 869, and in

    1843

    1911 the number was 875, or only a difference of six, and in 1861 there were committed 259 girls, and in 1911 only ninety-five, showing an enormous and most satisfactory decrease. Why is it now that all? our expectations are overturned, and that when you have got your Children's Act in operation, the numbers, instead of tending to decrease as you would wish, have increased, and have disappointed your experts? That has occurred, too, not in adverse circumstances, but at a time when we are obliged to admit that trade has been particularly good, and that actually the parents' contributions towards the upkeep of the children have increased. That state of matters discloses a deception of the anticipations of the experts after all our boasted work for education, and for the amelioration of the children. Here we have a number of children who, instead of being sent to the ordinary schools to be educated and to return to their families, are obliged to be sent to these industrial and reformatory schools away from their family, and after fifty years, during which there has been no marked increase in the committals, we have this large increase this year to face. Surely the Committee will agree that that is a state of matters which is not only startling, but disappointing, and that it requires a very full explanation, which I have no doubt the Under-Secretary will be able to give.
    There is one point about this Estimate I do not like, and that is the transference of Votes from one sub head to another. That indicates slovenly accountancy, and it is done not by authority from Parliament, but merely by correspondence with the Treasury, and by obtaining Treasury sanction. We all have now and then had to use it, and I must confess to having been a sinner in some cases, but the less of it the better, and we ought to know exactly what the heads were on which the savings were effected, and those on which you -were obliged to spend more than you reckoned. That is a small accounting point to which I do not attach such great importance, but I do want to know from the Under-Secretary how he accounts for this disappointing episode in the history of these industrial schools, when, after all that has been done to improve the position of children, and of which we are so apt to boast, we are obliged to come to Parliament, owing to the unexpected increase in the number of children whom you can-
    1844
    not deal with in an ordinary school, but whom you are obliged to send away to an industrial school out of the charge of their parents.
    Mr. CROOKS: In a different sphere from that of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I do know something about education. I know the need of it also. I have said a good many times there are no bad boys. What is the matter with them is that they are suffering from misdirected energy. I am not speaking of the mentally deficient boy, but most of the boys who have been committed to those schools and the girls have been committed for very slight offences. Sometimes, too, it is an easy way of getting rid of a troublesome boy or girl by getting that boy or girl committed to an industrial school. The boy or girl is then treated as a truant to be taken away from the education authority, and the cost of the training charged to the Home Office. It is forgotten that many of the industrial schools earn money by sending these poor little children to work that they would not be allowed to perform under the Education Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that we can only debate on this Supplementary Vote, the causes which bring about the increased expenditure. Anything general dealing with the reformatory schools will come up on the Estimates for the year.
    Mr. CROOKS: My point is, has this increased expenditure been in consequence of the abolition of the working of the boys in the industrial schools, and to keeping them, as they should be kept, in those schools to be trained and educated and not to perform such work?
    Sir H. CRAIK: It is caused by an increase in the number committed.
    Mr. CROOKS: I know all about that, but I am talking about earning capacity. You must remember you have also saved some money. I do not care much about the statement that the contributions from parents have gone up, because very great and serious hardships are inflicted in this way on the parents, and very often you rob the children at home by insisting on contributions for children in the reformatory. I do not want increases in the contribution by the parents unless it can be proved that the parents were negligent and responsible for the boy's downfall, and in that case I make no excuse for them. If

    1845
    the increase is caused by preventing the lads going to work, then I shall gladly vote for the extra expenditure.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This increase is due to an increase in the number of boys and girls committed to reformatory schools. Therefore the question whether they did or did not do certain work in the reformatory schools does not arise. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) commenced by making the very startling statement that there were no bad boys. I do not know what he meant by that.
    Mr. CROOKS: I meant that they were suffering from misdirected energy, like most Members of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that the energy, whether misdirected or not, would account for the badness in human nature. However that may be, it seems to me rather extraordinary that there should have been this increase in the numbers committed, after all the Acts we have been passing lately for the supposed welfare of children. With all the improvements which education is supposed to bring, one would have thought there would have been a decrease, and not an increase, in the number of children committed. I hope there is some satisfactory reason for this increase, otherwise it will show that the energies of hon. Members opposite have been misdirected in endeavouring to alter human nature by passing Acts of Parliament. The footnote on "Industrial Schools" says:—
    "Additional sum required to meet a large and unexpected increase in the number of children committed to these schools. The total excess anticipated is £3,400, but of this sum £1,895 will be met from savings under other sub-heads of this Vote."
    The footnote on "Appropriations-in-Aid" says:—
    "Owing to the activity of trade and consequent general employment, the amount received in respect of parental contributions has been larger than was anticipated."
    Does that mean that owing to the activity of trade and consequent general employment there has been more misdirected energy on the part of the children of the country? One would have thought that if trade and general employment had been more active, there would have been a diminution in the number of children committing offences for which they have to be sent to reformatory schools. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich in his desire that the parents should not contribute. I believe I heard a cheer from my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) "when the hon. Member expressed that
    1846
    view. The only way of seeing that children are kept in proper order is to impose some penalty on the parents. If the parents are allowed to think that, by permitting their children to commit faults for which they can be sent to industrial schools, they will throw their cost upon the State, I am afraid that that parental supervision which is necessary will not be exercised as it should be. I do not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division if the Under-Secretary's reply is satisfactory.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I do not know whether my reply will be as satisfactory as the hon. Baronet desires, but I will do my best. This Supplementary Vote really deals with two matters: First, the excess of the number of children committed; and, secondly, the greater amount of receipts from parental contributions. I have been asked many questions which, if I may say so, are extremely difficult to answer. Before attempting to answer them, may I explain that this excess of £3,400 is due, not only mainly, but entirely, to the fact that more children have been committed to these schools than we anticipated when the original Estimates were introduced. Comparing the figures for 1912 and 1913, there were 350 more children committed in 1913 than in 1912, and the year 1913 takes account of only three-fourths of the year with which we are dealing this afternoon. Against that £3,400 there was a saving of £1,895. The hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) said that this transfer of savings was a vicious principle to introduce into the Estimates, and asked under which sub-heads the savings arose. The sub-heads under which savings were made were Reformatory Schools, England, and Industrial Schools, Scotland. That brings the deficit down to £l,505. Parental contributions are estimated at £1,500 more than was anticipated, leaving a balance of only £5 for which this Vote asks. It would not have been necessary to come for this Supplementary Vote had it not been necessary to get the sanction of the House to apply these parental contributions to the diminution of the £1,505. A question has been asked, "How is it that £3,400 is required more than was estimated?" It is due to the increase in the number of children committed. Several suggestions have been made to account for that. I have been asked whether cinema shows are at all responsible for it. I do

    1847
    no know whether they are or not, but I think it is a point worth inquiring into.
    Personally, I think the causes are two. It is not that there are a greater number of bad children or of children whose energies are misdirected. As a matter of fact, all these statistics must be taken with a certain grain of caution. They will vary, not with the number of children who are bad, but entirely with the stringency with which the law is put into operation. That is really the point. I do not think we need take a pessimistic view of this increase. I believe that our reformatory and industrial schools are now in a more efficient and more satisfactory state than they have ever been. There have been difficulties, as we all know, but I think I can assure the Committee that these schools are, on the whole, in a more satisfactory and more efficient condition now than ever before. What is the result of that? There was a time when local authorities and magistrates had, to a large extent, lost confidence in these schools, with the result that local authorities would take no steps to have children sent to them, and magistrates in many cases refused to make the necessary orders. There has been a change in both these directions. The schools are so much more satisfactory that county councils and local authorities are taking steps, when they think the circumstances justify it, to put these remedial measures before the magistrates, and magistrates are much more willing than they formerly were to send children to reformatory schools.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Has this been going on long?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: For the last year or two, I think. It is extremly difficult to assign a specific reason for a fact of this sort, but my own view certainly is that the increase in the number of children committed is due, first of all, to the improvement in the schools, and, secondly, to the fact that magistrates are more willing to commit than they were formerly. With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, everybody will admit that improvement in trade will make parents more able to contribute. On the other hand, one would have thought that, with the improvement in trade, parents would have been able to look after their children more efficiently, and that, consequently, the number of children committed would have diminished. However, I have only to state the
    1848
    specific fact, which is that it is the increase in the number of children committed which makes it necessary for us to come for this extra Grant.
    Sir H. CRAIK: What were the numbers in all?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am afraid I have not the numbers here. I will let the hon. Member have them.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it an increase of 350 on a total of some 900?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Oh, no; on a total of over 11,000. It is evidently not so serious as the hon. Gentleman thought. I hope that there will be another opportunity of discussing this question, as I shall then be able, if I am standing at this box, to satisfy the Committee that very great improvements have been made.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The speech of the Under-Secretary deserves the attention of the Committee, because the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, no doubt quite correctly, that the most probable causes of the increase in this Estimate are an increased stringency in administration, and, as he put it, an increased confidence in industrial schools. I would put it a little differently. I think there is a change in public opinion, and amongst magistrates themselves, which, in my view, is a very deplorable change, and which is better described as a diminished confidence in parents than an increased confidence in industrial schools. There is an increasing tendency, which no doubt this Estimate reflects, to think that a child does better out of the care of its parents. I believe that to be entirely untrue, except where the parents are really of an atrocious character. In the old days, when the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was under the able management of Mr. Benjamin Waugh, it used to be the rule of the society never to withdraw children from the care of their parents, even when they were criminals, unless it was thought absolutely necessary. In the great majority of cases they thought it better to allow children to go back to the care of parents who had been sent to prison than to take them away, or to ask magistrates to send them to industrial schools. I am afraid that public opinion is changing now, and that the tendency is, where there is a legal opportunity, to send a child to an industrial school because the parents are not all that they should be. That is most deplorable.

    1849
    And it is extraordinarily cruel. Perhaps no greater cruelty can be inflicted in the name of the law than to take children away from their parents, to whom the children are often devoted, even when the parents are not in all respects what they ought to be. It is extraordinarily cruel, in my belief, and extraordinarily unwise. Even in the case of comparatively worthless parents it is often much better that they should have the custody of the child than that it should be in the best-managed and the most carefully organised industrial school. The parent is the rightful guardian of the child. If this Estimate is, as I am afraid it is, a sign that more and more children are being taken away from their parents, and cruelty, therefore, inflicted on the parents, I am sure that it is a very ill omen; and I think the system is one which we ought to do our best to make an emphatic protest against, for we believe it is not a good thing to send children away from their parents. We ought to stand by the old position that the family is the right place for the child to be brought up in, and that only in the most extreme cases of absolutely worthless parents is it right, fair, or kind to take the child away.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I would like to ask as to whether, in late years, there has been increased accommodation in industrial and reformatory schools by the establishment of new ones? Beforetime, the county and borough benches in the country in the main did not know very much about these schools, and they may have hesitated to send delinquents straight off without making further inquiries. With reference to what the Noble Lord has said, I would be inclined to say, from experience of the magistrates, that they have not been in a hurry to send children away to industrial or reformatory schools. Besides, there are usually a number of magistrates on the bench, and each case brought up is carefully considered from every point of view. Some of the magistrates know all about the family, and, I think, they are always, or often, afraid of adding to the expenses of the county borough, or parish. They will consequently go a long way rather than take a child away from its home. It is only in cases where the bench is very well satisfied that the child might grow up a criminal that they will go to the length of sending it away, and not unless, indeed, the committal is urgently required. I should like to ask whether there is any authority that comes in, and that, without
    1850
    interfering with what the magistrates have done, as the time goes on, arranges, or can arrange, to allow some of these children to get back home again? We should all be glad to see this if it could be managed. It would tend to keep down the expenses that administration throws upon the ratepayer or taxpayer, or both.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is one very regrettable thing in connection with this Vote, and that is that it appears that during this past year £1,500 more has been collected from the parents than was anticipated, I do not know whether it is in order—I do not want to transgress the Rules of Order—but this extra collection is a significant part of this Vote. I have only one observation to make upon it, and it is this: A considerable acquaintance with portions of Liverpool has shown me that one of the greatest of hardships is paying the contribution for a child in an industrial school. It means paying out about twice as much as the child would cost, or could cost, at home. The terrible strain that it is upon many families to contribute this money is one of those things that some day ought to come before the Legislature in a practical shape. When the child is taken away from home immediately there is a payment week by week to the authorities for its support of a sum quite out of proportion to what the child would require at home. I know many many cases where the parents have gone to prison for not paying the contributions, which they have been totally unable to pay, and where all kinds of hardships and difficulties have arisen in consequence. I do not think it is an appropriate occasion on this Supplementary Vote to discuss anything in the nature of the principle of this payment or the method of collection, but I do think it is permissible to say that there is £l,500 more than was anticipated out of the parents under these very difficult conditions. It is permissible, at all events, to remark upon the fact and to express regret that such moneys are collected at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order in asking whether there has been any increased severity of collection, but further discussion of the principle must come on the main Vote.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I join with other hon. Members who have expressed grave misgiving at the increase of this Vote. I

