Commons Sitting of 29 June 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ashington Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],
King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment
Llanfaelog Water Bill [Lords],
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
York Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords],
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Sea Fisheries (Yealm) Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till Thursday.

TRADE OF CANADA.
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of Canada for the year 1913 by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland (Mr. C. Hamilton Wickes) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5311 to 5316 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (DEPART MENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Scottish Departmental Committee on the North Sea Fishing Industry. Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 20th June, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Married Women's Special Benefits) Regulations (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 301.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Order, 1913 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Order, 1912 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1912 (No. 5) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1914 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National
4
Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1913 (No. 4) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 25th June, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1913 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Accounts presented of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1913, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the Liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on the 31st December, 1913, and the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Accounts presented showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1913, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mahomedans (Emigration from Macedonia to Thrace).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate number of Mahomedans who have either emigrated or been forcibly driven from their homes in the conquered territories in Macedonia and Thrace since the outbreak of the first Balkan war?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The information at my disposal does not allow me to form even an approximately reliable estimate
  Sir C. HUNTER: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has not got any Consular reports on the subject which could be placed on the Table of the House of Commons?
  Mr. ACLAND: We have Consular reports, and an answer in regard to the publication of them was given on Tuesday last. I do not think they contain any figures which enable me to give an approximate estimate in answer to the question.

  Anglo-Persian Oil Contract.
  Captain FABERasked whether, should occasion arise, it is proposed to send British troops to defend the pipe-line from Chiasurkh to Bagdad, seeing that in is in Turkish territory; and whether part of the money investment of the Government is to be used in developing this area?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
  Captain FABER: Does the Anglo-Persian Company mean to work at all in Turkish territory, and, if so, why Parliament was not informed?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think I have given a complete answer to the question on the Paper.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the Turkish Petroleum Company is to control the Chiasurkh-Bagdad pipe line, seeing that the British Government is acquiring a predominant interest in that company through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; whether the Shell Company and the Deutsche Bank are partners in the enterprise; and whether the Shell Company is obtaining entrance to Mesopotamia?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first question is in the negative, since the Turkish Petroleum Company are to control no property of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, no pipe-line, so far as I am aware, is to be built from Chiasurkh to Bagdad, and neither the British Government nor the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, as the hon. Member erroneously assumes, are investing, or propose to invest, any funds in the Turkish Petroleum Company;
  6
  the second question is ambiguous, but if the reference is to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, neither the Shell Company nor any of its subsidiary companies, nor the Deutsche Bank, have any participation in it or control over it; if the reference is to the Turkish Petroleum Company, I must decline to make any statement until negotiations, which are now proceeding at Constantinople, are concluded, when I propose to make a statement upon this amongst other questions which have been under discussion with the Ottoman Government; the last question should be addressed to the Secretary to the Shell Company.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, with reference to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, why a map was submitted last month to Parliament by the Admiralty showing the Chiasurkh area as being in Persian territory; and whether the Admiralty and the Government were aware that it had been transferred to Turkey last November, and why the fact was withheld that a pipe-line is to be laid from Chiasurkh to Bagdad?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first question is that Chiasurkh remained in the de facto possession of Persia until the middle of June. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it was impracticable, until the Boundary Commission had completed its work, which it has now up to latitude 35, to ascertain definitely what regions would be classified as "transferred territories"—that is areas where the rights of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are maintained, though those areas are awarded to Turkey; and it would have been undesirable for His Majesty's Government, whose Commissioner is one of the arbitrators on the Boundary Commission, to have issued an official map showing modifications of the status quo which might have been inaccurate. The map issued with the Report of Admiral Slade's Commission was intended to be an illustrative sketch map showing the approximate extent of the company's concession. The answer to the second question is that the arrangement respecting the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's rights forms an annex to the Protocol signed at Constantinople for the settlement of the Turco-Persian frontier; that it would have served no useful purpose to have published the annex without

  7
  the Protocol; and that, for reasons relating to the demarcation of the boundary, which is a very complicated question, it was not deemed advisable to publish the Protocol until the demarcation had actually been completed up to latitude 35. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to be able to lay Papers on this question next month. I may add that the company's right to construct pipe-lines is not limited to Chiasurkh, but a dispatch just received from the British Commissioner expresses the opinion that the construction of a pipe-line from Chiasurkh to the sea on the Persian side of the frontier would be quite impracticable owing to physical difficulties. The newspaper report that a pipe-line is to be laid from Chiasurkh to Bagdad is without foundation.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the Persian Government acquiesced in the transfer of the Chiasurkh territory to Turkey?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question which ought not to be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, so that we may have presented to the House some more complete chart, showing the position of the oil-fields up to date, than is included in the Blue Book?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that my right hon. Friend is to lay the Protocols in the near future, and his attention no doubt will be drawn to what has passed in the House in regard to whether it is possible to issue a map with the Procotols.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the annexation of the oil-field was settled lately, or last year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that without notice. It is a Foreign Office question.

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the actual alignment proposed of the Trans-Persian Railway according to the plan worked out by the Société d'Etudes; whether there is any proof that this plan has been accepted by the Russian and Persian authorities; and whether it has the approval or consent of the British and British-Indian Governments?
  Mr. ACLAND: No plan has as yet been worked out by the Société d'Etudes, the question of alignment being still under discussion between the several Governments.

  Balkan States (Religious Minorities).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Great Powers the appointment of an International Commission of Inquiry into the treatment of religious minorities in the territories newly occupied by each of the Balkan States, including Roumania?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government do not contemplate taking the course suggested, as such a proposal would not, I think find general acceptance or lead to any satisfactory result.

  Inshore Fisheries.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has considered the statement of the Departmental Committee on Inshore Fisheries, that there seems to be little doubt that destruction of undersized fish on a large scale is being caused by trawlers; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation for the prevention of the sale, marketing, or exposure for sale of undersized fish, as recommended by the Committee?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): As the Committee point out in their Report measures for preventing the destruction of undersized fish, if they are to be really effective, should be of international application. The whole question is receiving the careful consideration of the Board and of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and, while I agree generally with the Committee's recommendation, I am not prepared at present to introduce legislation on the subject.

  Ancient Monuments Board (Scotland).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now prepared to make any statement regarding the addition of a Scottish Member of Parliament to the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner fears that he is not able to adopt this sugges-

  9
  tion, which appears to him to rest upon a misconception of the functions of the Scottish Board.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this was considered by the Scottish Liberal Members together, who quite understood what they were doing, and that they unanimously asked that this man should be put on, and does the First Commissioner of Works intend to resent the suggestion made by the majority of the Scottish Members in this House?
  Mr. BENN: There is no question of resenting the suggestion made, but I do not think the Scottish Members had before them the circumstances which weighed with the First Commissioner.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask if the First Commissioner has received any representation whatever about the names of the gentlemen placed on this Board?
  Mr. BENN: None that I am aware of.
  Captain MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were some Scottish Members who were not aware of the so-called facts stated by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the meeting at which this suggestion was made was convened in the ordinary way by agenda, and that everybody entitled to be present could have been present? This suggestion was made by a majority of the Scottish Members, and I wish to know if we are not to have this man?
  Mr. BENN: I am not aware of the circumstances under which the meeting was called, but the First Commissioner will be glad to communicate to the Scottish Members the reasons which weighed with him in arriving at his decision.
  Mr. KING: Is it the case that no Scottish Member could be added because there is no one who is a fit and proper person?

  Scottish Office of Works (Staff).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in the Report of the Committee on the staffing of the English and Scottish Offices of Works, there is a proposal to reduce the salary attaching to the post of head of the Scottish Office of
  10
  Works to the level of a principal assistant in the London office; and, if so, whether there is any likelihood of the First Commissioner endorsing this recommendation?
  Mr. BENN: My hon. Friend will see by reference to the Report printed as Cd. 7416 that the proposal is to reduce the salary to the scale of an architect at headquarters, but at the same time to attach a special allowance of £100 per annum to the post. The proposal has been approved by the First Commissioner and the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, and effect will be given to it when the present Principal Architect for Scotland retires.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that the Scottish Office of Works is going to be reduced in status?
  Mr. BENN: No.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Has the hon. Gentleman received any complaint of any kind as to the qualifications of the gentleman appointed to the Board in Scotland?
  Mr. BENN: I have received none of any kind.

  Westminster Hall (Roof Restoration).
  Mr. KINGasked whether any attempt has been made to acquire oak for the restoration of Westminster Hall from an hon. Member of this House; whether negotiations fell through owing to the liability of a Member of Parliament to vacate his seat if he enters into any contract with the Government; and whether any difficulty has been experienced in obtaining good oak timber for this restoration?
  Mr. BENN: The First Commissioner would refer the hon. Member to the explanation of the difficulty of obtaining a proper supply of oak given on pages 43–44 of Cd. 7436. The estate in Sussex there mentioned is the private property of a Member of this House. Consideration is still being given to the whole question.
  Mr. KING: Would it be possible if this transaction in reference to the timber were carried through to pass an indemnity Bill for the hon. Member?
  Mr. BENN: I am still making inquiries as to whether it would be possible to obtain trees.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Could not the hon. Member who owns the timber solve the difficulty by presenting the trees?

  Merchant Ships (Wireless Installations).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the President of the Board of Trade why the rule as to wireless installations has been limited to ships carrying over fifty people; and whether, with a view to greater safety at sea, the rule will be extended to include ships carrying a less number than fifty persons?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): Fifty persons is the limit fixed by the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, and by such legislation in other countries as exists on the subject of the provision of wireless telegraphy on merchant ships. The Bill now before Parliament is solely intended to give effect to the Convention, and while it may be desirable at some future date to reconsider the limit fixed, I do not think it would be practicable to adopt a lower limit at the present moment.

  Disaster to S.S. "California."
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any information to give the House with regard to the Anchor liner "California" that went ashore on Tory Island?
  Mr. BURNS: I regret to state that the Anchor liner "California" ran on the rocks last night in a fog at Tory Island off the coast of Donegal. Seven hundred passengers were taken off by the Donaldson liner "Cassandra," and another steamer took off 300 more. Four torpedo-boat destroyers, hearing by wireless, left Lough Swilly and gave great assistance in transferring the passengers. The vessel is likely to get off. The crew are aboard, and the warships are standing by them. The information up to the moment is that no lives have been lost.

  Trade Boards (Ireland).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the position created by the action of the Board of Trade in regard to trade boards, recently established in connection with the sugar confectionery trade and the shirt-making trade in Ireland; whether he is aware that on all the trade boards previously established the workers' representatives have included persons not included in the trade concerned; and that this representation of the workers by outsiders capable of rendering them assistance in the safeguarding of their interests has always been regarded as of
  12
  prime importance and was provided for in the Act of 1909; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade has made a new departure in Ireland, in the case of the boards recently established, and has thrown upon the workers in the trade the task of conducting their own case against employers, united in an association and prepared with arguments in their own favour; whether he is aware that, in the case of the Sugar Confectionery Board the workers' representatives consist of six girls and three labouring men, all of them in receipt of low wages, and that, at a meeting of this board recently held in Dublin, four of the women and two of the men workers found themselves opposed at the table by their own employers, and consequently none of these workers wanted to take any part in the proceedings, and, but for the presence of an outsider whom the Board of Trade permitted to deputise for one of the men workers, no resolution or proposal affecting the workers would have been brought forward, although, according to figures put in by the employers themselves, the average rate of wages in certain of the factories concerned was under 7s. a week; whether he is aware that on the Shirtmaking Trades Board the employers have been permitted the assistance of a legal adviser, and that at the first meeting of this Board, but for the intervention of a representative of the National Anti-Sweating League, the result might have been disastrous for the workers, as their representatives were personally unknown to one another, had no plan of action, and lacked both the capacity and the experience necessary to hold their own with the men in charge of the interests of the employers; and whether, seeing that the workers themselves have demanded that the Board of Trade should permit them to nominate a skilled representative outside their own ranks to assist them in the defence of their interests, he will accede to this demand of the workers with the least possible delay?
  Mr. BURNS: The Board of Trade have always endeavoured to secure that the workers' side of the Trade Boards shall contain an efficient leader either from inside or outside the trades concerned. In the case of the Sugar Confectionery Board in Ireland, the person selected as leader of the workers' side resigned just before the first meeting of the Board. In order to fill the vacancy thus created, Mr. Mallon, who is the secretary of the Anti-Sweating

  13
  League, was appointed by the Board of Trade, and he was present at the first and only meeting of the Trade Board as a member and not as a deputy for anybody else. As regards the Irish Shirtmaking Board, the secretary of the Employers' Federation (who is by profession a solicitor) is a member of the employers' side. The workers' side of the Shirtmaking Board includes three officials of the workers' trade unions, namely, the secretary and treasurer of the Londonderry Factory Workers' Union and the vice-president of the Belfast Amalgamated Society of Cutters, all three of whom are employed in the trade. If the workers think that their side is not sufficiently strong, notwithstanding that three officials of their trade unions are members of it, I shall be very glad, upon a vacancy arising, to consider any name which may be submitted to me on their behalf.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the number of Trade Boards established in Ireland under the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, the dates of the establishment of these boards, the towns or cities in which they have been established, the trades they have been established in connection with, and the particular branches of those trades with which they are concerned, the names, addresses, and occupations of the representatives of the employers, the employés, and the local and official members of each of these boards, respectively, the number of meetings of each of these boards held since its establishment, the number and names of those present at each such meeting, the net results, so far as they can be ascertained up to the present, of the action of these boards in so far as it affects the wages, the hours of work, and the conditions of work of the workers or employés concerned; and with whom, if with any person or persons, the Board of Trade consulted as to the representatives of the workers appointed as members of these boards?
  Mr. BURNS: Four Trade Boards have been established in Ireland, one each for the paper box-making, tailoring, shirtmaking, and sugar confectionery and food-preserving trades. These Trade Boards cover the whole of Ireland and deal with the branches of their respective trades set out in the Regulations, of which I am sending my hon. Friend copies. I am also sending my hon. Friend a statement showing the dates of establishment of the boards, the names, addresses and occupations of the appointed and representa-
  14
  tive members, the number of meetings of each board, and the attendances of each member. The paper box-making and tailoring boards have fixed minimum rates of wages, as set out in the notices, of which I am sending my hon. Friend copies. I may remind him that Trade Boards have no power to regulate the hours of work or the general conditions of employment. The representatives of workers on the paper box-making and tailoring boards were elected at meetings of workers; those on the shirtmaking and sugar confectionery and food preserving boards were chosen after very careful investigation on the spot by representatives of the Board of Trade, who held numerous meetings of workers and consulted persons likely to be of assistance.

  Highland Railway Disaster.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked why Colonel Druitt did not arrive on the scene of the Highland Railway disaster at once, as promised; why none of the passengers were examined at the inquiry; whether no evidence was led as to the depth of the foundations of the bridge under the bottom of the burn; what was the height of the bridge above the level of the burn; and whether there was any precaution to prevent the damming of the water by means of a strong fence to avoid trees being swept against the bridge?
  Mr. BURNS:I understand from Colonel Druitt that he had reason to believe that it would have been inconvenient to all concerned to open the inquiry at once. The accident was due to the collapse of a bridge, and Colonel Druitt did not consider that any passenger would be in a position to throw light on the cause of this collapse. Detailed evidence was given as to the nature and depths of the foundations and all other matters relevant to the object of the inquiry. These and all the other points mentioned will be fully dealt with in the inspecting officer's report.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take precautions to secure that in the case of the approaches of any bridges on the Highland Railway the fences will in all cases be placed so as to avoid trees being driven against the bridges?
  Mr. BURNS: I have specially directed the attention of the inspector to this point.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEGRAPH STAFF, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Post master-General with regard to the punching test imposed on the telegraph staff at Sheffield in order to qualify for the increased pay recommended by the Holt Committee, whether he will state the reason for this further test in the case of men in receipt of the maximum pay who passed the usual efficiency test early in the present year; and whether he will state the standard required at these two tests and the reason for increasing the standard of the second test?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): It is the practice to impose a test in Wheatstone punching before granting any increment above the Efficiency Barrier point of the scale, even if an officer has passed the test earlier in the same year. The standard required for the manipulative test in punching is 200 words in ten minutes. The duration of the test applied early in the present year at Sheffield was limited to five minutes, but the recent test was for the full period of ten minutes required by the regulations.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for a considerable time the guardians of Elham Union have been desirous of obtaining telephone communication between Folkestone and the workhouse at Lyminge, and that, in correspondence on the subject extending over two years, the local manager of the telephone system has given four different quotations for the annual rental to be required for such communication, of which quotations the last three were all accepted by the guardians without delay, but that the guardians have now been informed that the desired facilities can only be given if two additional subscribers are first secured in Lyminge; and whether, having regard to the fact that the workhouse at Lyminge is practically a Folkestone institution, and that there are numerous telephone subscribers in Folkestone, he will take steps without delay to provide the connection desired by the guardians in the interests of the proper management of the workhouse?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that quotations for an exchange line to the Cheriton Exchange were given to the guardians of Eltham Union first by the
    16
    National Telephone Company, and subsequently by the Post Office. The Post Office has since had under consideration the establishment of an exchange at Lyminge, and more favourable terms have been offered for a connection with that exchange. A little more support is necessary to enable me to authorise the provision of the proposed exchange, and there seems reason to think that it will be found shortly.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the early correspondence on the question the point was never taken by the Post Office that further support was necessary, and that the whole matter turned on the question of notice?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not carry the general correspondence in my mind, but if that is so it is most unusual.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the fact that male night telephone operators at Grimsby are compelled to work at least part of every Sunday throughout the whole of the year; if it is his intention to continue this practice; and, if not, what steps he intends taking to bring about reform, and when?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The night telephonists at Grimsby perform duty on each Sunday, but they are free from duty on another day in the week. The hours of the class are fixed without discrimination between Sundays, public or Bank Holidays and ordinary working days, and the recent Select Committee approved this arrangement subject to the proviso that twenty-four hours in each week should be entirely free of duty. I am taking steps to ensure that this latter requirement is fulfilled.

    HANWELL (POSTAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a resolution from the urban district council of Hanwell, expressing their dissatisfaction with his recent replies on the subject of postal accommodation at Hanwell, and asking him to receive a deputation on the subject; and whether he proposes to accede to that request?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received the communication to which the hon. Member refers. The matter has received very careful consideration, and, as I am not pre-

    17
    pared to make any alteration in the existing arrangements at Hanwell at present, I do not think that an interview, as suggested, would serve any useful purpose.

    EX-BOY SORTERS.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether service in the obsolete grade of boy sorter is by a recent regulation to be counted for pension in the case of postal servants retiring after February, 1914, but not in the case of ex-boy sorters who retired before that date; if so, what is the reason for this discrimination; how many ex-boy sorters are thereby excluded from the benefit of the regulation, and what would be the cost of including them; and whether he will place all ex-boy sorters on an equal footing in regard to counting their service in that grade for pension?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Select Committee on Post Office Servants recommended the inclusion of boy sorter service for pension purposes in the case of all officers retiring from the service after the date on which the Committee's recommendations came into effect. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, with whom the administration of the Superannuation Acts rests, were not prepared to go beyond the recommendation of the Committee by extending this concession to persons already out of the service. There are no statistics available to show the number of ex-boy sorters who retired before the concession came into force.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unfair, when an obsolete grade like this is abolished, that those who were in it earlier and retired, not knowing all the advantages in store for those who followed them, should be debarred from participation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who administer the Superannuation Acts, were not prepared to go beyond the recommendation of the Committee, and, as the service has pension rights, I follow the recommendations of the Committee.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many would be affected by it, and what the cost would be, and, if the cost be trifling, will he make an effort to include those to whom I refer?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said there are no statistics available to enable me to get the numbers.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why, considering that the guns' crew who work the guns on armed merchantmen receive extra duty-pay for their services, no allowance is given to the officers in charge of the guns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question has been carefully considered by the Admiralty, and I am advised that for the present extra remuneration is not considered necessary. Service in charge of the guns will be allowed to count towards qualification for an officer's training fee in place of annual or biennial naval training.

    SERVICE IN PERSIAN GULF (1910–12).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has yet been decided if medals are to be given to the naval ratings who served in the Persian Gulf in 1910–12?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House when he thinks he will be in a position to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am just as anxious to make a statement as the hon. Gentleman is to hear it, when I am in a position to make a satisfactory one.
    Colonel YATE: Considering the terrible hardships those men have had to undergo, will the right hon. Gentleman soon give the subject consideration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have done so, with the result that a special medal is now being minted.

    MOBILISED FLEET AT SPITHEAD,
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the date for the coming naval mobilisation and review by His Majesty at Spithead is definitely fixed for 18th July; what is the number and description of each class of vessel which will be assembled there for review; if any provision is contemplated whereby Members of both Houses of Parliament

    19
    can be present at this review as in former years; if he will place in the Tea Room a chart showing the position of the ships; if he will state if the regulations which yachts, passenger vessels, and other merchant ships will have to obey during the review have yet been issued; and, if not, how soon they will be available?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The bulk of the mobolised Fleet will be assembled at Spit-head by the 18th July, and will not leave until the 20th July. His Majesty the King will be with the Fleet during this week-end, but there will be no formal review. The numbers of ships of various classes which are expected to be present are as follows:—

    Battleships

    55

    Battle cruisers

    4

    Cruisers

    27

    Light cruisers

    28

    Destroyers

    78

    In addition to minelayers, minesweeping gunboats, repair ships, and depot ships for torpedo craft. The possibility of giving an opportunity to Members of both Houses of Parliament to visit the assembled Fleet on the 18th July is being considered. A notice to mariners has been issued, containing the regulations for private vessels and a small plan of the anchorage. A larger chart will be issued in about a week's time, and I shall be happy to arrange for a copy to be placed in the Tea Booms.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Members of both Houses of Parliament will know what accommodation is to be at their disposal on board the vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should hope in the course of the present week.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    EXCESSIVE SICKNESS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, when the Departmental Committee upon excessive sickness, in connection with the National Insurance Act, ceased taking evidence; how many meetings they have since held; and when their Report is likely to be issued?
    Mr. W. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that the Committee referred to have finished taking evidence and hope to report at an early date.
    Mr. BATHURST: How many meetings have the Committee held?
    Mr. BENN: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down another question. This does not come directly under the knowledge of the Chairman of the Board.

    REGULATIONS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (1) whether any objections have been made to the draft Regulations, dated 3rd April, 1914, proposed to be made by the joint committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Withdrawal of Approval) Regulations, 1914; and when the Regulations or provisional Regulations based on the draft Regulations will be laid before the House; (2) whether any objections have been made to the draft Regulations, dated 3rd April, 1914, proposed to be made by the joint committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Dissolution of Societies) Regulations, 1914; and when the Regulations or provisional Regulations based on the draft Regulations will be laid before the House; and (3) whether any objections have been made to the draft Regulations, dated 31st March, 1914, proposed to be made by the joint committee, entitled the National Insurance (Amalgamation and Transfer of Engagements) Regulations, 1914; and when the Regulations or provisional Regulations based on the draft Regulations will be laid before the House?
    Mr. BENN: Representations have been received with regard to certain details of these draft Regulations, and are now under consideration. The Regulations will be made and laid before the House under the ordinary procedure when the points in question have been decided. The Regulations are not operative in the meantime.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Has objection been taken to each one of the three, and when is the answer to the objections likely to be given?
    Mr. BENN: I cannot give a detailed report as to what objections have been received, but some have been received.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Against all?
    Mr. BENN: I cannot say.

    SURFACEMEN (WALESWOOD COLLIERIES).
    Major BOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is

    21
    still considering the case of the thirty surfacemen employed at Waleswood collieries, near Sheffield; and whether, in view of the fact that these men were, at the commencement of the operation of the National Insurance Act, informed that they were not insurable under Part II., and now a demand is made on them for arrears of contributions amounting to 39s. 2d., he will give these men the option of either entering insurance for the first time on the date of the decision that they are insurable or of making up their arrears in accordance with his letter to the men of the 5th instant?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not aware that the workmen referred to were informed that they were not insurable. The Board of Trade have no power to dispense with the payment of any arrears of contributions due under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911. The communication of the 5th June, referred to by the hon. Member, stated, that so far as the Board of Trade were aware, an employer, on paying up arrears of contributions, was not precluded from recovering the workman's share thereof by deductions in reasonable instalments from the workman's wages. I hope that the question of deductions in respect of arrears will be dealt with in the amending Bill now before Parliament.
    Major BOWDEN: Is it legal to deduct insurance contributions from wages except for that period for which those wages are paid?
    Mr. BURNS: For the moment, not being a lawyer, I will not give the hon. Member a legal answer. If there is any doubt about it, we trust to remove it in the amending Bill before the Committee.
    Major BOWDEN: Will the hon. Member remove that if that is so?
    Mr. BURNS: We will look into it.
    Mr. HODGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why arrears of contribution are to be deducted from the men in a case of this kind?
    Mr. BURNS: As the hon. Member knows, as a Member of the Committee dealing with the Bill on this subject, this is a difficult problem, and it is not possible to deal with it by means of question and answer.
    Major BOWDEN: Is it fair to ask colliery surfacemen suddenly to produce
    22
    39s. 2d. just because Board of Trade officials change their mind?

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government can see their way to including in any Bill which may be introduced this Session amending Part I. of the Insurance Act, or affecting the position of deposit contributors under that Act, a Clause giving the Commissioners power to vary the condition requiring a minimum membership of 5,000 for valuation purposes in cases where, in there opinion, it is desirable to do so owing to special circumstances, such as exist in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere?
    Mr. BENN: I fear that I cannot undertake to anticipate the terms of any future legislation.

    Local Education Authorities (Boarding-out Children).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether local education authorities have the power to board-out children in suitable homes near the public elementary schools which they are attending; and, if not, whether it is the intention to confer such powers upon local education authorities?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): Local education authorities have no such power, except in the case of blind, deaf, defective, or epileptic children, who can be boarded-out with a view to their attendance at special classes in public elementary schools. It will be remembered that the Administrative Provisions Bill of 1911 as introduced contained a Clause to give-effect to this proposal, but the Clause was, not proceeded with owing to opposition.

    London University.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education if he can inform the House whether and, if so, what negotiations are now going on for the establishment of a university in London; and whether it is contemplated by the Government to create a new London University?
    Mr. PEASE: A Departmental Committee is now dealing with the matter in accordance with its Terms of Reference, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to their proceedings. The Government certainly contemplate the reconstitution of the University of London.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will use his best efforts to correct the impression which has been produced in his speech on Tuesday last that it was contemplated to create a new London University, apparently distinct and separate from the present one?
    Mr. PEASE: Perhaps a slip of that kind is sufficiently corrected by the statement in the answer, that the Government certainly contemplate the reconstitution of the University of London.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Departmental Committee appointed to frame a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on University Education in London will submit their Report before the close of the present Session; and, if so, when it may be expected to be presented to the House?
    Mr. PEASE: I understand that the Departmental Committee are not yet in a position to say by what date they will be able to complete their consideration of their Reference, and I, therefore, do not expect that they will be able to submit their Report before the close of the Session.

    Technical Education.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education the localities in which a large number of students who desire to attend technical classes are turned away from the door; the subjects of instruction in which those technical classes are held; and the local authorities who say that they are unable to spend more money for establishing technical classes?
    Mr. PEASE: Information to this effect is continually reaching me from various quarters and in various ways, including, of course, the confidential reports of His Majesty's inspectors, but not in a form which lends itself to tabular statement. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that the development of technical education has been seriously arrested by financial pressure, and it is for this reason that the Government are contemplating increased aid to this branch of education.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any specific instances in which "a large number of students who desire to attend technical classes are, turned away from the
    24
    door," as it would be very interesting to know where those are?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member requires specific instances he had better give notice of a further question.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It is in the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks for specific instances.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the localities in which a large number of students desire to attend such classes, and are turned away from the doors?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question 41, please.

    Elementary Schools (Free Education).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education, if he can give instances within the last ten years of the Government having been compelled to proceed by mandamus to compel a reluctant authority to enforce free education in public elementary schools?
    Mr. PEASE: So far as I am aware, there are no such instances.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EDUCATION GRANTS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education in what way and to what special purposes of technical education it is proposed to allocate the sum of £100,000, being part of the sum of £560,000 to be given to higher education; and how he proposes to dispose of the sum of £395,000 in assisting secondary education?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not in a position to state the precise method in which the sum of £100,000 will be distributed in aid of technical education, but it is intended to apply a substantial portion of it to increasing the Grants-in-Aid of larger institutions which are doing advanced and highly organised work, and thereby to raise the proportion which the present Grants bear to the cost of that work. Supplementary regulations are in preparation for the purpose. As regards secondary schools, it is proposed to make substantial increases in the Grants given under the existing regulations, which will be modified accordingly. I hope that draft regulations will soon be ready for that process of consultation and discussion with authorities and bodies concerned, which I believe the House will regard as a desirable preliminary to their issue.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mode of allocation, as he describes it, will inflict serious injury on higher education in rural districts?
    Mr. PEASE: I hope the regulations will be such that there will be no hardship in any area in technical work.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on the position in which the right to free elementary education will be left by the passing of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. PEASE: While I am advised that there is no uncertainty on the point raised in the hon. Member's question, yet the Law Officers of the Crown will have an opportunity of considering the matter before Part IV. is considered in Committee.

    GRANTS TO LOCAL RATES.
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can estimate what the amount of the Grant towards local rates during the current year will be in the case of the borough of Ipswich under the revised financial proposals announced on Monday last?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentford on the 25th instant.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to those cases where, prior to the announcement by the Government of their intention to vary the rate of Income Tax from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 3d. in the £, stocks and shares have been sold, cum dividend, and the purchaser has received from the seller dividends from which Income Tax has been deducted at the rate of 1s. 4d. in the £; and whether, assuming that the House decides to lower the Income Tax from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 3d. in the £ and the seller receives an allowance or payment in respect of Income Tax accordingly, the seller is entitled to retain the amount of such allowance or payment for himself or is bound to pay the same over to the purchaser from him or to the registered owner of such stocks or shares at the time when such allowance or payment is received or to some other and what person?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matter would appear to be one for settlement between the seller and the purchaser.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in order to avoid confusion, he will introduce a provision into the Finance Bill or into the Revenue Bill to deal with these cases?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope it will be possible to make arrangements without introducing anything into the Finance Bill; but, if necessary, without giving an undertaking on the subject, I will consider the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, and in the events which have happened, Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 4d. in the £ must continue to be paid or deducted until the Report stage of the Finance Bill has been reached, and the House has decided that the Income Tax for the current year shall be at the rate of 1s. 3d. instead of 1s. 4d. in the £; whether he is aware that, in case the House shall so decide, all payments of Income Tax which have been made at a rate exceeding 1s. 3d. in the £ must be repaid or made good, and all deductions which have been made in respect of Income Tax at such a rate are to be deemed as unauthorised; and whether, in view of the expense which will, owing to the action of the Government, be thrown upon banks, companies, and others, in repaying or making good such over-payments, or in refunding such unauthorised deductions, he will make provision for reimbursing such expenses to the parties concerned?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. and learned Member, and as I stated in answer to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 25th instant, I am considering what steps can be taken to minimise the inconvenience arising out of the proposed reduction in the rate of Income Tax. I fear, however, that I am unable to entertain the suggestion that compensation should be granted for any expenditure which may prove to be necessary in the circumstances referred to in the question.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the

    27
    cost to the Exchequer of the relief from Income Tax to persons in respect of a deduction from profits of such a sum as fairly represents the exhausted value of wasting assets (such as collieries, quarries, nitrate lands, etc.) in the period upon the product of which the assessment is based?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: While there are insufficient data for arriving at any very definite estimate, I see no reason for materially departing from the figure of £2,000,000, which I gave on the 2nd August, 1912, in the course of the Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of that year.

    Inebriates Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a communication from the county council of Middlesex pressing that the Inebriates Bill should be passed this Session; and whether he will endeavour to secure a day for that purpose?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to bring in some measure to prevent these unfortunate people becoming inebriates?
    Mr. McKENNA: If I knew how I would be only too glad.

    English Spelling.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a request from the Simplified Speling Sosieti asking that a Royal Commission may be appointed to consider whether it is possible to introduce greater regularity into the spelling of English; and, if so, what answer has been given?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No such request has reached me.

    National Defence.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to say when he will be able to make a statement on the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Defence Committee concerning possible invasion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I fear I cannot give a date, but I intend to make a statement during the course of the Session.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: From what Power is possible invasion expected?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    VOLUNTEER FORCES.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Marquess of Londonderry, aide-de-camp to His Majesty the King, was present at a review of the Ulster Volunteers at Balmoral, Belfast, on the 23rd September, 1913; whether, at Ormiston, Belfast, on the 17th January last, the Marquess of Londonderry was present at another parade of the Ulster Volunteers; whether the Marquess of Londonderry was present on the 13th April last at a review of the Ulster Volunteers at Antrim Castle; whether he was present again at a review of the Ulster Volunteers at Clandeboye, county Down, on the 14th April last; whether the Marquess of Londonderry was present at a parade of the Ulster Volunteers at Glencairn, Belfast, on the 6th June last, and at another parade of the same force at Balmoral, Belfast, on the same day; whether the avowed object of the Ulster Volunteers is, in the event of the enactment of the Government of Ireland Bill, to resist by armed force the authority of the Crown and Parliament and to make the administration of the law impossible; whether the Marquess of Londonderry has been called on for an explanation of his conduct in attending these parades and reviews; whether any reprimand has been addressed to him; and, if not, will he say why this has not been done, and whether there is any special reason why the Marquess of Londonderry should be treated differently in this matter from Captain Bellingham, aide-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was called upon for an explanation for having attended and spoken at a meeting of the Irish Volunteers?
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether he is aware that on every occasion mentioned in the question as having been attended by the Marquess of Londonderry the National Anthem was played, cheers were given for His Majesty, and the Union Jack was displayed; and whether he can say

    29
    whether similar expressions of loyalty were given at the meeting attended by Captain Bellingham?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge which would enable me to answer the supplementary question without notice. In answer to the question on the Paper I have not verified the statements of my hon. Friend as regards the presence of Lord Londonderry at these reviews, but I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. I would, however, point out that there are more than seventy aides-de-camp to the King, and that the office, unlike that of an acting aide-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, does not normally carry with it any active duties or responsibilities. The duties are, as a rule, of an entirely honorary character, and, in the circumstances, I have not thought it worth while to take any notice of the matter.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any reason to suppose that in any case Lord Londonderry would care a straw? [Interruption.]
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the appeal recently issued by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to his sympathisers in the United States, both Irish and American, urging them to supply funds to strengthen the Irish National Volunteers, so as to place them in the position of an armed fighting force; and whether he will inform the House what steps he proposes to take to meet this new danger to the peace of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered on my behalf a very similar question on Thursday last, and I would refer the hon. and learned Member to that reply.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the answer now made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to take any steps to suppress these admitted illegalities?
    The PRIME MINSTER: The answer to which I referred was:—
    "The Proclamation as to the importation of arms and ammunition applies to Ireland generally, and steps, which he hopes will be effective, are being taken for its enforcement."
    Mr. BUTCHER: What steps are proposed to be taken?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an agent of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was also in America collecting subscriptions?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he will point to the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill which prohibit the Irish Parliament from expending on the maintenance of the Irish National Volunteers such part as they may think fit of the sum of £2,700,000 per annum to be provided by the British Exchequer and to be paid over to the Irish Exchequer under that Bill; and whether he will state what effective steps can be taken by the Imperial Parliament under the Government of Ireland Bill or otherwise to prevent such an expenditure of British money after it has been paid over to the Irish Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to Clauses 2 (3) and 21 of the Government of Ireland Bill.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Clause 2 (3) only refers to legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Executive authority and legislative authority.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask how you propose to coerce the Executive of the Irish Parliament. May I ask for an answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for Debate.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Clause 4 of the Government of Ireland Amendment Bill, introduced by the Lord Privy Seal into the House of Lords on behalf of His Majesty's Government, deals entirely with finance, and that the privileges of this House by which it has exclusive control of provisions imposing charges upon the people have been thereby infringed; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Even if the Clause referred to did involve a breach of privilege—as to which I express no opinion—this matter is one for this House to deal with when the Bill comes to it. The House can and often does waive its privilege.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, under the terms of the Government of Ireland (Amend-

    31
    ment) Bill, in the event of the county of Londonderry being excluded and the city of Londonderry being included in the Government of Ireland Bill, he will say by what method the yield of the Income Tax of a citizen with a business place in the city and a residence in the county will be allocated as between the Imperial and Irish Exchequers in the event of the rate of the tax not being identical; (2) whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill becoming an Act, it is intended that one of the members of the Joint Exchequer Board shall be a representative of any portion of Ireland that may be excluded from the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if not, in what manner the interests of such excluded portion of Ireland will be safeguarded in determining the costs of the Irish services as laid down in Section 4 of the Amending Bill; and (3) whether, in the event of any portion of Ireland being excluded from the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Grants in relief of local ratepayers which it is proposed to make from the Imperial Exchequer under Part II. of the Finance Bill, 1914, will be made in relief of ratepayers resident in such excluded portion, subject to the efficiency of the local authorities and dependent on a valuation showing separately the annual value of the site and of the improvement, or will be paid to the Lord Lieutenant to allocate in such a way or by such regulation as he shall direct?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I am not in a position to discuss the provisions and effect of Bills which have been introduced in another place and have not yet come before this House.

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill being placed on the Statute Book prior to Part II. of the Finance Bill of 1914, which seeks to enact the terms on which Grants from the Imperial Exchequer shall be made in aid of local rates, he will say under what Clause of the Government of Ireland Bill the proportion of the proposed Grants to be allocated to Ireland, and amounting to £697,500, will be included in the Transferred Sum?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The inclusion of these Grants in the Transferred Sum will be effected not by any Clause in the
    32
    Government of Ireland Bill, but by the legislation authorising the Grants.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the proportion of the proposed Grants due to Ireland in respect of national health insurance, feeding of school children, nursing, and health research will be specifically allocated in respect of the above enumerated or similar services, or will, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming an Act, be automatically added to the Transferred Sum and be at the disposal of the Irish Government?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Subject to the provisions of Clause 5 (2) of the Government of Ireland Bill, all public services in Ireland in connection with the administration of the National Insurance Act are matters reserved to the Government of the United Kingdom. The proposed Grant in respect of the national health insurance will be administered by that Government. The equivalent Grants to Ireland corresponding to the Grants in Great Britain for new educational services, tuberculosis, nursing and pathological laboratories will be added to the Transferred Sum, and be at the disposal of the Irish Government.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Can these Grants be used for nursing Irish Volunteers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If they are ill, certainly.

    House of Commons (Length of Speeches).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the proposal to limit the length of speeches in this House continues to gain favour with high authorities; and whether, with a view to making an experimental test, he will support the proposal to limit the length of speeches during the remaining days of Supply and on the Indian Budget this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that this matter is being considered by the Committee on Procedure, and I think it would be well to await their Report before taking any action even of an experimental nature with regard to it.
    Mr. KING: Would it not be well for the Committee to make some experiments on which they could base their recommendations?

    Declaration of London.
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Govern-

    33
    ment intend to reintroduce the Naval Prize Bill this Session; and, if not, whether, in view of the facts that the failure of Great Britain to ratify the Declaration of London is tending to postpone the summoning of the third Hague Conference, and that the Naval Prize Bill obtained the assent of the House of Commons in 1911, the Government will advise His Majesty to ratify that Declaration without further delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I can at present add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on the 5th March, to the effect that the Government hope to reintroduce the Naval Prize Bill this Session, but are unable to make a definite statement. With regard to the second part, His Majesty cannot be advised to ratify an international treaty until the municipal law of this country has been so amended as to enable the Government to fulfil the obligations thereby assumed.

    Scottish Home Rule.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Glasgow City Corporation unanimously agreed to a resolution calling upon the Government to introduce a Scottish Home Rule Bill forthwith; whether he is aware that this represents the corporate sense of over one-quarter of the population of Scotland; whether he is aware that the city council of Glasgow expresses the view of all shades of political opinion; and, in view of the continuous and almost unanimous expression of opinion by the great municipalities of Scotland, whether he can do nothing to allay the anxiety that exists regarding a definite pronouncement on this subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen what has appeared on this subject in the public Press, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend's citation is absolutely correct; but I fear I cannot add anything to what I have already stated with regard to the matter.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Secretary for Scotland said that the Government were drafting a Bill to deal with Scottish Home Rule. Is that true?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that every statement of my right hon. Friend is true.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that those electors who voted against Scottish Home Rule at the last contested Parliamentary election exceeded the combined Liberal vote in its favour in Orkney, Caithness, Wick—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord will see that that is a question which it is impossible for the Prime Minister to answer without notice.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE:Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the largeness of the incorporate common-sense of Glasgow, he will "ca' canny" before he introduces such a measure?
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that politics do enter into the election of municipal councillors, and would not such councillors be going altogether beyond their province in dealing with matters of this kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of Unionist candidates in Scotland have pronounced in favour of Scottish Home Rule?

    Coal Mines Bill.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether it is intended to move the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill this Session; and, if so, when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; as soon as possible.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL ENGINEER SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Viscount WOLMERasked why service in the late Royal Engineer Militia has been allowed to count for promotion in the case of officers of the Royal Engineer Special Reserve?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Officers of the late Submarine Mining Militia had, as members of units prior to their transfer to the Special Reserves, enjoyed the privilege of promotion to fill vacancies. As on transfer this ceased, the effect was suddenly to retard their prospects of promotion and, as some compensation for this, it was decided to allow commissioned service other than during embodiment or in the field, to count in the few cases where this would give any advantage.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position is exactly similar to that of other regiments in the Special Reserve? That being so, why is this particular privilege accorded to the Engineers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am advised that the service of these Engineers is quite different.

    Coal Mines (Shot-firing Accidents).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary whether he is able to state how many of the 1,854 shot-firing accidents that occurred in coal mines between 1903 and 1913 occurred in mines where shot-firing was clone by electricity, and how many men were killed and injured in these accidents?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret that this information is not available.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the total number of men killed and injured in the eighty-nine accidents in coal mines that occurred between the years 1903 and 1913 due to the unramming of shots which had missed fire?
    Mr. McKENNA: Three persons were killed and 114 injured.

    Ballyhack Pier.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can say why the improvement of Ballyhack pier has been stopped and the man in charge of the work taken away; is he aware that the improvement work can only be done in summer; and, seeing that the fishermen will be the sufferers next winter if the work is not completed, will he see that it is resumed as soon as possible?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Work at Ballyhack has been suspended and the foreman removed because the county council are not yet in possession of the necessary title to the site of the works. When the difficulties have been overcome, the Department are ready to resume operations at the shortest notice.

    Private Members' Bills.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for North Kensington if he intends to proceed with the Education and Main-
    36
    tenance of the Blind Bill, put down for Second Reading on 25th June; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to give notice that if the hon. Member moves this Bill again, as he did on Thursday, I shall object to it until he prints it.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for East Denbighshire if he intends to proceed with the Government of Wales Bill; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question weekly until the Bill is printed.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty if he intends to proceed with the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Bill set down for Second Reading on Monday next; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to give notice that I must oppose the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Bill if the hon. Member moves it to-night.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for South Islington if he intends to proceed with the Parliamentary Elections (Alternative Vote) (No. 2) Bill; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the question weekly until the hon. Member has the Bill printed.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for North Dublin County if he intends to proceed with the Small Dwellings Acquisition Bill; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. BOOTH: I understood that the hon. Member would be present to-day. I will repeat the question at the hon. Member's convenience, as I understand that he wishes to give an answer in the House.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Arising out of those questions and replies, would it not be more convenient to the House if the hon. Member would tell us what Bills he is going to let through, in order that a vast amount of printing might be saved?
    Mr. KING: Is it in order for a Supplementary Question to be addressed to the asker of a question instead of to the Minister or other Member to whom the original question was addressed?

    Port-of-Spain Municipality Ordinance.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Trinidad Legislative Council have refused to consider his suggestion that the qualification for councillors in the Port-of- Spain Municipality Ordinance was too high; and, if so, whether he proposes to assent to the Ordinance in its present form?
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no official information, but I understand that the Legislative Council of Trindad have declined to accept my suggestion. In these circumstances I regret that I do not at present feel able to pursue the matter further.

    Steamship "Komagata Maru."
    Sir J. D. REESasked what is the position up to date of the "Komagata Maru" question?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my last reply.
    Sir J. D. REES: Was there anything in the right hon. Gentleman's last reply?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I gave such information as I was able to give at the time.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether cases have come to his knowledge in which parents have made over their property to their children in order to qualify for, and have received, old age pensions; and, if so, what steps he has taken to safeguard the taxpayers' interests in the proper administration of the law?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Section 4 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, provides that if any person deprives himself of income or property in order to qualify for an old age pension the income or yearly value of such property must still be reckoned as part of the means of that person for the purpose of determining his title to a pension. I should add that action is frequently taken in such cases. If the hon. Member will furnish me with
    38
    particulars of any cases in which pensions have been granted in contravention of this provision, I will make inquiries.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cases are not uncommon in rural districts?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We should be very grateful for any information that would enable us to inquire into them.

  INDIA.

    COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay upon the Table draft copies of the Regulations provided for in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), of the Council of India Bill before the House of Commons is asked to read the Bill a second time?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I will answer this question at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.

    INDIAN ARMY (HONORARY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
    Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked when the scheme for increasing the pensions of honorary commissioned officers of the Indian Army departments which has been approved by the Government of India will receive the sanction of the Secretary of State for India?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The scheme has been referred by the Secretary of State to the Government of India for re-examination and is still under their consideration.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a similar question a year ago and that a more or less similar sort of answer was given? How long is it likely to be before the details of the scheme are satisfactorily settled?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am aware of the hon. Member's question. Since then the subject has been examined and has been referred to the Government of India.

    NATIVE STATES (MINERAL RESOURCES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, before the Government of India grant any concession for exploring and developing the mineral resources of the Native States

    39
    or Protectorates or make any grant of public money to any company for the purpose of such development, it will, in the first instance, invite proposals from various British controlled companies in accordance with the usual practice governing Government contracts?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer is in the negative. The Secretary of State sees no analogy between granting concessions and calling for tenders.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does not the Secretary of State see the necessity for providing that British firms should have the first call on such occasions?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: British firms are well able to look after themselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman at all sure that British firms are able to look after themselves unless they have fair play under the Regulations concerned?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: They have every fair play under the Regulations: it is for them to look after themselves in this matter.

    NATIVE POPULATION (EMIGRATION).
    Mr. FELLasked if there is any department in India which superintends the emigration of the native population of that country; and if it will be arranged that shipments of large numbers of natives to other countries or colonies or dependencies should not be allowed until it is ascertained that such natives will be allowed to land in that country?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Indian Emigration Act provides for Government superintendence only over such natives of India as emigrate under an agreement to labour for hire in countries beyond the limits of India. There is under existing law no power to regulate the movements of emigrants who have not entered into labour contracts.
    Mr. FELL: Is there not a general emigration department in India, or anywhere, that supervises such cases as have recently taken place?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: There is no power to supervise any emigration except under indentured conditions.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. SHEEHYasked when the vesting order is to be issued by the Estates Commissioners in the case of the Farness estate, at Croboy, Hill-of-Down, county Meath, the tenants on which signed agreements to purchase in 1906?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings from the vendor to the tenants, and purchase agreements at prices agreed upon between the parties have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The estate has been inspected, and provided the Commissioners' requirements as to title and other matters are complied with, it is anticipated that the holdings will be vested in the purchasing tenants during the current financial year.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Colonel BURNasked if it is intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission which recently sat to consider the question of increasing the pay and allowances of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Generally speaking, without going into details, the answer is, yes.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that these recommendations are enforced; because does it not seem reasonable to imagine that if the Home Rule Bill becomes law that there may be considerable difficulties which will prevent these men having what has been a long-wished-for and a long-desired benefit?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am going into the matter. I have great anxiety to see those recommendations carried out as quickly as possible.

    Small Holdings (England and Wales).
    Mr. ROYDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of small holdings in England and Wales above one acre and not exceeding fifty acres, as returned to 31st December, 1913?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The returns to which the hon. Member refers are made annually in June, and the figures for the current year are not yet available. The number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales over one and not exceeding fifty acres, as returned on the 4th June, 1913, was 292,446.

ASSASSINATION OF AUSTRIA'S HEIR-APPARENT.
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow move that a humble address be presented to His Majesty expressing the sentiments of this House on the assassination of His Imperial Royal Highness the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria, and his Consort.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [TWELFTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.—PROGRESS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    FOREIGN OFFICE.—(Class II.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,737, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Recent events have once more brought Persia and the adjacent territories into prominence in relation to this country. In view of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Admiralty contract with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, I think we are entitled to ask him how we stand in that part of the world, and what is the policy that we at present are pursuing in those regions. I think everybody will always recognise the vital importance to this country, both from a political and a strategical point of view, of the Persian Gulf. I think it has always been recognised that if, for instance, a strong Continental Power were to come down on Mesopotamia or Persia, and establish itself in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, it would constitute a menace on the line of our communication to India and the Far East, and also with Australia and New Zealand. For my part I have always attached the greater importance to
    54
    our position in the Persian Gulf than even to the question of the Dardanelles. It is quite true that the Dardanelles are on the flank of our line of communications through the Mediterranean, but after all our line of communication through the Mediterranean is not really absolutely essential to us. It would be, I suppose, quite possible, in case of necessity, for us to seal up the Mediterranean; then so long as South Africa remains British the route round the Cape, the line of our communication, would be available. The Persian Gulf, however, is on the flank of both lines of communication, and if. as I have said, any strong Power were to establish itself in the neighbourhood, ii would be a menace to the line of communication between this country and the East, and as such it would, of course he a source of constant and intolerable anxiety. That has always been recognised by everyone who has given any thought whatever to the matter. Whilst that has been recognised, there have always been two schools of thought as to what steps it would be necessary to take in order to preserve our position in that part of the world.
    There has been, on the one hand, the school of thought that advocated a "forward policy"; on the other hand, there has been a school of thought that has pursued a policy, described, not always happily, I think, as a policy of "masterly inactivity." The first policy is wholly intelligible. Its advocates have seen Governments or countries like Persia and Turkey wholly unable to resist the policy of peaceful penetration adopted towards them by strong Continental Powers. They have seen these Powers acquiring rights here and concessions there until they have come to occupy positions of paramount influence similar to the position which we now see Russia occupying in Northern Persia. They have come to the conclusion—rightly as it has always seemed to me—that the best way in the long run, and the cheapest way, of preventing these possible hostile agents from penetrating too far towards the Persian Gulf was for us to occupy the ground ourselves by obtaining concessions and strengthening our hands in that quarter, in order that, having interests of our own to protect, we should be in a position to offer a legitimate protest against the encroachment of others. That, as I understand, is the policy known as the policy of the

    55
    forward school. When the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary came to the Foreign Office towards the end of 1905, he very soon showed that that was a policy which did not commend itself to him. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman was the policy of the tortoise. He drew into his shell in the South-Eastern corner of Persia, and the whole burden of his defence, when attacked for accepting so small an area, was that if he did accept a controlling sphere of influence in Persia, he was not in a position to protect interests beyond the frontiers of Sistan and Persian Baluchistan. This is what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with regard to the policy of the forward school, as I have described it, and as to his policy of guarding our interests in the provinces of Persia:—
    "There was a favourable opportunity in 1906 for taking whatever measures we thought necessary by lending money, by obtaining concessions in return for loans in Persia…"
    And the right hon. Gentleman went on to say this:—
    "Now the objection to any policy of that kind is that whatever you gain and whatever you take you have always to push your influence further still to protect what you have recently taken, and while you think all the time you are making yourself safer, you are increasing the burden of your expenditure."
    That was the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, and he certainly acted up to it. He made what I and a good many others always regarded as an intolerable and very unjustifiable sacrifice in the points which we yielded up in the South of Persia. Previous Foreign Ministers have declared in the most emphatic terms that our position in the South of Persia was one which could not and would not in any circumstances be given up. The right hon. Gentleman swept aside all these declarations, and he admitted for the first time in our history, not merely in a public speech, but in the formal text of a State document, the right of another Power to a position of equality with ourselves in the whole of the provinces of Southern Persia west of Bundar Abbas. That was the right hon. Gentleman's policy. That, at all events, was perfectly clear; there was no ambiguity of any kind about it, and it certainly was the very negation of the forward policy; but, Sir, what do we see now? We see the right hon. Gentleman coming forward now and in the most casual way investing the sum of £2,000,000 sterling of public money within the very zone from which the right hon. Gentleman himself retreated in his
    56
    agreement with Russia in 1907. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stafford the other day metaphorically wiped his eyes with astonishment on hearing the right hon. Gentleman deal with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman treated it, as I say, in the most careless fashion, and suggested that the protection of these interests was really a matter of secondary importance, and he said that if the worst came to the worst it would be a mere matter of sending a couple of brigades, and that the whole thing is a matter of very little importance. That is all very well, but what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's argument which he addressed to the Committee with great gravity and solemnity in 1908 when defending the Anglo-Russian Agreement with regard to Persia? I wish the right hon. Gentleman would read the speech he made on that occasion, together with the speech which he made on the occasion of the Anglo-Persian oil contract, and see whether he can reconcile the position he took up in those two speeches. They seem to me to be wholly irreconcilable. Do not let us minimise what the Government really did.
    4.0 P.M.
    The investment of £2,000,000 in a foreign country is, I think, wholly without precedent. Certainly the case of purchase of shares in the Suez Canal was in no way analogous to the investment of British capital in a country like Persia. I do not think that the loans which the right hon. Gentleman has been making from time to time to the Persian Government, which aggregate between £400,000 and £500,000, are at all analogous to the case of investing money in foreign countries. So far as I know, there is no precedent for that. When the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House upon the subject the other day it struck me that there might be an explanation of the course which he has taken, and indeed it has been suggested, that there is an explanation, and the explanation suggested is that the Foreign Secretary is not wholly responsible for this procedure, but that the First Lord of the Admiralty is responsible. This venture in oil, it is said, is the child of the genius of the First Lord of the Admiralty and not of the Foreign Secretary. That may be so and it may not. For my part, I do not think that that really is the accurate interpretation of the situation. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has been steadily coming round to the view in the past two years, held by those

    57
    who advocated what is known as the forward policy. He has, for instance, in the past three years been negotiating with Turkey with a view to establishing British interests at the head of the Persian Gulf. The Bagdad Railway, for instance, as he told us last year, is not to be allowed to proceed south of Bussaro. Then again a company, predominantly British, is to be established for the purpose of the navigation of the Tigris and Shat-et-Arab area, and incidentally I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position this afternoon to add more to the information he gave me this time last year with regard to the negotiations in connection with these matters. Probably when he comes to reply he will be able to tell us a little more fully than last year what are the full facts of the negotiations which I understand are concluded or practically concluded between himself, the Turkish Government and the German Government in connection with all these matters. Then again the right hon. Gentleman has been asking for a concession for a railway up the Karun Valley. I merely adduce these examples as to the more recent policy of the right hon. Gentleman, because they do seem to me to show that the right hon. Gentleman is not equally so adverse to-day to seeking to strengthen our position in Southern Persia by these concessions as he was in 1907, and I think we are entitled therefore to ask him what is the cause of this change of view. Three years ago the right hon. Gentleman contracted a new agreement with the Japanese Government, and under the terms of that agreement, we are entitled, as I read the agreement, to call upon Japan to come to our assistance in certain eventualities, one of them being described in the text of the agreement in the words:—
    "In the event of any attack being made upon the special interests of our country in the regions of India."
    Those are the words made use of in the Treaty. The words are rather vague, but I suppose that the Admiralty oil works in Persia would certainly come under the term, "Special interests in the regions of India." I presume if any attack is made on the Admiralty oil works in Persia we shall be entitled to call upon Japan to assist us in protecting them. That is of importance, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for West Staffordshire (Mr.
    58
    Lloyd) a few days ago seemed to be rather unwilling to admit our ability to protect our interests in that part of the world.
    Mr. LLOYD: There is a considerable difference between our ability and the Government's willingness to defend our interests there.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: If the hon. Member was only throwing doubt upon the Government's willingness, that is an entirely different matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what are the causes which have induced him, clearly as I think, to change his views with regard to our policy in that part of the world. Advocate of a forward policy as I am, it did come as a considerable surprise to me that a Member of this Government should come forward with a policy of investing public money in a country like Persia. I do not believe that even the wildest jingoes amongst the ranks of the forward school ever in their wildest dreams imagined that the Government would sink public money in the soil of Persia. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be out-Heroding Herod. I am tempted to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is among the jingoes. I can almost see the right hon. Gentleman getting up in his place and shouting:—
    "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do
    We've got the ships, we've got the men, and
    We've got the money too."
    If a little of that spirit does animate the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to raise no objection to it, but on the contrary I congratulate him upon it. I believe it is desirable that we should state more explicitly that we have our interests in that part of the world, and that having those interests we are at all costs prepared to defend them. I do not believe that would be an aggressive policy. You are less likely to invite aggression if you make it clear that you are going to defend your interests and not leave it in doubt, and allow people to say, "they acquired an interest in Persia, but if they were attacked we need not expect any very serious defence of those interests from them." I do not want to attack the right hon. Gentleman in his more recent policy in this part of the world, because I think it is a right policy. As it happened I was myself present at Kasr-i-Shirin in the year 1903, when the first experiment was being made under the terms of that oil concession, and while it is quite true that at the time I pointed out the risk in developing

    59
    the concession there owing to its proximity to the Turko-Persian frontier, I agree with the policy which obtained that concession. When I was at Bagdad during the early stages of the Bagdad railway concession I urged most strongly the desirability of entering into negotiations with Germany with a view to coming to some arrangement with Germany under which the Southern section of that line, if it was constructed at all, should be constructed under British control. Therefore the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in more recent years has my hearty support. What I am asking for this afternoon is whether he will give us in the first place, a little more information than he has been able to give us in the past as to the provisions of his recently signed Treaty with Turkey, and his understanding with Germany about our position in the Persian Gulf. Secondly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether I have interpreted correctly the provisions of the Treaty which he made with Japan three years ago. And lastly, will he make it quite clear that having built up and acquired these really very important interests in the South of Persia and Mesopotamia, he is prepared at all costs to defend them.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: It is pleasant in times of considerable international difficulties in many parts of the world to congratulate the Foreign Secretary to-day upon the fact that the matters which are likely to be raised are not questions of haute politique at all, but they are comparatively minor questions not involving matters of great danger. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the situation in respect to the Balkans, and the progress made in regard to the Bagdad Railway. Foreign countries are occupied with the question of the unallotted land of the world; of decrepit countries whose fate remains unsettled, and that moment when the decrepit countries come to be dealt with is bound to be most dangerous. This question is one which affects the relations of this country and the German Empire, because we are the countries most concerned with the open door. It is a matter of congratulation that there should be good relations with Germany at the very moment when the decadent countries of the old world are the subject of anxiety. History will certainly note that when the remaining Moslem States of Morocco and
    60
    Persia and Turkey came up for consideration the cool hand of the Foreign Secretary was at the helm.
    The most dangerous of those questions are those arising in the decrepit States of the old world much more than of the new world. The Moslem countries are naturally of interest to everybody, and I am sure everyone would like to see those countries prosperous. I should like to see not only Persia, but also Turkey governing a homogeneous country composed of. co-nationals of their own, and from that point of view the world has made progress in the last two years, because Turkey has experienced what Lord Beaconsfield called consolidation, and is in a happier position strategically than when she was attempting to govern European Provinces almost entirely composed of alien people. The Morocco difficulty is happily passed, but we cannot forget that it was a mauvais quart d'heure when the Morocco question came to be finally settled. Persia has come suddenly on the stage in a much more vivid light than before, and we have a sensational phenomenon in the change of attitude of the "Times" newspaper on the Persian question. But whatever the "Times" may say, we must suppose that the strategic dangers and arguments have been very fully considered. A point which, in my humble judgment, has never been fully considered, is that of the interests of the Persian State and polity itself. If that is forgotten we must largely despair of any progress being made by such people as the Persians.
    This House is fortunate in having many Members who have a personal acquaintance with Persia, and no doubt some despair is very natural. I think all will admit that the melancholy privilege of bringing her own life to an end has not been accorded to Persia. Outside factors have exercised very large influence in the present unfortunate denouement in Persia. There has been an improved state of relations between the great Powers and with Germany—it was our relations with Germany which perhaps affected my right hon. Friend's view of the Persian question at a critical moment—and in view of this is it not possible that those improved relations make it possible that a new diplomatic attitude altogether may be adopted towards Persia, and that something on the lines of our attitude towards Afghanistan may be adopted, and probably a diplomatic mission, resembling that of Sir Stratford de Red-