    1851
    do intensely dislike the increasing tendency to bully the poor in the name of social reform. You can see it in all directions. This is a very bad case indeed. I entirely support that which has fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool. If this increase, as apparently is the case, consists of contributions, and it means still further oppression of the parents in order to make them pay these contributions, then I think it is a very serious matter and one that well deserves consideration by the Committee. I do not very often agree with what falls from hon. Members on the Labour Benches, but I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Woolwich. I believe this is a very serious matter indeed. Just consider what the position of a working man is who is faced with a demand of this kind! It may well be that there may have been such cases where, for some reason—it may have been the mistake of keeping the child from school repeatedly—the parent is faced with a prosecution. It is no use telling him that in effect that he can defend himself; can present to the tribunal a sound defence. It means the loss of money to him even if he is successful in his case. It may mean a fatal loss of money. It means that he has got to give up a day's work. It may mean more than a day's work. It may mean that he may lose his job altogether. These things happen constantly. Oppression in the name of education is really scandalous at the present time. Some day—I know I must not go further into the matter now on this Vote; — but some day I hope to have an opportunity of presenting this very serious grievance, not only to the individual, but to the public health. In this case I do very much invite the Committee carefully to consider whether we shall be justified in sanctioning this increase.
    I know that it is almost always the case that in a Supplementary Estimate the House of Commons is really quite powerless. The money has been spent. We cannot very well say that he—I do not know who—has to pay the money out of his own pocket. We have got to pay the money, and we can only make our protest. But I do very earnestly protest against the increase of this Industrial School Vote. I hope very careful inquiry will be made, not only into the question of the increase of the industrial schools—in which I am entirely in accord with the Noble Lord
    1852
    the Member for Oxford University—but also into the way in which these additional parental contributions have been obtained. If it is really an increase entirely obtained out of the pockets of worthless parents who have neglected their children, and who have spent their money in drink, or whatever it may be, I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich that parents of that type are not entitled to much consideration. I do not, however, for a moment believe that most of this money has been obtained from parents of that description. The great mass of it has been obtained from parents who, on the whole, have tried to do their duty to their children, and have failed from matters beyond their control. I regard this kind of administration and this kind of legislation with profound misgiving, and personally, if anybody divides the Committee against the Vote, I shall join them.
    Mr. A. A. ALLEN: I entirely agree that it is only in the last resort that these children should be taken from their homes and sent to industrial schools or reformatories. But the fact of the matter is that in every locality there are a considerable number of homos in which it is practically impossible to keep the children. Undoubtedly in these schools the children have an infinitely better chance than they would have in some of the worst homes in these localities. I think—though I may be wrong—that the increase of this Vote is not due to increased stringency in the execution of the law throughout the country, but to the fact that in certain localities where in the past little or nothing: has been done in the way of administering the Acts m connection with industrial or reformatory schools, the authorities have at last awakened to the fact that they have got a duty to perform to the children and to the locality. I have been brought closely into touch with this matter, for I have sat for very nearly two years on the Committee which inquired into industrial schools. We had evidence before us that in a good portion of the country, in many localities, practically nothing was being done under the Acts, and that the Clauses governing these matters were practically a dead-letter. Whatever we may think about the evil of removing children from their parents, in every part of the community the Act ought to be administered where it is necessary, for in these parts of the country there are some children, at any rate, who are living under such conditions that they must get on better in

    1853
    these schools. Part of the increase in the Vote may be due to the fact that local authorities are waking up to their duty. No doubt there are occasional cases of hardship in the cases of contributions, but I think if hon. Members will consider the statistics they will see that there are enormous sums that are remitted every year, on it being shown that the parents are unable to pay them. Probably half the amount of the total contributions which the parents are supposed to pay is remitted. Parents have been able to pay more this year owing to better trade.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I just want to follow up one remark made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil). I understood him to say that the money had been spent. Surely that is a mistake? The money has not, I understand, been spent. Supplementary Estimates are surely to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons to the spending of the money? This is an important point, and I should like to know the reason why this is done.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I thought I explained to the hon. Baronet that the essence of this Vote is to enable us to appropriate £1,500, which otherwise would go to the Exchequer, and to get that we have only to introduce this token Vote for £5.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: But in respect of this £1,500 the money is spent?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is very difficult to say about any particular sum. Of course, the whole of the sum will have to be spent tip to 31st March. It is not that this particular £1,500 has been spent.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You are spending more than was put down in the original item.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is really the point. Sanction was given to a certain sum put down in the original Estimate. It does not matter how the original sum is going to be provided. The hon. Gentle-man, I think, is quite right in saying that in order to obtain the surplus he must put down a token Vote and get the sanction of the House of Commons, but he is not right in spending more than was originally allowed without the sanction of the House of Commons.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As the hon. Baronet knows, the total Estimate was £280,000. That would work out at some-
    1854
    thing like £20,000 a month. Of course, all the money has not yet been spent, because there is a month and a half to go.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Do we understand that not more than £280,000' has been spent up to date?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Nothing like it. There is a month and a half still to go. These are Estimates for money we want up to 31st March.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Did not the hon. Gentleman say this was necessary in order to sanction the appropriation? Surely that is not technically so, because the £5 is artificially put in as a mere coincidence-to make it necessary to come to this House for that £5, in order that this large financial transaction should not be done behind the back of the House of Commons. They put down an artificial £5 in order to make it an Estimate.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is necessary to have the sanction of the House to appropriate this money.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What is the purpose of the £5?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is a token Vote in order to bring this money before the House.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What we want to know is, Are we voting £5 or appropriating £1,500?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We are doing; both.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is not the case this: So much stands to the credit of the Department under particular sub-heads. If any one of these is exceeded the Controller and Auditor-General would report upon the matter. He would have already included certain obligations for these industrial schools and reformatories to be-paid to their income, and before the 31st March you would be obliged to implement that which they have undertaken to pay and as there are a larger number of inmates you exceed the amount.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As I explained, we want £3,400 more than we anticipated we would want up to 31st March this year. Out of that £3,400 the sum of £1,895 has been spent. That leaves £1,505 to be met, and we are to meet that by appropriating £1,500 and by this token Vote of £5 for which we come here now to get sanction.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART:Why this extra £5 in order to get permission to appropriate £1,500?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This is necessary owing to a Treasury rule, not owing to the law of the land.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am afraid the Treasury rule operates harshly against us, and that is why we have come here and ask for this Vote of £5.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class III.—LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
    Mr. MOORE: I want to draw attention particularly to two prosecutions during the past year which are covered by this Vote, and I shall very shortly tell the Committee the nature of them, because I think the matter ought to be cleared up by the Government. There is an offence which, owing to the Government's leniency, has spread very much throughout Nationalist Ireland, and that is the habit of distributing and posting seditious leaflets and postcards urging everyone not to join the Army or Navy, or any of the King's forces. There have been several cases at the Winter Assizes. The case I have in mind is that of a man named James Haverty.
    The CHAIRMAN: How can the hon. Member connect that with this Supplementary Vote. It is not in order to go into the question of particular prosecutions, their merits or conduct. The hon. Gentleman can argue how this increase of expenditure has come about.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask a question for the guidance of all of us in this very important matter. Suppose we find out, as I anticipate we shall, that this increase is caused in payment for particular prosecutions, surely it would be in order to discuss that prosecution?
    The CHAIRMAN: Would not the best way be to put questions first, and that may help me to see what the money is for?
    8.0 P.M
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It might save time if I gave a very short explanation of how this Vote comes about. The excess Vote, as the Committee already perceives from the White Paper, is £2,250. It is required on account of the extra costs and expenses incurred during the Winter Assize of 1912. The Winter Assize of 1912 proved to be, in the various provinces of Ireland, unusually heavy and protracted, and under this particular sub-head the cost and expenses we have to pay are those incurred for the payment of witnesses for the prosecution, and therefore they are unusually heavy, as I can show from the following facts: In the Winter Assize of 1912 there were 329 prisoners returned for trial as compared with only 217 in the previous Winter Assize of 1911, an increase of 50 per cent., and in the same way they lasted longer. Instead of lasting thirty-five days in the four provinces as in 1911, they lasted fifty-two days. That, of course, as everybody acquainted with legal proceedings knows, means that the witnesses are kept—I will not say dangling about, you cannot help these things, for a long time, according to the length of time to which the proceedings are protracted and these really are the reasons why this extra cost was incurred. The Winter Assizes of 1912 lasted longer than those of 1911, and that was occasioned for the most part by what is termed—a phrase I never like—ordinary crime. That is a term which has got a certain meaning in Ireland, but I confess it does not appeal to me when I consider what serious offences, some of them, at all events, are included under the head of ordinary crime. The cases are the following: Murder, for example, is some-times an ordinary crime and sometimes on account of the motives and circumstances connected with it it is spoken of as extraordinary crime, although both of them strike horror to us. At the 1911 Winter Assizes there were eight murder cases, whilst in 1912 there were sixteen. On the other hand, the attempts at murder in 1911 were four and in 1912 they were reduced to one. The cases of rape and indecent assault were heavier, and riots and affrays in 1911 were two, and they were nine in 1912. Unlawful assemblies had also increased. I do not draw any particular inference from that.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Do those figures include the Dublin disturbances?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. These costs come under an arrangement foreshadowed by Sir Robert Peel when introducing the Corn Law legislation, when he made a promise that Ireland would be benefited in a particular way, and that promise was carried out by a proceeding which now results in this, that counties in the first instance pay the expenses; they are then audited in an elaborate manner, and afterwards refunded. The actual payment by the Treasury is not made until after a very considerable time after the Assizes. The real facts justifying this extra cost are due to there being 329 prisoners, as against 213, and the Assizes lasted fifty-two days instead of thirty-five days. This estimate is due entirely to the expenses of the witnesses who had to be maintained And kept whilst the Assizes are proceeding. Under this sub-head we are dealing only with the expenses of witnesses. An analysis of the figures shows that this underestimate was due to the fact that we did not take into consideration the Winter Assizes being so exceptionally heavy in the way I have described.
    Mr. MOORE: I presume this Estimate will include the money paid to prosecutors appointed by the Attorney-General and Chief Crown Solicitors for the year 1913. These expenses go back nearly eighteen months, and they are certainly somewhat unusual. I take it that there must be items in this concerned with the Winter Assizes of last year, with which Crown prosecutors are concerned. Therefore, I take it, that it is open for us to discuss the Winter Assizes and prosecution and law charges throughout Ireland, leaving out the witnesses' expenses.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that would come on next year's Estimate. I understand that this Estimate refers to the Winter Assizes for 1912.
    Mr. MOORE: The Chief Secretary knows that the witnesses' expenses incurred by the county have to be reimbursed for 1912 from the general expenses of prosecution, and defrayed in the actual year. I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny that statement, and therefore it comes within this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Member put the question to the Chief Secretary, "Does the additional sum asked for include any of the items to which he now refers?"
    Mr. MOORE: I ask the Chief Secretary to state whether the Vote we are asked for now contains any sums in addition to the witnesses' expenses for 1912 for other law expenses and law prosecutions for 1913?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is a little bit complicated. Under Sub-head D we are only concerned with the expenses of prosecutors, and not with fees of counsel for prosecution or defence. We are only concerned with the Winter Assizes of 1912. The Winter Assizes of 1913 have not yet been made the subject matter of this Vote, which has been budgeted for 1912, and our Estimate was an under Estimate. In consequence of the Assizes having been so much longer, and the witnesses having been so much more numerous, this Estimate has become necessary. The method is as follows: I get the account from the local authorities, and the expenses have to be approved by the Treasury. I may say that the scale is more generous to witnesses in Ireland than in this country. They are paid in the first case by the local authorities, and then the charges are forwarded to the office of the Chief Secretary, and afterwards to the Local Government Board, whose auditor examines them, and has to certify them as being correct. Then we make a refund to the counties. The hon. and learned Member opposite is fully acquainted with these things, and he knows that this is a matter which takes a considerable amount of time. The Assizes dealt with are those of 1912, the accounts for which have gone through this auditing process, and it is because they are much larger than was anticipated that this extra Vote has had to be put down.
    Mr. MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman has not cleared this matter up. There is no dispute between us if the Chief Secretary will face the facts. The costs of prosecutions in Ireland are defrayed by the county, and they are ultimately refunded in the following year. What the right hon. Gentleman has referred to in the memorandum refers only to the costs payable by the county to witnesses. That is not the only costs. There is the costs in connection with prosecutions conducted by the Crown Solicitor, who is paid quarterly, and, consequently, it comes into this account. The same applies to counsels' fees which are paid by the Crown, and they do not wait a year for their fees. The Crown Solicitor has to pay them immediately. The only items which the right

    1859
    hon. Gentleman refers to as peculiar to the Assizes of a year back are the items which are refunded relating to the witnesses. The fees of counsel employed by the Crown and the costs come in to the current year, and are, therefore, in this Vote, and, consequently, I am entitled to discuss the expenses of these people who are concerned at the last Winter Assizes of 1913. The Chief Secretary cannot deny that.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The items which the hon. and learned Member has referred to come in under the General Estimates, and not under this Supplementary Estimate. This Estimate is solely in consequence of the expenses of witnesses attending the Assizes of 1912. The other expenses referred to come under another Sub-head. This Estimate relates purely to the expenses of witnesses occasioned by their attendance at the prolonged Assizes of 1912.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We are asking for an additional Vote of £2,250. I do not know what the cost of witnesses may be in Ireland, but it seems to me prodigious if this amount extra is for witnesses that were not expected. I do not know what the amount allowed for witnesses is in Ireland, and perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell me what they are paid. I should think 5s. per day would be a very extravagant amount, and at that price it means 11,000 extra witnesses. I cannot think his information can possibly be right, and it must include something else. There was originally expected to be about 56,000 witnesses, but it turned out that there were 11,000 extra. I am inclined to think that the greater part of the population of Ireland have been engaged in these cases, or it may be that instead of receiving 5s. they have had £5 per day.
    Mr. BIRRELL: They are paid on a more generous scale than in this country.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am allowing a good deal, but there must be something beyond witnesses' expenses for 1912.
    Mr. MOORE: May I point out, with great respect, what the heading of this Estimate is? It says that this is a sum required—
    "To defray the expenses of criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain expenses payable by Statute out of the local rates."
    1860
    Therefore, the Chief Secretary is ignoring the heading of his own Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the heading of the whole Vote and the original Estimate, but we are now only concerned with Item D, which the hon. and learned Member will find in the General Estimate. I think it would have been better if the words of the General Estimate had been set out.
    Mr. GILL: Could the excessive expenses incurred in connection with the recent disturbances in Dublin be discussed on this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: How is it that this large additional sum is required, because these expenses must have been incurred before the original Estimate was made out?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, but they were not audited.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: But it must have been known what these expenses were likely to be. The right hon. Gentleman says they were incurred in 1912, but I think we ought to have some further explanation.
    It being a quarter past eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I beg to more, "That, in view of the loss of individual liberty and the consequent hardship arising from the compulsory nature of the National Insurance Acts and in view of the grave doubts which are now widely entertained as to whether it will be possible to continue to pay the minimum benefits promised by the Acts, an impartial and competent Committee should be appointed by the Government to inquire into the whole question and report, after considering the working of the present Acts, whether it is possible and desirable to substitute a voluntary system aided by subsidies at least as valuable as the contributions now obtained from the employers and the State."
  Before referring to the Motion, I would like to say that we on this side of the House regret very much that the right

  1861
  hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman), who has, ably I think, represented the Insurance Acts in this House for some time, is not able to be present. Naturally, we also somewhat rejoice owing to the reason the right hon. Gentleman is not here. I would like at the very outset to ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to realise that this is not a Motion to ask this House to immediately alter the whole basis of the Insurance Act, and to convert it from a compulsory to a voluntary basis. That is not the proposal. The proposal we are submitting to the House tonight is that this House should appoint a competent and impartial Committee to consider the whole working of the Insurance Acts, and further to consider whether it is possible to alter these Acts so as to do away with their compulsory nature, and to return to the subject his liberty by making these Acts voluntary. As far as I am personally concerned, I have studied these Acts for a very short time. I have only been in this House for a very few months, and, as far as I am personally concerned, J cannot possibly declare that I am either in favour of a voluntary or compulsory basis. I am quite sure of this, that I am in favour of the proposal set down in this Resolution. I am in favour of the appointment of a Committee to consider the Acts from all points of view.
  I am of opinion that it is wise to set up a Committee and to leave it to that Committee to state whether it is possible and advisable to alter the basis of the Insurance Acts to a voluntary basis. On that point I have quite made up my mind. I am also convinced that amongst insured persons and the general public there is a very great demand for such a Committee. I am convinced that amongst insured persons alone there is sufficient demand to warrant this House in setting up such a Committee. Surely it must be obvious that the working of these Acts is such that some alteration must be made, and I advance my proposal with all the more confidence because, since this House met, the Government have already shown that they agree with us that on important questions of this sort there is nothing like setting up a competent Committee to consider them. Since we met in this Session the Government have, I understand, promised to set up a Committee to consider the great question of the housing of the working classes in this country. That is a question in
  1862
  which we on this side of the House are, and have been for many years, extremely interested, and we welcome the promise of the Government that they intend to set up that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps I misunderstood the promise which came from the Government Bench, but I certainly understood that they intended to set up a Departmental Committee between the two Offices to consider the question of the housing of the working classes, and to report.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)indicated dissent.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I regret, then, that the Government do not agree with me that this question of the housing of the working classes is a question which requires a Committee. I hoped that they agreed with me that far. That is an urgent and a pressing question. Is not this question of the working of the Insurance Acts, as it affects our poorer population in the country equally urgent and equally pressing? Is it not equally necessary, or, if the Government do not consider it necessary in the question of the housing of the working classes, I appeal to them to say that it is necessary to set up a Committee to inquire into the working of the Insurance Acts. I do feel that this question is so urgent and so important that hon. Members in all parts of the House must realise the perpetual hardships to which insured persons are put, largely due to the compulsory nature of these Acts. I do not think that I would be justified in wearying the House by producing the numerous letters I have had during the last few days giving me instances of the hardships under which individuals are suffering in this matter; but I would like, if I may, to ask the Government a perfectly clear question. Are they satisfied that insured persons in this country are getting to-day the benefits promised under the Act, and the benefits which have been so clearly outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  May I take the benefits in order? The first that occurs to me is the maternity benefit. The maternity benefit is one that has been welcomed, and which has been supported in all parts of the House. The maternity benefit, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is a benefit

  1863
  which is doing really good work, and is the only benefit which is being really well administered. Surely, I am justified in saying that the maternity benefit is the one benefit under these Acts which it is easy to administer. It is very difficult, indeed, to malinger under the maternity benefit. Even with the cleverness of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, it would be very difficult to get that 30s. unless they can show just cause. I submit that the maternity benefit is an easy benefit to administer. It is a benefit which is doing good, and it is a benefit which everybody in every part of the House supports most heartily. I will leave that and come to the sanatorium benefit. I think it is in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman, in a famous speech, referred to the sanatorium benefit in graphic words; he told insured persons that when they suffered from consumption they would be taken away from their work and their poor dwellings and put into a first-class hotel, where they would receive the best possible treatment until they were cured of the Accursed disease from which they suffered. Is that the way in which the sanatorium benefit is being administered to-day? No; instead of getting first-class hotel treatment, those unfortunate people who are suffering from consumption get canvas tents and wooden shelters. One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House has elicited from the Government some particulars about this sanatorium benefit. The county councils are left to administer this benefit, and to set up these first-class hotels, which we on this side of the House are looking for all over the country. But what are the actual facts, as given by the right hon. Gentleman? Nine county councils have bought old or have built new buildings, and eight county councils have hired beds in existing institutions. That is better than nothing. But what has happened to those people who would have used those beds in existing institutions if they had not been acquired by the eight county councils? Surely they are, left without the treatment which they would have got in olden days. Ten county councils have bought or proposed to buy sites for the building of these first-class hotels; it is better to have bought a site or to propose to buy one, than to do nothing. We are also informed that the other county councils—I have worked out the number for
  1864
  myself, and my arithemetic may not be very accurate, but, I think, that approximately it is thirty—have not yet decided what to do. There are also, we are informed, seven county councils which have limited their scheme under this sanatorium benefit to dispensary treatment. Well, that can hardly be equal to first-class hotel treatment. What is dispensary treatment? It means that these unfortunate people are to get, in lieu of the promised sanatorium treatment, eggs and milk, and occasionally a bottle of cod liver oil. The eggs, milk, and cod liver oil are all to the good, but I submit that they do not constitute first-class hotel treatment.
  Mr. BOOTH: Better.
  Mr. HAMILTON: The hon. Member for Pontefract thinks they are better; perhaps he has been judging by his experience of first-class hotels in Dublin. I submit, however, they are not in accordance either with the undertakings of the Insurance Act or with the speeches and promises of the Exchequer. Now I come to the medical benefit. I do not propose to give my own views on that. I propose, with all respect, to submit the views of a Radical-Socialist paper which, no doubt, has great authority with the hon. Member opposite who is so noisy. At any rate, it has more authority with him, and may possibly appeal to the House more than anything that can be said by a humble Member from these Back Benches. This Radical paper writes with regard to the medical benefit:—
  "At present, so far is the medical service from being adequate, in any sense, that to say that the Act as administered is in this respect a fraud upon the poor, is a strictly accurate and moderate description of the position."
  This Socialist-Radical paper from which I am quoting is the "New Statesman." It is a Socialist paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not a Radical."] I have given its view, that the medical benefit is a fraud on the poor, and I do not think that I need add any words to that. Next comes the question of the chemists. I understand that the chemists in the Manchester district are still waiting for a sum of £16,000 with which to pay their bills. In a big city like Manchester, the chemists in the poorer districts, since the compulsory Insurance Act has been brought into operation, are practically dependent upon the insured persons' business for their livelihood, and here are a number of them waiting for this large sum of money

  1865
  which, for some reason unknown to me, they cannot get. Are the Government satisfied that the chemists in the Manchester district should be kept waiting for this money I There may be reasons for it, but you must remember that my Motion is not that these chemists should be paid to-morrow, but that a Committee, competent and impartial, should be set up to inquire why they have not been paid the money. Then there is the sick pay benefit. I should like to give one incident to the House which covers the case of the unfortunate Post Office contributor. I have chosen this incident from among many because the right hon. Gentleman can verify it at a moment's notice. It is the case of an employé of one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have the extracts from the newspapers, but I will give the facts as shortly as I can. The agent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies attended a meeting of a certain board of guardians, at which an employé of the right hon. Gentleman was reported to be destitute, and application was made for assistance. It was pointed out that the agent had stamped the man's insurance card for thirty-two weeks, and that the man had received from the Post Office 13s. 9d., while there had been paid in by him, by his employer, and by the State, a sum of 24s. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague had assisted this poor man by giving him 30s. to help him along, but his agent pointed out at the meeting of the board of guardians that in view of the fact that he was compelled to contribute under the Insurance Act, he could not see his way to contribute any further. No one, indeed, would expect any employer of labour to do more than voluntarily give 30s. But this man, under the compulsory clauses of the Insurance Act, contributed out of his own pocket 10s. 8d., and he has only received 13s. 9d.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HAMILTON: The hon. Member seems very pleased, but I will go on in spite of him. I There has actually been paid in on the man's account, by the man himself, by his employer, and by the State a sum of 24s., and it appears to be a little bit unfortunate that the sum he has actually received ends with 9d.; it cannot but remind us of the right hon. Gentleman's promise of 9d. for 4d. This is only one instance of hundreds throughout the country of the position of these unfor-
  1866
  tunate Post Office contributors. I would like next to refer to a rather different aspect of this question—that of by-election bribes. One of the reasons that this Motion has been put down to-night is to be found in the accusations which have been brought, quite unjustly, but quite naturally, against our party in connection with this proposal of a Committee to consider the question of voluntary insurance. I would like to read to the House a short extract from another Radial paper, which happens to circulate in my Division. It is as follows:—
  "In order to gain the small shopkeepers' vote in Bethnal Green,.Mr. Bonar Law has promised to appoint a non-political committee in the event of the Unionists coming back to power, which is to consider whether the Act can be placed on a voluntary basis. After this, the less said about rash bribes and promises made on the eve of a by-election the better."
  The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite know just as well as I do that the right hon. Gentleman my Leader made this declaration about a Committee to consider this matter of voluntary insurance at Norwich several months ago, and for any Radical paper or any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman to say this was a bribe on the eve of the Bethnal Green By-election is quite untrue. It would be just as true to say, if one of my hon. Friends went down on the eve of a by-election and assured the electors of Bethnal Green or elsewhere that if and when our party came into power our Leader was going to bring in our Tariff Reform proposals, that that was a bribe to the electors. If one of our supporters went down to a by-election and assured the electors that if and when we came into power the right hon. Gentleman our Leader had pledged himself that under no circumstances whatever would he appoint the right hon. Gentleman opposite as Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be just as true to call that an election bribe. It is perfectly clear to this House and to the right hon. Gentleman that our Leader clearly laid down his policy at Norwich many months ago, and for the Radical Press or any other portion of the Radical party or of the party opposite to say that it was a bribe at the Bethnal Green By-election is a statement which I consider to be quite contemptible, whether it comes inside a paper or outside a paper. I submit that it is entirely due to our Leader's declaration at Norwich that this Resolution appears on the Paper to-night. We have taken the very first possible opportunity—for last night was engaged with more important business—of

  1867
  submitting to the House and the country the principles of our party with regard to the setting up of a Committee to inquire into the Insurance Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of those bursts of fiery oratory which took place on the 1st December at Holloway, accused our party, wholesale, in these words:—
  "The Tory party were at their old game again.''
  He went on to say that the policy laid down by our party during the Recess was:—
  "A policy of nauseous hypocrisy."
  One of the reasons why we have put this Motion down to-night is that we do not intend that the right hon. Gentleman shall have any justification whatever for saying that our action with regard to the proposal to set up a Committee to inquire into the Insurance Acts and to see whether they can, in the interests of the people, be made voluntary, was prompted by "nauseous hypocrisy." We are appealing to the Government to-night to take all the credit they can get for setting up this Committee. We want the Committee—we do not want the credit. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own knowledge of the working of these Acts and to search his own conscience, and if his own conscience does not tell him that the working of these Acts is so bad that something must be done, then. Sir, his conscience has failed him. I would like to leave the right hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of the working of these Acts, to argue it out whether it is possible to carry on, as we are, or whether some alteration is not necessary, and urgently necessary. If his conscience has failed him and is of no further use to him or to me, then I would ask him to cast that electoral eye, which we know is so very useful to him, round the horizon. Surely he sees that in Bethnal Green, in Poplar, and in every working-class district of this country complaints are rising up of the unfair and unjust working of these Acts. I appeal to him, if his conscience has failed him, to use that electoral eye, for I feel that he would see that by setting up this Committee he might catch some votes. I believe that would appeal to him more than anything I could possibly say. I do appeal to him to set up this Committee, and to take all the credit he can get from doing so, now at once, while he can do it in a pleasant and satisfactory manner. I appeal to him to do it now,
  1868
  and not to wait till he is forced to do so, which is bound to happen within a very few months.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I rise to second this Motion. There are many reasons why I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend. One is that I do not think there has ever been a matter of legislation before this House which more urgently calls for immediate attention than the Insurance Act at the present time. There are many reasons why we on this side of the House feel we are right in urging that this Committee should be appointed without delay. I do not propose to deal with more than two of them, and with those only briefly. The first one I should like to bring to the attention of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer is the loss of individual freedom from which the workers of this country— indeed, the whole populace of this country—are at the present time suffering, thanks to the compulsory Clauses of the Insurance Acts. Let me remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the attitude taken up by the Radical party before they come into power. I quote from the speech of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man shortly before he became Prime Minister, when the Unionist party was in power. He said:—
  "I observe that some people, who surely have been asleep, are asking what is the policy of the Liberal party. It seems to me to be an idle and ignorant question. We stand for liberty. Our policy is the policy of freedom. It is the policy of freedom in all things that affect the life of the people—freedom of conscience, freedom of trade, freedom of combination, freedom from injurious privileges and monopolies, freedom for each man to make the best use of the powers and faculties implanted in him. That is our policy."
  I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his definition of freedom is the same as Dr. Johnson's? If so, we find that freedom means liberty, independence, and unrestraint. I ask him whether he thinks now that the provisions of this Insurance Act carry out that definition?
  I will take only one instance, and that is one of the many papers which have been issued from the Insurance Commission at Buckingham Gate, It is Form X1 revised, and it is a claim for exemption, and this is a form which has to be filled in, not by a man who comes under the provisions of the Insurance Act, but by a working man who wants, and is entitled, to get out of the provisions. This will show the loss of freedom, not only to workers who come under the Act, but to every worker in the country. I will read a few of the questions