    61
    cliffe, may come to be worth attempting for the revival of some kind of Persian policy, and possibly the removal of the capital from the Russian sphere? Is it not even possible that German co-operation may come to be a very natural thing in regard to Persia, because Germany is the national ally of the policy of the open-door, and the Germans, as all of us who have been in Persia know, have large and increased commercial interests in Persia?
    I would like to say a word or two now upon a nearer quarter of the Near East, in regard to the trouble arising in the Balkans. We have been troubled with innumerable questions upon the position of religious communities in the Balkan States. The great feature of life in the Balkans is the fanatical degree to which national emotions arise in that ill-fated part of the world. There is the greatest doubt in regard to the present situation in the Balkans as to whether the fruits of war have been good or bad, but in respect of fundamental human rights and commercial prosperity there is all the difference in the world between the future and the past. It is a temporary evil that the position of the population in the newly acquired districts is one of great difficulty. The minorities are migrating, and that migration is inevitably a painful process. It may be more or less painful according to the feeling prevailing between the Balkan States. It may be a matter for blame and regret that the Balkan Governments are harsh and unsympathetic, but it is not for the great Powers or their subjects to apportion blame when the position of things in the Balkans is so largely the result of the conduct in the past of the great Powers themselves.
    There are innumerable difficulties facing the Governments of the Balkan States in according gentle treatment to those minorities. This terrible event we hear to-day recalls what has been the fate of part of the Balkans—an occupation by an Imperial Power, not an autonomous Power at all, and that was the destiny generally expected for the western half of the Balkans. We have seen instead of that an autonomous solution of the Balkan question. Some think that these autonomous States are less civilised and hardly fit for autonomous Government, and that the whole thing is regrettable. Do not let us forget that Austria, with all the modern resources of the civilised, and with a brilliant administrator like Kallay, who was justly praised, adopted the same
    62
    harsh treatment of minorities. There is no freedom to open schools or practise nationalistic feeling on the part of the minority in Bosnia. There never has been and there is not now, and the Austrian treatment of those minorities has been very like the treatment now being accorded to the minority in Bulgaria, Roumania, Greece, and Servia. I wish to urge that progress has been very great, and that we should not despair, but in this minor matter of the treatment of minorities it is the duty of the Great Powers, if they can, to do something to mitigate the sufferings necessarily entailed in the exchange of populations. My right hon. Friend has, of course—it is no compliment to say so—an unrivalled influence in this matter, and particularly with those Powers, and I would like to thank him very much for what he has said in regard to the recognition of the recent annexations. He has said that the annexations will not be recognised until assurances have been given as to the treatment of minorities. It is very easy for Governments to give these assurances. They may be worth no more than the paper on which they are written, but I hope and feel confident that he will wait until he receives a Report from His Majesty's Consuls that those assurances have been made good before he does afford recognition of the new frontier.
    There is another thing I would like to urge him to do. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) made a suggestion a few days ago that a Commission representing the Great Powers should be set up to inquire into the treatment of minorities, as a small Commission has been set up to inquire into the treatment of the Greeks in Western Anatolia. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether that might not be done on the European side too. If he should find that is not a feasible thing, it would have great moral effect if he would urge on the Balkan Governments themselves that they should hold a conference upon this question as to whether there might not be some further rights accorded to minorities by mutual consent, and as to whether a man, or a family, who wishes to migrate might not be assisted by a regular system of compensation for the property he leaves behind and is obliged to abandon—whether he might not be assisted in migrating, without misery and penury, to his own country. I venture to think that my right hon. Friend

    63
    might enormously relieve some of the human suffering in that part of the world without the expenditure of very great trouble to himself, because of the extraordinary influence—which he himself naturally underrates—he has with the ruling men in that part of the world. If it is answered that a criticism of that kind would be hostile and unpleasant, I would say that he has already very severely criticised them, and I do not know that this would be criticising them any more. It is not hostile criticism to do this kind of thing. You see now in Servia perhaps the most maleficent State in this respect but Mr. Passich, the greatest figure in Servian politics, is endeavouring to secure better treatment for the minorities in Servia, and it would enormously strengthen his hands if some expression of opinion, whether public or not, were made by my right hon. Friend in that respect.
    The Armenian question is one of much more real first-class policy than this matter of the treatment of minorities in the Balkans. The evils of 1878 are still unsolved in regard to Asiatic Turkey in respect of the Armenians, and it will be gratifying to know if the Foreign Secretary can say where we stand in regard to our relation with Turkey, in connection with which so many interests arise, some purely commercial, some strategic, and some nominally humane, though rarely disconnected from material and political interests as well. Since the Turks recovered Adrianople, of course, it must have been a difficult question to decide whether we should back Turkey, or pose as a good friend of Turkey, or whether we should run the risks of another Power or other Powers posing to the Turks as a greater friend, and getting advantages to our disadvantage. Everyone knows that we have to consider the Bagdad Railway question, and questions which affect our relations with Germany and with Russia, and naturally the view of the India Office about opinion in India has to be considered, but there is a large feeling in this country that the enormous responsibility we have incurred, affecting the condition of the subject population of Turkey, cannot be left out of account, and that our duty, if you like to call it a duty, cannot be ignored in this matter. Whether we think of Canning, or Salisbury, or Gladstone, it is no party issue to interest ourselves in the matter. It is the tradition of both parties. We have for about 120 years, sometimes actively and
    64
    sometimes negligently, put second the interests of the subject population, particularly of the Armenians.
    Our relations with Russia in the seventies made it impossible to allow their liberation, and now everyone recognises that the Balkan War produces a moment when something might be done for the Armenians. Much less could be done after the Turks had recovered themselves to some extent, but it is very happy that the British Government has supported a scheme of reform. We are still in the dark as to what that scheme is. My right hon. Friend the other day, in reply to a question, said that the Armenian Reform scheme was elaborated by the Ambassadors. It certainly would be natural if we and subjects of the other Great Powers were able to know what are the provisions of a scheme which was elaborated by the Ambassadors, but we do not know, and I hope that perhaps to-day we may hear something more about it. There is a feeling on this subject. There are more Liberals perhaps than the Foreign Secretary thinks who are great admirers of the traditions not only of Gladstone but also of Russell, and many Conservatives who are admirers of Canning, and who do think that this kind of question is a subject not only for correct attitude, but for a warm interest, and for the keen throwing of influence upon one side or the other.
    There was the other day a very interesting article published by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the condition of Armenia, and he gave some facts which throw a great light on this reform scheme. He described the lawless Kurds, and how it was apparently absurd to suppose that the Turks could do very much with them. I myself the other day met a Russian Consul there who had rescued a man in a carriage who had been subjected to brigandage by some Kurds. He ordered his men to seize these Kurds, but the man in the carriage objected and said, "You must not interfere with the Kurds." He was a Turkish sub-governor himself, yet he thought it an intolerable thing that the Russian Consul should object to a party of wild Kurds robbing the Turkish Prefect himself. Such is the Gilbert and Sullivan state of things in that part of the world. It is not to be supposed that the mere setting up of Commissioners to advise the Turkish Government will do very much. It wants a force with money behind it, and with experience in govern-

    65
    ing wild countries. It wanted all the wealth and resources of Austria to govern Bosnia; and, though we may hope and pray for success, it is extremely unlikely that this scheme will give any security to the Armenian population in the near future. We may wish it well, but
    May I, in conclusion, just recall these facts? The break up of Turkey—their state financially and morally—is possibly not very far off. The Syrian movement is very strong. All this time you have Russia virtually entrenched in North-Western Persia, in Azerbaijan. We used to think it was an intolerable thing to think of abandoning any part of Turkey to Russian influence, because of our need of a friend in case of possible trouble with Russia, but Russia has now turned the flank of that position altogether, and that argument against the further influence of Russia is a thing of the past. We have apparently decided to help Turkey by giving assistance to great armament firms to get concessions of enormous importance, political importance, in Turkey. It is surely a matter for very great doubt whether this is a time to do anything active to prolong the life and prestige of the Turkish Empire. If this scheme fails to produce early results and really essential results, opinion will turn very quickly towards giving a free hand to other Powers. By all means let us give this reform every help, because it is much better if reform can be carried out by the Concert of Europe, but, if the Concert is not in a position to effect reforms, then there will be a feeling to let other Powers which are nearer the scene have a free hand to penetrate, and, if they had a free hand there, commercial and political penetration would very soon bring into those wild parts much more order than there is now. If the scheme does not succeed, it is to that solution opinion will very soon turn.
    Sir MARK SYKES: It is very difficult, in dealing with the question of the Persian Gulf, to keep strictly within the limits of order, because when one tries to go over the situation he touches the Admiralty on one side and the India Office on the other, and he cannot but feel that the Colonial Office is somewhere in the offing. It is also very difficult to discuss foreign affairs freely when our home affairs are in such particularly evil plight. I do not go into any detail on that matter, but our situation, which was once the envy of the world, is now its amazement. It is
    66
    naturally a cause of rejoicing to our enemies and of despair to our friends. If one thinks of the position Lord Palmerston held in Europe, a position which the right hon. Gentleman held until a short time ago, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that if we go on at the rate we are going on the right hon. Gentleman and his office will be very like a phonograph standing on a dead man's coffin, and it is only on the hypothesis that we compose our affairs that it is worth while discussing what we are going to do abroad. With regard to the Persian question and the subject of the Persian Gulf, there is no necessity to criticise what has happened with respect to the oil concession. That is gone by, with, I think, only eighteen dissentients, and now we are up against it. We need not go into the previous merits of the case. We are facing now a new situation on the Persian Gulf.
    It has always been the habit of those who take an interest in foreign affairs to look very solemn, and pull very long faces, and say the Persian Gulf is of great importance, but invariably, in practice, our policy seems to have been somewhat nebulous. As a standing example of our nebulous policy, take the Anglo-Russian Agreement. If that was to do anything, it was to guarantee the integrity of Persia, it was to confine Great Britain and Russia to two definite spheres which they were not to leave on any pretext, or hardly any pretext, and it was to provide a neutral buffer to keep them apart. The Oil Concession, made before the agreement, and the Railway Concession made after the agreement both run athwart all three spheres, while as to the neutral zone, apparently the troops both of Russia and Great Britain have been in it. Now we have to face a new situation, and that is that a portion of a supply vital to this country exists in these regions not actually in the Russian sphere, but in the neutral zone and the British sphere. It is necessary, therefore, that we should have a Persian Gulf policy. I think it was the Duke of Wellington who said that a victory in Asia was always an awkward thing, because you never knew where it was going to lead you, and similarly a retreat may in this case be said to be equally awkward. If we go there, we must stop.
    The real dangers and difficulties seem to sum themselves up in three forms: Firstly, that there may be internal troubles where our oil supply is, in which

    67
    case inevitably we have to have occupation, and if we have occupation, there is the possible hypothesis, which the hon. Member who last spoke looked forward to with great satisfaction, of a complete break-up of the Ottoman Empire. I do not know if it will be very satisfactory to him to know that that will provide us with a German frontier in Mesopotamia. But, on the other hand, we have the possible hypothesis of a break-up of Persia, which would give us a Russian frontier. Great Britain will then be like a stranded whale on a mud bank, with a river hippopotamus on one side and a rhinoceros charging down from the hills straight in front. It may be satisfactory to the hon. Member that our relations with both the animals are cordial, and that neither of them is carniverous, but at the same time one feels that the situation of the whale is not all that one could wish. It is to the question how such a situation can be averted that one should devote one's attention. With regard to the Ottoman Empire, I will not embark on the whole question of spheres of influence. It must be to our interest to maintain the integrity of that Empire as long as possible, and if we are going to interest ourselves in reforms in the Ottoman Empire it should be in the reforms in the provinces of Mossul and Bagdad, through which the railway is going. These two provinces, through no fault of the Ottoman Empire, but through financial exhaustion, seem to be slipping back into the state of anarchy from which they emerged for a period of twenty-five years, and anything we can do to assist the Turkish Government in keeping these provinces sound and well ordered will naturally be our beat policy.
    With regard to Persia, the difficulty becomes very complicated. If we want to avoid internal disorder in Persia, and yet maintain the integrity of the Persian Empire, the one thing contradicts the other. If you have disorder, you bring in troops and special gendarmerie to suppress it, and you take away the power of the central Persian Government, while, if you let matters slide, Persian poverty and incompetence are a premium on disorder, and that makes a very difficult proposition indeed. There are certain things we can avoid. We can at least maintain our own prestige, and need not embark on such adventures as sending a Cavalry regiment to Shiraz, a force which had to be
    68
    escorted to the coast by Swedes and Persians. We should also do well to avoid raising independent local forces under British officers. I think it was suggested in the last Debate that local forces should be raised, and English officers put in command; but, if you do that, on the other side of the border you will get local forces with Russian officers, and you will have the very Russian frontier troubles which you wish to avoid. The other thing we wish to avoid is underestimating any possible difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke lightly of using two Brigades. He may have very excellent military advice, but surely one Division sounds nearer the mark, and, if it is a question of two Brigades or one Division, that number of troops must be added to the present Indian garrison, because the Indian garrison has not hitherto been based on the hypothesis of sending such a force out of India.
    Lastly, the root of the whole of our Persian policy seems to me to lie in the question as to how the concession is worked. We are now the predominant partner in a very large concession. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said that roads and police will be a premium on order in that part of the world. But it is not only a question of roads and police. If the unrest is not merely due to the childish nature of a simple people, but has also added to it a sense of economic injustice, then roads and police will not do at all. You have the same sort of troubles in the Caucasus, in Mexico, and in Turkey. It arises not from anything in the people themselves, but from the way in which they are exploited by European concessionaires, who give bribes to a corrupt Government and then proceed to exploit the people. The result is you have corruption, the uneconomic working of the concession, and a condition of unrest, anarchy, and revolution. If anybody will compare the condition of those countries where concessions are ill-worked and the countries where there is a strong Government watching the concessionaires—as in Egypt and Nigeria—I think the two pictures make a very striking contrast. As far as one knows, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is worked on model lines and is above any reproach of that kind, but as we are the predominant partners it is our business as a nation to a see that these model lines are continued. In the development of Persia a close watch must be kept upon child labour, female labour,

    69
    wages, and other things, and even in the zones where Great Britain is predominant the question of drugs and drinks which Europeans import and with which they debauch the people must be watched. Moreover, as we are going into this matter it is our duty to keep an eye on other concessionaires and see that they do not exploit the people, and also that—in this instance I believe it has been provided for—the local native communities get a fair share of such profits as they may be entitled to. If we follow such a policy as that, personally I believe that in the neutral and British zones we shall do much to induce an indigenous native civilisation which, no matter what happens, may either become a regenerate Persia or may be the basis of a native State capable of supporting itself forty or fifty years hence—as Holland and Denmark have done.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: We have just listened to a very interesting speech, with a great part of which I am pretty sure most Members of this House will cordially agree. I propose to take up the attention of the House for a short time with a view to asking questions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But reverting for a moment to the Persian oil concession, my principal object in asking about that is to get a reply to a question which I am not sure the Secretary of State can give me. It is a question relating to the defence, if necessary, of the territory in which we have now secured so great an interest, and I particularly want to know if, under any circumstances, the charge for defending these territories, should occasion arise, is to be borne by the Indian taxpayer. I think this question is important because, unless I get some answer to the effect that the Indian taxpayer is not to be looked to to discharge the Bill, the criticism in India will be as severe as I myself think it is just. The Noble Lord who began this Debate, referring to our participation in this Anglo-Persian Oil Company, seemed to infer that it was entirely or mainly in the South-West portion of Persia. Of course we hope and believe that, in the future, it is in our own particular territory and our own particular concession that the great find will be made, but the whole question of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company raises a very interesting question. First of all, I think we all agree that, provided the place can be adequately and properly defended without charge to the Indian taxpayer, the
    70
    policy is a good and sound one. We should, perhaps, like to see it extended even further, so as to place the Admiralty in a position of greater independence when having to deal with contractors generally. But, apart from that, I think it is interesting also because we must necessarily go on, I trust, with our own railway concession—from Mohamera to Kharremabad. I should like to know from the Secretary of State what position that proposition is in at the present time, if it is any more hopeful than it was a short time ago, if the country is quieter, and what are the general hopes we may have on that point. I should also like to know—but I think, perhaps, that was answered in the questions to-day—about the particular oil concessions in the Chiasurkh district, and what relation, if any, the Anglo-Persian Company has with the Turkish Petroleum Company. It was answered to-day rather shortly in reply to a question, and perhaps some small amplification of that would be very convenient. I understand that the Porte has given a verbal promise, at any rate, that a lease shall be granted to a certain company, and we want to know very much whether we are involved through our relations with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in any concessions that may be given.
    It may be convenient here to make a remark or two upon the position of railways generally in Persia. I think, shortly, it may be said that the trade of India and the trade of Great Britain require north and south railways in Persia—certainly without any break of gauge—or it would involve greater expense in handling and be a hardship on importers generally. And then I think that Indian policy and Indian finance require that we should have no Trans-Persian Railway at all in the British concession of Persia, otherwise, as I think was mentioned by an hon. Member opposite, there must be necessarily a very great increase in the military expenditure in India, other and increased forces must be maintained, and the added expense in the Military Estimates will fall very heavily upon India. Now I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about the position of Azerbaijan. We hear, and I dare say my right hon. Friend will affirm or deny it, that Russia already has practical control and possession of at least one-third of the whole province, and also that Russia is extending her activities from Azerbaijan to Ispahan, that Russia

    71
    is protecting many merchants and mullahs in that city, and increasing her influence in this way very greatly. I should like to know in connection with this, and with the oilfields and the general policy if it is the determination of His Majesty's Government to adhere strictly to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, or if there is any idea of altering it or changing it in any way?
    The only other special point I should like to ask the Secretary of State about is the desperate position of Persia at the present moment in relation to finance, and what, in his opinion, is going to happen? The Imperial Bank of Persia has refused for the present to cash any more Government drafts, the gendarmerie are only partially paid to May, and seemingly they will not be paid at all very shortly. What does the Government propose to do? Is a fresh loan to be given jointly or singly to the Persian Government; and, if not, how is it possible for them to keep out of their grave difficulties? Supposing the gendarmerie are not paid, of course they will be entirely useless, and then the question undoubtedly will arise whether it will be expedient to organise local military organisations under the command of either Persian or British officers. The difficulty, of course, surrounding officering by British officers has been very well put by the last speaker. If we try to officer these organisations by British officers, it would be very hard too persuade the Russians not to do the same in their own sphere of influence. These are the more important questions, and especially urgent, I think, at the present moment, is the desperate position of Persia, the chaotic state into which it has fallen, and the extreme difficulties it is undergoing for want of money. The Coronation of the new Shah is coming on very shortly, and where the funds are to be obtained to meet all the expenses of the ceremony which will take place then, I cannot imagine. If the Secretary of State has any information to give concerning the Medjliss, the number of members already elected—if there are any elected at all, except, perhaps, to the district of Teheran—I should be very glad if he would let me have that information; and, in conclusion, if he would give us any comprehensive news about Persia itself, its prospects in the near future, how it possibly is to get on, I should be very grateful.
    Mr. BAIRD: The subject to which the hon. Member who has just sat down has alluded—our position in Persia—is obviously a very difficult one and exceedingly important, and I cannot help thinking that the Conference which is now taking place at the Foreign Office, as I understand, in regard to the New Hebrides, and the fact that that Conference is taking place, offers the hope that, now that we are on good terms with the French and with the Russians, instead of bickering as we used in the past, we shall meet together and endeavour to adjust matters. I am bound to say I do not see much prospect of the Anglo-Russian entente doing any useful work so far as Persia is concerned, but, after all, that is only a portion of the territory to which the entente applies. Nobody is more in favour of the entente than I am, and if as regards one corner of the world it does not happen to work very well, that is no reason for condemning it, but it is rather a reason for endeavouring to readjust it. That is precisely what is taking place—I hope in a most friendly way—with the French with regard to the New Hebrides, because, although not a very large question, it is one that excites a great deal of confusion among a good number of people, and there are legitimate grievances which must be settled one way or the other. The same applies with regard to Persia. I have not the slightest doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman discusses the Persian situation with representatives of the Russian Government here they see eye-to-eye on all points, but if you happen to be travelling in Persia and you find what is the attitude of the subordinate officials of the Russian Government, I do not see it is possible to square their conduct with the conduct of the official representatives of Russia in this country or in Europe. That is an inherent difficulty in all countries of that kind. It certainly was the case when we became on good terms with the French. Long after we were on the best of terms here and in Paris the subordinate officials in far-off countries continued to bicker as they had been accustomed to in the past.
    The conditions in Persia are not satisfactory either from the Persian point of view or from the point of view of our own prestige, because when you say to the Persian, "You are better off than you would otherwise be, because you would undoubtedly have been swallowed up by Russia if there had not been an entente,"

    73
    the Persian always replies, "What is there in Northern Persia that is not Russian?" That is an exaggeration. It is not a Russian colony, but I defy anybody to justify, from the point of view of keeping order in Persia, the excessive number of Russian troops which are at present quartered in that country, and I do not see any reason for not being perfectly frank about it. It is a question which we ought to be able to settle with Russia perfectly easily, but it is useless going on pretending black is white and white is black and in not being perfectly frank. The idea that Persian independence has been secured by the entente so far as Northern Persia is concerned has not worked out in practice, and I do hope that it will be possible to revise the understanding—indeed, our commitments in the Gulf will force us to do something of the kind—and that, as there is no earthly reason why a successful understanding should not be arrived at, we should not arrive at it.
    5.0 P.M.
    Two things in particular are very grave at the present time. One is the wholesale admission into the ranks of Russian-protected subjects, possibly for whom there is no justification whatever, with the result that they escape the payment of taxation. They do not consider themselves amenable to the ordinary law of the country, and their houses form a refuge for any kind of villain who may desire to seek refuge. That is a very undesirable state of affairs. There may be reasons why protection should be accorded to Persian subjects by foreign countries, but to do it on a wholesale scale of that sort is certainly not to the advantage of Persia, and makes it all the more difficult for the Persian Government to carry on the government itself. There is another important question—I fancy I am touching on a good many topics which the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult from his position to deal with—but, still, I see no reason why one should not address himself to it. Another source of grievance against the Russians is this: The Russian Bank, as is well known there, is advancing money on the land of Persia, and eventually will have to foreclose, with the result that large strips of Persian territory will be owned by this Russian national concern. This is an undesirable state of affairs if the entente is really to be carried into effect, and there is to be the same degree of Persian autonomy and in-
    74
    dependence in the Northern sphere as we accord in the Southern sphere. These are the facts, and I think they justify the view which I put forward, that it is time that the whole of this entente, so far as it relates to Persia, should be revised. All the more is it necessary because of our commitments in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
    I do not share the discontent which some of my hon. Friends have expressed with regard to our embarking upon that enterprise. I think, on the contrary, there are many reasons which make it exceedingly desirable that we should embark upon it. First of all, what are the additional obligations which we incur? I can see none. We are on good terms with the people in whose country the oilfields exist. Indeed, they are large shareholders. The Bakhtiari chiefs are large shareholders in the Anglo-Persian oil concern, and it is to their interest, and they know it perfectly well, that the oilfields should be kept open. There is very little danger from the point of view of the natives. There is this further feeling, that it is very important in a concern such as this to keep close watch on the manner in which the business is carried on. Nothing, as anyone who has been there can testify, can be more admirable than the relations which have been built up by the officials of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company with the whole of the surrounding-country. Their doctor is a more famous man in that part of the world than any other living man, and a letter of recommendation from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company would be more useful to anyone who intended to go to Ispahan than from anyone else. Their position is perfectly admirable in the country. So much for that side of the question. There might be trouble' with Russia, but it is our business to keep on good terms with Russia. It is our business, not in the sense of grovelling to Russia, or to anyone else; but to be so strong that we shall be able to maintain an equal intercourse with all the Great Powers, and more especially with the Great Powers which constitute the group with which we are accustomed to act. I do not see that there is any more or any less inducement to keep on good terms with Russia in consequence of this Anglo-Persian deal than there was before.
    Then there is the question of getting the oil to this country. I pass over the question whether we want oil or not.

    75
    Surely we can allow the Admiralty to settle that. If the Admiralty say they want oil, and the oil is of a suitable quality, he will be a very unpatriotic man who will say that they are not to have the oil, because after all in the last resort it is on the Admiralty that we depend to fight our ships and to protect our lives. That part of the question I do not think there is any doubt about. There is the question of getting the oil here. What is the additional obligation imposed thereby? Surely none whatever. The route would be round the Cape and home by the Coast of Africa. If we are not in a position to keep that part of the sea open, it is no use talking about oil or the Empire or anything else, because the game is up. So on several grounds I welcome this understanding with the Anglo-Persian Company, and I welcome it on the further ground that it may bring home to those people who are alarmed the fact that you cannot run an Empire without incurring a certain amount of obligation, and a certain amount of risk. We have been trying on a good many occasions to travel first-class with a third-class ticket. You cannot do that without getting found out sooner or later, and the sooner the country realises that it has a first-class show to run and has to pay a first-class price to do it the more secure we shall be, and the better chance there is for the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever occupies his position, to carry on a really Imperial and dignified policy.
    I come to another question in this region about which I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to give a satisfactory answer—indeed, there are very few things about which he can give a satisfactory answer—that is in connection with our position in Mesopotamia. From a statement he made only a short time ago it appears that he does not think he will be in a position to publish the agreements which have been reached. That cannot prevent people being extremely nervous as to the nature of those agreements, because so far as they are known by the public, as regards their effect on our position in Mesopotamia, it appears that, having renounced any right to participate in the stretch of the Bagdad Railway which runs from Bagdad to Bussora, we are hopeful of counterbalancing the effect of that railway by developing the navigation of the Tigris. I cannot help thinking that will be very
    76
    difficult. What is the position? You have 500 miles of river, which is very difficult to navigate, competing against 350 miles of very easily laid railway, and it should not be forgotten that this railway is to be subsidised—at least there is nothing in the concession that I am aware of which makes any difference as regards subsidy between that section and the other section of the railway to the extent of over £600 a kilometre. Further, the river can hardly be used between the middle of June and the middle of January, the very months when there is the greatest amount of export. The wool crop is on the market in May and the grain crop is ripe in June, and obviously if the railway is built it will have the enormous advantage of being able to transport down to the coast both those crops before it is possible to use the river at all.
    Then there is another question—I understand that no one makes any secret of it out there—that the principle source of profit to the steamship company is the passenger trade, consisting largely of pilgrims, who are taken, both dead and alive, to the sacred shrines—80,000 alive, and I do not know how many dead. At any rate, large numbers of them go every year, and I believe it is on the transport of these people that the steamship company makes a great part of their profit. That will all go to the railway company. Then there is the question of the inherent difficulties of navigation. You cannot have barges drawing more than 2 ft. 6 ins. on which you can load 200 tons. You cannot run at night, and the experience of many people is that you spend as much time sticking on the mud and trying to get off and consequently steaming, all of which costs money, as you do in getting along the river. If it is suggested that it would be possible to improve the navigation by dredging and so on, I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will find that a considerable section of the commercial community in Bagdad do not believe very much in the possibility of getting an adequate return on the very heavy expenditure which would be necessary if the river trade is seriously taken up, owing to the fact that the sand banks are for ever shifting, and to make a long story short, there is not the slightest doubt that last autumn the whole of the British commercial community at Bagdad could not believe that we had abandoned the idea of participating predominantly, or at any rate largely, in the last section of the

    77
    Bagdad Railway, and they certainly would not believe that we contemplated being able satisfactorily to safeguard our interests by relying on the navigation of the Tigris. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something on the subject, although I do not expect he will, because the agreements, as he says, are in process of being framed, and consequently he will not be in a position to say much on the subject at present. I think it is well worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, whether the policy which he has pursued, and which I agree was a legacy from his predecessor, in connection with the Bagdad railway, has been a fortunate or a wise one.
    Reference has been made to the right hon. Gentleman's great influence. He will not think me disrespectful if I suggest that, great as his influence is in the councils of the Powers of Europe, that influence has been exercised mainly with a view to the maintenance of peace, a magnificent work and a very important work, but although peace undoubtedly is one of our greatest interests, it is not our only interests. I do not mean to say that we should prefer to have war, but peace is not the only interest, and if one criticises the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, the criticism would take the form of the suggestion that he is so engrossed in the larger affairs of high policy, the maintenance particularly of peace, that he is apt to allow particular British interests, which after all are entrusted to his care and which he has to safeguard, to suffer in comparison to those of foreigners who are more vigorously backed up and are more apt to get material benefits than the right hon. Gentleman gets for his fellow countrymen. That is the criticism I would respectfully make of the result of his policy. I agree it is one largely to which he has succeeded, but that is the result of the policy which he has pursued. I think it is regrettable that whereas the position of the individual Englishman is properly stronger there than it has ever been before, and that is saying a great deal, and whereas that is largely due to the fact that owing to other Europeans having shown an interest in the country it has been possible for the natives to institute comparisons which are generally very much in favour of the Englishman, yet so far as doing anything is concerned, it is, I think, perfectly fair to say, that the Englishman does not consider that he is
    78
    backed up or supported in the same sort of way as the members of other nationalities are. Of course, I know there is the other side of the story, that the English financiers are not supposed to show any great degree of patriotism and so forth, and that when it is a question of getting them to combine to act in the interests of the country very often there is difficulty in getting them to do so. That may be the case, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to back up the material interests which have been built up during many years of sacrifice and hard work in these districts, and that he will not allow other nations to push us out in a field which we have successfully worked, because he is afraid to take a strong line.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I need not make any apology for once again drawing the attention of the House and the Foreign Secretary to the need for the international regulation of the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs. It has become universally recognised in the medical world in every country that the non-medical use, not only of opium, but of morphine, chloral, veronal, and other similar drugs, has become a formidable peril to the human race, and calls for immediate national and international control. Hence, the proceedings and the results of the third International Conference at The Hague are of the deepest interest to us, as they are to medical men throughout the world, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman kindly to tell us what results have been achieved at that Conference. It would be indeed deplorable if that Conference has separated without all, or, at all events, nearly all, of the forty-six Powers representing all the chief Powers of the world agreeing to the ratification of the Agreement—what is known as the International Opium Convention—that was settled on 23rd January, 1912, at the first Hague Conference. It is five years since this work was first started in the Shanghai Commission at the close of 1909. This was the third Conference of the Great Powers chiefly concerned—the second of all the Great Powers, and the third of the chief Powers concerned—and prior to the meeting of this Conference it was understood that all had consented to ratify except three—Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Servia. From what I have read in the newspapers it appears that only Servia and Turkey have held out. I have heard rumours that