  1869
  which he has to answer: "What is the employment in respect of which you are now claiming exemption I What are your earnings from this employment I How much time does it occupy? Is it continuous throughout the year, or for a part of the year only? What is the name and address of your employer?" That is with regard to the work which he does. in an insurable capacity. Then this is with regard to any subsidiary occupation which he may do besides his insured work: "State full particulars of the occupation on which you claim to be ordinarily and mainly dependent? State what grounds you have for considering that this occupation does not render you liable to compulsory insurance? State the place at which the occupation is carried on? State your average earnings a year from this occupation?" I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would like to fill in this form himself in regard to his occupation? "State whether the occupation is continuous throughout the year? If it is not, for what period of the year are you engaged in it?" Is it fair to ask a working man to fill in a form which hon. Members themselves would not care, and would not be able to fill in, I believe. We all know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ordinary occupation is; but supposing he had to fill in a paper showing how much he made in his extraordinary speculations, how would he like to have to do that, and would he do it, and if he would not, do it himself, is it fair to compel every working man in this country to do what he himself would not do.
  Surely it is adding insult to injury, when you find the end of the declaration that you have to swear, "I have clearly understood all the above questions." The footnote is not without some significance. "If any person wilfully makes any false statement with a view to obtaining a certificate of exemption, or is otherwise guilty of contravention or noncompliance with the Regulations of the Commissioners dealing with exemptions, he shall be liable for each offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £10." Then it goes on to say that this unfortunate working man, after having filled up this form, and having sworn that he has understood all the conundrums which have been put to him— I ask how can a working man fill in a form saying what his average earnings are from a subsidiary employment during the last three years— has to go and make this declaration himself, either before a cus-
  1870
  toms and excise officer, or get some householder to witness his signature. Even the right hon. Gentleman when he pays his Super-tax, can send in a form direct without having to deliver it to an excise officer, or get a householder to witness it. As regards the liberty of the subject it has been at the present time, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more interfered with than by any other Act of Parliament during our own time. I am reminded of the Englishman who wished to see what life in a Re-public was like, and went to America to see how much more free that country was, and after he had been through the customs, he remarked: "The only freedom I have found in this country is the liberties they have taken with me.'' That seems to be the kind of freedom which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing about among the working classes of this country.
  Then I should like to raise the question of sanatorium benefit. I should like to quote two cases out of hundreds which come daily before Members of Parliament and the public. One is the case of Mr. Hugh Storey. Here was a case of a man who applied for sanatorium treatment. I do not think it will be disputed that ho was suffering from consumption in a bad form, and owing to insufficient sanatorium accommodation in the county in which he was living he was provided with a shelter in which he could sleep, and in the second week of September he was granted a supply of ancillary nourishment consisting of three pints of milk and two new laid eggs daily. That did not seem such very generous treatment, but even that very soon came to an end. On 22nd November he got this letter:—
  "Sir, owing to the large number of patients receiving sanatorium benefit who have applied to the Kent Insurance Committee for extra nourishment, and to the fact that the sum of money available for this purpose is limited, it has become necessary to reduce the quantity of nourishment supplied. As you have been receiving such assistance for a considerable period, that is about a month, and as it is impossible to continue this indefinitely, I am compelled reluctantly to cancel any further supply in your case for the present. Accordingly I am instructing the tradesman concerned to discontinue the supply of food after Saturday next, 22nd November, 1913"
  That is an example of the benefit under the Insurance Act to a man in an advanced stage, of consumption.
  9.0 P.M
  Let me take a case which has come under my personal notice, as it happened to a man in my own employment. Just before Christmas he was found to be suffering from his lungs. I saw the insurance doctor myself, and he said the man must

  1871
  leave off work at once and go to a sanatorium. I let him go off work that very day, 23rd December, and sent him where he wished to go, to his home, in order that he should at once avail himself of the benefits of the Act. On 14th February, after waiting since 23rd December, during which time he had been recommended by three different doctors to have sanatorium treatment, he was told he would be given dispensary treatment, and I have to-night received this letter from him. I wrote yesterday to ask what he was getting now. He says: "The only treatment I am getting is medicine from my doctor—cod liver oil and malt. I receive nothing else. That is all I receive from the insurance committee." [An HON. MEMBER: "Was he a deposit contributor?"] No, he was not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did he get sick pay?"] He says he is not getting sick pay here. He is a member of an approved society. In any case, whether he is receiving sick pay or not, where is his sanatorium treatment? Where is the first-class hotel? I will give the right hon. Gentleman the full particulars if he will inquire into it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What county?"] It is Essex. Let us just compare the present state of things with the Chancellor's promises. We have heard a great deal lately of the Chancellor's promises. May I remind him of one which he uttered on 13th February, 1912, at the inauguration of the National Liberal Federation, at the London Opera House, when the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, the Master of Elibank, was in the chair. The chairman made several complimentary allusions to the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer returned the compliment and proceeded to scratch the back of the Chief Whip. He finished up his remarks in regard to that matter with these sentences:—
  "The chairman is nut merely a man of words, but a man of notion. If there is going to be an organisation started by him, you may depend upon it, it will be the best thing of the kind that can be produced. He is the Carnot who has had to fight the reactionaries up to the present, and who will fight them up to the end, and finally drive them away routed, discomfited, and disappointed."
  I wondered why the right hon. Gentleman likened himself to the good Samaritan. I wondered why he compared the Chief Whip to Carnot, and I went into the Library to-day and turned up the Encyclo-pædia Britannica. I find there that Carnot is described as the General called the "Organiser of Victory." Then the
  1872
  article goes on to give certain characteristics of him. It says:—
  "Contrary to custom Carnot refused to take presents from contractors. He tendered his resignation, and the First Consul would not at first accept it."
  That seems to me extraordinarily appropriate if we regard the First Consul as the Prime Minister. Then it is an extraordinary coincidence that Carnot was made a peer of France. But I should add that at the end the story was rather sad, because it says:—
  "After all these triumphs he was finally proscribed and had to take refuge abroad,"
  Members on this side of the House are apt to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of making misquotations and inappropriate applications, but I think that in this case we must give him credit for having made an extremely good prophecy, because at that time, though he possessed greater information than we had, we did not known that the Chief Whip was possessed of so many characteristics similar to those of Carnot. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did he return to his country?"] I will tell you more about Carnot if you wish.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether these remarks are in order upon this Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It appeared to me that they were intended to be jocular.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not mind which way the lion. Member takes my remarks, but whether they were jocular or otherwise, I wish to say that they were statements of facts. After the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given this eulogy to the Chief Whip at this meeting, he began to deal with the question of insurance. He said:—
  "Look at the provision regarding consumption, one of the most terrible scourges, that can afflict any community. Hundreds and thousands are suffering from it throughout the land. The deaths number something like 70,000 a year. It urgently cries for national treatment. We propose expending a capital of £1,600,000 to set up sanatoria and other institutions for treating this scourge, and there is a sum of £1,000,000 a year set aside for the purpose of running these institutions, and fur the purpose of treating the complaint, in the men's homes. And not merely the men, but the women and children. And they say. Why don't you postpone it? Do they realise what that means for the consumptive patients? "
  [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer that statement. How much of the £1,600,000 has been spent up till now? Has £200,000 been spent? Why was not that promise carried out? Hon. Members ought to be as indignant as I am that the money promised to be spent has not been

  1873
  spent. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the fault of the county councils."] It is the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not seeing that it is spent. The people are asking questions about this, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not answer them. In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "You will have many a consumptive child and parent restored to their households as the result of the treatment of the Act."
  Then we find some more references made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech at Whitefield's Tabernacle on 14th October, 1911. What did he say there about the consumptive? He said:—
  "Now this is the first thing I want to get into your minds. The moment life is examined the doctor goes to the root, but lie cannot recommend the one treatment that will save his life. Why? Because he knows poor people cannot afford it. It. is no use telling a working man that he must go for three or four months to a sanatorium. How is he to get there? There are few of them in this country fur all classes. There are just a few thousand beds. Therefore a doctor knows that, whatever he does, in the limit of the man's means the patient is doomed, and all he can do is to prescribe some medicine which will just for a short time perhaps arrest the evil. Hut the end is inevitable."
  The right hon. Gentleman told us at that time that he had made a special study of tuberculosis. He told us that merely to prescribe medicine was no good. Why then does he now insist that the man who was in my employment should go on with medical treatment? He want on to say:—
  ''Now let me tell you what happens to the consumptive worker —and there are in this county at the present moment between 200,000 and 300,000 people suffering from this fell disease. A man goes to the doctor; he is examined. The doctor discovers at once that he is attacked by tuberculosis, and he says to him, 'You must knock off work at once: you must go to a sanatorium.'"
  It is all sanatorium,.sanatorium, sanatorium! The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:—
  "The workman says to him, You are mocking me. How can I go to a sanatorium I cannot pay. To go to a great building in the country where tie gets the best nursing, the best doctoring, the best food, for his case, open air "—
  —very open sometimes—
  "and lives practically in a sort of first-class consumptive hotel for three or four months. The doctor will say. 'Have you not heard that the Government are finding £ 1,500,000 by the Insurance Bill to build sanatoria throughout the country?'"
  I challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say how much of that £1,500,000 has been spent at the present time. Then he goes on to say:—
  "At the end of three or four months he comes back cured. In the early stages the vast majority of the people sent to these institutions come back cured and fit for work. More than that, he is trained to fight the evil for the future. But it does more than that: we have an Amendment in now, and I am very glad the House of Commons are prepared to support the Government, in it. I put it to them. It was purely a matter for
  1874
  them on the question of finance, and if they were prepared to take the responsibility, I certainly was. Now, not merely can the man go to the sanatorium, but his wife can go and his children. There you are. The little chap who under the old system would have, languished away amid the tortured anxiety of his parents, a source of peril and infection to all those who love him best. What happens to him now? In three months he comes back a, plump, chubby, rosy-cheeked little fellow, leaping with life and energy and joy amongst, his welcoming comrades, and he will have to thank the Insurance Bill for that."
  The Chancellor may say that there are many cases in which people have had the relief and have been cured. What are people paying the money for? Are they not entitled to it? But in regard to those people who are fortunate enough to be sent to these so-called first-class hotels, the policy pursued has been a wrong one. The one idea in regard to working the sanatoria has been to show in this House that as many people as possible have had treatment there. Therefore people are rushed through the sanatoria with all speed possible; they are hustled out of them with indecent haste. The direct outcome is that not only does the patient not derive the same benefit from his stay there, but it is getting the sanatoria a. bad name, throughout the country because people going there come back not cured, and it takes away the confidence of the people who are waiting to get in. But if the Chancellor cannot carry out his promise, lot him say so candidly, and let those who do get into the sanatoria remain there long enough to get properly cured and not be pushed out. Let the right hon. Gentleman come down to this House, and if he gives us the figures of the people who have been through the sanatoria, let him say how long they have been there individually, how many have been there six months, how many four months, and how many three months. The House will find that there are a great many who have been there for a lesser period. There is no use in the Chancellor saying, "I am not responsible for this." He has taken the responsibility; it was on his pledge that the thing went through. He said:—
  "I am prepared to stand by every statement which I made, and I ask you afterwards to read the Bill itself as amended in the House of Commons and find out. whether every statement I make is not strictly accurate.''
  I have challenged those statements, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman gets up he will deal with that challenge. Last year there was a book published, edited, I believe, by Mr. Master-man, as Chairman of the Joint Insurance Commission, giving an account of the working of the Insurance Act up to date. It says in regard to sanatorium benefit