    79
    Germany and France also have refused to ratify it. If this should be the case, I admit it would be very serious, but I do hope that we as a nation have no responsibility in giving them, at all events, any excuse for refusing to ratify. I observe the Report of our delegates to the second Hague Conference, dated 1st October, 1913, states:—
    "It would be idle to disguise the fact that the refusal of His Majesty's Government to ratify there and then [last July] was a cause of great disappointment to many of the delegates."
    What I should like to know now is, What has been the result of this Conference? Has there been any hitch? Had our delegates to send for fresh instructions, and, if so, why? I do believe that it is very desirable to ratify at once. I think all the forty-six Powers, except three or four, have been willing to ratify, and, although they may be very important Powers that are standing out, yet if they are making an excuse of us, even for the smallest semblance of refusal to sign, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that he will be able to play a nobler, and, perhaps, a more sacrificing part, and ratify.
    An HON. MEMBER: And sacrifice others.
    Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Not at all. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Central Hull has hinted, now in the absence of this international control, the lives of semi-civilised races are being largely sacrificed. I do not speak of one drug only. The hon. Gentleman opposite will agree that, however excellent opium may be for medical use, the unrestricted use of cocaine, veronal, and drugs produced from opium is very dangerous. But in any case, is it not high time that some action was taken on the result of the Shanghai Commission of 1909, and that the three Hague Conferences should bear their legitimate fruit? Is it not time that we should now ratify the Opium Convention of 23rd January, 1912? Let not the House imagine that this is a matter of opium only or of China only. It deals with many other dangerous drugs known as morphia, cocaine, heroin, and others, and it affects every country on earth where there are human beings to be tempted and ruined by these powerful drugs. The uncontrolled sale and abuse of these drugs constitutes, perhaps, the greatest danger now threatening the human race, and if the hon. Gentleman
    80
    opposite has any doubt on the matter, I recommend him to read an article which appeared in the "Morning Post," and the stimulating letter written by Dr. Armstrong Jones, who shows what are the enormous evils which result to mind, body, and character, in this country and, of course, in every country where these drugs are obtainable through their uncontrolled sale.
    It is our duty, not only to China, but to every other country, to help all we can this beneficent international movement to control the traffic in and use of these dangerous drugs. But surely in the case of China we have very special responsibility! We should never forget that for seventy years past we have been forcing the Chinese Government to permit their subjects to buy our Indian opium, and that we are doing so down to this moment. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman may tell us that this hateful and wicked compulsion shall now cease. It is over eight years since this House unanimously declared that our Indian opium traffic is "morally indefensible, and called upon His Majesty's Government to put an end to it as speedily as possible." The export of Indian opium to China has now, I suppose, ceased, although it appears that sixty or seventy chests have been imported this year. The compulsion on the Chinese Government to permit its subjects to buy our opium still continues, and the stocks of Indian opium in the hands of dealers in Shanghai and the Treaty Ports, although largely reduced, are still considerable. So far as I know, apart from the pecuniary interest existing in India, the reasons alleged for keeping up our treaty nights—I would say wrongs—in China have been two. In the first place, it has been said that China only wanted to produce opium herself, instead of taking ours; and, secondly, that the opium dealers would lose money on the opium they had already bought from the Indian Government if we did not continue to force a market for them in China. In reply to the first argument, I would ask why, if China were insincere and only wanted to produce her own opium, she should ever have stopped her own people from producing it? Of all the wild and foolish theories that were ever invented to bolster up a bad case, surely that is the wildest and most foolish! Why should China for years fine and imprison her own people and execute her own subjects for producing opium, so

    81
    that by and by she might be rid of Indian competition and be able to poison her subjects with the productions of China? That surely is a reason of the wildest and most foolish kind! I think in this connection one may quote the words of the late Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Montagu). Speaking in this House on 7th May last year, he said:—
    "I would like the House ….. to accept as indisputable that. …. there cannot be the slightest doubt of the earnestness sincerity, steadfast ness, and courage of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people as a whole in ridding themselves of opium. All the evidence points to that conclusion. …. I venture to say, without fear of contra diction, that the history of the world shows few actions in its bravery and thoroughness comparable to the efforts that are now being made by the Chinese people to rid themselves of the drug which is sapping their manhood and destroying their chance of development. …. I say, with all sense of responsibility on this question, that there is no room for cynicism or scepticism, and no work for the scoffer or sneerer. China has shown to the world an example of moral courage rare in the annals of the human race."
    These are noble words, and they are true. What has happened since the late Under-Secretary for India uttered these words? In July last there was in China an attempted but abortive second revolution suppressed by Yuan Shi-Kai. It was suppressed, but not without much loss of life and money. Then followed the suppression of the new Chinese Parliament, and President Yuan Shi-Kai convened a Conference of notables to frame a new Constitution, which includes a new Parliament, to be elected as soon as the condition of things in China will permit. I express no opinion as to the wisdom or the unwisdom of what the President has done. He is, after all, proceeding very much upon a similar line to that upon which Oliver Cromwell proceeded in this country, with, I believe, equally patriotic but easily mistaken motives.
    The best foreign observers on the spot believe that China's welfare is at present safest in the hands of President Yuan. Notwithstanding the black work of the "White Wolf, China-is undoubtedly recovering from the effects of the revolution, or attempted revolution, of the past three years. What has happened in the meantime to the Chinese campaign against opium, and more particularly what has happened to that campaign since last May? In July, when the counter revolution broke out, the hands of the Government were weakened, and President Yuan Shi-Kai's power seemed for a while to be trembling in the balance, but did the anti-opium campaign cease? Not for a minute. It
    82
    could not do so. There is no pro-opium party in China—the Manchus, Chinese, northerners, southerners, monarchists, republicans, supporters of Yuan Shi-Kai, and supporters of Sun Yat Sen, who on other questions do and will differ, are determined to rid China of this opium curse, and the campaign has gone steadily on. What have been the features of this war against opium? I will read the accounts of some of the burnings which have taken place. I have myself, for a year or two past, made a collection of the actual facts in connection with the burnings and the executions by the Chinese Government, and I have a large body of evidence showing that the Chinese Governments, national and provincial, are still in earnest in putting down the production and consumption of opium. In the city of Kalgan on the 23rd January, 1914, 6,000 ounces of opium, opium pipes and gambling apparatus were laid on a long row of tables, in the presence of thousands of people, and Ho Chung-lien, the local commander, mounted a table and made a speech denouncing the opium traffic, and stating that the Government were determined to put it down. The opium was placed in nine great cauldrons, wood and oil were lighted, and then there were great volumes of smoke and the opium was destroyed. In Chin Kiang, about 3,000 ounces of opium were publicly burned, and in Tientsin 48,000 dollars worth were destroyed. In Nanking, in April, there was a public conference and 15,000 dollars worth destroyed. In the great new central station of Pekin there was burned, on the 14th May last, several thousand ounces of opium which had been smuggled on the railway.
    It is quite true that it is a very difficult thing to prevent smuggling. If it is true that in view of the opium traffic that smuggling will go on, one may easily admit it. Already the same thing happens as far off as Turkestan, where only last month 5,000 ounces of opium were publicly burnt, with the local officials and gentry present. In Chengtu, the capital of Szechuan, this very month there was a public burning of opium in front of a police office. In Pekin, on Wednesday, 20th May, outside the Temple of Heaven, there was witnessed by great crowds a great opium burning. Those who know China know what a beautiful sight this is, and that it was used for very different burnings. Very different sacrifices were made there. We know what use the Emperor

    83
    made of the Temple of Heaven. I have a large number of extracts showing how rigorous the Chinese Government has been in burning the opium. They go further than that; they are still putting their own subjects to death. At Ichang, two men who were found planting poppy were shot for it. At Wenchow, Chekiang, on the big parade ground outside the west gate, a man from an outside district was shot for opium growing. In Kweichow, in April, on the main road between Anshun and Anpingsin, by order of the Anping magistrate, a farmer was shot for persisting in growing poppy for opium.
    All this time China is hard up for money. She is sacrificing millions of pounds a year—not millions of taels or dollars—and all hon. Gentlemen who know China well know the income she would get if she would take control of this traffic. But she is punishing her citizens and putting them to death in order to extirpate this great injury to her country. All these things show the stern determination of the Chinese Government to stamp out this curse. No man who knows anything of China can now doubt either her sincerity or her ability to stamp out this terrible curse. Under the arrangement of May, 1911, whereby the British Government promised to release China from buying opium, out of the twenty-two provinces of China, including Manchuria and Turkestan, I believe the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that we have released fourteen or fifteen provinces. I am not sure about Kwangtung, but I have a list here of the other provinces, although I will not detain the Committee by giving the names. Fourteen or fifteen provinces, some of them most populous, have now been declared, after strict search and impartial investigation by British officials, to be absolutely free from the production of opium.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Kwangtung is still open.
    Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: That means that fourteen out of twenty-two provinces are free. I am reading Chinese newspapers every day—not in Chinese, of course—and I am trying to keep myself honestly and correctly informed on this topic. My reading shows me clearly that the worst province of all—Kansu—is now practically free from opium growing. Kweichow, a very bad province, which has some half-wild tribes
    84
    in it, has now almost no opium growing in it, and Kiangsu is already free from it. The defenders of this traffic say, "Yes, that may be very well. Perhaps China has made some efforts to free herself from poppy production, but what about the pecuniary rights of the men in India, the merchants who bought opium on the strength of the British Government compelling a market for them in China?" What was their story eighteen months' ago, as told to us in this House? Were we not told about the enormous sums of money they were going to lose? Of course we are not to inquire into the monopoly profits of the eleven firms who constitute a close ring and have made a close corner in opium on the strength of a very proper decision our Government has come to in the matter. What was their cry at the beginning of last year? They asked us to save them from ruin. They said they only wanted their money back, but they wanted to be saved from loss. I want the Committee to know what has happened since. What was the result of the decision the Government came to last year? It was to close the market in China to all further opium. These gentlemen, who have been pouring doubt all the time upon the bona fides of the Chinese Government, knew perfectly well that they were not telling the truth, for the Chinese Government was in earnest and we could rely on the Chinese Government not to produce any more. What sort of prices have the dealers been getting? On the strength of this decision the ring put up the prices. At Shanghai, wholesale and retail, a roaring trade is being done. In January and February the price went up from 4,000 taels to 6,830 taels per chest. A tael is equal to two rupees. That price is exclusive of the 470 taels per chest duty which we graciously permitted the Chinese Government to charge on her own imports. This opium, which cost in the autumn of 1912 about 5,000 rupees a chest in India, or little over £300 per chest, was selling this year in Shanghai for over £900 per chest. Opium that cost 1,400 rupees a chest in India in 1907 was then sold in China for 900 or 950 taels a chest. A chest which two years ago cost in India 4,000 to 5,000 rupees, is selling in China to-day for 6,000 or 7,000 taels, equal to 12,000 to 14,000 rupees, showing a gross profit of 200 per cent.
    That is not all. There is apparently no reason why the dealers should not get what

    85
    they expect before the last Indian opium chest is disposed of in China, namely, 10,000 taels a chest, or £1,340 for what used to cost less than £100 in India, and has actually cost these gentry £300 or thereabouts. I do not hesitate to say that while the Parliamentary friends of these dealers have been squealing in this House about their losses, the dealers themselves have been making an enormous profit on the opium which was in their hands at the beginning of last year. If this be so, why should we protect this infamous trade any longer? If Shylock has had his pound of flesh, why should we help him to get another pound? Of the 23,000 chests in the Treaty Ports a year ago, probably three-fourths are now sold at a price that would enable the dealers to have the remainder as clear profit, even if we allowed them to take it out of China and sell it elsewhere. Why then should we go on forcing China simply to swell the already inflated profits of a wicked trade? In our own special concessions in Tientsin, Amoy, Foochow, Hankow, and elsewhere, as well as in the settlement of Shanghai, are used as special markets for the wholesale sale of Indian opium to Chinese dealers against the will of their Government and the interest of their people. To the shame of the British good name these places, and particularly Shanghai itself, are converted into wide open shops for the retail sale of Indian opium to the Chinese who cannot buy it over the border in their own territory. The consequence is that these Chinese opium sots who cannot get the opium in Chinese territory have been swarming into Shanghai and have raised the prices of lodging houses and hotels.
    With our usual British self-congratulation we are always willing to help people in distress. Six years ago the chairman of the municipal council in Shanghai, Mr. Landale, addressing a meeting of the ratepayers, expressed on behalf of the foreign residents sympathy with the Chinese in their desire to dissipate the opium habit and assured them that the Shanghai foreign community had every desire to assist them. At that time there were only eighty-seven shops licensed by the municipality for the retail sale of opium. How have they shown their willingness to assist the Chinese to get rid of the opium habit? They have steadily increased the number of licensed retail shops in Shanghai from eighty-seven in 1908 to 628 in the year
    86
    1912, with corresponding additions to the revenue of the municipality. When I put a question on this point to the Foreign Secretary he said he agreed with me that it was a matter of regret. That was his usually moderate language. I call it a scandal. When are we going to put an end to it? There are two sorts of places where this retail trade is going on. The international settlement of Shanghai consists of 500,000 inhabitants, outside the French settlement and the native city. What are we doing there? We have got a wide open opium traffic. I know there is a difficulty there with which I will deal in a moment. Surely we have no kind of excuse for promoting this retail sale of a dangerous and injurious drug in our own concessions, such as Hankow, Amoy, Foochow, Tientsin and other places, where we can do as we like. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give instructions at once that this trade shall cease in those concessions which are under our control.
    As to Shanghai itself, we know it has the most curious Government in the world, more curious even than the Government of Egypt, because the territory is Chinese, but is leased to several nations. I believe there are thirteen kinds of Consular law in force there. The governing authority in Shanghai is the municipal council, which is elected by foreigners on a very restricted franchise. When I was in Shanghai seven members out of nine were British subjects, and I believe that is still the case. When I put this matter to the right hon. Gentleman, he, of course, replied that there was some difficulty in putting pressure on these people. But the Foreign Secretary, to his great honour, some years ago at my request put pressure upon them to stop the opium den, that is the opium public-house. The kind of business that is going on now is the retail sale for consumption off the premises. The consumption of opium on the premises was put an end to by gentle and discreet pressure from the right hon. Gentleman five or six years ago. I ask him respectfully to do the same now with regard to this retail traffic. We know that British subjects there expect the protection of the British flag, and we have a right to expect that they will not continue to perpetrate this great wrong on their Chinese neighbours—that is, to sell opium to all and sundry, as they are doing at the present time, and to people who

    87
    cannot get it in their own country. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions more, and I have done. There has been a movement in Shanghai in favour of the acquiring more territory, in the quarter where foreigners live. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not put any pressure on the Chinese Government to give more territory. I believe there have been some negotiations between us and other foreign powers and the Chinese Government about this matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman that if anything of that sort is afoot, if there are negotiations going on for the acquisition of more territory to be added to the international settlement in Shanghai, then, before anything of that sort is done, we should at once give up the traffic in opium among Chinese subjects.
    Cheap sneers are often levelled at those of us who have long advocated that this traffic should come to a close. It is said that we are guilty of vicarious virtue, but I regret to say that there is no credit either to individuals, or nations, in merely giving up doing wrong. That is all I ask. I do not ask that we should do anything virtuous. I claim for this Government that it has done more than any other Government has done, but I have never claimed that in this matter it has done anything virtuous. [Interruption.] In this particular matter, if the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) had his way, the Government would not have had a scintilla of credit. I have never claimed any virtue for either parties, or persons, or the Government, or the nation. There is no virtue in giving up doing wrong. That is all that I ask, and I ask in the interest of our trade that the Government should give up the opium traffic. I ask it in the interests of future friendly relations with China; I ask it in the interest of Chinese unity and welfare; I ask it in the interests of our better credit with the world at large; I ask it in the interest of our ability in future to advocate causes of peace and righteousness, and freedom, the world over, as we are all proud that the British Government do, and we shall then speak with a stronger voice in the future because we are doing right ourselves. Above all, I ask that the Government will do right to China because it is our simple duty.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am going to address myself to a subject in which, like other subjects, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary may find a little
    88
    difficulty in giving us full satisfaction. There are circumstances which make that not only possible, but perhaps inevitable. In 1910 I raised the question in this House of the Convention arranged between this country and France with regard to the New Hebrides, and at that time I took upon myself, with others, the position of a prophet. I do not wish to say this afternoon that as a prophet I am particularly successful; at the same time, I do want to point out that everything that was said by the Opposition in 1906 in criticism of the Convention arranged between England and France has been ratified by events. At that time I was one who said that the right hon. Gentleman was placed in a difficult position with regard to the New Hebrides in making the Convention. The difficulty was this, that although at one time we had a preponderating influence in the New Hebrides, France, in 1906, had the preponderating population, the preponderating commerce, the preponderating ownership of land, and preponderating shipping; and, of course, it is almost certain that the country which has preponderance of commerce must inevitably have dominating political influence in the end. Therefore, the bargain entered into by the right hon. Gentleman with France, our friendly neighbour, had its difficulties, as I have said. The difficulties were that France considered that she was giving this country a great concession when she admitted her to consideration of this question of the government of the New Hebrides on the basis of equality. I am willing to admit all that. I believe that the Convention might have been successful, even as it was framed, if it had not been for the inherent weaknesses of the system itself. But what were those weaknesses? We could make Regulations and France could make Regulations for the government of that territory, and yet neither of us had any power to secure good government throughout the whole of the island, and neither of us had any power to secure that similar Regulations would be made by both Governments.
    That has been the unfortunate part of the whole position, as it seems to me; and I raise this question to-day, not because I want to enter into a lengthened criticism of the evil results that have followed from a bad system, but because, as a Conference is now sitting, it is only right that this House should understand upon what the Conference is deliberating, and also the people outside this House should be

    89
    possessed at this moment of the questions and reforms which are demanding the attention of the Conference, arranged after great difficulty by the right hon. Gentleman. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in 1909 a question concerning the Regulations, whether they could be brought into harmony, and, if they could not be brought into harmony, what course either Government would pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "There is no definite understanding between His Majesty's Government and the French Government of the nature referred to by the hon. Member, but the Resident Commissioners of the two Governments in the New-Hebrides are in close touch with each other, and as a matter of administrative convenience, assimilate as far as possible the Regulations which they issue. If there were laxity in carrying out joint Regulations on the part of one Government, the other Government would no doubt enter into communications on the subject."
    I think that every Member of this House will regret that for over eight years we have not had a single Report issued in this House on the administration of affairs in the New Hebrides. I regard this as an extremely serious matter. I can understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in this position, that to have issued the Papers would have been to present a serious indictment of the administration of the New Hebrides, for which we certainly have not been responsible. I recognise that, but I do think, as my hon. Friend for Rugby said previously in the Debate, that it is much better to face it. France is not mealy-mouthed. There has been criticism in France itself concerning the state of affairs in the New Hebrides, concerning the recruiting of women, concerning the recruiting of children, and concerning the maladministration in the Courts. The criticisms have been more severe than ever they have been in this country, because we have not had a criticism in this House at all, on account of their being no administrative Reports to this House, and the whole House has abstained from fear of crippling the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in securing better arrangements with France. Those better arrangements so far have not come. What is the inherent weakness of the system? It is the lack of similarity between the Regulations; and the Courts have to deal with a population of 1,000 white people, and with a population of 100,000 natives. There are Joint Courts for the trial of cases between natives and white men, and National Courts for the trial of non-natives.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is a joint Naval Commission which has the extraordinary provision in some of
    90
    its procedure, not to permit either counsel or evidence, and you have natives kept in gaol for eight months before they come up for any trial at all. The right hon. Gentleman, in response to a question of mine that there should be fixed Regulations regarding the age and height of children recruited in the New Hebrides, said that he had himself urged in the strongest possible way that the Regulations should be established by Convention, but he had failed to secure them. He, however, held out every hope that it would immediately be done, because he had the strongest views on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has always very strong views regarding native labour, and I can imagine that he was quite sincere in what he said then. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that promise has been carried out, when seven years have gone by and he has not yet established a basis concerning the recruiting of children and women. The regulations of the French themselves would not permit women to be recruited without their husbands, but, in fact, they have been recruited without their husbands. What is the fundamental weakness I have spoken of, and which, it is generally agreed, ought to be abolished? I have spoken of the National Courts, where extremely divergent penalties are inflicted for the same crime. In the case of a sub-officer of a ship which was recruiting illegally and without any authority, and a native was shot while escaping in a boat, the man who committed the crime was convicted of common assault and given a year's imprisonment, but was released and given the benefit of the First Offender's Act. The right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that I am certain that if the facts connected with the New Hebrides had been revealed there would have been a great outcry in this country. I am glad there has not been an outcry, because I infinitely prefer that those questions should be set right by conference. I do hope that the reforms which will be established by this conference will be satisfactory. What is the Joint Court of which I spoke for trying natives and white men? It is composed of a Frenchman and an Englishman who do not understand each other's language, of a Spanish judge, a President who understands the languages of the country, and a Dutch Public Prosecutor who also understands the languages of France and of England. I ask

    91
    is it possible to have any wise and just, even procedure, trial and penalties, with a Court composed as that Court is. I would infinitely rather see a Court composed of an Englishman and a Frenchman, with a Frenchman, if you like, as President, or two Englishmen to one Frenchman if we believe in the entente cordiale, than to see a Court composed as this is with the extraordinary divergencies of penalties. That is a Court from which there is no appeal, but the judgments can be revised by the British Commissioner or the French Commissioner, or wiped out altogether. I do not want to give the evidence that is in my hand concerning these things, and I will only say that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is anxious for the reform of that Joint Court. I am certain that he will have found that the use of the Naval Commission has long since become impossible. It was established at a time when there was not proper intercommunication between the islands, and it is a relic of what was done by France and England in 1887, and ought to be abolished. There are many proposals for the adjustment of administration there, one of which is that we should acquire the islands altogether by purchase from France. France owns the greater part of the territory; it has twice the population and has 40 or 50 per cent. more shipping, and owns, I think, 50 per cent. more land, and is altogether in a preponderating position, so that an attempt to purchase would be a serious matter, because we would be involved in a new problem of a British minority ruling a French majority, which would be one more problem added to the many we have.
    Australia keenly desires that we should possess those islands. She annexed New Guinea without the authority of this country, but this country subsequently assumed the authority. Australia has many interests there which will grow greater and greater as time goes on. If this country thought it wise to purchase the islands from France or to give some other territory in exchange, Australia would pay her large share of the cost of that purchase. The time has come when our growing Dominions, if they are going to intervene, as they have intervened, in our foreign policy, and also to require from us naval protection, and also great consideration in these administrative questions and areas, the time has come when our Oversea Dominions must, with self-respect,
    92
    help to pay the cost. I do not think that the result of this Conference will be a decision in favour of the purchase of the islands. The difficulties regarding partition are many, because although on the whole the French are in the South and the British in the North, the facts are that the harbours which are and would be of value to us strategically are in the South, and in the case of purchase the French would have the very best of them.
    May I submit to the right hon. Gentleman a proposal which I respectfully suggest he should place before the Conference, and, at any rate, I venture to set it before him, and I am convinced that it is serious enough to be worthy of grave consideration by the Conference? It is this: That it would be possible, if partition was not considered advisable or if purchase was not considered advisable, or if exchange of territory was not considered advisable, that you could arrange for what might be called autonomous administration North and South of those islands, under such an agreement as we have now upon the Regulations for the whole of the islands regarding recruiting, regarding liquor selling, regarding the importation of arms, and wherever the authority of either country ran the regulations would be the same. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that the only way in which any real administration in reform can come is by assimilation of the Regulations, and by an agreement on the part of France that those Regulations shall be carried out. The proposal I have to make is that there shall be two autonomous districts, French and British, with a Court of Appeal to which any cases can be taken. As it is now, there is no Court of Appeal, and only an autocratic power on the part of the resident Commissioner to revise the judgments of the Joint Court. That position is absurd; there is nothing like it and there has been nothing like it in the British Empire, and I hope there never will be again. After all in Egypt you had your Capitulations which gave the National Courts, but you had one general administration covering the whole of the territory which gave the assurance, if not of just judgments, at any rate of any judgments throughout the whole territory. I can conceive that that, if properly arranged, might be an effective solution of many of the difficulties which arise and exist now. Then there ought to be an understanding at this Conference that in future whatever arrangements are made

    93
    that administrative Reports issued by both countries so that the people of both countries could understand what the Government was doing in that territory. As it is, we do not know, and I consider it a real reflection upon British administration that such a state of things should exist, and that there should be a violation of the spirit of that Convention in regard to recruiting, particularly of children and women, and also in regard to liquor selling.
    I believe that if six or seven years ago when the first breaches of the Convention occurred, if administrative Reports had been issued, matters would net have gone as far as they have gone. They have gone this far, that France, if she did not believe there were abuses would not have consented to this Conference. In consenting to this Conference, I regret that a representative of Australia was not included, although it is satisfactory to find that the Assistant Administrator of the New Hebrides is sitting at the Conference. I do not in all sincerity want Australia when the Conference adjourns or finishes its labours and presents whatever arrangement has been come to, I do not want that there will be on the part of the Australian Government that sharp criticism that existed in 1906 when the working of the Convention was severely criticised. I am not in favour of unduly considering criticisms coming from Australia or elsewhere, but the Government ought not to put itself in the position as it did before, of authorising that criticism upon the ground that the Australasian Government had not been consulted. If they have been consulted in this, and if they are in agreement I shall be only too glad to hear that it is so from the right hon. Gentleman, and I sincerely trust that the outcome of the Conference will be to change the judicial system and abolish the Naval Commission, and I would also have the abolition of the National Court if I could, and, above everything else, complete reform of the joint Court, and some kind of equity in its decisions, judgments, and penalties. The present state of things is that the majority will always control the feeling and the system of justice in a country where they have a preponderating influence commercially, financially, and in population and in trade. I should like to see in those territories France pursuing that enlightened and just government which I am
    94
    certain France herself, apart from her representatives there, would be only too glad to see established. As it is now you have the administrators at loggerheads, and judges at loggerheads, and judges not understanding the languages, and nobody with any confidence at all regarding the administration, and abuses on. every hand, which I trust this Conference will succeed in abolishing in the interests of that great name and tradition which it has been the glory of this country to possess in ruling our Oversea Dominions and Protectorates.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I desire in the first place to warmly congratulate Mr. Wilson, the President of the United States of America, and those who have given him their support on the one hand, and the Foreign Secretary and the British Empire on the other hand, on having had passed in America that measure which was necessary to give full effect to the Hay-Paunce-fote Treaty, to ensure for British shipping, in the matter of tolls and otherwise, equal facilities and equal charges, and to pass the shipping not only of this country, but of all other foreign nations on the same terms of absolute equality in every respect with American shipping passing through that great undertaking, the Panama Canal. I can conceive of nothing that could have happened that will more guarantee and cement the feelings of amity and of goodwill between that great English-speaking nation on the other side of the Atlantic and the British Empire than this act of justice, full justice, which has been done by the settling of the question of just terms for the use of the Panama Canal. I hope that as one result of this welcome action, practically voluntarily undertaken on the part of the United States, there will be a much larger response to the invitation to-British traders to show exhibits in the great Exhibition to be held at San Francisco. I am sure that what has been done by the United States, showing that they possess the highest sense of honour of which a nation can boast, will cause those celebrations which are soon to take-place of 100 years' peace between the United States and this country to be entered upon and carried through with more réclame and satisfaction than they would have been under any other circumstances. I have also the pleasure of being able to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having at last stopped gun running at Muscat. I wish the Government

    95
    had been equally successful in stopping gun running elsewhere. At any rate, that clanger and difficulty which has for generations been harmful to British interests— the gun running at Muscat—has been put an end to by an arrangement with the French Government. I only hope that that will at no distant date be followed by the stopping of gun running through Jibutil also, because we cannot but regard the toleration of that traffic on the part of the French Government, with whom we have so close an entente, as something which they should not allow to go on.
    A good deal has been said to-day of the situation in Persia. For many years I have been interested in questions affecting the Persian Gulf, Persia, and the Bagdad Railway. I certainly regarded the Anglo-Russian Convention as in some respects detrimental to British interests. But as the years go on I recognise more than ever that we have on our shoulders in our world-wide Empire, such enormous responsibilities that, even if we do not get all we want, it is a great advantage to us to establish friendly International relations with a great nation like Russia. I do not begrudge Russia's getting the best of the bargain to a certain extent with Persia. I believe that, at no distant date, I shall be able to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having carried through arrangements, not only with Germany, but with the Turkish Government in regard to the Bagdad Railway and Mesopotamia, that will not be to the disadvantage of this country. I also feel that the decision to take an interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is, indeed, a wise one on the part of His Majesty's Government. In view of the great importance of maintaining a predominant influence in the Persian Gulf, and in view of its being adjacent to our Indian Empire, I believe that the Government with this huge stake in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company will feel it still more incumbent upon them to maintain our interests and rights in that region. Therefore, not only because we need to secure substantial supplies of oil to prevent the price being forced up against us by combines, and also because the increase of our interest in that region will strengthen the hands of His Majesty's Government in upholding our just rights, I think the step taken by the Government is a wise one. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) seemed
    96
    to prophesy and to desire the breaking up of the Turkish Empire. I do not desire the breaking up of the Turkish Empire.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I refresh the memory of my hon. Friend? I did not say anything in that direction. I went out of my way to say that I specially desired to see a prosperous Turkey.
    Sir J. WALTON: I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that complexion on his statement, because, having regard to the fact that we have in our Empire a larger number of Mahomedans than live in any other Empire under the sun, it is to our interests to uphold in every possible way the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, especially of Turkey in Asia. I believe that it is by no means impossible that it will develop a just system of government, and that that Empire will become much stronger than it is to-day. The Balkan question is an extremely difficult one. We were, indeed, horrified and shocked at the dreadful intelligence contained in the paper this morning of the assassination of the Archduke and his Consort. I have travelled through Bosnia and Herzegovina within the last three years, and, gathering as I did the bitter state of feeling on the part of the various races dwelling in those States, and in view of the fact that they were brought under the Government of Austria really by military force—they were then in military occupation—though shocked, I was not so surprised as I would have been had I known the actual condition of feeling in Bosnia towards the Austrian occupation. We have had today one of the most interesting Debates on the Foreign Office Vote to which I have ever had the pleasure of listening in this House—[a Laugh]—the present speaker excepted. The hon. Member opposite who laughed will give me credit for not including myself in that eulogy. At any rate, I can congratulate the Foreign Ministry on having listened to less real complaint and more warm approval as to his conduct of foreign affairs than many foreign Ministers have been able to in this country.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: Before I enter upon the question that I desire to raise, I should like to say a few words, not of apology, but of explanation. The other day, in a supplementary question, I used some rather strong language, which drew, if I may with deference say so, a

    97
    very proper reproof from the Chair. The language which I used was really only a modification of St. Paul's indictment of a people, when he said:—
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Translate.
    Mr. A. HERBERT: It would not be in order to translate it.
    Sir J. D. REES: When my hon. Friend quotes Greek, is he in order in ascribing to St. Paul what was written by Aratus?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Member for East Nottingham in order in attributing to Aratus what was written by St. Paul?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): If hon. Members disagree as to the writer, they had better refer to the Library.
    Mr. A. HERBERT: I hope to be able to produce justification for the words which I used a few days ago. May I repeat one thing that I have said before? It is with very great reluctance that I attack the Greek Government. I feel that it is much simpler to acknowledge what cannot be denied; it is much better and much wiser from the Greek point of view to repudiate all those terrible and regrettable things, and to try to turn over a new page in history and go forward. There is one other word of explanation. I have already asked the indulgence of the House on the question that I desire to raise. It is with very great reluctance that I force myself or my views on the House. I only wish that someone more competent than myself would undertake this task; but it is the misfortune of these people for whom I speak, that I happen to be the only Member of the House who, in recent years, has kept in close touch with them. That being the case, I have no alternative; indeed, one very gladly does what he can for a people that is persecuted and has the hand of every man turned against it. We shall all agree about one thing, and that is the great principle of mercy which we wish to see extended to minorities. Whether the Foreign Secretary will agree to my suggestion is another question. I hope that one argument, at any rate, will not be used to-night. I hope that the present situation in Albania will not be used as an argument for refusing all intervention. That is not a generous argument. I have been against Bulgaria in the past, but I should count myself amongst the meanest of men if. when her power is broken, and
    98
    the perseverance of years has come to nothing, when the fate of Poland is hanging over the stubborn and forlorn head that she raises against what is apparently her destiny, I took this opportunity of attacking her. On the same ground I ask hon. Members not to attack Albania to-night.
    The internal situation is pretty obvious. It is not fairly represented in this country. Prince William is a gallant gentleman who has undertaken an almost impossible task The insurgents are a simple peasantry who have been led away, who have been induced to revolt mainly from outside. I and those who agree with me have always said that it would be better not to intervene in Albania at all unless you gave such conditions as made her existence possible. That was not done. Servia took the towns that she needed in the North. The South has only been given nominally. Of all these Balkan troubles we may say, let the dead bury their dead. Irrevocable things have happened. But, as far as we can, let us prevent the same kind of thing from happening in the future. I wish to give a little evidence with regard to the statements I made the other night. As to my sources of information, I have had telegrams from all classes and all creeds in Albania with regard to persecution. I have had letters from English and American missionaries. I have also heard—though I do not quote this, because the information is not the most recent—from Mr. Bouchier, of the "Times." Last of all, I have heard from phil-Hellenes, who have the welfare of Greece at heart, and their evidence has perhaps, been the worst of all. I will read it briefly. It is dated from Argyrocastro on 18th June, 1914:—
    "The village of Kodra has been used as a slanghte-house where groups of Mussulmans and Albanians werrbrought on different days, and there butchered. The reported massacre in the Christian Church of Kodra (Hormova) was only the last of the series. Here these poor men were shut up and regular Epirote soldiers climbed on the roof of the church, took off some tiles and with their army rifles, fired upon the defenceless people below.….The church we found even now after two months bathed in blood; and there were nearly 100 killed.…….The day before twenty-two were shot, defenceless shepherds: eleven other shepherds were killed some days before by a guerilla band during the Greek occupation. Other graves of groups have been found. The Dutch doctor attached to the gendarmerie exhumed counted, and re-buried 90 odd bodies.….I have a list of 205 names of people killed at Kodra and verified it. We found thirty women and children in the village Hormova and 151 women and 159 children of Hormova in Tepelini. who had lost all their male relatives. We are told many others are being cared for in other villages. Their wailing and death songs and the cries of the children and babes at breast were the most terrible thing I have ever had the horror of witnessing.
    The Epirus Government admit nearly all the facts: but I am sure that the guilty parties are also higher up.