  1875
  arrangements had been made by various insurance committees, and it goes on to say
  "all arrangements are required by the Act to be made to the satisfaction of the Commission."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time is the mouthpiece of the Commission; he is the only person whom Members of Parliament can approach on the subject, and I ask him quite seriously if he is satisfied with the working of the Act, especially as regards sanatoria? If not, how can he resist the setting up of the Committee to inquire into this? And, if he is satisfied, let him say so straight out, and the people of this country will be able to judge as to whether his views at the present time tally with the promises which he put forward when the Bill was before the country.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The speech to which we have just listened left us in complete ignorance as to the position of the hon. Member in reference to the Resolution. He produced a form which he announced as X1; but what has that got to do with the Resolution? The Resolution asks that the Committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether the voluntary principle of the Insurance Act is practical or not. Suppose the Committee decides that the voluntary principle is not practicable, and that we should maintain the status quo? Suppose that it reports that all this is necessary, if we are to have State insurance at all? What becomes of X1? According to this Resolution, the hon, Member says, "We do not know whether all this is necessary or not." The hon. Member puts the cart before the horse, because if he does support this Resolution—I am not sure whether he docs or not—
  Mr. GWYNNE: I shall go into the Lobby.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We have known hon. Members to go into the Lobby before for things which they did not support, [HON MEMBERS: ''The Labour party."] It is a profound mistake, which I am sure the hon. Member makes in the innocence of his heart, to assume that we voted against Resolutions which we supported. We voted against Resolutions when they ceased to be effective, having got pledges. In this case the hon. Member is not going to have even that excuse,
  1876
  because he is certainly not going to get a pledge to-day that this rather amusing Resolution of his, which he has not supported, is going to receive generous and sympathetic consideration from the Chancellor.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are you a Member of the Government?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: No, but I assume that they have some common sense. The hon. Member was very indignant and very vociferous about sanatorium benefit. What is the fault there? It is the fault apparently of money. But what does the hon. Gentleman commit himself to in his Motion? He does not want more money, and he will not commit himself to that. He says he wants to appoint a Committee to inquire and report as to "whether it is possible and desirable to substitute a voluntary system aided by subsidies at least as valuable as the contributions now obtained from the employers and the State." He is not even prepared to tell us—I do not know what he says to the poor electors at by-elections— that the subsidies that are going to be paid as the result of this inquiry are going to be more valuable, and how he is going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear I cannot understand. He has not told us. As a matter of fact, this Resolution is one of the most extraordinary declarations ever put upon the Order Paper of this House. Both hon. Members began their speeches in the same way as they began the Resolution. They said that the National Insurance Act entails a loss of individual liberty. Have they only discovered that? Every piece of legislation that is passed entails a loss of individual liberty. I suppose the hon. Member does not agree that it is a loss of individual liberty to pay Income Tax. I certainly do. It is a very serious loss of individual liberty if you pay Income Tax, especially for things you have no sympathy with. Nevertheless, for anybody of any practical political sense to lay down as a fundamental proposition in respect of this legislation that it is a loss of individual liberty is certainly most absurd. It is a loss of individual liberty to pay Income Tax—
  Mr. HAMILTON: As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we have no objection to pay Income Tax which is necessary to carry on the State, but I appeal to the hon. Member will he have any objection if the Prime Minister—
  Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member intervened, I thought it was for the purpose of his making a personal explanation.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Quite apart from that, they say that the Act involves a loss of individual liberty. Income Tax involves a loss of individual liberty,.and on that ground do they object to it?
  Mr. HAMILTON: We do not.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I leave the hon. Member to think over that suggestion. The Resolution says that the National Insurance Act entails a loss of individual liberty, "the consequent hardship arising from the compulsory nature of the Insurance Acts." They have lost individual liberty arising from the compulsory nature of the Acts. How any hon. Members can put down a Resolution and say that it entailed a loss of individual liberty, and consequently is compulsory, I do not know, but that is the magnificent declaration and product of those who have been trying to-night to persuade this House to reconsider the National Insurance Acts Then they go on to say, "and in view of the grave doubts which are now widely entertained as to whether it would be possible to continue to pay the minimum benefits promised by the Acts." The financial consequence of this is that the Committee is to inquire whether the State ought not to pay as much at least as the employer did. The Resolution does not say so. Are they going to say in one breath that the Act in its operation is proved to be bankrupt, and that the only thing they expect from this Committee is to recommend that precisely the same sum of money is going into the fund at the end of the year as is going in now. Let us go back to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, who spoke about one of his employés, who had the misfortune to be overtaken by this disease. Supposing the Act had been voluntary, what would have happened to the hon. Member's employé. He would either have been in it, or out of it. I think the hon. Member will agree to that. If he had been in it, and if the State had been paying precisely the same as the State's contribution plus the hon. Member's contribution, what better would the man have been then than he is now. Supposing he had been out of it, as a matter of fact he would not have left the hon. Member's service, but would have been working without the ghost of a chance of getting rid of this terrible
  1878
  disease. That is if he had been out of it. What else could he have done?
  There is Form X (1) Revised, and there is the case relating to sanatorium benefit, both of which are shown to have nothing to do with this Resolution, and if the hon. Member objects to both, then he should put down a Resolution totally different in terms from those of the Resolution before us this evening. What I really ask is this: There is not the least doubt but that some inquiry will have to be made into the working of the National Insurance Acts. The only apology I tender to the House is that I have to make such a very antique request again. But the inquiry will be of no use if it is confined as suggested here, to whether it should be voluntary or compulsory insurance. What did the hon. Member himself say on the Second Reading of the Bill:—
  "One is compelled, the more one studies the question, to come to the conclusion that, if anything like these large numbers"—
  —the number of people to be included—
  "are to be brought within this scheme, there is no other way of bringing them in except by compulsion."
  If you are going to bring in great masses of people with a range of incomes of 9s. and 10s. a week to £150 a year—let us make it that limit—the hon. Member knows perfectly well, and we know perfectly well, that if you are to have an insurance scheme with State subsidies, which are very essential, covering the whole mass and variety of income and social conditions, it must be compulsory, and the problem is not whether it is going to be voluntary or not. As a matter of fact, if the Committee is to be appointed, in order to save its time, the reference ought to be such as to exclude the consideration of a voluntary scheme. It would be a pure waste of time. It is all very well to tell small shopkeepers when you want their votes at Bethnal Green or elsewhere about a voluntary scheme, but as a practical measure it is absolutely absurd. When the Bill was going through on the Third Reading we stated that we were going to vote for it, knowing that in several respects it would be very difficult to work. We said that anomaly after anomaly would be revealed in its practical operation. We pointed out several of them, and we said in the House of Commons that we were going to wait, as was suggested, to give the measure the very best consideration when it was put into operation, and experience of its working had been obtained and its faults disclosed. I

  1879
  want to repeat it in another form to-night. The Bill has been in operation. We are beginning to experience its faults; we are beginning to see the enormous good it is doing; we are beginning to see how, in certain points, it is not quite touching the spot, and that Amendments must be made even more drastic than the Amendments of last year. Therefore, what I want my right hon. Friend to do is to let us clearly understand that in his view— not now, because there is a richer experience going to be gained before the Committee can be appointed; the harvest is not quite ripe yet for reaping—but before the statutory valuation, slightly before it, though not too long before it, a Committee shall be appointed to inquire into the medical benefits needed, into the varying pressure upon the backs of the people that the premiums impose, and whether it is not possible to vary the scale a little bit more, and whether it is not possible to give special treatment at the bottom of the scale, and so on. Apply your inquiry to those practical points, and leave out all sorts of fancy things whether as to voluntary or compulsory insurance. And then, get your Committee to keep at work in that general investigation until the statutory valuation has been declared, and then let your Committee take the statutory valuation as part of its reference and consider the whole thing and work it all into a Report, and then let us here who are Members of this House have from this Committee a complete full Report on the working of the Act, the administration of the Act, the finance of the Act, so that we will then be in a position to make such changes in this Act as will establish it firmly and securely as part and parcel of the social legislation of the country.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the House will have been interested by the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Earn say Macdonald). He seemed to me to largely confirm the desire that is felt on this side of the House for an inquiry. It is quite true he proposed to postpone it and to limit it, but he does not deny that an inquiry is necessary. Let us see how he proposed to limit it. He proposed to limit it by keeping out what he calls "fancy things" like voluntary insurance. Before I sit down, I hope to persuade him, or some other hon. Members, that voluntary insurance is not a "fancy thing," but that, on the other hand, it is a practical cure for a large number of the
  1880
  hardships and evils which the insured population are now suffering under. As I understood the hon. Member for Leicester, he wished that this inquiry should be postponed until the statutory valuation had taken place.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Just shortly before the statutory valuation, so that they might be sitting after it had taken place.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very glad the hon. Member has corrected that, and said he meant just shortly before the statutory valuation, so that they might be carried on concurrently, and so that the statutory valuation might be made at the time the Committee is in Session. I will deal more particularly with that in a few moments, but I will say, briefly, now that the statutory valuation cannot possibly be ready for at least two years, and does the hon. Member propose that the inquiry should be postponed for two years. I would like, if he could saw whether that is so?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Yes; about eighteen months.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I say at once, as far as I am concerned, and I believe as far as my hon. Friends are concerned, that the postponement of the inquiry for eighteen months would be nothing short of a calamity. The hon. Member took some pride in the prescience of the Labour party in that on the Third Reading of the original Bill he foreshadowed the necessity of an inquiry. I wish he had supported the Amendment that was moved from the Front Opposition Bench on that occasion, rather than support the reading of the Bill a third time. We asked then and there for a further consideration of the Bill, so that an inquiry should be rendered unnecessary, and so that the job should be completed by the House before the House parted with; the Bill. The hon. Member taunted me with inconsistency—I do not mind being taunted in the least with the inconsistency —of my present position with the position I took up on the Second Reading of the Bill, and other speakers opposite have done so. I see the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is nodding vigorously. He has got the passage. I am not denying the accuracy of the OFFICIAL REPORT—I am just saying this, that my study of insurance at that time was, I confess, not as great as I have been able to devote to it

  1881
  since that time. My fault, if a fault it is, was believing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told us if you wanted contributory insurance, it must be compulsory insurance. I believed him then. I am sorry; I will never do it again, and such consolation as the hon. Member can get from making us particeps criminis with the Chancellor of the Exchequer he is entitled to. I am not in the least afraid of admitting that I made a mistake then, and I promise not to make it again.
  I want now to address myself more particularly to the Resolution which is before the House. My hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Resolution have called attention, as I think, quite adequately, to the necessity for an inquiry, and an immediate inquiry, on the ground that the sanatorium benefit, for one thing, was not being carried out in accordance with the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that other benefits promised under the Act were falling far short of the statements he made with regard to them. I, myself, propose to ask the House to consider the real urgency of an immediate inquiry, on account of the growing uneasiness regarding the financial basis of the Act. People have been led to suppose by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, provided they paid their contributions regularly, they would receive from well-managed societies minimum benefits of 10s. for men and 7s. 6d. for women per week. That was the minimum benefit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was guaranteed by the State, and I remind the House of what it was he said:—
  "My first principle is that every friendly society must be passed as sound before it can be guaranteed by the State. That is essential, otherwise the state might be in the position of defrauding its citizens."
  I ask the House to contrast the comfortable feeling which was engendered by that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just before the Bill was brought into this House with the feeling of unquiet that is now pervading all the societies which are administering the Act, and which is making those who are connected with the administration wonder whether, in fact, the benefits that have been described as "minimum benefits" can in fact be given. There is now the greatest doubt as to the solvency of many of the societies. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish the result of the first year's working of the Act and to compare it with the statements made by the actuaries when
  1882
  the Bill was under investigation. He has been unable to give those figures, and it may be true that the material at present in the Insurance Office is insufficient to give a complete and final comparison or a complete and final judgment on the question of solvency. If the work is behind hand, it is not the fault of the Insurance Commissioners, because they have had imposed on them a duty far greater than anybody could possibly attempt to fulfil in the time. The ages of the insured people—14,000,000 people—are not yet admitted, and no society knows whether the age given by the insured person is agreed to by the Insurance Commissioners, and the reserve values which depend upon those ages have not yet been credited to the societies, and, of course, the audit is not yet complete. It will take two years—in my view, three years—before that first valuation can be completed, and it is for three years the Leader of the Labour party really proposes that the inquiry should be postponed. But although complete and final information has not been obtained, sufficient has been allowed to leak out to justify grave fear. Let me take the case of small societies. The Secretary to the Treasury has caused an answer to be given to me to the effect that 109 societies have been called upon by the Insurance Commissioners to claim reserve values. That is a technical procedure, but in effect it means that in 109 societies the claims upon the Insurance Fund have been so much greater than were expected that the Insurance Commissioners have called for an explanation. I do not pretend to be able to give a final judgment upon why these claims have been greater. It may be that the ages of the members of these societies are different from the average. It may be that the sex distribution is different. There may be more married women than men in these societies. The fact remains that in these societies more has been drawn from the Insurance Fund than was expected—so much more that the Commissioners have become alarmed, and have taken the first steps towards a valuation of the societies. I believe that in these cases, in fact, about £2 has been drawn for every £1 that was expected. In other words, the expenditure on sickness has been twice as much as the Commissioners expected.
  I do not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that in these societies insolvency is almost certain. In

  1883
  one or two cases there may be some special explanation, but in the majority of these societies insolvency is to-day, without waiting for two or three years, a practical certainty. It may be said that these are only small societies. But there are 986 other small approved societies, founded only eighteen months ago, which, for one reason or another, have been absorbed, amalgamated, or wound up. Four have been wound up or amalgamated for good causes—because the private side was amalgamated, or because they were parts of trade unions which have amalgamated, or for other good causes. The others have been absorbed, either because they found that the management of the working of the Act was too much for them, because they could not get competent officials in the societies to carry them on, because they found their numbers insufficient, or because the claims upon their benefits were too great, and they have had to take refuge in larger bodies. I do not say necessarily that the members of these societies have actually suffered. They have in some cases been taken over en bloc, and in other cases transferred individually to other societies. But it is obvious that when they formed the individual societies, when they took all the trouble to get a society suited, as they thought to their needs, they did not set out to be wound up, amalgamated or absorbed. Any hon. Member familiar with the working of such societies knows the hopes that are founded on the getting together of a group of men, and the disappointment that must be spread throughout those members on having their society —the society which they thought better than any other—broken up, because they cannot manage under the National Insurance Act.
  These are small societies, and it may be said that they are subject to special conditions. Let me, therefore, take the larger societies, where the age distribution may be assumed to accord very generally with the age distribution of the general population, which was the basis of the actuaries' report. Mr. Cross, of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association, which has 65,000 women members, says that they have overspent the actuaries' estimate in the first half-year £10,500, and in the second half-year much about the same. That is an excess expenditure of about 75 per cent., which means, if con-
  1884
  tinued, not only absolute insolvency for' that society, but a reduction of the guaranteed minimum benefit of 7s. 6d. to 4s. or 5s. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say to that. Mr. Omrod, of the National Amalgamated Approved Society, a very big society, said that all those associated with the working of the Act knew that the financial position was becoming weaker as the days went by, and that the basis upon which the calculations were originally made was inaccurate. Mr. Appleton, secretary of the-General Federation of Trade Unions, another very large group of societies, stated that the sickness amongst women at Cradley was about three times the estimate. That agrees also with the experience-of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who said publicly that, speaking of a period, not necessarily the whole of the year, the experience of a society, in a district which he named, showed that the married women were suffering from three times the sickness that the actuaries had estimated as the basis of the Act. As regards single women also, the hon. Member said that, in his judgment, the benefits ought to be reduced from 7s. 6d. to 6s. Later on he said that some societies ought to take drastic steps to meet the situation.
  What steps do the Government propose? I cannot hope, after the pronouncement of the hon. Member for Leicester, that the Government are going to accede to our request. But what steps do they propose to meet a situation which, not politicians, but men actually working the Act, declare to be dangerous to a degree? It is true that the Government have appointed a Committee to consider malingering, but that Committee cannot report in the wide sense that the Committee we propose would be able to do. These gentlemen whose statements I have quoted have challenged the whole actuarial basis of the Act, which is not solely affected by malingering, because no one suggests that malingering is causing three times the expected sickness. It may cause some increase, but no one suggests that it is causing anything like two or three times the amount expected. If this information is correct, and I have every reason to believe it is, enormous reductions of benefit are bound to occur in the near future. In that case, the State is preparing, to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expression, to defraud its citizens. Is the State going to drift on to