    99
    …. Therefore the Greek Government that instructed M. Gennadius in London to deny massacres knew that massacres took place …and it was common knowledge. Out of a force of 400 men 120 immediately deserted.…I have photos to accompany my full report."
    The last thing I will read is this:—
    "In Argyrocastro there are about 8,000 men, women and children Mussulmans. They refused to leave their homes when ordered to do so. The Government has cannon mounted upon fortress, and intends to bombard at the first moment they deem necessary."
    The last telegram I will read is this:—
    "13th April, Koritza (Albania). The Andartis (Epirote Holy Battalion) together with regulars of Greek army have burnt all houses in village Kosee; fourteen houses in village Detrine; all houses of Mahomedans in Ogran. Many women, men, children burnt alive.
    "In Colonia district (May 1st), there have been fifty-five houses of Moslem village of Qinam burnt, with massacre and mutilation. In Staria, 120 houses burnt, with massacre, etc. In Leskovik, 2,200 houses burnt and in Frasheri, 150 houses burnt."
    I will not read the names of these houses, because the figures surprised me. I think there must be an error in the numbers. That is the situation. To my mind that situation was preventable. It might have been possible for England to have done more than she has done. In regard to foreign politics there are two schools of thought. There is one school of thought that has existed from the time of Byron, that believed in Garibaldi, that admired Kossuth, that does its best for small nationalities, and to help weak people. The other school of thought—I will not call it a school of splendid isolation; it is rather a school of iron detachment—it refuses to interfere, refuses to do anything unless our own material interests are concerned. This school is keen after the interest on their investments, whether that interest comes from investments in Putumayo or anywhere else. It seems to me that there should be a via media. Obviously nobody would use an occasion of this sort irresponsibly, or would wish to drag their country into war except for national reasons. It is not for us to bear the sorrows of the world on our shoulder. We need not do it. But we can avert a good deal of pain without even a demonstration of our strength. When the King of Servia and Queen Draga were murdered by the Servians we withdrew our representative from their capital. This is not the case of a King or Queen being murdered. It is the case of poor peasantry, of poor women, of poor children being murdered. What I ask is, Are we not going to take any steps at all? I do not even say that those steps should be hostile to any other
    100
    Government. I do not for a moment accuse the Greek Government of complicity in these murders. What I do say, of what I do accuse the Greek Government is this—of complicity in the machinery that has produced these results. There was a great deal more than mere connivance in opening the doors of the prison at Janina, and who was it that gave the criminals who were freed the weapons but the Greek Government? Who was it that allowed hundreds of armed Cretans to go about on their fell work: the Greek Government? I do not myself believe that M. Venizelos has been responsible for these things. I think it will be a bad day for the Greeks when his influence is no longer felt. Who is it that year in and year out has been waging the most bitter propaganda: the Greek Government? Who had inside knowledge of everything that has happened: the Greek Government? The people mainly responsible, as the Foreign Secretary said the other day, are the people who are perpetrating these deeds. But there is one man who cannot divest himself of the responsibility, and that is the so-called War Minister to the Epirus Government.
    We come now to where we stand ourselves. Before I go into that I would like to just say this, the great strain and anxiety of the Conference is over. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary still has the fullest sympathy with those who are suffering, and the same desire to mitigate as far as possible those sufferings; but I do maintain that from the very fact—or, if you like, the accident—that that Conference was held in this country and that our Foreign Secretary was Chairman of that Conference, we do stand in some relationship of responsibility for those murders which are occurring now. If you endorse a cheque to that amount you admit your responsibility. If you are Chairman of a Committee or of a Conference, and you do not protest against the decision of that Conference, then I think you must be held to have accepted a partial responsibility for what was done. I repeat there was an anxiety that this country should be constituted. We were anxious that the same consideration should be shown to Albanian nationality as to other Balkan nationalities. Unless you are going to give that country a chance, it would have been better not to have constituted it as a nation. It is a cruel experiment. That country has not had a dog's chance. Europe has been like Pharaoh of old. She

    101
    has hardened her heart and has brought down more than the ten plagues of Egypt upon Albania.
    Let me end by saying this: Massacres, brutalities, retaliations — you expected all these things in the Balkan wars. But now it is peace. These Albanians in Epirus have been disarmed. They have not even got the alternative of fighting or flying. They are hemmed in. They are expecting death. I ask the Foreign Secretary to do this one thing which in my opinion—I may be wrong—will go a very long way towards saving a number of lives. When we ask questions in this House about the situation in Epirus it is either denied from the Greek side or we are told that the Foreign Office is officially unaware. Is it not time, if we have any responsibility at all, that we became officially aware of matters? Very little is required to do that. We have only got to send Consuls or British Agents of eight or nine Englishmen, say from here, persons perhaps like myself, a casual Englishman, who have some knowledge of the country. That would not involve you in trouble with any foreign Power or with the Greeks. It would, I think, neither involve trouble for you nor any other Power whatsoever. There would be this fact, that where you have an Englishman set down in a place, be it Asia Minor or the Balkans, or anywhere you like in the East, atrocities are far less likely to occur than when you have not got an Englishman there. I make this final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. These people out there have got no diplomacy to represent them. They have got no king who can assert authority over them or speak to Europe for them. They have got no money. They are without any means. Like other people in that situation they look to this country for help. I ask the Foreign Secretary for our own honour—so far as that honour is concerned —and the thing could not be in safer hands than it is—and for the sake of humanity, to see if he cannot send an Englishman or Englishmen to make an impartial and true investigation into what has happened in order to prevent future massacres occurring.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I propose for a very few moments to speak. Possibly like the hon. Member who proceeded me, the matter may be more of individual interest, and I imagine that scarcely any one will agree with me; yet I hold my own opinion in the matter and I respectfully
    102
    submit it to the House. My hon. Friend who spoke from the other side of the House said that this was the most interesting Foreign Office Debate he ever had heard. That may or may not be so, but what I am here to advance is this, that it would be better to look at things as they are, and to take things as they are; and if we are not to know the reality of things it would be better if we had no Debates in this House on foreign policy. Member after Member gets up and says what to the best of his information are the true facts of the case, but none of these hon. Members are furnished with official information as they would be furnished with on any matter of domestic policy. I think it is an amazing thing to see how the House is crowded on matters of naval defence, and to see how this House of Commons allows itself to be treated as a child in matters which are the springs of policy themselves—in matters which create wars, and for which these naval defences are themselves required. It would be immensely better if there were fewer millions spent on the Navy, and there was an open public policy as to our relation with other Powers.
    For some years I have been writing and speaking on this matter. I have urged my views wherever I have had two men and a boy to listen to me. I say that the Houses of Parliament so far as foreign policy is concerned are absolutely impotent. Again and again have I written in the Reviews, and have been looked upon as a faddist. But my vindication came on 21st July, 1912, when we were within twenty-four hours of war with Germany of which not one of us knew one word whatever.
    Earl WINTERTON: I think it was 1911.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: My Noble Friend is younger in years than I am, and he recollects the few years that have gone over his head more accurately. This is how the matter stands. The Foreign Secretary will pardon me for repeating the matter so often, like a well-told story. This House of Commons has no power to declare war or to make peace. These prerogatives of the Crown are practically invested in the Ministers, and exercised by them. In foreign affairs they are not responsible. The Ministry of England can declare war to-day without consulting the House of Commons. It could make peace to-morrow without consulting the House of Commons. Perhaps it will be said that is all right, and that the House of

    103
    Commons has the power of stopping supplies. Yes, but no House of Commons with ordinary patriotic feeling would dream of stopping supplies when that means the maintenance and the protection of soldiers abroad, whatever may be the facts of the war. Therefore, the Cabinet has power to make peace and to declare war; to make this country enter into the very highest and most momentous international transactions, and has a power which it has not in connection with the narrowest turnpike Bill. Can anyone imagine that a Committee of Parliament, such as the Cabinet is, should be able to put the country under the most intense national obligation, and to bind, and irrevocably bind, the lives and destinies and properties of the subject.
    This is an old question. So far back as the 19th March, 1886, a Motion was made in this House of Commons that treaties and declarations of war and declarations of peace and all international transactions should have the previous sanction of the House of Commons. That Motion was only rejected by the narrow majority of four. Mr. Bryce, now Lord Bryce, was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at that time, and in his "American Commonwealth," written some years afterwards, he referred specially to that Motion. He stated that the time would soon come when the practice of the unlimited power of the English Executive over matters of foreign policy would be curtailed. He was writing that in reference to the American Constitution, and he said that the time would come when English constitutionalists might study with great effect and efficiency the American Constitution, whereby treaties can only be made by the President with the assent of two-thirds of the Senate. And when we hear Mr. Roosevelt hope that the Senate would not agree to such-and-such a treaty, we must remember that we in this House know nothing at all about treaties. We have been talking this afternoon about Persia, but we do not know how many private treaties may be affecting all these transactions. We know nothing. We are treated as children. We are told what is good for us and what we ought to know, and we are to give our hearts and consciences and intellects to the sense carrier, who is to have power over us. That is strong language, but is no more than a plain statement of the case. It is the language used in express terms by Mr. Disraeli. He declared that
    104
    the power of making peace and war was a prerogative absolutely outside the House of Commons. It was declared by Lord Palmerston that in peace and war that people in this House who said they had a right to interfere did not know the British Constitution. That was again and again urged by statesmen in the last century. See what that leads to.
    We have got no power to make a treaty, as I say. We can discuss it afterwards. We have no power to make peace or war, though we have power to stop supplies, which power would not be exercised by any Englishman. See what this secrecy of policy does. It does this, and it does it without the knowledge of anyone that may give a Minister immense personal influence as distinct from ministerial and. official influence. That is an unconstitutional state of things. Anyone who has read Sir Theodore Martin's "Life of Queen Victoria" and looks through the Parliamentary Debates, can see the different influences that have been at work, will know what was due to the personality of the Crown. Then, again, see what effect it has in reference to what is called truth and honour in public affairs. If we had an open policy the Foreign Secretary could not deny there was such a transaction as the Salisbury memorandum on a Tuesday, and allow it to be published broadcast on a Thursday. Such a thing could not occur as occurred in my own recollection, when a Foreign Secretary united in his own person the office of Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, and placed in this House as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs his own son, and instructed him not to presume to answer a supplementary question upon foreign affairs until it was revised by him. The question is, ought we to have open and fair dealing in connection with these matters of foreign affairs? Of course, there are always difficulties in the way of the danger to the susceptibilities of Foreign States. Mr. Gladstone relied upon that very strongly. But if he had been alive during the last year or two and heard the questions as to foreign policy and the suggestions from the Opposition Benches, he certainly would have said that difficulty did not arise.
    On the 3rd April, 1883, when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister, Mr. Jacob Bright moved a Motion that the sanction of the House of Commons should be given before entering into a treaty with any country which wished to annex land adjoining the Congo. Mr. Gladstone said that

    105
    some years ago he could not have accepted that plea or acknowledged it, but from what occurred in recent times it was necessary that there should be an open policy. And what was it that he was referring to as what occurred in recent times? He was thinking of the policy of 1874 and 1880. The late Leader of the Opposition said that he knew men in the House of Commons to whom foreign policy was as well known as industrial policy. Mr. Gladstone said he would gladly see more openness and publicity in foreign affairs. He was speaking of the various transactions that led to the Berlin Treaty and the North-Western policy in India, and the annexation of Cyprus, and the bringing of Indian troops into Europe, all of which was done by exercise of the prerogative. In the last few years we have been turning our Constitution from an unwritten into a written one. One of the first things that should be done is that publicity and the sanction of the House of Commons should be given to every international transaction before being entered into irrevocably.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I cannot, after having been for so many years in friendly official relations with the Foreign Minister of Austro-Hungary, and for so many years in constant communication—always personally of the most friendly nature—with the representative of that great country the Ambassador in London, forbear saying a few words to express my personal sympathy at the tragic loss which that country has suffered. What I say will be very brief, and it is merely a personal touch that I do not like to forego, because I will not anticipate the formal vote proposed on the death of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his Consort which will be moved to-morrow, and which will enable the House to express its feelings and give the Prime Minister an opportunity of expressing much more fully the feeling of His Majesty's Government. But, Sir, I was one of those who less than a year ago saw the pleasure that was given here by the visit to the King of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his Consort. I saw the pleasure given by that visit. I knew the good will which the Archduke personally expressed towards our country during his visit and the pleasure which he so obviously felt in that visit. That was less than a year ago, and it gives a personal touch to one's feelings. There is
    106
    another personal touch also which anyone must feel who has been in official relations so long with the Austro-Hungarian Government, and that is the personal touch which comes from reflection on the distress that is caused to the Emperor of Austria in his advanced age by such a blow as this, coming after so many family afflictions. There is no Foreign Minister in Europe who can be to-day without personal feelings of the deepest sincerity with regard to the loss which has befallen the Emperor of Austria. There is not one Foreign Minister in Europe who does not know what great support the life of the Emperor of Austria-Hungary has been, and continues to be, in the cause of the peace of Europe, which is of such paramount interest to us all.
    7.0 P.M.
    Before I pass to the subjects connected with the Near East which have been raised in this Debate, I would like to say a word upon the question touched on only by one Member, I think, in this Debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley—a question which I was very glad to hear introduced in the House—that is, the question of the Panama tolls. He expressed satisfaction, I think, at the settlement reached. I should like to say one word upon that subject. It is true that a settlement has been reached;, but, while that settlement has been reached, the subject has not been entirely free from misrepresentation, which may have in it the seeds of future mischief, and I think it is due to the President of the United States, and due to ourselves also, that I should, as far as my knowledge goes, clear away some of that misrepresentation. I have seen it stated in some quarters that the settlement which has now been arranged over the Panama tolls was the result of some bargain between the present Government of the United States and His Majesty's Government, or that it was the result of some diplomatic pressure on our part—in other words, that it was the result of finesse or cleverness on our part, either in the matter of bargain or in diplomacy. I should like to say just what are the facts. The House knows from the Papers published the attitude we took up upon this subject originally, and the correspondence which passed in the early stages between ourselves and the Government of the United States. That correspondence passed entirely before President Wilson came into office. Since he came into office I believe no correspondence whatever has passed, and it ought to be recognised that

    107
    the line he has taken in the United States on this subject has not been taken because it was our view of foreign policy, but because it was his own view. Since he came into office we have left the matter as it was left when the Papers were laid before Parliament previously, and if it be the case that our views and arguments have influenced the opinions of the President of the United States, it has not been because of any arguments we have used since he came into power, or any diplomatic communications between the two Governments since he came into power. It can only have been because of the Papers which were already public property to the whole world before he came into power.
    As far as I know, the really great satisfactory feature of the view and action taken by the President of the United States, is that he has done it not to please us specially, not specially even in the interests of good relations between the United States and Great Britain, although I believe that is as dear to his feelings as it is to ours. I do not believe that either of those things has been his special motive. I believe it has been the much greater motive and feeling that any Government—any one of the great civilised Governments which is going to use its influence to make the relations not between two countries, but between all the great civilised and peaceful countries of the world, if the opportunity arises— must never when the occasion arises flinch or quail from interpreting Treaty rights, with whatever country they may have been entered into in a strictly fair spirit. If that be so, the settlement of this question has an influence, and a much greater influence than the relations between the United States and Great Britain. It means that in a question of great policy, of setting an example to the world at a critical moment when you come to the parting of the ways on a question of Treaty rights, the parting of the ways depends upon whether you are going to throw your influence on the side of doing something to establish more firmly civilised and peaceful relations between the Powers, and throw your influence on that scale in diplomacy, or whether you are going, by treaty rights too lightly or too one-sidedly to set back the opportunity between civilised nations of settling dis-
    108
    putes by peaceful methods. So much I wish to have the opportunity of saying on that point.
    I will now pass to the other subjects upon which more time has been spent in the Debate. It is a little difficult to weave them all together in an orderly manner in the texture of a speech, but I will try and take them separately, and make what I have to say about them as orderly and intelligible as possible. I will take first the point dealt with by the Noble Lord, who initiated the Debate (the Earl of Ronaldshay) the question of the oil concession in Persia and its relation to our policy in Persia. The Noble Lord charged me with inconsistency, and to make out his case I do not complain of the way he put his case, but I am going to say that I think he misrepresented one or two of the things I have said or intended to say. I think he made out his case by looking at what I had said originally some years ago about non-interference in Persia. The Noble Lord appears to have looked at the affairs of Persia through one end of the telescope, and then he looks through the other end: at what I said the other day when I followed the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Debate upon the oilfields. I understood the Noble Lord to quote something I had said many years ago, what I described as a policy of masterly inactivity in Persia, and he takes that as meaning that at that time my view was that we should not encourage commercial concessions in the neutral zone. I do not remember that I ever intended to say anything which went as far as that. I remember holding very strongly the view that we ought not to get ourselves in the position of incurring territorial rights and obligations in the neutral zone in Persia. I certainly did not want to extend such rights and obligations, but I surely even at that time must have been conscious that we had some trade in the neutral zone in Persia, and we had then this very oil concession existing given to a British company, but I never intended to convey that we should give all these? things up, without making some effort to work them, or that we should abstain from applying for any concessions such as railway concessions in the South of Persia, or that we should allow those oil concessions, if difficulties arose, to go by the board. I always thought it consistent with that original policy to do what we could to encourage legitimate commercial trade,

    109
    and that we should encourage the making of railways in the South of Persia, and generally that we should encourage British policy. I wanted to do it without incurring territorial obligations, or, at any rate, more territorial obligations than we could help. I demur altogether to its being said that because I have supported a policy of encouraging railway concessions, or done it in connection with previously existing oil concessions, that therefore I have departed from the policy which was laid down some years ago.
    It must be remembered that continually speaker after speaker in the House seemed to forget—or, at least, one would not gather from their speeches that it was present to their minds—the fact that this oil concession existed before the Anglo-Russian Agreement was made, and that it remains to-day exactly as it was then. We have not got a single right in Persia under that oil concession by the transactions between the Admiralty and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which did not exist before the Anglo-Russian Convention was made. Then the Noble Lord says that I spoke lightly of sending two brigades. I listened to his version and to his recollection of what I said the other day on that point. I was speaking in answer to some criticisms made by the hon. Member for West Saffordshire (Mr. Lloyd) as to the impossibility if need were, however great our need, of protecting this existing oil concession. I demur to its being said that in time of peace it was impossible to protect it against local circumstances. I went on to say that we could not want to protect it against local disturbance or to send two brigades, or send any force whatever, unless certain conditions arose which made it urgently necessary, even at a very short space of time to give that protection. I then proceeded to point out to the House that the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty made it quite clear that some of those conditions could not arise, that the Admiralty was not in time of war going to be urgently dependent upon this supply, and was not at any moment going to be absolutely dependent upon it, so that it could never be a matter of immediate urgency, and forcing our hand to send troops into the neutral zone to protect the source of supply to the Admiralty.
    If I spoke lightly of sending two Brigades it was because I urged upon the House that the conditions which would
    110
    make it imperative upon us to do so were conditions that could not arise, not that I treated it lightly, but that I thought it exceedingly improbable and, indeed, an impossible matter that we should be forced to do it under the conditions laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty. If I thought it was likely that we should have to take a step of that kind I should take a more serious view of it. The hon. Member for Bradford asked who would pay the bill. We do not anticipate that any bill will arise, but if it did arise, the circumstances under which it arose would have to be taken into very careful account, and the House would have to be quite clear that no burden was placed upon India if that burden was being incurred, not in the interests of India, but solely in the interests of the supply of oil to the Admiralty. The Noble Lord asked why we were investing two millions of money in a neutral zone. This oil concession is not limited to the neutral zone, but it is a very big concession which extends over a vast amount of territory. It is true it is only being developed in one part of the neutral zone, but it does extend over a vast amount of territory, and what I wanted to bring out the other day is that the most valuable part of this oil concession is not the pipe-line which exists in the oil-fields, but the prospects of the Admiralty going into this concession will make it sure not only that the present development proceeds but that new development is specially directed to places in the British sphere, or at any rate places near the coast, so that the result of the arrangement made by the Admiralty will be not that this oil concession is going to be pushed North in places remote from the coast where there may be all sorts of objection, but at all events the development will be brought South in the first instance, at any rate, in order to secure that the new development would be possible, if not in the British sphere, at any rate within easy reach of the coast so as to make our obligations as slight as possible and make the supply of oil to the Admiralty as sure as possible. No criticism is really fair in this matter which does not take into account the importance and the prospects of the existing developments which now exist.
    An hon. Member opposite spoke of the prospects of this concession, and its working being dependent so much upon being conducted on model lines, and that is a most important point. The concession

    111
    has hitherto been worked on excellent lines, and it has not given any trouble yet, and, indeed, the interests of the Admiralty in the matter will not make any difficulty in that respect, but will rather be an extra guarantee that it will continue on those lines. It is not likely to provoke disturbance, but its tendency will be to make disturbance less likely than in any other part where there is no concession, and where the tribes have not the same interest in seeing their country developed, or where concessions are not worked in such a satisfactory way. The final thing I have to say upon this matter is this: An hon. Member asked me a question about the Anglo-Japanese alliance, but it did not occur to me that the obligations under the Japanese alliance had any bearing on this question, and I have not communicated with Japan on the subject. Had I thought that it was going to increase the obligations of Japan under the alliance I should have thought it necessary to communicate with the Japanese Government in advance. I do not see how it could cast new obligations on the alliance, unless the disturbances in those particular regions was the result of some cause operating over an infinitely greater area than any area in the oil district, and in which the oil-field is a mere incident and not an important part of the trouble at all.
    The final thing I have to say is this: I certainly do not want to increase British obligations anywhere, and I have done my best to prevent our incurring territorial obligations. Trade, of course, does imply certain obligations, and one is bound to do his utmost to encourage British trade in all parts of the world. I have endeavoured to fulfil that without incurring territorial obligations. The Noble Lord says, "Is not this an increase of obligations." It is not an increase of imperative obligations, because, under the arrangements which the Admiralty have been making, it is not to be absolutely dependent, nor at any given moment immediately dependent, upon this given supply; and, therefore, it is an obligation which we shall be free to construe as we please at any given moment. Still, I would very much rather, I fully admit, that the Admiralty had been able to make the arrangements inside the British Dominions, but they could not do it. The British Empire was never planned, and the importance of oil was never foreseen; so, even if it had been planned, I doubt
    112
    whether this omission to secure a first-rate supply of oil in the British Empire would have been remedied. The Admiralty cannot make arrangements within the British Empire. You may say, if you like, and it is fair criticism, "If that is so, it is too great an increase of obligations for the Admiralty to enter into any arrangement for any supply of oil outside the British Empire, and, therefore, it should remain at the mercy of price in times of peace without taking any measures to protect itself in times of war." You may say that, and it is fair criticism, but I do not agree with it, and I am convinced, and the Government who had to consider this thing carefully are convinced, that it was desirable that the Admiralty should make arrangements of this kind to enable it to control prices in times of peace, even if the arrangement had to be made outside the British Empire. If you grant that point, then, may I ask that I may have some reply to the question that I addressed to the House the other day on this matter: "Where else outside the British Dominions could you have incurred fewer obligations and less dangerous commitments than you have in this particular case 2 [An HON. MEMBER: "Egypt."] I am told Egypt is insufficient; that the Admiralty could not have secured its object by arrangements in Egypt.
    Earl WINTERTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if the Admiralty have prospected in Egypt?
    Sir E. GREY: The Noble Lord can address that question to the Admiralty. I cannot answer it offhand, but I am quite certain that they have gone into it, and I am quite certain that no amount of prospecting in Egypt would have disclosed the enormous prospects which have been disclosed by Admiral Slade's inquiry under the Admiralty into the Persian oil concession. Where else could you have done it? There are vast supplies in Russia; there are vast supplies in the United States; I believe there are very big supplies in Roumania; and there are enormous supplies in Mexico. Would not the arguments brought against this particular concession apply with tenfold force against the Admiralty making a deal with the places I have named? Until I get an answer to my question, "Where else could it have been done so satisfactorily and effectively outside the British Dominions? I maintain that it was desir-

    113
    able and essential, if the Admiralty were to be sure of an economic supply of oil, that it should do something of this kind. Where else could it have been done where the risks would have been less?
    Mr. FALLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, which is under our protection, has been prospected in the very smallest or slightest degree? It is more than probable that there is oil there.
    Sir E. GREY: I think Admiral Slade's Report in the Papers presented to Parliament will show the exact extent of the explorations made by the Admiralty, and there was nothing in existence so assured at that time and with such good prospects that the Admiralty could make the deal in time. They had to make the deal quickly. A year would have been too late. The whole of this Anglo-Persian concession would have gone, and would have fallen into the hands of those opposing the particular deal the Admiralty has made, and the Admiralty would have been at their mercy on the question of price. I do not want to turn the whole of my speech to a debate purely on the oil question. I wanted to restrict myself to the points raised by the Noble Lord. I did not think it fair to pass over those points, and I have dealt with the particular questions which he raised. I would go on to deal with just one or two questions asked me with regard to Persia. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Sir G. Scott Robertson) asked me several definite questions with regard to Persia, and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) made a speech on that point. Of course, when one is dealing with Persia, one has to bear in mind that the independence and integrity of Persia means independence and integrity in the sense in which it existed when the Anglo-Russian Convention was made. One hon. Member opposite, I think the hon. Member for Hull (Sir Mark Sykes) said, "Supposing you were to lend British officers to the Persian Government to raise a Persian force to protect trade routes, that would be undesirable, because it would stimulate Russia to have a Persian force under Russian officers in the North." A Persian force under Russian officers existed in the North of Persia at Teheran, at the very capital, before the Anglo-Russian Convention was made.
    Of course, we never dreamed of construing the Anglo-Russian Convention to
    114
    mean that the Persian cossacks under Russian officers were to be put an end to, and that Russian influence, which was already predominant in the North of Persia, the capital of Persia being so near to Russia and so remote from our frontiers or the sea, before the Anglo-Russian Convention was made was going to be abolished by the Convention, nor would it have been fair or in accordance with its spirit to construe it in that sense. What we do desire is that the Anglo-Russian Convention should not be the means of diminishing the independence and integrity of Persia more than it had previously been diminished, and, if events occur which were not foreseen when the Anglo-Russian Convention took place and which apparently lead to the independence and integrity of Persia being infringed in practice if not in name, then those events and the position from time to time should be reviewed by friendly discussion between the British and Russian Governments. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. He asked me about the Muhamrah Khoramabad Railway. I am afraid the survey has not made much progress lately because the country has been disturbed. I was asked whether the Persian Petroleum Company is quite separate from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It is quite separate and has nothing to do with the Anglo-Persian Oil Concession, nor is the Admiralty engaged in that business. The hon. Member then spoke of the position in Azerbaijan where Russian troops are at present. I have always said with regard to the presence of Russian troops, when disturbances exist in Persia which threaten Russian interests or trade, that you could not construe the temporary protection of those trade routes and the preservation and maintenance of order in the country of Russian troops as being inconsistent with the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement; but, as order increases, the Russian Government assures us that these troops will be progressively withdrawn, and lately their numbers have been reduced.
    The difficulty, of course, is this: The order in the North of Persia has been in great contrast with the disorder in many other parts of Persia, and there is no doubt that a case can be made out for saying that the presence of Russian troops has contributed to that order, and that the sudden and complete withdrawal of them might lead to disorder in the North