  1885
  the position of defrauding its citizens, or is it now going to take what steps it can to make good the statements which have been made to its citizens, to inquire into the causes, and, if necessary, to strengthen the financial basis of the Act? Personally, I think the credit of the Government is at stake. But something much more important, in my view, is this: that the credit of State-aided insurance is at stake, for if once a State-aided scheme fails, then—"once bitten, twice shy"—it will be almost impossible to persuade the people of this country that State-aided insurance, even in a voluntary form, is a good thing for them.
  It is for the Government now, if they do really desire a national insurance scheme, of whatever sort, to take steps immediately to save the credit of national insurance, even if they do not care about their own credit. Personally, I believe in a State-aided scheme of national insurance, but I think it should be on a voluntary basis. To that part of the Resolution I propose for a few moments to address myself. The Leader of the Opposition in November at Norwich stated what the policy of the Unionist party was. It was to set up a Committee to consider and examine into the whole— [Laughter.] Is there anything ridiculous in that? For an impartial and competent Committee to consider and examine into the whole subject and working principle of the Act, and to consider whether it is possible and desirable to convert insurance into a voluntary system. What was the answer? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a flood of misrepresentation and abuse. The First Lord of the Admiralty, at Alexandra Palace, speaking only a few days afterwards, immediately began to misrepresent the policy of my right hon. Friend. He said that my right hon. Friend's remedy was to return to the old voluntary system, which all parties knew was hopelessly inadequate and financially unsound. Hopelessly inadequate! It covered some six millions at least of the people in the country. Does anybody dispute that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Four and a half millions."] It covered some six millions of people. Why did it not cover more I It did not cover more, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been forced to admit more than once, because the people were too poor to go into insurance, or, if they were in insurance, were too poor to keep up their contributions. That is why. It was not because they were not willing to insure; it was because
  1886
  they were not able to insure. Did the First Lord of the Admiralty at Alexandra Palace put that before the people? No. Did he say how many would come in if the same amount of money that is devoted to compulsory insurance were devoted to voluntary insurance? The picture is changed. If you put fifteen millions sterling a year at the back of voluntary insurance, do you think you would not get the numbers up? Of course you would. It is true there would still remain others out of insurance. As the right hon. Gentleman said, voluntary insurance was sufficient to provide for the sober, the self-reliant, and the far-seeing; but, he said, the great majority were excluded: the weakest were always excluded. Why did the Government in their scheme apply compulsion to also the self-reliant and the far-seeing, who had already made their provision for insurance? If you take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, can you test the present compulsory scheme by that statement, and does it answer that test? Are the weakest included in National Insurance to-day? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An Hon. Member says "Hear, hear." Who are the weakest? The deposit contributors; are they included in the insurance?
  Mr. BOOTH: They are not the weakest.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The outworkers, are they included in insurance, or are the casual labourers? [An HON MEMBER: "Yes."] Yes, they are included in the contributions, but not in the benefits. They never will be included in the benefits. So long as they have work they have to pay contributions, and the contributions can never amount to, enough to give them adequate benefits. If I had more time I would like to deal with other statements made by the right hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members, including the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, all statements which one can summarise in. this way; statements to bluff the public off considering voluntary insurance; intended to prejudice the public against considering it fairly and quietly; intended to make them fear that under voluntary insurance the contributions would be increased or the benefits would be reduced. The fact is—as they should know if they do consider it at all—that under voluntary insurance the benefits, far from being reduced, would be likely to be increased, because of the better feeling which has always been exhibited towards club funds

  1887
  compared to that exhibited towards State funds. The same amount of money in voluntary insurance goes further, and would give those who are in better benefits for their money. I believe myself that this Motion for inquiry is the first step—and a long step—in the right direction. I believe myself that voluntary insurance is the only way of removing the hardships which are now being suffered by a large number of the people of this country. It is the only way, in my view, to restore freedom to the individual, and freedom to the big democratic societies. But this is not the only ground for an inquiry. The compulsory scheme, in my judgment, will fail upon its present basis. Even if more money is poured in you will not remove the hardships for hundreds and thousands who have to contribute without benefit. To postpone an inquiry for two or three years is to gamble with insurance. Whatever you do, however you choose to gamble with your own money, you have no right to gamble with the people's pence. Remember this was not passed merely without a mandate from the people; it was passed— there is no dispute about it—against the wishes of the people!
  Mr. BOOTH: By you!
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of those rare moments of candour, has made a valuable admission in this connection. On 22nd November, at Oxford, he said:—
  "I will admit that if you had had a plebicite on the Insurance Act when it was passing through the House of Commons it would probably have been thrown out That is my conviction. I believe yon would have had a majority of the people of this country against it."
  Truth will out. When the right hon. Gentleman had spoken that he added:—
  "That is an admission. I do not know whether I have ever made it before. I make it frankly now."
  So surprised was he that he had made such an admission! But he took great care to hide that admission from the House when the Bill was going through. He not only refrained from telling the unpalatable truth; he did not hesitate to make statements which he cannot now defend. He wanted to get the Bill through. He talked always of the benefits as minimum benefits; he said that the 10s. and 7s. 6d. were safe and secure and guaranteed. I have the statement here. I do not know that it has suffered by being translated from the Welsh, or that it has even been
  1888
  "touched up" by the reporter. I do not know the exact date, but I think it was made in May, 1911; at any rate it was when a favourable impression in the Bill was required:—
  "The societies are guaranteed by the nation. In place of the insecurity of the present societies, in place of the number of lapsed insurances, the workmen will have behind them al ways security. The societies through which we shall work will be guaranteed by us; we shall have a valuation of the societies, and we shall rot work through any society which is not solvent and sure."
  If that statement had been made in a prospectus, dealing with the commercial proposition, instead of a legislative proposition, the right hon. Gentleman would have been liable for an action for fraud. He would have been liable to have returned every penny subscribed upon that statement—indeed, by now, finding out the untruth of that statement, he would be probably on his way to Bogota or some other place where the King's Writ does not run. At any rate, he has a duty now to perform, to inquire at once before the deficiencies are piled up, and before the societies are swamped by the burden of the deficiencies. It is no answer to point, as he often does, to the benefits of the Act. No one has disputed that there are benefits under the Act. No one doubts that, being able to take £33,000,000 in contributions, they are able to give some benefits in return; and if you do not shirk the inquiry you will find out for yourselves that if that sum of money were at the back of a voluntary system the benefits would be better and not worse. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and every hon. Member on both sides of the House just to face two questions. I ask the Chancellor these questions: Can he assure the House and the country that the doubts thrown, not by politicians, but by those working the Act, on the actuarial basis of the Act are groundless? And can he assert categorically that in every well-managed society the minimum benefits for men and women are safe and secure? Unless he can answer both those questions in the affirmative he has no longer any right to continue to take contributions under the Act, and I put it to hon. Members opposite that they have got also to be satisfied with these answers, for they have a duty to do. They have in their constituencies thousands of insured people who have been told what to expect by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who, unless he can answer these questions in the affirmative definitely, are not going to get the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told them they are

  1889
  going to get. And if you postpone the inquiry you are taking an immense responsibility towards your constituents. As time goes on these deficiencies will pile up, and you cannot for long postpone that time when the societies will have to reduce their benefits. You will have indignation meetings in your constituencies. You will be called upon to do something. You will be called to account for not having now put the knife in and taken steps to at least reduce the loss your constituents are going to offer. To-day you can, of course, do as you are told and follow your Whip into the Lobby against this Resolution, but if you do make no mistake you are doing it at the sacrifice of the interests of the working men and working women in your constituencies.
  10.0 P.M
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have had three speeches from the other side of the House, very bitter, very vehement, very violent and most irrelevant. I listened to the first two speakers, expecting to hear something about the Resolution. But not a word of explanation of that Resolution. Then came the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—the great authority on insurance on the other side of the House—and I said, "Now, at last, we are going to have an explanation of the Resolution." I ask any hon. Member of this House, has he any notion what all these words mean about subsidies, about the amounts of them, and who pays the employer's subsidy. That is most relevant. Who is to pay the employer's subsidy? What does this equivalent amount mean? Not a word about that. There were covert attacks absolutely irrelevant upon a gentleman who is to appear before a judicial and impartial tribunal, and the fact that these attacks were made in these speeches show the sincerity of the belief of those gentlemen in the judicial character of that tribunal. The hon. Gentleman opposite forgets when he is lecturing us that he himself was a supporter of compulsory insurance. He said at that time: "I do not know anything about insurance. I know nothing at all about it—I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He has forgotten what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill. After saying, first of all, that he was very reluctant to leave the voluntary principle, he went on to say:—
  "One is compelled, the more one studies the question, to come to the conclusion that if anything like those large numbers are to be brought within this scheme
  1890
  there is no other way of bringing them in except by compulsion."
  It is not the case of an hon. Member who just comes in and hears the Minister on the other side in whom he has great confidence. I must say I never discovered that, and I hope he does not always manifest his confidence in the way he did on that occasion. He did not say "I accept his statement." Not at all. He said he studied the question, and the more he studied the question the more he thought it necessary. He now says he was wrong. That is a perfectly frank statement to make. I should like to know whether that is the view of the hon. Member for Seven-oaks.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: If you give me the chance I will tell you.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman tells me how long he wants, I will certainly see he gets the chance. He need have no apprehension upon that. The hon. Member made a very interesting speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and what did he say? It is well worth studying at the present moment, because it is about the best statement for compulsion I have heard. He said:—
  "I confess, speaking for myself, I still believe in the main that a voluntary system is the best, provided that the voluntary system will give you the result at which you aim. I should be glad, speaking personally, if I could see a. prospect of success for creating a system of national insurance against ill-health founded upon a voluntary basis. I regret to say that I cannot do so. The experience of every foreign country goes to prove the contrary. You may expunge from this Bill every element of compulsion which it contains, and place it upon a purely voluntary basis, and yet you may fail in your object. I think if it were placed upon a voluntary basis, it would be only local and parochial in its administration and operation."
  The hon. Gentleman goes on later to say—
  "if that be so, and if it be admitted that the best method of treating this difficult question is by a policy of insurance, then I am forced to abandon my natural predilection in favour of a. voluntary system, and accept the compulsory basis upon which the Bill is founded."
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme moved an Amendment in favour of a voluntary system. The subsidies were there, subsidies by the State and by employers; it was practically the scheme that is now put before the House. The hon. Member moved it, but he got no support, and not even a Division was challenged upon it. That was two or three months after the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester had been pursuing his studies, and even then he was not in favour of a voluntary system. Not a word was said then about a voluntary system

  1891
  at all. The hon. Member for East Birmingham stated:—
  "That the whole principle of the Bill is whether you are going to apply compulsion to a great measure of insurance throughout the whole length and breadth of the country."
  That is his statement of the principle. Now, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? He was asked what he was prepared to do, and this was on the Third Reading of the Bill. He said:—
  "On this question we decline to say either 'yes' or 'no' If we say 'no' it implies that we are opposed to the principle and the object of the Bill. We shall not say "'no.'
  He goes on to say:—
  "If we say 'yes,' it implies that we approve of the Bill as presented, and of course we shall not say 'yes."
  Here you have the Bill before the House seven or eight months, and given to the Third Reading, when they have had the fullest opportunity of making up their minds about the principles, and the Leader of the Opposition says he will not say "no" to it, or to use his own phrase:—
  "He came to the fence and then turned round."
  That was the position at that time. What is the position now? It is practically a demand for a voluntary scheme. I should like to know, first of all, what is meant by a voluntary scheme. If you come to consider a voluntary scheme, the first thing you want to know is this: Are the employers of the persons who come into insurance to pay their threepenny-bits? That is an important question, because it is vital. If the employer is not called upon to pay, what does it mean? It means that it is a premium upon the employment of persons who are not insured. The employer says to one man, "Are you a member of the Oddfellows, or the Foresters, or the Hearts of Oak, or other trade union." One man says "Yes," and another man may say "No." To that extent it is an inducement to the employer to employ the person who is not insured. That is a peculiar penalty upon the engagement of men who belong to any approved society. On the other hand, if you do that, is the employer constantly to inquire whether a man is still a member of a society. The system of bookkeeping would be perfectly impossible. The employer has got to pay his threepence for him if he is there, but then he would have to inquire whether a man is still in insurance. That would cast a burden on employers which would be perfectly intolerable. I should like an answer to that question. First of all, I
  1892
  should like to know whether the employer is still to be called upon to contribute. The second question I should like to ask is this: If the employer is not to pay, then who is to pay, because I understand that equivalent sums are to be paid. That means, of course, the State. That means, an addition according to the hon. Gentleman, because he does not anticipate that many men will remain out of the insurance even when it is voluntary—
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I should like to know what the view is. If the hon. Gentleman thinks there are many who are kept out, what a condemnation upon it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think there are many who will be glad to be released, and who would be released.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There will be a very considerable number for whom there would be no provision for sickness except the poor law. There are nearly 14,000,000 persons who are insured according to the hen. Gentleman's estimate, and I am still taking his figures, although they are not sufficiently accurate. I will, however, take his view of the matter. He says there were 6,000,000 voluntarily insured before the Act came into operation. How many does the hon. Member think will come in voluntarily? Take 3,000,000, if you like, or make it 9,000,000, or 5,000,000 at the outside—I am willing to take any figure. That means the State would have to find an extra £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I understand the employers are to be relieved of this charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said so?"] If any one in authority tells me that the idea is that the employer should not be relieved, I will not pursue the matter a single instant. The employer is not to be relieved. The result will be that the employer will have a pecuniary interest not to have workmen who are insured. This will be the notice: "Members of trade unions, members of friendly societies, members of collecting societies need not apply." The employers will have an inducement, a pecuniary inducement of £6,000,000 a year, not to employ these people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble of continuing that argument. There never was the

  1893
  smallest suggestion in the mind of anybody that the employers as a class would not pay, and that they would not pay for all their workmen whether insured or not.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Hamilton) for raising this question. It has been an invaluable Debate. In the words of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), "The more we study the question, the more preposterous does the scheme seem." This is the scheme: An employer is to pay whether his workmen are in or not. His workmen may not be in, but he has to pay for the other people's workmen. Really, after hunting about for months to get hold of a policy of some sort, I should have thought that they would have got hold of something a little less preposterous. We have now got the proposal before the House, and an invaluable one it will be. The employers are to pay whether their workman are in or not, whether they receive any benefit or not. Whatever schemes they may have of their own, they have to pay. Now we shall know that in future. The Noble Lord opposite whose ideas for the moment have captured his party, suggests that if voluntary insurance is adopted, if the Unionists show themselves in favour of a voluntary system, that would have more effect electorally than any other decision. He is touting for votes. It is bad enough when Radicals do that, but when hon. Gentlemen opposite descend to vote-catching, it is exceedingly sad. This new policy and the Debate has been exceedingly useful in eliciting facts. Let us see exactly what it means. According to the hon. Gentleman, there would be millions altogether outside the Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] I have proceeded on the assumption, first of all, that the hon. Gentleman was under the impression that only a few would be outside, but let us see what it means. It means that those who are out are back in the old position. And what is that position? I have had returns, which will be published and circulated, from different parts of the country, and these returns show that the benefits which the Insurance Act has conferred on the working classes are in the main conferred on the poorer kind of working man, the unskilled working man, who previously had nothing before him except the workhouse. I can quote many cases. I have here a quotation from a
  1894
  report from Liverpool, which says that there can be little doubt that the sick benefit, when well and carefully administered, has been an ineffable boon to the people. The report goes on:—
  "I have gone carefully into the effect of the operation of the sickness benefit on the unskilled worker, and am informed on credible authority that in 50 per cent, of the cases where the benefit has been granted, the home would have been broken up, the furniture sold, and the family engulfed by the workhouse, if it were not for the 10s. granted by the Act."
  The new Unionist policy for these people is "back to the workhouse." There are other reports stating that amongst this class—and this is the class that would drop out under voluntary insurance, before the Act was passed—there was practically no medical attendance at all. The Report says:—
  "There is less of what doctors call 'walking sickness' since the Insurance Act has come into force. A man who really should be in bed, instead of struggling on and walking to his daily task, is now able to give the doctor a fair chance of making a good job of his case."
  This man is to go back to the old days of "walking sickness." That is what it means. The hon. Gentleman talked about fraud. I have some figures here which I will give him. There were 3,500,000 persons who last year received the 10s. a week.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it guaranteed by the State?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am speaking of what they have actually received in cash. That is one of the frauds which is suggested. A million women have received the maternity benefit—£1,500,000 in cash. That is another of the frauds. There are 30,000 who have received sanatorium benefit; 20,000 have been inside institutions. The hon. Gentleman complains that in eighteen months all the sanatoria have not been erected. One hon. Gentleman said they are actually buying sites. How can you build sanatoria without sites? £1,600,000 has been set aside for the purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has it been spent?"] It has not been spent, because you cannot build all these places in eighteen months. The £1,600,000 was an offer made by the State to meet local expenditure. It was an offer, not of £1 for £1; 60 per cent, of the expenditure was offered as a Grant from the Exchequer. Wherever the local authority has come forward—I am glad to say that they have in my part of the country—and offered to build, the State has been ready to provide 60 per cent, of the total expenditure. But you cannot purchase sites and build every

  1895
  sanatorium in eighteen months. This is the sort of piffling criticism that is made.
  Let me give another quotation of the way in which this is working. The Manchester district shows how it is helping the poorest classes of the population. In the Manchester district there were 18,498 weekly payments of outdoor relief over the period of six months, compared with 29,877 for the corresponding period of the previous year. That is attributed entirely to the fact that sickness benefit was paid to these poor people. Where is the fraud from which these people have been suffering? I am not complaining of a lack of generosity. I am only complaining of lack of observation as to how Acts of Parliament have come into operation. There are Acts of Parliament that have been in operation for forty years in this country which are not completely enforced in this country. The Public Health Act was passed by the Conservative Government in 1875. Are there not many parts of the country where it is not enforced at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Is anybody going to call that a fraud? If any hon. Member will look at the Local Government Board Report, he will see this there. The Education Acts are better administered in some districts than in others. How long did it take those great Acts of Parliament to come into operation? I remember that for years and years after the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1875 were passed, there were shoals of summonses in every police court throughout the United Kingdom against people who did not send their children to school, or who had declined to comply with the provisions of the Public Health Act. Every compulsory Act, every great Act of Parliament that imposes obligations of this character on the population they are reluctant to obey, and it takes them some time to realize their ability, but they are doing it gradually, and in the great industrial districts in the North there has been a complete change.
  Yet hon. Members say that before eighteen months have passed, and before the whole of the benefits have come into operation—the permanent invalidity benefit has not come into operation yet—we ought to have erected machinery which would work perfectly. The hon. Gentleman has instanced the case of a domestic servant of his own not receiving proper treatment. I understand she is receiving sick pay. If not, I do not know why, that
  1896
  is if she is a member of an approved society, and is not at work at the present time. The only thing that struck me at the time was that we were told that these things were not needed for domestic servants at all. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman begins to realize that, at any rate, it does serve the purpose of those domestic servants, even of those with whom he has come into contact very recently. That is the policy of which we have heard.
  The hon. Gentleman said there were societies at present which were insolvent. I should like to know a little more about that. At any rate, there is this advantage in the Act. Before the Act they could have become insolvent and there was no one to check them. Now, within the next year or two every society throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be valued, and if there is insolvency attention will be drawn to it and a remedy will have to be applied. What is the complaint about these societies? It is that some of them are insolvent. There are two principles in the Bill. One was compulsion and the other was autonomy for the societies. There were two ways by which you could apply National Insurance. One was that you could work it through societies, and the other was that you could abolish the whole of the societies and have a State scheme. We decided, and it was accepted by the House unanimously when challenged, that the only way in which you could apply it in this country was through societies. What did that involve? It involved the financial administration of the societies. It involved that where they were slack they should suffer, and where they were efficient they should have a surplus and be able to give more benefits. But if the State came in and said, "However you administer, how much malingering you allow, however little check you have upon your members, we will always come in and guarantee benefit for you," there would be utter bankruptcy of all societies and bankruptcy of the State as well. The hon. Gentleman said something about my having guaranteed minimum benefits Never. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman taunted me with something I had said once, which looked like that, in the course of a debate, but there is no State guarantee of minimum benefits.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: You published the statement that the State was guaranteeing the societies—I forget

  1897
  the exact words; I have given them—and that otherwise the State would be defrauding its citizens. Those were your words.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to interrupt.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I remember perfectly well that there were some words that the hon. Member did quote in the course of the Debate that he thought open to that interpretation, but I never stated that the State would guarantee the minimum benefit however the society was administered, and that if the society were utterly maladministered and allowed malingering to any extent, then the State would come in and guarantee benefits. Whatever the words which may be quoted from me, I am perfectly certain I never guaranteed them. The whole point, therefore, as to the administration by the societies, is that the responsibility must fall upon them, and if there is maladministration—I do not say that there is maladministration, certainly not—it is too early to come to any conclusion. Why? Here is an Act which mobilises 14,000,000 people for insurance purposes, 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 of whom had never practically been members of societies of this kind. You have to appoint new officials, new managers, and new secretaries, and there are some actually new societies from top to bottom. Well, of course, within two months things will not work with the regularity, smoothness, and efficiency which you will expect after years of administration. The societies themselves assure us that they are getting the work in hand, that they are getting hold of the machine, and that gradually they are checking what was undoubtedly malingering in different parts of the country. They are appointing more visitors and improving their quality. And may I point out that there was some difficulty with the doctors at first? The doctors came in for the moment somewhat sulkily in some parts of the country, but the testimony which I have received from every part now is that the doctors are working not merely freely, but heartily and well. There may be one or two cases where that is not so. From some societies in different parts of the country I have complaints, but in the main the doctors are working with a will and helping the societies to check this great evil. To rush to conclusions after the first year of administration, when the machinery has not been properly organised
  1898
  and systematised, would be folly on the part of the Government, and to come to the conclusion that we should make alterations which would be permanent on the purely temporary basis of the experience we have had, is a policy which no Government could adopt without possibly incurring expenditure of a very extravagant character, All the same, I agree that there are one or two points in regard to some societies which require consideration. There are a few trades where sickness is very much above the average. Those trades and those societies we have got to keep an eye on, in order that we may get to see exactly what it really means. But it is premature in these cases to come to a definite conclusion—quite premature.
  The second and worst case is that of women's societies. There was no data upon which the actuaries could really come to a conclusion, and there we could not proceed on exactly the same basis as in the case of men. But that would be true of any system of insurance, whether voluntary or compulsory, where you included women. You could not start women's societies with anything like the same precision as in the case of male societies, and undoubtedly there has been a serious inroad on the funds in respect of women, but that is a matter which, of course, is receiving attention. We are getting all the information we can with regard to it; and we shall see exactly what the deficiencies, if there are any, are likely to be. But in that case I might point out this to the House: I have warned the House repeatedly, with regard to the introduction of married women into insurance, that it was full of perils. The pressure came not from the Government, but from the House itself, in spite of the repeated warnings which I gave upon the advice of the very able actuaries who were advising the Government. I might point out that during the whole time I "was conducting that Bill my greatest difficulty was to resist demands made in spite of the advice of the actuaries. I shall never forget two or three special occasions. There was, first of all, the occasion when double payment was demanded in respect of workmen's compensation and sick pay. I can understand the position of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They wanted a non-contributory system. But hon. Gentlemen here did not, and in spite of the fact that they were warned by the actuaries that it would mean bankruptcy

  1899
  to any society, hon. Gentlemen joined hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in demanding the double payment.
  Mr. FORSTER: About twenty of them—not more.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At every by-election since then, including the Reading election, that has been one of the complaints against the Government. The second was the first three days of sickness, and the third was that a penny was to be taken off the workmen's contributions, and we were assured that there was plenty of money to pay the minimum benefit. The whole time, with the solitary exception—I am not sure that I can include the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster)—of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, the Opposition generally supported these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman took a perfectly consistent course, saying that if the actuaries advised that certain things could not be done it was not fair to press the Government to do them. In these circumstances it ill-becomes the hon. Gentlemen who pressed these things upon us to complain that the Estimates have been exceeded by Amendments pressed and forced upon the Government. In any case it would have been the duty of the Government to examine these special circumstances, and if deficiences are due not to malingering, not to mismanagement, but to circumstances of the kind over which no society has any control, to circumstances which demand the assistance, protection, and support of the State, it will be the business of the Government to recommend to the House of Commons some means of dealing with it. That is where I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend as to methods. We have not shirked investigation. On the contrary, we have got a Committee at the present moment inquiring into malingering and sickness benefit. I believe with my hon. Friend that the time will come, and at no very distant date, when you will have to inquire into the whole administration of the Act—what weaknesses there are, and where ii can be improved. It has been a great social experiment—I never put it any higher than that—which has conferred inestimable benefits on millions of people up to the present moment; but in a year's time I agree with my hon. Friend there
  1900
  ought to be an inquiry, and a careful inquiry into the method of the administration of the Act. But now, after twenty months' experience of part of the Act, fifteen months' experience of another part of the Act, and when the third, and one of the most important parts of the Act has not come into operation at all, you are the first to tear it up, fling millions of people out of insurance, and leave them where they were before, in time of sickness— [Interruption]—this is a matter dealing with sickness—I say, in time of sickness, to leave them with nothing except that report which I have read to the House of Commons, and leave them just simply to the Poor Law and the workhouse, that is a thing the Government will not assent to.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for leaving me a short time, and I do not think more will be needed, to deal with the speech to which we have just listened. I do not think it necessary at all to refer to the rhetoric with which he finished, and which composed a large part of his speech, and which, as always, was intended for consumption by the electors of the country. What I wish the House really to consider is, that the position in which this Act stands is one of the most serious in which the nation could be placed by the action of any Government. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt, in only a few sentences, with the condition which was the sole ground of my declaration at Norwich. It is the ground of the Motion now before the House. Our feeling that some action is necessary now is due to our belief that the whole financial basis of this scheme has been proved to be unsound, and that the right hon. Gentleman himself at this moment knows it is unsound. I am not going again into the evidence on which one part of this Resolution is based, namely, the independent belief that the minimum benefit cannot be paid. That there is this widespread belief everybody knows. We have had evidence of it even from the Labour Benches. I am sure of this, that it is utterly impossible that the Government actuary cannot be aware of the facts, and I think it utterly impossible that he cannot have communicated them to the Government. This question can be set at rest at once if the right hon. Gentleman will promise to answer a question which I will put down. The question is this: "Is the Government actuary supplied already with sufficient evidence to make him convinced that the minimum