    115
    of Persia, as there has been in other parts of Persia; but lately, besides the presence of Russian troops, there has been a tendency for the Civil Administration in Azerbaijan to become more and more Russified through, not the deliberate policy of the Russian Government at all, but the action of Russian Consuls in one place or another. Take, for instance, the collection of taxes by Russian officials. These are simple matters of fact, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford said, Russian influence has increased in that way or in some similar way in Ispahan, which is actually in the Russian sphere, but on the very edge of the Russian sphere, and it would be a very serious matter if that Russian influence, any political as distinct from commercial influence, were to spread from Ispahan into the neutral zone. Ispahan is a place which does influence the neutral zone. An analysis of the position made by the hon. Member for Rugby in his speech was in some respects quite a reasonable analysis of the sort of tendency that has been taking place. He mentioned one or two topics, and I have mentioned this other in connection with the collection of taxes. We have lately brought these facts under review with the Russian Government, and said that it was time we had a friendly discussion with them and took stock of the position, so that we might see exactly what had taken place since the Anglo-Russian Convention was made— taking stock not by way of making complaint of one particular instance here, and another particular instance there, but of the general accumulative effect of many instances and the tendency of that in the last few years. That we have begun to discuss with the Russian Government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford asked me whether we have proposed any alteration in the Anglo-Russian Convention. No, we have not proposed any alteration in the Anglo-Russian Convention. We have simply proposed to discuss the situation which, in some respects, we think has worked to our disadvantage by the force of events not foreseen when the Anglo-Russian Convention was made. My hon. Friend spoke of the financial situation in Persia. It is undoubtedly a very serious one. The revenue has improved, but the control over expenditure is weak, and the difficulty is to know how you are to secure a better financial situation in Persia generally without having to
    116
    set up in some way foreign financial control, which again raises the question of the independence and integrity of Persia. The revenue has improved in Persia, but the control over the expenditure exercised by the Persian Government is exceedingly lax, even in those matters over which they have full control, and in which they are not interfered with from outside. It would be a very serious thing if there were a sudden collapse of the gendarmerie under Swedish officers, but we cannot go on lending money to Persia indefinitely. I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend behind me that we shall be able to. lend money for the general necessities of the Persian Government, but the Government has come to a decision that we should be prepared to advance £50,000 more to be allocated for the gendarmerie under Swedish officers in Fars and Karman, to prevent the gendarmerie force collapsing, and to prevent our being confronted with the sudden necessity of proposing other methods for the preservation of order on the trade routes. Half of the £50,000 will come from India; we shall only come to the House for £25,000. India, of course, is very greatly interested in the trade.
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: On what security is this money to be advanced? Is it still on the Customs?
    Sir E. GREY: Yes, it is still on the Customs. So much on the question of Persia—or the points which have been raised in connection with it. I come now to the question of the Bagdad Railway, which was raised by the Noble Lord opposite, who suggested that I had spoken somewhat pessimistically on the subject of the publication of Papers. We certainly do intend to publish Papers, including the text of agreements and covering dispatches, so as to make them intelligible to the House and to everybody who reads them. But they are really hung up at the present moment on one point. We have made various agreements with Turkey; we have made agreements also with Germany separately on the Bagdad Railway question and on some kindred matters. We have also made agreements with Turkey about the Bagdad Railway and kindred matters, and about the Persian Gulf generally. I want to lay these as soon as possible. Although we have signed some of these agreements with Turkey, and have initialled others with Turkey and with Germany so that they are ready for signature, we cannot sign the latter, Turkey

    117
    cannot sign them, and Germany cannot sign them with us. until Turkey and Germany have completed their own separate negotiations, and it is because those separate negotiations are not yet completed that we have not been able to sign with those two countries separately all the agreements which we wish to lay before Parliament. All I can say is I hope the time is not far distant when we may be able to lay the agreements in extenso, and then I hope it will be found that they make a very complete settlement of many very troublesome questions. I should like to say more about them now, but there is difficulty in talking about them in detail at the present moment. Suppose I deal with one point which we regard as having been settled satisfactorily to this country, and instanced that as showing it is a good agreement as a whole. The result may be that in the other country which is a party to this agreement, whether it be Turkey or whether it be Germany, public opinion may become restless if it looks too favourable to us, while if I have to admit that on one particular detail we have had to make concessions without being able to disclose the whole agreement, then it gives this House an impression we have made an agreement much less favourable to our interests than it really is when judged as a whole.
    I cannot add very much to the main lines I laid down the other day, but I may repeat that the agreement we have made with regard to the Bagdad Railway is that, though we do not participate, it stops at Bussora, and by agreement with both Germany and Turkey is not going to be continued beyond Bussora or to the Gulf without some future agreement with us. The securing that the railway stops at Bussora is a most important point, because the original Bagdad Railway concession between Germany and Turkey included the right to go to the Persian Gulf, and that was a subject of great anxiety in this country. It might have ended on the Persian Gulf, and might have developed into something in which we have no interest and no control, and then it might have unsettled the whole position in the Persian Gulf. The arrangement we have made ensures that the railway stops at Bussora, and the position on the Persian Gulf is not going to be unsettled by the Bagdad Railway. We have stipulated for equal rights and equal rates, and two British directors have been admitted so that we can be satisfied that the line over the working of
    118
    which we have no control, is, so far as the conditions of commerce of all nations are concerned, being worked, not only in. the letter, but in the spirit.
    Sir J. D. REES: Do these remarks apply to a branch that will probably be made to Khanikin from the Bagdad Railway?
    Sir E. GREY: I do not like to go into points of detail. I am only stating the general lines of the agreement. Then comes the question of navigation. The navigation to Bagdad has previously been, as far as we have been concerned, in a most unsatisfactory state. Messrs. Lynch had a right—according to the Turks only a limited right—to run a limited number of steamers for navigation purposes. Whatever right the British company had it was limited to that particular purpose, and was the utmost we have been able to make sure of for a very long time; while it was open to the Turkish Government to form a company with any amount of foreign capital they pleased, to run as many steamers as they liked on the river to subsidise them as they liked, and by competition of that sort to run Messrs. Lynch's steamers off the river altogether. Under the new arrangement whatever rights Messrs. Lynch had are preserved, recognised, and assured, and, more than that, we are assured there will be Turkish rights of navigation which will be entrusted to an Ottoman company, in which there will be 50 per cent. of British participation with a casting vote. That assures, and it is in the mutual interest of ourselves and Turkey, that the navigation will be efficiently and adequately conducted, and that the ancient vested interests which we have had for so many years will not in any way be excluded, but will be secured under the new scheme.
    It is in the interest of the Turkish Government and of trade generally that there-should be a really good scheme of navigation, and I think the House will be satisfied when the Papers are published, that we have got that. We shall also include an agreement, the conditions of which I cannot state until they have been fully disclosed, by which a Turkish Commission will be formed to keep the Shatt-el-Arab in a satisfactory state for navigation, and finally we get recognition by Turkey of the status quo in the Persian Gulf—the status quo as we have regarded it for years past. I have not wished to obtain any new advantages or undertake new obligations in the Gulf.

    119
    We have always had our own view of the status quo, and we do not want to see the status quo as understood by the British Government, disturbed or displaced. It was the status quo we laid down originally, but for which we never secured direct recognition. We shall, under this agreement, secure to our mutual advantage a real understanding about the status quo in the Persian Gulf, which will prevent either Turkey or ourselves stirring up trouble. An agreement between Turkey and ourselves as regards the status quo in the Persian Gulf will be obtained, and that in itself is, I think, a great security for the future. The status quo, as we understood it and have acted upon it for many years past, will not be a matter of assertion; it will be one of agreement between ourselves and the Turkish Government.
    In return for all these things, when they are completed, and when all the other countries have made the same arrangement which are in an advanced stage with the Turkish Government, we shall increase to 15 per cent. the Turkish Customs Duty. It means a continuance of the old extra 3 per cent. which has been in existence for some years, and an addition which will make the total duty 15 per cent. Other countries have been having separate negotiations with Turkey. Most are in an advanced stage, so are ours also. The Turks have really wanted some increase of revenue, if they are to have a chance of putting their country into a satisfactory condition. We do not desire to prevent that. On the other hand, we could not agree to a 15 per cent. Turkish Customs Duty if the increase of revenue was going, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the making of the Bagdad Railway, and if that were to be continued to a port on the Persian Gulf, and upset the status quo there, without any agreement with us. On that account, therefore, we had to oppose it, and that brought us into diplomatic opposition with Germany. It was a very disagreeable position. It was quite clear that the railway was going to be made, and for us to be in the position of continually opposing the increase of revenue which Turkey really wanted, and doing it because we did not wish to see a German concession there, could only lead to constant friction. But having come to an agreement as to the terms of the Bagdad Railway, which secures British interests from disturbance in the Persian Gulf, we shall be able when the
    120
    agreements are published, to say to Turkey definitely, "We agree to increase your revenue by Customs; we know that will be necessary; it is not our policy to put obstructions or difficulties in the way of the Bagdad Railway, now that agreement has been come to." I hope, having said so much, I have not disappointed the Noble Lord opposite.
    Then I pass, still in the East, to the question of Armenia, which was raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton). There is difficulty about stating definitely the particular power given to the two Inspectors-General. This appointment of two European Inspectors-General has been made by the Turkish Government, but they have not officially informed us of the powers which are to be given to them. As a matter of fact, we have heard a good deal about them, but it would not do for me to lay Papers or explain in full something which is the act of the Turkish Government themselves. The appointments are made by them, and the powers are given by them, and they do not wish it to appear as if it had been done under foreign pressure. The Turkish Government have given the British Inspectors-General full power, but do not want it to appear that it is in any way derogatory to Turkish sovereignty. All I can say is that I know the Inspectors will have power to enable them to control justice, police, and the gendarmerie. The inspectors will have very wide powers, quite sufficient to enable them to realise any reforms which we all hope will be and which the Turkish Government themselves after all that has passed desires should be carried out, and make them effective in the administration of those provinces. The Powers are very wide Powers, and as soon as the Turkish Government makes them known to the world at large there will be no difficulty about making a much fuller statement to the House.
    As regards the protection of minorities in Macedonia and the Near East, I can say very little more than I have said. I do not think the mission to Western Anatolia which is accompanying the Turkish inquiry is an analogy. It was not suggested to the Turkish Government by the Powers, but the Powers sent dragomans at the request of the Turkish Government. There is no analogy between that and the International Mission which has been suggested, nor do I think the Powers themselves, at this

    121
    moment, are prepared to get up an International Mission for that purpose. With regard to Albania, in which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Aubrey Herbert) speaks with so much natural feeling and interest, he says that we ought to do more than we have done. I have listened to his suggestions, and except in one respect I do not know that we could do more than we have done so far. Who are we to deal with? He himself said that M. Venizelos and the Foreign Minister were not responsible for the occurrences, and were doing their best to control them. I am sure that is true. M. Venizelos and the Foreign Minister are the two people with whom we have to deal in the Greek Government. I am quite convinced it is their desire that these things—some of which are exaggerated, some of which I fear are true—which have been happening lately should be stopped. If they are not stopped, it is not because M. Venizelos and the Foreign Minister have been in any way parties to them, but because they themselves know the difficulty of exercising control.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: My suggestion was that Consuls should be sent from England, and the fact that they were there would stop anything happening, without any question of appealing to anybody else.
    Sir E. GREY: I have already said that on all points except one I did not see how we could do no more, and that was the one point to which I was coming. As regards representations to the Greek Government and so forth, we could not do more than we have done. M. Venizelos and the Foreign Minister have real good will in the matter, but the real root difficulty is that the thing is beyond control. There is no responsible Government with which you can deal effectively with regard to it. The difficulty about sending Consuls is this: It was proposed the other day by one or two of the other Powers, or one of them, that an International Mission might go to Durazzo to inquire into the disorders and to carry out an agreement recently come to between the International Mission and these people, but we came to the conclusion that in the present state of things—where the Albanian Government itself is not in a position to exercise any influence or enforce order in the country, where you have no responsible Government to deal with, so that things happen on individual responsibility, and things are done by individuals for which there is
    122
    no Government to bring to book at the present moment—it would not be safe to send an International Mission without an escort. I should not like to send a British Consul there without an escort. To send a British Consul to the Epirus at the present moment, where there is no Government which we could hold responsible for what takes place, would mean that you must take effective measures to see that the Consul is protected, otherwise it would not be a fair thing to him. To send him with a force would mean to send him in fact with a British escort; in other words, the Epirus is in that state where real influence can only be exercised at the present moment by the use of force. I am opposed, and shall remain opposed, to sending British troops into Albania to use force there. If you send them into very disturbed places it means that they will run the risk, some of them at any rate, of losing their lives, and also of having to take life. I am quite sure that if a British soldier were killed in Albania, or if British soldiers fired on the Albanian people—I do not care what section you take—the House would want a very strict account of how it happened and why it had been done. Therefore we have taken the line that we are not prepared to send British troops into Albania.
    On the other hand, if you are not prepared to send troops of your own to use force, you must, of course, stand aside when things are very bad and other Powers take a different view, and you must not object to the measures they propose to take. I can say no more about it than that the state of things is evidently unsatisfactory, whether it be in Durazzo itself, which is supposed to be the seat? of the Albanian Government, or wherever it may be. It is very unsatisfactory, but we cannot find a remedy in the use of force. The most I can say is we are willing that, while we are not prepared to-do things ourselves, we are not going to obstruct the steps other people will take for themselves. As to the question of the New Hebrides, raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), I cannot go into it at any length. I do not dispute that the state of things has not been at all satisfactory under the working of the Condominium. A Conference is now sitting to try and make things more satisfactory in the future. In order to make things more satisfactory, and to give a guarantee that they will be more satisfactory, it would be essential that certain

    123
    alerations in the execution of the Condominium should be agreed to at that Conference. Whether those things, which are of vital importance, will be achieved at the Conference or not, I cannot yet say. The obstacles to any other arrangement than that of a Condominium, as the hon. Member himself admits, are almost insuperable or, at any rate, very difficult. At the same time it is exceedingly desirable that the Conference should agree to those things which are essential, and which I think are regarded by reasonable people as essential to secure the better working of the Condominium, and prevent some of the events which have occurred. I sincerely trust they will be able to arrive at an agreement, because the state of things as it is in the New Hebrides cannot continue without some account being laid before Parliament from time to time. If the Conference should come to a satisfactory conclusion, I would be prepared to contend that we had better make a fresh start, and that we need not publish the Reports we received before. If we cannot definitely say that an agreement has been reached—if it is, it will, of course, be laid before the House—and cannot give the House reason to expect that the abuses which have occurred in the past will be prevented under the new arrangements, of course the time will come when we shall have to lay Papers. I do not want that time to come at all, because, when you have a Condominium, and once a party to that Condominium lays Papers and Reports received by them from their agents on the spot giving an unsatisfactory account of affairs, it inevitably leads to bickering and friction between the two Governments. One Government says things are very bad and the other? Government says the state of things is exaggerated, and then there is an argument between them as to who is really to blame in the matter, and so forth, which is bound to make friction between the two Governments without securing the real improvement that we want. I am perfectly prepared to admit there is need for improvement in the administration. More than I have said I cannot very well say until it is apparent what the Conference is going to do.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER:Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that subject, may I ask if the British Government is in communication with the Australasian Governments or with repre-
    124
    sentatives of the Australasian Governments as to the proceedings and proposals of the Conference?
    Sir E. GREY: It is rather difficult for me to reply definitely without referring to the Colonial Office. My belief is that the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government were consulted fully before the Conference met, and that they are to be consulted also at a further stage.
    Sir G. PARKER: Before a conclusion is come to?
    Sir E. GREY: I would like to inquire upon that point in order to be quite sure about it. I suppose there will be some stage after the Convention is signed before it is ratified. The first thing we want is to get within sight of agreement; the thing which is really worth having as a real guarantee of agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has taken every step to keep in touch with the Australasian Governments.
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: May I suggest that the Dominions should be consulted before signature? The right hon. Gentleman is well aware than once a Treaty is signed it is difficult to get it altered before ratification. It is no good consulting them after it is signed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consult them while their representations can be effective.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir E. GREY: Of course they have been consulted beforehand on various points. I am guarding myself against saying that there is no point which has not already been fully discussed between the Colonial Office and the Australian Government. We may be entitled to sign it without reference to them again. If the hon. Member will put down a question on that point I will give him a more definite and authoritative answer than I can give on the spur of the moment. I cannot sit down without saying a word on the question of opium, about which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. C. Taylor) spoke with so much feeling, and on which we know his feeling is very strong. He asked me a question about the Opium Conference sitting at The Hague. I am in a state of suspended expectation in regard to that. I have received a telegram to say that the Conference has terminated. Whether that is very good news or the reverse—I hope it is very good news—I cannot at present say. It is quite true that some of the Powers, including

    125
    Germany and France, were, up till a short time ago, raising objections. The Conference having terminated, it may be that those objections have been removed, and that the difficulties have been overcome, and have disappeared. If so, it is good news. Until I get the explanation why it has come rather suddenly to an end, I cannot speak with certainty. I cannot give my hon. Friend more information on that point. He also spoke of the Shanghai municipality, and contended that we had complete control over them. I expressed my own opinion about that in reply to a question put to me the other day. I will say that with regard to other concessions in China which are under our control licences have been stopped—the reverse of the policy which has lately been pursued in the international settlement of Shanghai, and I hope my hon. Friend will take that as a guarantee that as far as our influence goes in the international settlement it would be exercised in the same direction as we have effectively exercised it in the concessions under our control.
    Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember being the means of stopping the opium dens in Shanghai, and could he not use the same means of getting these opium shops stopped now as he used then?
    Sir E. GREY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind me of the particular means which were taken. I am very glad to think that we did exercise such means, and I will see how far they are applicable in the present case. With regard to the general trade in China, of course, the export from India stopped some time ago. We have done that. We have done more in regard to the opium trade in China than I think eight years ago many people thought it possible any Government could do in so short a time. But it is only fair to remember that the Chinese themselves also have done more. They have made province after province clean. The bargain with them was that as soon as a province was clean, as soon as it had ceased to grow opium, we should agree that it should be closed to the imports from India of opium, however lawfully the Indian opium might otherwise have got into China.
    We are now left with the question of these stocks at Shanghai. More Chinese provinces have been closed. I think there are only three left open now in China into which Indian opium goes, though I think
    126
    there are seven provinces which have not been declared clean. The moment these three provinces are cleaned there can be no question that China will have the right to say that the stocks actually in Shanghai at the present moment must not go into any part of China. Whether we can do something before these three provinces are actually declared clean, I cannot actually say. The stocks have been diminished, and the question whether we could hasten the final settlement with the Chinese Government, and say to them so much has been done, and China is practically clean, that the whole thing should come to an end, is one on which I cannot say anything further at the present moment. If we do that, we shall have to consider the position in regard to stocks bearing in mind all questions with regard to price and profits and so on which my hon. Friend has referred to. The final point with which I have to deal is the large point, but not the new point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Swift MacNeill). It is a constitutional point which I cannot very well discuss in a Departmental Debate. He told me some very startling things. He says there were occasions in 1911 when we were within twenty-four hours of war. I do not remember any sleepless nights on my part that year. I admit that there were times of apprehension and difficulty, but that we had come to that imminent point —all I can say is that I am very glad I did not know of it at the time.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: My right hon. Friend will remember the very remarkable speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir E. GREY: That was not within twenty-four hours of war. I admit there were times of difficulty and so forth and times—I do not say of strain—but of anxiety, not as to what would happen in a short time, but what was going to be the diplomatic way out of the whole situation. All I can say is that the worst things were the more glad my hon. Friend ought to be that everything passed off so well all round. We have in the last eight years gone through all sorts of difficult times. Morocco has not been the only question of difficulty, nor the Balkan crisis. There have been other things. We began with great difficulties with Turkey in 1906, and there have been all sorts of difficulties from time to time. Of course it is open to anyone to say that the policy of the

    127
    Government has caused unnecessary apprehension and anxiety and made these difficulties worse than they were. On the other hand, it is open to anyone, speaking on behalf of the Government, to ask his critics whether they are quite sure that if the Government had done something which they were told they ought to do or had refused to do something which they were criticised for doing, we should have come through as well as we did. I do not think you can get a strong instance in the last few years of the desirability of greater Parliamentary control; but the question of Parliamentary control is, of course, one which raises really a great constitutional question.
    I have never personally had a very strong feeling myself about the question of whether treaties when actually signed— treaties of a certain kind—should be submitted to Parliament before they were ratified or not, but it has not been a constitutional practice. It means a great alteration in the Constitution. I have gone out of my way once or twice to say that with regard to certain things which seemed to me of unusual character, such as a general arbitration treaty, I would take care that it was brought before the House for discussion before it was finally concluded, but in doing so, I was departing really from constitutional precedents, and I can only say that if a definite change of that sort in the Constitution is to be made, it is one which must be discussed, not as a purely Departmental matter, but is one which the House and the Government of the day must really discuss on its merits. One thing I am quite aware of. You cannot really turn the House of Commons into an administrative body. Supposing, for instance, you were to form a Committee, and it was to be an administrative body, and no treaty was to be excluded till it had been discussed by that Committee, I think you would put yourself at a great disadvantage as regards other foreign Governments. The moment you try to put administration into the hands of a Committee of the House of Commons you are certainly at a disadvantage with regard to other countries. As to the constitutional question of whether the House should have its say in all treaties before they are ratified, that is a thing which has previously been discussed in the House, and I dare say will be again, but it cannot be taken up simply as a Departmental matter on the Foreign Office Vote.
    Colonel YATE: I am sure we have all listened with very great pleasure to the review which the right hon. Gentleman has given us of the special questions, ranging over a very wide expanse, and we all congratulate him on the excellent statement he has been able to give us. I listened with great pleasure to what he said of the due consideration which would be given to the merchants who owned the Indian opium at present in stock in China, If any question came up of the disposal of that stock. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Theodore Taylor) told us a great deal about the burning of illicit opium here, and of smuggled opium there, but we ought to remember that this Indian opium in China has never been illicitly imported, nor has it been smuggled. It has been taken to China under treaty, and the Chinese Government are perfectly at liberty to burn it if they so wish, provided they pay the value. I remember saying that to General Chang himself. He apparently wanted to burn the British opium without paying the value of it. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that the question of the price to be paid for the opium, if it comes to be disposed of other than by sale, will be considered. Another point he raised was the question of navigation on the Tigris. It seems to me that rather undue importance has been given to this question of the navigation of the Tigris. I cannot help thinking that as time goes on the water will be more and more demanded by the Turkish Government for irrigation, and there will be very little hope of ever having the Tigris fitter for navigation than at present. We shall have less and less water in the river, and less chance of navigation than we have now. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in getting this Agreement of the rights of navigation of the Tigris, has not given away more than our rights are really worth for that consideration.
    The question that the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with was the question of the oil concession in Persia. I am entirely in favour of that concession. I support it entirely, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on its completion. I believe it will have a tendency to make disturbance less in that part of Persia, to strengthen Persia in that part of her domain, and to uphold her authority and maintain her integrity. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, that in this agreement which has been come to, we shall have a distinct guarantee

    129
    that the money provided by Great Britain will be devoted solely and wholly to the development of the oil wells in Persia, and that we shall have a stipulation in the agreement that this money provided by Great Britain is not to be used for any other purpose of any kind whatsoever outside Persian territory? I trust we shall have an assurance that there will be a stipulation to this effect in the agreement, or that some guarantee will be given by the company that no part of this £2,200,000 is to be spent on any other project than on the development of oil wells from sources which at present exist in Persian territory.
    Sir E. GREY: That is a question of what is actually in the contract. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must make it the subject of a question. I cannot give a definite answer. I understand that the Admiralty gets control, and will naturally insist on the funds being used to develop those parts of the concession which are most available.
    Colonel YATE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman arrange that there should be some stipulation before the agreement comes into force, so that there will be no question about it hereafter? I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take this into consideration and see what can be done, so that no question can be raised of our power to prevent alienation of the fund hereafter.
    It being Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 11) BILL.—(By Order.)
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
  I rise to ask the House to oppose this scheme, which is only one of many which, in my humble judgment, are becoming far
  130
  too numerous at the present time, namely, a proposal to permit a certain county borough to incorporate within its boundaries large areas of the county in which it is situated and to bring them under the control of that particular borough—areas, I may add, as I shall show directly, between which and the borough in whose boundaries they are to be included there is little or no community of interest at all so far as I have been able to discover. We had a similar instance of this not very long ago in the case of the borough of Cambridge, which was, happily, defeated, and which otherwise, so far as I have been able to ascertain, judging from the Debate, would have been most injurious to the areas still left to the government of the Cambridge County Council. This is the case of Croydon we have to deal with tonight, and my excuse for intervening on this occasion is that I have been very strongly urged to do so by representatives of the areas which are proposed to be incorporated as part of Croydon borough, and which are also within the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. This is a proposal which seems to me, after having done my best to make myself acquainted with it, to be not only of a very complex character, but one most injurious as regards the interests of the county of Surrey, and especially of the areas sought to be acquired by Croydon borough. I have felt it to be my duty, therefore, to accede to that request.
  I do not say, nor do I think, that there may not be occasions when it may be right and desirable and even necessary to extend the boundaries of any particular borough, but in this case I see not only no such necessity, but, on the other hand, I do see very strong reasons against it, which I will proceed to explain. The first thing I want to call attention to is the uncompromising hostility of the new areas to incorporation within the boundaries of Croydon borough. They object on the strongest grounds, as I shall be able to show directly. But that is not all, for while the evidence of hostility of these contemplated new areas are quite conclusive against the Bill, especially when we consider the grounds which exist for that hostility, there is no case at all, which I have been able to find, of any great desire for extension on the part of the burgesses of Croydon. That seems to me, having regard to the way in which the scheme has been promoted, to be very remarkable. The chairman of the borough

  131
  Boundaries Committee admitted in cross-examination at the time of the inquiry that the opinions of the ratepayers of the borough had not been ascertained on the question of the extension of the borough in any way, either at public meetings or anything of that kind, nor had any municipal election been held at which it could have been considered by the burgesses. The hostility of the areas remains exactly the same. They are of opinion—and they have pressed their opinion very strongly upon me—that if this Bill were to be carried into law it would be most injurious to them. It is perfectly true, I believe, that at the last local inquiry not a single witness was called from the ratepayers themselves for the proposals of the corporation, but it was proved, on the other hand, in the case of the areas proposed to be included, that by every recognised method of representation, by resolutions of the districts and of parish councils, by parish meetings, by local parish council elections, by the evidence of residents and of ratepayers, the inhabitants of the districts were absolutely united in refusing to be driven, as they described it, like a flock of sheep against their will into the borough of Croydon, and all this although they have been offered preferential rating in order to induce them to agree to these proposals. On that point let me say this: It is contended against the scheme that neither the corporation nor the Local Government Board have authority to create a privileged class of ratepayers in the same community and sharing the same responsibility.
  I leave that contention by itself. I know from my experience, a good many years ago, I am sorry to say, as President of the Local Government Board, that that contention is perfectly correct. It is obvious on this question that the county council, on the other hand, even if they desire to take that course, cannot make any offers in order to counteract it, even if they thought it right to do so, in the shape of reducing the county rate. That is entirely beyond their province, and if methods like these, which they cannot prevent, are permitted by the House of Commons, it would really be nothing else than bribery, in order to induce certain ratepayers to agree to these proposals in their own interests, and it would be bribery of the existing ratepayers at the cost of their successors in the future. To me this is a very serious matter, when
  132
  these proposals are made for an extension of boroughs, no matter what the object or interest in view may be, no-matter whether it is really very desirous or not, and it can be proved to be so, that the promoters of these schemes should resort to those methods of inducing the support of people who would otherwise be opposed to them. These are considerations which lend great force in my humble opinion to the action of the House of Commons in 1903, which has been brought prominently before my attention. In that year in the case of the Bootle provisional order, the House of Commons decided that they should be guided by this principle, a principle to which I attach the utmost importance myself, that self-governing areas should not be amalgamated without mutual consent except on very special grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear expressions of assent from the other side of the House, and, if the House had been fuller than it is at the present moment, I think that I should have very general assent to that proposition. And as recently as in the Debate of the Cambridge provisional order, the President of the Local Government Board at that time (Mr. Burns) said that he could not believe that it would really conduce to better local government to compel any area to come as an unwilling partner into the business of a local authority. With that sentiment I agree entirely. I endorse it with all my heart, and I suspect that there are very few persons in this House who would hold a contrary opinion. After all local government is a question of the greatest importance, and if local government is not conducted with a view of representing the wishes, desires and sentiments of those who are governed, it is perfectly obvious that local government can never be so successful in the future as it has been in the past. I come to another point. I said just now that there was no community of interest between the two parties who are interested on this occasion. But against that it is urged that on the question of drainage there is such a community of interest. I have examined the matter as carefully as I can, and I doubt very much if that statement is altogether accurate.
  If there is any community of interest it can only be said to exist in virtue of a certain joint scheme of drainage carried out under agreement between the borough and the rural district council. The reason of this is to be found in the rather