  1901
  benefits cannot be paid in the case of a large number of approved societies under this Act?" Then he will answer that question? I will put it down. In my belief these are the facts, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Consider how serious that it. It means that immediate action, or action in a comparatively short time, must be taken. One of these things must happen: Either the insured persons will not get the benefits which they were led to expect, or the societies will have to increase the levies, or the State will have to step in and make good the deficiency. These are the alternatives. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that in dealing with great masses of workmen who were insured in approved societies, it was utterly impossible that they could examine into the condition of the societies, and the men knew that they were approved by the State, and that the State had said that certain minimum benefits would be given, these people would expect that they would receive the benefits for which they had paid. That was so evident that I said to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am only speaking from memory, not having referred to it, but I am sure I am right—if you are so sure that those benefits can be obtained why not definitely guarantee them? I did not wish the State to pay more money, but even at that time I thought that, irresponsible as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself on every occasion, if he had really put this obligation definitely on the State he would have taken more care to see that the benefits were likely to be realised. Now he says he gave no such guarantee. That is perfectly true. He refused to give it in the House of Commons, but when he was dealing with the country and trying to win elections, he gave it then. These are the words actually used by him—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—in his own book, "The People's Insurance," by the Right Hon. D, Lloyd George.
  "In place of the insecurity of the present friendly societies, working men will have behind them security. The societies through which we shall work will be all guaranteed by us. My first principle is that every friendly society must be passed as sound before it can be guaranteed by the State. That is the situation, otherwise the State might be in the position of defrauding its citizens."
  It is perfectly evident that if those minimum benefits are not paid, insured persons will expect the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil that guarantee, and not to "defraud
  1902
  the citizens." Consider what the alternatives mean. If they do not do that, there will be an outcry all over the country, and we may be perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman will take care that there is a General Election before he is liable to the hubbub that will arise. If the State undertakes that burden, consider what it means! It means absolutely unlimited expenditure, the end of which no one can foresee; for remember one of the great evils—I know there have been some advantages—of the Insurance Act is that the old spirit which animated the friendly societies tends to disappear; that the old spirit which made men proud of not taking benefits has already, as a Grand Master of one of the largest friendly societies said, given place to a general feeling that they were promised ninepence for fourpence, and were determined to get it. The result of that inevitably is that the same spirit of keeping off the funds no longer exists, and if once the State goes and makes good the loss all inducement to economy, all inducement to the old pride will be gone too. Not only will there be absolutely illimitable loss to the State, but the whole character of the people will be deteriorated by the operation. It is because we believe this position is serious, and that it ought to be faced now, that we have said, if we had the power, we would at once have an inquiry not merely into the question of voluntary insurance, but into the whole working of the Act—that we would do what the Government, if they had been wise, would have done before they passed the Act. They would have had a real inquiry, and would not have rushed it through with an amount of recklessness which was equalled only by the ignorance of the Government in regard to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is very proud of having got, as he thought, an election cry against us with the employers. That was the meaning of those cheers. The right hon. Gentleman thought he would get the employers against us. I think he is a little premature. We have not committed ourselves, and I do not intend to do so. We have not said that we recommend or will carry out a voluntary system. I know, and everyone who has examined the subject knows, that there are great difficulties in connection with that system as with any other. But I can say this, that the declaration which I made at Norwich was made after a most careful examining and thinking about it for many months. It would certainly not have been made if

  1903
  I had not known absolutely that a voluntary system is possible, and, more than that, if I had not myself the hope that the result of an examination would go to prove that it was the best method of getting rid of the difficulties which have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of some of my Friends having been in favour of the compulsory system at the outset. But we all know more about it now. There is no real reproach in the fact that greater knowledge has made people change their mind. But let the House remember that we have in Denmark experience of a voluntary system which has extended over twenty years. There is this striking fact, that during the time which the German system has existed the claims have increased by 60 per cent., while in the twenty years under the voluntary system the claims have actually diminished—the difference between a State system and working it on the friendly society basis.
  I wish I had more time. The only other point I can make is this: The real case against a voluntary system is that those
  who need it most will be left out. But I remember that on the Second Reading I pointed out that your very Bill had that defect—that those who were weakest and needed it most got the least, out of it. That is the position to-day.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member must not think that he is at the Dublin inquiry. There is not the smallest doubt on the part of anyone who knows anything: about it that there are now a large number of the poorest of our people, and the very class who need help most, who are not getting the benefit, and they are compelled to pay the tax. Nothing could possibly be worse than that. I believe it is possible under a voluntary system that the numbers would be kept up. But this, at least, is certain: that those who did not get the benefit would not be compelled to pay the tax.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 283.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Altken, Sir William Max

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B,

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Croft, H. P.

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

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hickman. Colonel Thomas E.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield;)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Horne, E. (Surrey. Guildtord)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Bigland, Alfred

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bird, A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Blair, Reginald

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Fitzroy, Horn. E. A.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kerry, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Keswick, Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Cassel, Felix

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose, (Stafford, W.)

  Cator, John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Cave, George

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gretton, John

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

  Macmaster, Donald

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Tuillbardine. Marquess of

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt., E. F. (Ashburton)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Royds, Edmund

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Samuel. Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sanders. Robert Arthur

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Nield, Herbert

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

  Sandys, G. J.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S. W.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Younger, Sir George

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Touche, George Alexander

  E. Talbot and Major Stanley.

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Acland, Francis (Dyke

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Adamson, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

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

  Hinds, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Devlin, Joseph.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Armitage, R.

  Dickinson. Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dillon, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, W.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mte., Stepney)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Falconer, James

  Kelly, Edward

  Boland, John Plus

  Farrell. James Patrick

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Firench, Peter

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Brady, Patrick

  Field, William

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Brunner. John F. L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bryce, J. Annan

  France, G. A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lundon, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Maclean, Donald

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Clough, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clynes, John R.

  Hackett, John

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

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Meagher, Michael

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

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

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Crooks, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Cullinan, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  1906

  1907

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Radford, George Heynes

  Thomas, J. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morrell, Phillip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morison, Hector

  Reddy, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waring, Walter

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Nugant, Sir Walter Richard

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Webb, H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rcwntree, Arnold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Dowd, John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Scan Ian, Thomas

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on 'Question, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
  Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again To morrow.
  The Orders for the remaining Government Business were read and postponed.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEETINGS ON LICENSED PREMISES).
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to raise a matter of great importance to the friendly societies at the present time. To-day I asked the Prime Minister
  "Whether, in view of the concern felt by the friendly societies regarding the attitude of the Government towards their meetings upon licensed premises, he will give this House an opportunity of discussing the matter?"
  The answer I received from the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) was that the matter would be considered and that they would carefully consider any representations made by friendly societies. That is a very unsatisfactory answer, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the matter. For many years friendly societies have been accustomed to choose their own places of meeting. The friendly societies—members and officers—consist of some of the most temperate, intelligent, and self-controlled of their class. Is it to be supposed that at the present time these members and officers are unfit to choose where the meetings of friendly societies should take place. It is proposed, as I understand, to issue Regulations in terms similar to those already issued to Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. I anticipate the answer the hon. Gentleman will give is,

  1909
  that if a similar Regulation has been issued for Wales and Scotland, perhaps it will be suitable to England. I do not know anything about friendly societies and their working in Scotland or Wales, but if it is intended to issue a Regulation in similar terms to those issued in 1912 for Wales and Scotland, I contend that a very grave inroad will have been made upon the liberty of friendly societies. Under these Regulations no meetings of any approved society, or any branch there of, can take place on any premises where there is the sale, wholesale or retail, of any intoxicating liquor, whether for con sumption on or off the premises, or in any club where intoxicating liquor is sold; and there are Regulations providing that, at any premises where they do hold meetings, and which are contiguous to premises where alcoholic liquor is sold, there is to be a separate entrance, no internal communication, and there is to be the sanction of the Commissioners obtained. Is it possible to suppose that there should be two places of meeting for an approved society, that it should meet for its State business in one place, and that it should hold a separate meeting for its voluntary business at another place? That is really inconceivable, and it would be unbusinesslike and unworkable. One comes back to consider for what purpose the Regulation is issued. Time and time again while the Act was being passed we were assured that there was no intention to interfere unduly or to make an inroad upon the working of the friendly societies, for there are many of us in all parts of the House who would desire to pay a tribute of respect to the great English institutions, the friendly societies. It is to be observed that those meetings of friendly societies necessarily take place at the close of the day, that they are meetings not merely for the administration of benefits, but that they are intended to be means by which -well earned relaxation can be secured; and I am only contending for what is a truism when I say that at meetings of friendly societies character has been built up, a sense of brotherhood has been developed, and social intercourse has been promoted. If friendly societies are fit to be trusted, why should they not be trusted still If you desire to pass a regulation which shall interfere with their liberty and with the proper working of their voluntary side, then I understand this regulation. I am not prepared to accept the answer the hon. Gentleman gave me, for this reason. He
  1910
  said he would carefully consider the re presentations made by the friendly societies. I consider that the boot is entirely on the other leg. The Government have got to tell us under what right, for what reason, and for what purpose they justify their interference with the friendly societies. What is the cause and what is the ground on which they think such a regulation ought to be published? What reason have they for interfering with the friendly societies? What reason have they to suppose that the friendly societies will not continue in the future as in the past to manage their own business well on the premises they like to choose for the purpose, and will not continue to be as they always have been, of a temperate and well managed and properly conducted character? The answer must be given by the Government. They must tell us what their reason is for interfering with the friendly societies, and I ask their attention at once to this point.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I think if the hon. Member had studied the answer I gave in reply to his question to-day he would have saved him self the trouble of raising the matter now, and he would have saved the time of the House. There is no regulation made by the English Insurance Commissioners in relation to the place of meeting of approved societies. There is no draft regulation, and no such regulation will be made and laid before the House until con sideration has been given to the views of all concerned.
  Mr. FORSTER: I would like the hon. Gentleman to make representations to his right hon. Friend who is really responsible for this matter. We know that the hon. Gentleman is only temporarily representing the Insurance Commissioners. We hope he will remind his right hon. Friend that this matter has been decided by the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons has given the friendly societies the right to meet where they will. I remember when the Insurance Bill was before the House, an attempt was made by the extreme temperance party opposite to prevent societies from meeting on licensed premises for the purpose of the Insurance Bill, and this House then decided that the societies were to retain their freedom, the right of meeting where they chose, and I want it to be clearly understood that no right hon. Gentleman,

  1911
  no body of Commissioners, no Civil servant, or anybody else, ought to have the right of overriding and upsetting the decision which the House of Commons has taken.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and other speakers, have rather missed the point which really troubles the friendly societies. The position to my mind is this: that if they get the right to use the elementary schools of the country at a nominal fee that would be a great gain. When the Bill was before the House, as hon. Members will remember, I was almost the sole champion of the voluntary thrift institutions of this country. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, after I addressed the House, got up and assured hon. Members on this side that they, the Conservative party, were identified with a compulsory scheme. I was, therefore, left stranded as the sole exponent of the voluntary thrift movement. I am not likely to desert those voluntary institutions, as we see them thrown over at random by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. FORSTER: We were told that they assented to it.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hon. Members opposite deliberately threw over the voluntary thrift movement and demanded a compulsory scheme.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not true.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member for Colchester used these words:—
  "The case for compulsory legislation, to my mind, is unanswerable."
  I maintained when the Bill was introduced that it was to a certain extent a scheme of State Socialism, and the hon. Member for a Division of Cumberland, who was president of the Anti-Socialist Union in this country, got up and corrected me. He said it was not State Socialism, and he gave it the blessing of the Opposition on the ground that it did not at all touch the question of State Socialism. I repudiated that, and I was attacked by the Opposition. I was left as the solitary voice in this House to defend voluntary thrift. Now the defence of voluntary thrift does imply freedom of choice of the place of meeting. Hon. Members opposite wanted the State to interfere. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Undoubtedly
  1912
  the whole Opposition, as voiced on the First Beading and Second Reading, in the Committee stage, and on the Third Reading of the Insurance Act, were in favour of the State Socialistic principle of compulsory insurance. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) got up and assured the House that in no circumstances whatever would the Opposition seek to make party capital out of this question. They knew it was unpopular, thereby anticipating that declaration of she Chancellor of the Exchequer that the general voters of this country were not prepared for it. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks anticipated that, and, knowing that, and presenting that view to the House, he still declared that the Conservative party were in favour of a compulsory scheme. If you admit a compulsory scheme, you admit, as I foretold to the House—I pointed it out on the Second Reading— the interposition of State officials as regards their own ideas about all things, including the place of meeting. [HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Undoubtedly you cannot have a scheme organised by State officials and governed by them without having the imprint of their views upon the whole scheme. They are now placing it upon the place of meeting. I, as a Liberal and Radical, and advocate of freedom and liberty, do not like the interference of Government officials with regard to the place of meeting. Hon. Members opposite have not a shred of justification for their position to-night. They handed themselves over body and soul to the State-Socialistic scheme. There was not, on the Second Reading, one solitary voice raised on that side in regard to freedom of action on behalf of the voluntary societies. They glorified the compulsory principle. They glorified the worship of Government officials, and expressed their intention of carrying that to its logical conclusion. It comes with a very bad grace from them to criticise it now that they find it has inconvenient results. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) is perfectly sincere to-night. The only complaint I make of him is that he was asleep during the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Again and again throughout the months the Bill was in Committee I pleaded for liberty for the friendly societies, and that they should be trusted by the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer.
  Mr. BOOTH: Yes, in a vague, general way there is no doubt.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I was not vague.
  Mr. BOOTH: Certainly it was vague. The hon. Member never spoke on the First Reading or the Second Reading. He did not speak on the Third Reading.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Did he not have an Amendment on this very point?
  Mr. BOOTH: No, the voluntary Amendment, came from this side. There never was an Amendment on the other side in favour of voluntaryism.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Was not an Amendment moved on meetings on licensed premises, and did not our side support that?
  Mr. BOOTH: I dare say you did, if you thought you could catch votes. Hon. Members opposite, with regard to the voluntary principle, never asserted it in the slightest degree from beginning to end, except they thought they could
  1914
  catch a few votes for the First and Second Reading the definite issue was tried. We then had to decide whether we would have a compulsory or a voluntary scheme. Hon. Members opposite without exception plumped in favour of a compulsory scheme of State supervision. There was not a single hon. Member opposite 'who sup ported it on the Second Reading. I said I was not convinced that a compulsory scheme was necessary, and 1 was not satisfied with the arguments. Not a solitary bit of support did I get from the Conservative side. They made no response in the House, and in the Lobby they told me I was running my head against a stone wall, and I was a solitary man in the House, and my own personal friends on the other side said why was I fool enough to do it?
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.