  133
  curious geological, I suppose it may be called, or geographical anomaly, whichever we may please to describe it, in reference to two valleys in the areas which are sought to be included. I should explain that those areas, which it is proposed should be taken in by the borough of Croydon are in two separate valleys. Neither of these valleys possesses a river by which it can drain itself. The waters in those two valleys flow underground, and do not emerge until they form the head waters of the Wandle River, which is situated within the boundaries of the Croydon authorities area. But I do not think that it can be argued that that is any reason why the two valleys should not have the use of their own natural drainage outlet, even though it may be by pipes or by other means underground; for any system of drainage by gravitation must follow precisely the same course, and I am informed on most reliable authority that schemes which would be more advantageous, and ultimately infinitely cheaper to these local areas than any schemes in future likely to be promoted by the borough, in which they might have to join, have already been considered, and I believe are prepared. That is a considerable part of the question of drainage on which I contend that there is no community of interest whatever between these two areas. In any case I venture to urge that the borough had no right to take advantage of this anomaly, or to make agreements which have been in the past consequent upon it, a pretext for compelling these areas to the Croydon district. Let me just say another word in relation to certain cottages which are situated in that part of the parish of Woodmansterne, which is also, if I may be pardoned the expression, to be grabbed by the borough. The information with regard to these cottages is rather interesting. They are close to the Cane Hill Asylum, belonging to the London County Council, and as they were at one time drained by cesspools, necessarily so, for there were no other means of drainage at that time, they were alleged —and possibly with perfect truth—to be a nuisance and a danger to the water supply of the asylum. That I can perfectly understand, but whether it was true or not at that time, all danger upon that score has been entirely removed; and if it was true at any time—and I beg the House to remember this in forming their opinion—the fault in no way lies with the
  134
  authority of that particular area, or with anybody else, so far as I am able to judge, than the Croydon Corporation.
  My answer to the allegation will be this: The Croydon Rural District have been prevented for years, where it was necessary, from extending their drainage system, because of difficulties raised by the Croydon Corporation. But, mark this: Since the inquiry was made by the Local Government Board, the district council have taken it into their own hands, quite regardless of the corporation. They have themselves connected the cottages with the main drainage, and in that way they have removed all danger of nuisance or of contamination to the water supply. I would ask why, if they were so consumed by anxiety for the health of the parish of Woodmansterne, the difficulties with the Croydon Rural District were not long ago removed, or was it being kept open as another reason and another argument to be adduced in future in support of the annexation of those areas to the boundaries of Croydon? The second point leads me to another aspect of the question to which, I think, I must now call the attention of the House for a few minutes. It is an aspect in which, on a different subject, the adoption of this scheme would inflict a positive and most serious injury on the new areas and the particular interests which they represent. The county council proved, in the inquiry which was held on the last occasion, that the loss of these added areas would destroy the whole organisation of higher education in that part of the county, of which Purley and Whiteleafe—both places which I know very well myself, and with which I am, if I may say so, for I have often been there, almost intimately acquainted—are the natural centres for the rest of the county, towards which all means of communication converge. They complain that the Local Government Board—and to this I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will direct their attention and endeavour to give us some reply— before granting the Order, did not consult the Board of Education.
  Whether it is the fact that there is any breach of legislation in doing so, I am not prepared to say; but this I am prepared to say, that on a question so important as that of higher education, of which an ordinary inspector or engineer would probably know little, it certainly shows a great lapse of care, in my judgment, even if it

  135
  did nothing else, that they should have neglected to inquire—if the allegation be true, as I am told it is—or take any counsel whatever with the Board of Education, before this Provisional Order embodying this particular result was put forward, either as to the effect which would result on the county service of higher education or, which is not of less importance, as to the ability of the council in future to make an efficient substitute of its own. This seems to me to be a very serious consideration, and one which ought to weigh well with all the Members of this House before they give their consent to this proposal. May I remind the House that, both for this and other objects, Parliament has imposed on the county council the statutory duty of prescribing, subject always to confirmation by the Local Government Board, the special form of local government most suitable and adequate to the wishes and requirements of the different areas in their districts. The County Council of Surrey contend— and I believe their claim is a good one— that after full inquiry into the wishes of the inhabitants, they acted in conformity with the ideas of democratic local government, which finds favour generally in these days. I am speaking of democratic local government, and I see nothing in that to excite the laughter of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I maintain an unselfish interest in the future prosperity of local government, whether it be democratic or otherwise. The Surrey County Council contend that they have done this by making an Order constituting the parishes affected an urban district, which in their judgment is quite competent to manage their own affaire in every particular way. The Local Government Board say "No." They adopt the exactly opposite course, and they refuse confirmation of the Order creating the urban district, and their decision instead is to place those people under the domination of what they regard altogether as an alien community with whom they have no common interest and where they must always be in a hopeless minority, with no voice whatever in the management of their own affairs.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: They ought to set up a provisional Government.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That opinion I hold on this particular question, and I see nothing in it myself of which I should be ashamed, much less anything in it to arouse the
  136
  laughter of the hon. Gentleman opposite to whom I referred just now. My main objection to the proposal in this Bill, and any others like it, unless they have an overwhelming majority and overwhelming case, is this. If the principle embodied in this Order is to become the regular practice in this country, you will have every borough which has ambitious schemes, or which, perhaps, has "outrun the constable," wanting to take the property of its neighbours in order to recover its position, and the rich parts of a rural district, as in this case adjoining a borough like Croydon; taken whenever it suits that particular borough, and you will have the poor parts left to the district, or added to some other district which, it may be, does not want them, and does not wish to have them. If that is to be done, it opens up the whole question of the organisation of local government, not alone as to the encroachment of the particular borough or the rural areas around it, but as to the difficulties which at once arise when great new urban areas are set up within the counties. The whole question of rating and readjustment of burdens and everything connected with the subject is raised at once. If all that is to be done and to be raised, and I am not saying for a moment it may not come, and indeed I think myself in all probability, though I do not think I shall be here to see it, it probably will come, and at no very great distance of time, it ought not to be done, and all those vast questions ought not to be set on foot with all the difficulties with which they are accompanied by means of a Provisional Order in a particular instance to which there is violent and determined opposition on the part of those on whom the Order is to be inflicted. I have to ask the House this question to-night, "have they such an overwhelming case for this Provisional Order?" venture to say they have not. Whether I am right or whether I am wrong, that at least is my humble but convinced opinion after giving to this Order the best consideration in my power, and I do most sincerely hope that the House will show by sharing that opinion to-night that they are in agreement with me.
  Mr. MALCOLM: In rising to follow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), and to oppose him by asking the House to give a Second Beading to this Bill, I am conscious of a reflection, and also of a fear. My reflection is that since the days of David and Goliath there never was a more

  137
  unequal contest, at any rate so far as Parliamentary stature is concerned, as the contest which I suppose will be waged between those who support my right hon. Friend and those who support myself.
  My fear is that the discussion in this House, knowing as one does what has been going on outside, will resolve itself into the kind of traditional conflict that is constantly being waged between boroughs and counties, rather than upon the field of acquired knowledge into the merits of the particular case. My right hon. Friend asked us to-night to reject the Second Reading of this Provisional Order Bill. He did not tell us that it would be the first time, supposing his view is taken, that such action was taken by the House since 1887. In the last twenty-five years, 120 of these Provisional Order Bills have been passed by the House, and for twenty-four of them my right hon. Friend, when at the Local Government Board, was himself responsible. In no single case has this House rejected such a Bill on Second Beading. In every case the Second Beading was sanctioned, and the merits of the details, complicated enough as these are, as my right hon. Friend stated in his speech, were discussed in the only tribunal which can properly discuss them, namely, a Committee of the House upstairs. I want to be perfectly fair. On the Second Beading of some of these Bills—a very few of them— there has been opposition, as there was opposition two or three years ago to the Birmingham Bill. But the House has recognised, surely, that that opposition was immediately withdrawn, when the promoters of the Bills offered to the opposing county council's compensation for any increased burdens that might be cast upon them by the passing of those Bills. Advantage having been taken of experience, such provision is found within the pages of the Bill now under discussion. Compensation is offered to the County Council of Surrey if it should find itself mulcted in any fresh burden. When my right hon. Friend referred in something like triumphant tones to the way in which the Cambridge Provisional Order was treated the other day, he unwittingly argued against his own case, because that Provisional Order was upset on Third Beading. It had had its turn upstairs.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am perfectly well aware of that.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I only say that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention it. I shall be perfectly satisfied if the same fair play is given to this Provisional Order as was given to the Cambridge Provisional Order. Undoubtedly the House of Commons must have the last word in the judgment of this matter, but I do not think it ought to arrogate to itself the right to decide before it knows. I want the House to realise that this is not an ordinary local Bill, promoted by a local body altogether on its own responsibility. It has a history rather different from that, and a history of which my right hon. Friend complains. Before the Bill was framed, the question was submitted, first of all, to an inquiry by an expert competent body at the Local Government Board. Indeed, two inquiries on this very subject were held by that Government Department, and on the findings of those two inquiries this Bill was framed. Yet the House is asked by my right hon. Friend to override all that expert knowledge so acquired, and to reject the Second Reading of this Bill without experience and without knowledge. I say, with great respect to my hon. Friend and to those whose cause he is espousing, that that is a course of conduct which I think it unjustifiable and unjust. Before the House comes to a decision, let it realise one or two important preliminary considerations First of all, in 1912 the Croydon Corporation submitted to the Local Government Board a rather smaller scheme for the extension of its boundaries than that which finds expression in the Bill now under discussion. The Local Government Board made its inquiry, and it replied that on that representation it would not make an Order, and in a letter to the Croydon Corporation these words were added:—
  "It appears to them (the Local Government Board) that if the question of the extension of the boundaries is to be further considere, an amended representation, which should primâ, facie extend to such parts of the rural district as have a natural drainage to the boundary, should be submitted."
  9.0 P.M.
  Upon that letter and those findings an amended representation was made to the Local Government Board—an amended representation which, indeed, was suggested by the Board itself. The area now proposed to be added to the borough consists of Beddington, Coulsdon, Sander-stead, and Woodmansterne. It is quite true that all those parishes in area are already within the rural district of Croydon, but the population in all its coming and going, in all its life, is really part of

  139
  the population of the borough of Croydon. The boundary is purely artificial. When you cross it you have no notion or indication that you are going out of town life into country life. Such an idea is perfectly absurd. The district is part and parcel of Croydon, except in name and in local government. These places are now administered by parish councils and a rural district council. They are urban in their habits, and the present form of government is, it is submitted, not the right form of government for these really urban communities. They want a form of urban government, possessing all the powers and duties with regard to public health and kindred matters which were entrusted by Parliament long ago to the governing bodies of local areas. This is admitted by what my right hon. Friend said in the course of his very interesting speech. It is admitted by the Surrey County Council, who have quite recently, so far as I know, made an Order under the Local Government Act converting into an urban district council substantially the same area as that dealt with in this Bill, and which we propose to add to Croydon. This, I submit, absolutely justified our contention that the district requires an urban authority rather than a parish council to deal with its affairs. If our Bill should fail to-night, what will happen? This alternative will be taken up: in one way or the other these four parishes will pass from their present position under a rural district council, and the area, instead of being transferred to the Corporation of Croydon as we suggest, will have to bear the whole expense of setting up the machinery of a new local authority, with new officers and a new establishment. All that expense will be put upon the area, and, therefore, upon the ratepayers of that area. Surely this House will not sanction that unnecessary expense and that unnecessary multiplication of local authorities without allowing full inquiries into the whole matter upstairs! Of course there is opposition, a very natural opposition, most eloquently expressed just now by my right hon. Friend. But when the inhabitants of these parishes argue that our scheme involves an increase in the rates, I think they must, or should, realise that their growing requirements and their growing necessities mean an increase of rates payable to somebody, whether payable to the corporation or whether payable to a new urban district
  140
  council. That being so, I, who have lived in the district—as I know several Members of this House do—would certainly advise them to avoid this extra expense of having to set up a new authority, new machinery, and a new establishment, when there is one, not quite so impecunious as the right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe, but one which has done good work in the past, and financially is perfectly solvent at the present time.
  Further, it is to be understood that these new districts are not expected to pay the present Croydon rates. Upon the Local Government Board's point, no doubt the President or somebody else will reply to my hon. Friend. But it is worthy of noticing that those who come under, as I believe they will come under, the Croydon Corporation area, are not asked, therefore, to pay the full Croydon rates. They are going, indeed, to be asked to pay substantially less than the full Croydon rates, and they will get all the Croydon benefits for the next fifteen years. Croydon Rural District Council claim that they are adversely affected by this Bill. Perhaps they do not sufficiently realise that in any circumstances this disputed area—as I may, perhaps, call it—will be removed very soon altogether from their jurisdiction. It will be removed either to the Corporation, or it would be removed by the Surrey County Council to constitute a new urban district council. So it removes altogether out of the purview of the Croydon Rural District Council. I do not think either that they appreciate that if any direct charge in cash is made upon them by the passing of this Bill they also can claim compensation under the Local Government Adjustment Act, I think it is called, of 1913.
  Finally, the Surrey County Council who, of course, are largely responsible for the opposition to this measure, object even to the Second Reading. They have appeared twice unsuccessfully before the Local Government Inquiry. They have petitioned against the Bill. I do think their better course now would be to appear once more upstairs before the Select Committee where they can examine, and cross-examine, and where they can be examined and cross-examined. There they can try to break the Bill in detail. That would be a perfectly fair thing to do. I think that is much fairer than to ask the House to reject downstairs, the principle of the Bill, the principle being the borough extension principle, sanctioned every single time so far as Second

  141
  Reading is concerned, ever since these Provisional Orders were submitted to this House. The opposition quite naturally is based among other things upon the ground of finance. I submit that that has little or nothing to do with the question of principle: still less has it anything to do, or is it any objection to discussing the Bill in Select Committee upstairs, inasmuch again as the Bill provides for adjustments between the corporation and the county council to be carried out—it is all written large in the Bill!—on the lines of the Duke of Devonshire's Adjustment Committee which reported I think, in 1911, and whose recommendations are embodied in last year's Act.
  These are the petitions against the Bill. I have endeavoured to indicate, and to indicate the answers to some of the objections as succinctly as one can. I have nothing much to do with the vote of censure which my hon. Friend urges against the Local Government Board. That Board can speak for themselves; but I do submit, with great respect, that this House is not at this moment sufficiently equipped with expert knowledge to adjudicate, after a Debate of an hour, or an hour and a half, upon a matter which is complicated, and which is of the highest importance, whichever way the decision goes, to the localities concerned. It is for this very reason—to deal with these highly complicated and intricate matters—that this House in its wisdom has set up this Select Committee upstairs. I suggest that this measure, which is not less complicated than many of its predecessors, should be sent to such Committee. To enable that to be done I would suggest, in opposition to my right hon. Friend, that a Second Reading should be given to this Bill; then the details of a measure so complicated can be thrashed out in Committee upstairs. The Report of that Committee being sent down to this House, this House is finally equipped with the knowledge required; then let the Croydon Corporation, or the Surrey Council, submit to the final judgment of the House of Commons.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: As a resident in the district, and one thoroughly familiar with the issues raised, I should like to say a word on this question. Perhaps I may be permitted to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon on the excellent way in which he stated our case to-night. I differ from
  142
  him in politics, but I have a great admiration for his statesmanlike capacity. I would remind the House what the issues are. There is the borough of Croydon, represented by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Its acreage is 9,000, it has a population of 180,000, and a rateable value of £1,150,000. One would have thought that the Croydon people had sufficient on their shoulders without troubling to get more. It would be very much better for the Croydon people if they administered their affairs, such as they have, much better than they do at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know something about it. Around Croydon there are a number of districts. They were rural parishes, and I think very recently scattered communities. These have developed. There is the case of Pur-ley. It has developed and the population is now about 26,000. The hon. Member who last spoke suggested that the population of Purley is an overflow of Croydon. I absolutely repudiate that idea. The hon. Member does not know Purley, or the people of Purley, as I do, or he would never have made such a remark.
  Mr. MALCOLM: The hon. Member did not make such a remark.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I understood the hon. Member to speak of the overflow of Croydon. I understood him to say that the trams took the overflow of Croydon into Purley.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I did not mention Purley in that sense.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and the hon. Member spoke of the trams running from Croydon to Purley.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Very well.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I know a large number of the people there, and they have been drawn there not from Croydon, but by the hills of Surrey. The trams that come from Purley stop just outside. They were established for the purpose of trying to get the Purley people to do their shopping in Croydon. There was a selfish motive even in the establishment of the tram system, and if the hon. Member will consult the trades-people in his own district he will find they failed in that respect, because the people of Purley never will use their trams, but always use the railway and come into

  143
  town to do their shopping. These districts around Croydon have developed to such an extent that the Purley district recently asked for an urban district council. We are now strong enough for that. Surely 26,000 people is a proportion high enough to secure local government. We are asking for the right of local government in this district. An inquiry was held by the Surrey County Council on 9th April, 1913, and as a result of that inquiry—and the hon. Member said nothing about that inquiry— an Order was made for the formation of such a council. No opposition was forth-coming from any of the affected areas, and the inhabitants of the affected areas united in approving of the project.
  What happened after? Croydon, with its covetous eyes, contemplated the rateable value of Purley and other districts. As a result of the extravagance and of the inefficient administration of Croydon they were tempted to take these districts in order that they might pull out the chesnuts out of their fire. I should like to quote one or two figures. The capital loan debt of Croydon is £2,000,000. The security, as represented by rateable value, is £1,250,000, so that their security is less than their liability. The capital loan debt of the county of Surrey is £1,250,000, while the security is nearly £6,000,000, so that if I may put it in another way the individual indebtedness per head in Surrey county is £2, while that of Croydon is over £11. I do not hesitate to say that these figures and facts have something to do with the application that Croydon is making to these districts. It is a case of Naboth's vineyard over again. They have exhausted their resources, and they wish to take in the people of these districts to bear their financial burden. After we had our inquiry by the Surrey County Council in April, 1913, the Croydon district appealed to the Local Government Board, and an inquiry was held in June, 1913, two months after the inquiry by the Surrey County Council. At that inquiry not a particle of evidence from the affected district was produced in favour of annexation. I challenge the hon. Member to say there was a single particle of evidence from these districts in favour of amalgamation. On the contrary, all the witnesses from these affected areas testified to the universal feeling of hesitation. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill referred
  144
  to the fact that the chairman of the county boroughs boundaries committee admitted in his evidence that the borough council of Croydon never considered the proposed extension at all, and that the details were left to the borough officials, so that really to-night we are discussing proposals that owe their origin to the ingenuity and cupidity of the borough officials of Croydon.
  What are the proposals? The hon. Member referred to the fact that there were four parishes affected, but he took good care not to tell the House how these four parishes are affected. These four parishes are Beddington, Coulsdon, Sanderstead, and Woodmansterne. I should like to tell the House what these proposals are. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon referred to them as grabbing proposals, and I think his phrase is well merited. Beddington has a total acreage of 3,000. Croydon means to grab 740 acres of that. The population is 10,000. They propose to take 3,600. The rateable value is £93,000. This Order proposes to take away £40,000. In other words, this Provisional Order proposes to take from Beddington less than one-fourth of the area, one-third of the population, and one-half of the rateable value. It is the rateable value and not the population they are so much concerned about. Then there is the parish of Coulsdon. The acreage is 4,000. They propose to take 3,000. The population is 12,000. They propose to take 10,500. The rateable value is £109,000—and I ask the House to mark these rateable value figures—they propose to take away no less than £107,000. They take three-quarters of the area, all the population except 1,500, and all the rateable value except £2,000. They take all the money, and leave a paltry £2,000 for administration to the county for police, education, and so on. The third parish is that of Sanderstead, which has an acreage of 3,000. They propose to take away 1,500 acres. The population is 3,000. They take away 2,000. The rateable value—and the House will notice this again—is £37,000. They propose taking away £35,000, again leaving £2,000. They take away half the area, nearly the whole of the population, and the whole of the rateable value except £2,000. Then we come to Woodmansterne. The acreage is 1,600. They propose taking away 200. The population is 12,000. They propose taking away 7,000. The rateable value is £7,000, and here they

  145
  take £2,300, so that they take one-eighth of the area, more than half of the population, and nearly one-third of the rateable value. I think the House has only to realise what these figures are to justify the right hon. Gentleman in his reference to these proposals as grabbing proposals.
  One of the arguments used for annexation is—and I think the hon. Gentleman hinted at it—that the inhabitants of the added areas enjoyed certain municipal facilities for which they ought to pay. If they would come and tell us we ought to pay for these things—and they are very doubtful blessings; we never thanked them for their trams—it would be one thing, but why offer this bribe on the one hand, by declaring we ought to pay more, and on the other hand, that if we do come in we need not pay at all. I want to know on what grounds can this Order be justified. I am very much disappointed with the attitude of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been President of that Board himself, and knows the ways of the officials. I have no hesitation in saying here to-night that if the President of the Board of Trade had left the Local Government Board two years ago this Provisional Order would not have been brought in. Everybody knows that the President of the Board of Trade is the most modest man in this House; in fact, the excess of modesty in him has become a vice. He is possessed with a kind of megalomania, and his idea is that the whole of the suburbs of London should be brought into London, and that we should all be linked up. I do not object if we are going to have one big borough of London, and you bring in Purley. I would much prefer being under the London County Council than under the tradesmen of Croydon. London may know something about us, but Croydon knows absolutely nothing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a quotation in which he reminded hon. Members that this House decided in 1903, in the case of a Provisional Order, that they should be guided by the principle that self-governing areas should not be amalgamated without mutual consent, except upon special grounds. As recently as the Debate on the Cambridge, Luton and Wakefield Provisional Order, the late President of the Local Government Board stated that he could not believe it would conduce to good local government to compel an area to come in as an unwilling partner in the business of a local authority. That was a sound doctrine,
  146
  and I should like to know from the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether or not he endorses that healthy doctrine, or whether he thinks we ought to be forced into this administration against our will. I have better hopes of the present President of the Local Government Board, because some years ago he wrote a very able book on the principles of Liberalism.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He has changed since then.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Yes, he has. I notice the right hon. Gentleman often converses with the hon. Baronet in the Lobby, and that may account for it. The President of the Local Government Board, in that able book of his, states that the fundamental principle of Liberalism is that legislation should always be in conformity with the sentiment of the community.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I am glad the hon. Bayonet endorses that doctrine. I think we are moving on when the hon. Baronet representing the City of London says that. What we ask the President of the Local Government Board is, that he should give us a dose of his own medicine in Purley. We ask that the legislation should be in conformity with the sentiment of our community, and that we should not be forced into Croydon against our will. It has been said that if this Bill is. defeated it will mean more expense for us. I am glad the hon. Member opposite seems so concerned about our expenditure, but if this Order is defeated we shall have an urban district council of twenty-five members, consisting of people who reside in the district who are intimate with the needs of the district, and who will be called upon to account for their actions at the close of their period of office. Under this Bill we shall have eight members in a corporation of sixty-eight. I think it is better for us to have our twenty-five members responsible to us than to have a paltry eight amongst sixty-eight men in the hon. Member's constituency. Although the Secretary to the Local Government Board has never written a book on Liberalism, I know that he has made some weighty speeches on Liberalism. I remember when I was one of his henchmen in the Principality of Wales he was always proclaiming the virtues of self-government. He believes

  147
  that Wales should have Home Rule, and he believes that the Welsh people are more capable of governing themselves than the English.
  In his own constituency there is a watering-place called Rhyl, and not far away there is Prestatyn, which has sprung up near Rhyl, just as Purley is near Croydon, and Prestatyn has sprung up practically from the same causes as Purley, because it is a healthy district. Now if. Rhyl wanted to grab Prestatyn, the hon. Member would say that it is a pity that Prestatyn people should not govern themselves. I ask him to give us the same privilege, because we would rather do it ourselves, even if we do it imperfectly, than it would be done by the government of the constituents of the hon. Member. I am sorry for the attitude which the Local Government Board has taken up in this matter, and I think the rebuke made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not been undeserved. When there are conflicting interests, the Local Government Board ought to keep the ring and show impartiality in this case. One of our leading Parliamentary agents says that the policy of the Local Government Board has been irregular and contrary to public policy, and may be compared to a judge in the High Court giving judgment for the plaintiff on a statement of claim which the judge himself has settled, and he says that it is an example of autocratic methods on the part of a Government Department which in the public interests ought not to be allowed. I ask the House to vote against this as a protest against the autocratic action of the officials. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill very rightly based his arguments on the ground that there is no community of interests between Croydon and Purley. Does anyone doubt that? If the House would like to know how deep and fundamental is the difference between the two communities, they have only got to look at the two representatives of those communities in this House. I ask the House in all seriousness, can anyone here conceive of a more glaring contrast than exists between those two hon. Members. The contrast between them exists not only in appearance, but even in demeanour and deportment. When I see the right hon. Gentleman walk into this House I am proud that he is my Member, but when I see the hon. Member for Croydon bustling
  148
  in I am equally proud that he is not my Member. We in Purley are represented by a right hon. Gentleman who has had Cabinet experience, and although hon. Members may laugh, the contrast between the two districts is as great as the contrast between the two hon. Members. We are perfectly content to remain outside Croydon, and we ask the House to reject this Provisional Order, and thus save us from being herded with the malcontents of Croydon.
  Mr. MORISON: I do not profess to be an old Parliamentary hand like the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill, neither do I profess to have the fluency of the hon. Member who has just sat down. As a matter of fact I am a man of few words, but perhaps the House will listen to me while I say that I think I know as much, and probably more, about Croydon than any hon. Member of this House. I have lived in Croydon something like five-and-thirty years, and I have seen it grow from a township of about 75,000 to a county borough of about 180,000. The borough, as a matter of fact, increases at the rate of about 35,000 every ten years. It is increasing at the present time at even a greater rate. It is perfectly absurd for the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to say that the overflow has never sought an outlet in the neighbourhood of Purley or any of the parishes that are sought to be brought within the purview of this Bill. A very large number of the population of all these four parishes has come from Croydon. Young people who have got married and left their homes—I am speaking from some personal knowledge, because some of my own family have done so—have gone from Croydon into two of the parishes that are named. In addition to this, Croydon has become of late years to a very large extent more the home of a very large industrial population, a considerable number of the better-to-do class, if one may so describe them without any invidious distinction, having gone outside the borough, not very far, but just sufficiently far enough to be away from the slightly higher rates that exist in Croydon. I wonder how the industrial population of Croydon, or of any other town, look upon those who leave the borough for the purpose of escaping the rates, the benefits of which they have not only derived while they lived in the town, but which they still derive in the neighbourhood to which they have gone!

  149
  The hon. Gentleman who last spoke seemed rather to make the statement that Croydon was somewhat of a spendthrift municipality. The rates in Croydon at the present time, as a matter of fact, are not so high as they were a few years ago. A year or two ago they were 7s. 8d. in the £, and at the present time, as the result of good administration, not of that bad administration which he seems to think exists, they are 7s. 4d. in the £—a not immaterial reduction in these days when rates tend not to go down but to increase. I would also point out that Croydon is practically the healthiest town in the whole Kingdom. Taking thirty-three large towns which have been gathered together for the purpose of statistics, Croydon for many years has held and at the present moment still holds the premier place from the point of view of the health of its inhabitants, and I venture to suggest that is a very important matter indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wimbledon Division (Mr. Chaplin) seemed to suggest that there is no community of interest other than that of the sewers. These outlying districts, practically the whole of the proposed area to be taken in, have their sewage disposed of by the Croydon Corporation. In some few exceptions in the proposed added areas they have a system of cesspools to which the people in Croydon take very strong exception, and I think rightly so, because of the possible danger to the water supply. Some of the district which it is proposed to take in lies on chalk, and from that chalk the supply of water for Croydon is derived. Consequently we naturally fear that our water supply may be to some extent contaminated. That, I venture to suggest, is a very important matter indeed in regard to this question.
  A number of other points were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated that the people of Croydon did not seem to have any great enthusiasm for this proposal. The Corporation of Croydon consists practically of representatives of all the political parties, and when this proposal came up for discussion there was not a single dissentient voice. It was practically agreed to unanimously. Consequently, the representatives of the people having expressed their views with regard to this question in that unanimous way, there is absolutely no need to consult the people otherwise than through their direct representatives. The statement that the tramways are not availed
  150
  of by the residents of Purley is one that will not bear looking into for a single moment. The people of Purley, many of whom I know, and the whole district which I know from beginning to end, constantly use the tramways as a means of communication from the end of Purley into Croydon. The hon. Member spoke of the injury which this proposal would do to the districts proposed to be taken in, but he did not give any instance in which the district would be injured unless it was in regard to the question of education. Croydon has far greater educational facilities than the districts which are proposed to be taken in, or than they can possibly have for many long years to come even under the most advantageous circumstances. We have in Croydon an old foundation grammar school, of which I have the honour to be a governor, and in connection with which we have a school for those who are not in a position to pay the fees exacted in the grammar school. We have a magnificent system of elementary and secondary education, and the way of reaching these is by the tramways which come from Purley right into the centre of the town. Looking at this Bill from the point of view of the residents of the areas proposed to be taken in, knowing the whole of the circumstances of the case, knowing how these places have grown absolutely and directly as the result of the extension and growth of Croydon, without which I am perfectly certain they would never have existed at all in the way that they do at the present moment—they owe their existence and any prosperity they have entirely to the expenditure of money on the development of Croydon as an up-to-date municipality, I ask hon. Members of this House to support the Bill.
  Captain SPENDER CLAY: I think some of the speeches we have listened to, however plausible in tone, have been somewhat deficient in argument. The one argument which carried more weight than others was that adduced by the last speaker (Mr. Morrison), when he said it was only right when people moved out of the centre of the town in which they had made their money, in order to reside in a rural district adjoining, they should contribute to the rates of the place where they had made their money. It seems to me if the House agrees to this proposal, the governing body of the greater Croydon, if that is to be its name, will not be a happy family, for one gathers from what

  151
  the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan said just now, that there is bitter hostility in Purley to this proposal. There was one point made by the hon. Member who last spoke, with which I cannot agree, and that is in regard to education. He suggested that the educational facilities were better in Croydon than in the newly constituted area. But the Surrey County Council has taken a foremost position in producing good elementary and secondary education throughout the county and in organising it they have naturally taken into consideration the growing interests of Purley and districts. They have made their arrangements counting on the financial support of these districts, the greater part of whose rateable value is proposed to be taken by Croydon; and I do not think it is fair to the council of Surrey that its scheme of education should be destroyed by granting this Provisional Order.
  There was another point in the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon which, I think, wants controverting. He said that the feeling of the people of Purley and districts was for Croydon, and that they looked upon themselves as part and parcel of Croydon, but I do not think he will suggest that there is a unanimous desire on the part of these parishes to be joined up with the borough of Croydon. The hon. Member also put forward another argument which, with all respect to him, I must say I consider a most fallacious argument. He said it is only fair there should be a Second Reading given to this Provisional Order, so that the rights and wrongs of the matter may be gone into upstairs. But he did not say a word about the cost, and I would suggest that if, on the face of it, the scheme is not acceptable to the district, it is not right to put the district, the Surrey County Council, or even the Croydon Corporation, to the expense of arguing the matter upstairs. On these grounds, I sincerely hope that this Provisional Order will be rejected.
  Captain WILSON: We have listened to four hon. Members addressing this House, each one of whom has been interested in a particular degree in this Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this rejection has no desire to lose a portion of his constituency. The hon. Member for Croydon was anxious to support the Bill on the part of the borough, while the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan was anxious about the district in which he lives. I want to say a few words in support of the
  152
  Second Reading of the Bill. I do not claim to have any personal knowledge of the district affected by it, but I do not think it is right that this House should, as apparently it intends to do, divide itself into two parties, one composed of county Members and the other of borough Members, the latter body voting for the Bill and the county Members voting against it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am a borough Member, and I shall vote against it.
  Captain WILSON: Every Member of the House has no doubt received a large amount of correspondence in connection with this Bill, and why should hon. Members who have no knowledge of the district, or even of Croydon itself, attempt to decide this question under these circumstances? I maintain that a Bill of this description should be given a Second Reading, and that the details should be discussed in the Committee Room. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan said some fairly hard things with regard to the municipal government of the town of Croydon. It has also been suggested that the Bill was put forward mainly in consequence of cupidity on the part of Croydon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that the borough authorities were offering bribes in order to bring in these various districts. But what would my right hon. Friend have said if there had not been any differentiation proposed in the rating. Cannot one imagine his indignation if he had pointed out that the rates of Croydon were 7s. 4d., while those of Sanderstead were only 5s. 6d., and the Bill proposed to rob Sanderstead of 1s. 10d. I think very generous provision has been made in this matter for dealing with the outlying districts during the next fifteen years.
  My right hon. Friend said it was a very complicated Bill, and he made special allusion to the drainage question. He referred to a new scheme being put forward by the portion of the county of Surrey, outside the county borough, which it is proposed to incorporate in Croydon. It should be borne in mind by the House, however, that it was only after this Provisional Order was given notice of that these proposals were brought forward by the portions proposed to be incorporated, and it is recognised that some new scheme must be involved in order that the drainage of this particular district may be improved. It is true that we ought to legislate for the benefit and safeguard the interests of the

  153
  minority. But it is also our duty to legislate for the benefit of many of the poorer districts, and to give them the advantages which are enjoyed by richer districts. Generally speaking incorporation has been to the advantage of the community, and I can instance many cases in which the outlying portions of an urban community have been incorporated to their great advantage. If this Bill is allowed a Second Reading it will be considered on its merits by a Committee upstairs, and I am sure the House ought, in the interests of the promoters, to give it the Second Reading asked for it.
  Mr. CAVE: I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in this Debate. Let me preface them with the observation that if I am prejudiced at all I suppose I am prejudiced both ways. On the one hand, I was for many years a member of the Surrey County Council, and I know every inch of the county. On the other hand, I represent two boroughs, one of the oldest, and the other one of the youngest boroughs in the country, both of which have in their time applied for extensions, so that I am pulled both ways, and am, therefore in a better frame of mind to come to an impartial decision on the Bill. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Wilson) that nobody ought to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind except on broad grounds. It is only on broad grounds that I wish to proceed to-night. There are very special reasons why the House ought on priniciple to consider twice and three times before passing the Second Reading of this Bill. There is something very special about the manner in which this Provisional Order was made, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is going to speak on behalf of the Department will deal with this point, for it is a strong argument against this Provisional Order. What happened was this: Croydon applied for a certain extension of its boundaries. The Local Government Board held an inquiry by inspector and refused the extension, but the Board took it upon itself to say in effect to the borough of Croydon, "We think you had better go for a different extension altogether and include certain other parishes," which were not represented at the first inquiry. Croydon very naturally and wisely took the hint, and applied for the Order in this form. Under those conditions it was impossible, I am afraid, for the Board and its inspector to take a
  154
  wholly judicial view of the application. They had suggested it, and they had made up their minds before hearing those parishes, which were now for the first time included in the application—the parishes of Beddington, Woodmansterne, and the greater part of the parish of Coulsdon. That is a new element in this case, and it is not one of which the House ought to approve. I do not blame the Board, but they themselves must feel that they made an error in making any suggestion of that kind.
  10.0 P.M.
  My second point is, that this is not a difference between a borough and a county at all. The point is whether one county, the county borough of Croydon, shall be permitted to take a part of another county, the county of Surrey. This is not a case of the alteration of a boundary where the added area remains in the county of which it forms part. If this Order goes through, one county will be enriching itself at the expense of a neighbouring county. I hold, and I think the House has already shown its feeling in the matter, that we ought to discourage from the beginning applications of this kind. If they are allowed you will have many applications in which one county seeks to take a part of another. That kind of application is injurious to the system of local government which this House has set up. Thirdly, Parliament has delegated to the county councils very wide powers of dealing with the question of boundary. In this case the county council has recognised its duties, has held an inquiry, and has made a Provisional Order, subject to confirmation, to form the whole of these parishes into an urban district. The county council says that is the course they think the right one in the interests of the district. Then comes the county of Croydon and says, "We disagree with what the county of Surrey has said as to part of its own area, and we ask the Local Government Board and Parliament to upset the arrangements made by the county of Surrey, and to give this area to us, a neighbouring county." That would be destroying, to a certain extent, the powers Parliament has given to the county council. If the House takes that course it may do great harm to local government, for if the Order is made it will seriously interfere with their arrangements for education and so forth.

  155
  My next point is that this Order is made against the wishes of the whole of the inhabitants of this area. You are going to split up these parishes, divide every one of them into two parts, and to add to Croydon the wealthier part, and to leave the poorer part outside, thereby increasing the burden on the poorer part. You are doing that against the wish, so far as we know, the unanimous wish, but at all events the general wish of the whole population of the area proposed to be included. That, again, is a very serious matter. My hon. Friend was quite right in referring to what was said by the late President of the Local Government Board on a recent occasion, that in local government matters you ought not to fly in the face of those who live in the districts concerned. That is exactly what you are asked to do. A matter of real principle is involved and one to which this House ought to have regard on Second Reading.
  What are the points made in favour of the Order? One is that these districts are an outgrowth of Croydon. I am reluctant to put my authority against that of the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), but in my belief he is mistaken in saying that. These places are really an outgrowth, not of Croydon, but of London. Most of the people living in these places have businesses in London. They go to live in this most delightful county in the Kingdom not in order that they may travel into Croydon every day, but in order that they may travel into London. Croydon is not justified in claiming that these places are an outgrowth or a suburb, or an overflow of the great borough of Croydon. That reason breaks down. The second point made against us—I am rather sorry it is made—is that the rural districts have made an agreement with the borough of Croydon for a joint treatment of the drainage; that is put forward as a reason for including them in the borough of Croydon. If that argument is admitted, it will very seriously militate against these agreements being made in the future, because the moment a district near a borough unites with the borough in a drainage system, it will run the risk of being added to the borough, and it will be very difficult in future to induce districts to make those agreements, which ought to be encouraged. I have many times voted for the Second Reading of a Private Bill, of
  156
  the justice of which I was not convinced, because I thought the objections were objections on detail and might be considered and dealt with upstairs, but in this case I mean to vote against the Second Reading, because the objections are objections on principle, to which the House may fairly have regard at this stage.
  Mr. KING: I wish to add my testimony to the very strong feeling which is felt, I believe, throughout the county of Surrey against this Bill. I have resided for twenty years in Surrey, and for many years I was a colleague of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) as a member of the county council. Both he and I made our mark there, perhaps more successfully than we shall ever make our mark here. However, he and I are agreed, however we may have differed on other matters, upon this Bill being an extremely bad one. As a matter of principle we first of all object most strongly to the way in which it has been handled by the Local Government Board. I have a very great admiration for my right hon. Friend, and I really cannot understand how he ever allowed his Department to give the suggestion to the borough of Croydon that it should apply for a Provisional Order in this form. Cannot he see that by taking such a course, I believe a quite unique and new course, he has ceased to have and to hold that reputation for fairness and equality which we all desire the high officials of the Local Government Board to have? If they suggest that course to the great and rich urban powers, the smaller powers—the district councils and the parish councils, will feel that they can no longer trust the Local Government Board as they ought to do. For these reasons—I could give others—and especially for the reason that I think the Local Government Board have made a mistake in this matter, I shall vote against this Bill. I shall, however, not sit down without making one suggestion, which I hope will be taken in the spirit of amity and friendship with which it is offered. I would suggest that the supporters of this Bill should bring in, not an amending Bill, but an amending Clause and that they should give each parish the option of a Referendum to vote itself out for six years. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board will offer to introduce an amending Clause in that sense, I am not quite sure that I will not go into the Lobby with him.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Those who support this Bill will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) for the very clear way in which he has put his case. He has told the House what I believe to be the correct view, that the only ground upon which you can refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading is that you are opposed to the general principle on which it is founded. I will ask the House to consider for a moment what my hon. Friend has said. He has told the House that he himself was opposed to the general principle—and regarded it as a great danger—and the general desire on the part of county boroughs to extend their boundaries. Those hon. Members who refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading, who refuse to allow the details of the Bill to be thrashed out, and the rival claims of the rural district council, the council of Croydon, and the Surrey County Council to be considered by a Committee, can do so only on the grounds stated by my hon. and learned Friend, that they are opposed to the general principles of county boroughs extending their boundaries. There are many Members on both sides of the House who will pause before they take such a very strong attitude on a subject of this sort, especially when they remember, what my hon. and learned Friend fully realises, the very large number of county boroughs throughout England, which in the very near future will be wishing to follow the example set by Croydon.
  There is absolutely no analogy at all between the case which we are considering this evening, and the better known case of Cambridge. In the first place there is no question of maintaining the status quo. Everybody is agreed that the government of Purley, and the other places adjacent to Croydon, is not satisfactory. Something has to be done. The Surrey County Council offers one alternative, an urban district council, which the Local Government Board quite wisely view with a certain amount of suspicion, for the obvious reason, which everyone will agree is a sound one, that it is unwise to multiply the number of local government bodies. I think there is a real danger in the multiplication of the small local government bodies. Evidently that is the view of the Local Government Board. They have refused to confirm the order made by the Surrey County Council, and they favour the proposals put forward by the Croydon Borough Council. I should like to correct one misapprehen-
  158
  sion which has arisen during the course of the Debate. My hon. and learned Friend conveyed the impression that the Croydon Town Council did not put forward their proposal for the extension of their boundaries until after they saw the Surrey County Council moving in this matter. That is not the case. The facts are that in November, 1912, the Croydon Town Council were moving in this matter, and it was not until 30th September, 1913, very nearly a year afterwards, that the Surrey County Council issued its order for the creation of an Urban District Council. There is no question of the Croydon Town Council wishing to grab a Naboth's vineyard in this matter. If these proposed areas are added to the Croydon area it will only increase the population of Croydon by a tenth and its rateable value by a sixth. But I do not think that the House, sitting as a House, is the tribunal to consider matters of this sort. I believe these are questions which can, with far greater convenience, be considered by a Committee.
  Another point I wish to combat is my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that this is a battle between the county borough of Croydon and the county council of Surrey. It is nothing of the sort. When we talk of a county council in this House we generally have before our minds a body, very often a very efficient body, governing a rural area. I except London, of course, from that definition. When we talk of a county borough, we have before our minds a body which has not got a sufficiently large population to have a charter, but which is essentially urban in character, and the question as to whether these areas should be governed by a rural authority or by an urban authority is already prejudged by the confession of the Surrey County Council, that even if this Bill does not go through, they must be created into an urban district council, because their problems are essentially urban and not rural. Hon. Members speaking on behalf of the Surrey County Council have told us a great deal of what their local wishes are in this matter. I have yet to learn that even the great suburb of Purley has risen in its indignation against the proposals of the Croydon Town Council. I have yet to learn that there has been a parish meeting in Purley opposed to this suggestion. I am aware that there are a certain number of people in Purley who prefer to see Purley

  159
  governed by an urban district council than put under Croydon, but they are individuals who think they have a better chance of being elected to a larger body of twenty-five than they would have of being returned for the Croydon. Town Council—in fact, these individuals would be of far more importance in Purley if there was an urban district council than if the district is placed under Croydon. I notice that this opposition receives the support of the County Councils Association. I am very much surprised to find that that association is putting forth its strength against this proposal, because in its financial aspects the proposal follows the recommendations of the Devonshire Committee. When we see on the one hand the sacrifice which has been made by the urban authorities with regard to the agreement come to before the Devonshire Committee, and when we see on the other hand the County Councils Association offering determined opposition on every occasion on which it is proposed to give effect to the Recommendations of the Devonshire Committee, we begin to doubt the sincerity of their various statements in support of the findings of the Devonshire Committee, and there are some of us who took the urban side in this question who are beginning to regret that we adopted such a conciliatory attitude in regard to the matter discussed before the Devonshire Committee when we find the County Councils Association never missing an opportunity of preventing these recommendations from being carried into force whenever we propose to do so. I hope that the House will follow the precedent which it has itself created in innumerable previous cases, and allow this Provisional Order Bill to go upstairs and be discussed before a Committee. I would point out to the House that if they adopt that course, they have got an additional safeguard in so far as the Bill has not only to be considered by a Committee of this House, but has to be considered also by a Committee in another place. Therefore, there is every reasonable safeguard that the views of the Surrey County Council, and of those who are opposed to the provisions of the Bill, will be fully heard and thrashed out.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Debate was opened by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin),
  160
  and perhaps he will allow me to say that whether we agree or disagree with him in this House, it is always a delight to hear him. May I at once answer one question which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to me? He asked if the Local Government Board had been in communication with the Board of Education upon this question. I reply in the affirmative. I hold in my hand the answer which the Board of Education addressed to the Local Government Board, in which they say:—
  "The Board of Education do not desire to offer any observations on the draft Provisional Order."
  Therefore the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Local Government Board have been in communication with the Board of Education, who were fully apprised of all that was intended to be carried out under the Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman began the Debate by laying down a general proposition of an extremely startling character. He said that no area of this kind should be incorporated in a borough except with the full assent of those who live in the area proposed to be added. What do we find in various parts of the country? We find that an urban district has overflown its limits, that the external population enjoys all the amenities of the urban districts—tramways, supplies of water, gas, sewage schemes, public buildings and all the public utility services. Are we to be told that, in a case of that kind, when a town has overflowed its borders, in no circumstances is the outside area to be incorporated except with the full assent of those who are just outside the boundaries of the borough and who enjoy the advantages of the borough, but do not share in its expenditure? The question which has to be decided in this particular case—we have heard a great deal of conflicting evidence upon the point—is whether this is a case of that character or not. I venture to say that it is only an impartial Committee of this. House, after a due examination of all the evidence, which can possibly be in a position to make a pronouncement upon a question of this kind. Apart from the considerations which I have already mentioned there are in this particular case some special circumstances which, apart from any overflow of population, would justify the House in giving, at any rate, a Second Reading to this Bill and sending it upstairs for consideration by a Committee.
  I do not wish to refer to those questions which can be considered more particularly

  161
  by a Committee, but in view of the attack which has been made upon the Local Government Board and the circular which has been issued to every Member of this House, and in view of—I do not call them the attacks, but the criticisms—that have been directed by my hon. Friend below the Gangway and the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, I hope that the House will allow me to give a very brief review of this case, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned. In the year 1912 the Corporation of Croydon made a representation under the Act of 1888, asking for an extension of their area. The question has arisen out of that, whether the area adjacent to Croydon upon the Southern side ought to be added to the borough of Croydon, or whether a small number of independent urban districts ought to be created. It has been agreed on all hands in the course of the Debate this evening, that the government of these external areas must be changed in character. They have now become so urban in character that it is necessary to make some change. The question is, what change ought to be made. Considerable opposition has been offered to this proposal on the part of the Surrey County Council. I cannot complain of the action of the Surrey County Council in this respect. No authority likes to lose any territory that may be under its control. If urban districts are set up, those districts will remain within the control of the Surrey County Council. When Croydon first made application to the Local Government Board, it asked for an addition to the borough of Croydon, including Sanderstead, Addington, and part of the parish of Coulsdon. When the inquiry was held, the parish of Addington was withdrawn after the first day of that inquiry. After considering the report the Local Government Board decided to reject that application of the borough of Croydon. Now the Local Government Board has been blamed by the hon. Member for Kingston for the course which it took immediately after that inquiry.
  A letter which has been placed in the hands of every Member has been already quoted, but I would ask the House to follow me while I give the reasons why the Board rejected the original scheme of Croydon. I wish to do so in order to show that the Local Government Board desired to display no unfairness whatever in regard to this matter, and that their whole
  162
  object was to act in an impartial spirit. The suggestion has been made to which I have already referred, and it has been also suggested in this Debate that Croydon was told by the Local Government Board, "you have not asked for enough; and you ought to ask for more." The suggestion has been made that we have been egging them on, so to speak, to ask for a still further enlargement of the borough boundaries. To make any suggestion of that kind is to make an absolutely unfounded charge. What was it Croydon originally asked for? It asked for an extension which included the area of high rateable value, while they were to make little or no expenditure on other land within the same drainage area What the Local Government Board did was to refuse the proposal as a one-sided proposal, unduly remunerative to the borough of Croydon. They said that if the extension of the borough was to be effected, Croydon must assume obligations outside the sphere of their application. So far from egging Croydon on to further extension, the Local Government Board insisted on Croydon undertaking a responsibility that would involve the districts concerned in no loss whatever and that would ultimately be to the benefit of the whole area.
  The Local Government Board said, "You have made an application which proposes to take the fat and leave the lean. If you wish to make a further application, you must ask for the fat and lean, because then, if you do that, we will consider what decision we can arrive at. But we must bear in mind the views of other districts as well, and, therefore, an inquiry will be necessary." May I give the assurance most confidently to the House, that there was no promise or undertaking of any kind whatever given to Croydon. We were not bound in any way. The whole subject was considered fairly and impartially. It was not prejudged in anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Glamorgan attributed the action of the Local Government Board to the officials of that Department. As a matter of fact the responsibility rests, as it always must rest in cases of this kind, with the heads of the Government Departments concerned. They are responsible to this House, and I resent very much the suggestion that the action we took was due to a spirit of prejudice on the part of the Local Government Board. Our whole object in matters of this kind is to find out what is the right

  163
  thing and so advise the Board. What was the Local Government Board to do under those circumstances? Were we to refuse to give any reason for the rejection of Croydon's first proposals? Is it the idea of hon. Gentlemen that the Local Government Board were to allow Croydon to grope in the dark for the reasons which caused the Local Government Board to reject their application? I would remind the House that the inquiry was of a very extensive character, and no less than eleven King's Counsel and barristers were engaged in it; and there might have been another inquiry which might have proved equally futile, while involving enormous additional expense to all the parties concerned. It could only have been beneficial to counsel and to experts. But we have been told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston, and we have been told by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, that the action of the Local Government Board in this respect is entirely new and unprecedented. The words of the hon. Member for Kingston were that we were "bringing a new demand into these proceedings," and my hon. Friend below the Gangway stated that this was "an absolutely unique case." I can reassure the minds of both hon. Gentlemen upon this particular point. There was a case in Dewsbury in 1908 in which the Local Government Board acted in an exactly similar way, and there was the case of the Potteries, in which the Local Government Board wrote a letter to the parties concerned and made a suggestion; but there is another case much more parallel perhaps to the present case than those two, and that is the case of Bournemouth, decided in 1898. Bournemouth did in 1898 what Croydon did in 1912, and proposed, to use the words I have already employed, to take the fat district and to leave the lean. The Town Council of Bournemouth proposed to annex the district adjoining the borough, which was likely to become of considerable rating value, and to relieve themselves of the poorer part of the parish. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, who was then President of the Local Government Board, insisted in 1898 upon the non-remunerative areas being added to the application, and that is what the Local Government Board has done in this case.
  I think it will be admitted that the first scheme presented by Croydon was a
  164
  hastily conceived scheme and one which under any circumstances ought to have been amended. But, this question having been raised, the Board had to consider the interests of the district as a whole, particularly with regard to the future drainage of the area and the water supply. Let the House clear absolutely from its mind the idea that in dealing with matters of this kind the Local Government Board want to apply doctrinaire ideas or cast-iron rules. The one question, and the one question only, which the Local Government Board had to consider was what was most conducive to the economical and proper government of the districts that surround Croydon. That was the only consideration the Local Government Board had in mind, and I venture to say it was entirely justified in the action which it has taken in this matter. References have been made to the contribution of urban districts surrounding the southern portion of Croydon. I would venture to ask the House this question: Can anyone blame the Local Government Board for giving Parliament the chance of considering this question, which is one of enormous importance to the future of this particular district? Reference has also been made to the increase in cost which the constitution of three new urban district councils would imply. It means the establishment of a separate staff of officials, the erection of separate offices, and the duplication of a number of services that could be just as well undertaken by the administrative staff of a large borough. May I draw the attention of the House to one difficulty to which the constitution of those separate areas almost invariable gives rise, and that is that the multiplication of those separate rating areas leads to litigation, to arbitrations, to the promotion of Bills in Parliament, to opposition to Bills in Parliament, which would never arise at all if the areas were under one administration. Each separate authority goes in for litigation and arbitration, and legislation and all those matters naturally give rise to very considerable expense. I wish I could give the House some idea of the enormous expenses which are incurred sometimes in connection with local disputes between local authorities. It has been my painful duty at the Local Government Board on many occasions to peruse the bills of costs that relate to those proceedings. I can assure the House I do not care to suggest anything

  165
  in the nature of a fresh inquiry, in view of the number of inquiries that we have upon our hands, but I only wish it were possible to make some inquiry in this particular direction, and the House would be startled and would be astonished at the extent to which small local authorities are mulcted in costs. If you have a number of authorities, you simply multiply the causes of friction, and in consequence of that the causes of expense. I would ask again whether anyone can blame the Local Government Board for giving Parliament a chance of considering this question. It is alleged that our action has been contrary to public policy. I assert, on the other hand, that we have acted entirely in accordance with the best and highest public policy. The hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) appealed to me to inform the House as to what the differential rating would be in future. I am not going to weary the House with a number of figures in this respect. The parishes concerned will gain enormously in the way of rebates on rates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon suggested that this was a kind of bribe to local authorities, and he almost suggested that it was a new practice arising. May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a Local Government Board Provisional Order that was sanctioned by Parliament in the year 1896 for the extension of Plymouth? This Order contains provisions for the differential rating of the added areas, and I observe, with some interest, that the Order was signed by "Henry Chaplin, President of the Local Government Board." This is an ordinary practice in matters of this kind, and I think it would be very unjust to add areas of this description to a borough without making proper and generous provision in that direction. Unquestionably that has been done in this instance, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should reproach the present Local Government Board for following a practice which has his exalted sanction.
  I do not wish to detain the House at length, but there is one other question to which I must draw attention, because, although it has already been alluded to, I hardly think that the House has altogether realised its importance. I refer to the question of the sewerage and water supply of these added districts. The one great difficulty that faces us is this. We have a large district which drains naturally into
  166
  the borough of Croydon. In that district there are a large number of cesspools. The borough of Croydon derives its water supply from the chalk measures and by means of pumping from wells. The water supply is in the gravest danger of contamination from the cesspools unless adequate measures are taken to protect the district. When the Local Government Board made the suggestion that if an application was to be made to it for an extension of the area it should include the natural drainage area, what it had in view was the water supply and the health conditions of a population of at least 180,000 persons. After careful inquiry the Local Government Board came to the conclusion that there was only one adequate, proper, and economical way of draining these added areas, and that was through the borough of Croydon itself. There are two alternatives: one is that the urban district council should do this necessary drainage work on its own account; the other is that the sewage should be carried through the borough of Croydon. If the first alternative is taken, then it will cost the people whom the hon. Gentleman represented with so much eloquence to-night the capital sum of £81,000 to carry it through. If, on the other hand, the sewage is carried through the borough of Croydon, it will only cost the sum of £55,000, and the whole of that sum will be spread over the borough of Croydon as a whole. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is so. His neighbours will have to pay the whole cost if an independent scheme is carried through. On the other hand, if these areas are added to the borough, the cost will be borne by the borough of Croydon.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: My hon. Friend's figures do not tally with the figures which have been given to me by experts living in the district.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I can assure my hon. Friend that the figures of the experts have been carefully considered by those on whose information we are accustomed to rely, and who have had experience of a very large number of schemes of the kind. I am absolutely satisfied that the figures I have given to the House are perfectly correct. A number of considerations have been mentioned in the course of to-night's Debate. There is the question of intercommunication between Croydon and Purley; the

  167
  extent to which the added areas derive advanatges or otherwise from Croydon; the effect upon the County Council of Surrey; the effect upon the added areas; the financial effect of setting up new urban authorities—these and a variety of other questions have been raised. How is it possible for us here to decide questions of that character? It is absolutely necessary that an impartial Committee on behalf of the House should receive such evidence, and make their report to the House. The House will then be in a position to record an enlightened and informed opinion upon the matter.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I was unfortunate not to hear the earlier part of this Debate. The subject, I am sorry to say, is familiar to me, and I hope the House will allow me to say a few words. I do not know what may have been said by those who have spoken before me, but I am quite certain that there is, and was, no intention on their part to suggest that the Local Government Board, in the earlier stages of the Bill, behaved other than with absolute propriety and in complete accord with their precedents. When, however, it comes to this stage, I am surprised at the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board. I have had to do with many of these Provisional Orders. What is the function of the Local Government Board? It is to inquire into a prima facie case, and to make the best recommendation they can; and to be guided, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, by their desire to see local government well sustained and the public health maintained. In my experience I do not think during all the years I was at the Local Government Board, either as Under-Secretary or as President, did I ever speak on behalf of a Provisional Order Bill. The line we took in those days was that if this House was to be addressed by a Member of the Front Bench upon a Provisional Order Bill, it was the function of the Chairman of the Committee to address the House, and to put the case before them, the Local Government Board being added only as Grand Jury. They inquire into the prima facie case; they leave the subsequent decision to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to us to let this Bill go to a Committee to inquire into and to settle the case. If that is the real attitude of the House in regard to Private Bill legisla-
  168
  tion why have a Second Reading at all? What is the object of a Second Reading if it is not to give the House the right to decide whether the matter should go to a Committee or not? The right hon. Gentleman gave us another argument, which I listened to with amazement. I think he would agree with me that on second thoughts he had better reconsider that line of debate. He actually asked the House to send this Bill to a Committee because a great deal of money had been spent already, and more money would have to be spent upon its promotion. That is an amazing argument, and one I never heard used by the Local Government Board before. I heard it used as a reason why a Bill should be given a Third Reading after having gone before a Committee. I have then heard the Government, generally through the Chairman of Committees, say that immense sums had been spent upon this or that Bill by both sides, and that the Committee had given their decision, and then ask the House whether it was going to declare that all these sums must be wasted. What is the controlling or inevitable conclusion of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? It is that in other cases where you have a great corporation with a large area, they can declare that they are to be entitled to promote schemes for their own aggrandisement because they can spend large sums of money for their proposals, and then they can ask what right has the House of Commons to throw all that money into the ditch. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it is the inevitable conclusion of what he said. It means that a rich authority which has a great rateable value over which it can extend its rates has only to prolong its inquiry to investigate sufficiently complicated matters as to needs of the districts and the character of the areas, and then come to Parliament, and say, "We have spent so many thousands, and you have no right to throw away our money—"
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has entirely misapprehended what I said. What I said was that the original inquiry was held by the Local Government Board, and that objection was taken on the part of the Local Government Board, and I proceeded to ask why should Croydon be left in the dark as to the rejection of that application, and then I alluded to the question of the cost. It was in that connection I made reference to the cost.
  Mr. LONG: That really has nothing to do with what I said. I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's general argument, and the right hon. Gentleman's general argument was that Croydon had been put to great expense. I have not said a word as to whether it was in regard to the original inquiry or the present inquiry, or a future inquiry. I say the question of expense has no right to be introduced into our Debates at all until you get to the Third Reading following an inquiry by a Committee upstairs. Otherwise you would place a rich community entirely in a tyrannical position over an adjoining area. I believe in passing these Provisional Orders. After all, I think the result of an inquiry by the Local Government Board is to present a primà facie case. But my reason for taking part in this Debate to-night is not that I hold a brief for the borough of Croydon or that I want to oppose borough extension, but it is for these reasons that we are up against great problems in this House as to making up our minds upon each of these Bills as they come up as to what course they propose until you choose to set up—and I wish you would do it at once—as you ought to a system of private Bill legislation, as you have in Scotland responsible for this legislation. Under the Act of 1883 we established local government, and this House almost unanimously, I think I may say unanimously decided—and so far as I know Governments that have succeeded have never gone back on that decision—that we have two forms of local government in this country—a municipal town system and a county system. This House has to decide on these Bills whether you mean to go on with the county form of government or not. Every argument used by the right hon. Gentleman may be used in every case where a town desires to extend its boundary. The right hon. Gentleman said Croydon provides tramways, water, and the like for this district, but what on earth has that to do with the case and why should it be an argument? The law provides that if a municipality provides light, water, tramways, or any other municipal provision outside their boundary they have power to charge for it. If they go outside their own area they do not do it for charity or because they want to act benevolently, but because it is to their advantage. They go outside like tradesmen to get more trade and a better return for their money. In their own
  170
  area they are limited by the powers as a municipality, but in the outside areas they charge as they like, and it is to their advantage to go outside their own area with their tramways or any other municipal supply. One reason given for this Bill was that Croydon had to deal with the sewage. Are we to be told that every town in this country is to be allowed to extend its area to any extent because it cannot deal with its sewage? The more fields become covered with houses the more difficulty there is in dealing with sewers. If these arguments are to be made the foundation for Bills of this kind then the time has come when your towns will swallow up the country, because these arguments can be used every time. What is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? That you have a procedure provided which offers a proper way of dealing with these questions. Then we come back to the question, Is this House to regard the Second Reading of these Bills as a real businesslike part of this procedure or is it a mere matter of form? It it be a mere matter of form, why not abolish it and adopt the Scottish plan and send these Bills in their initial stages to a body outside this House and bring them here on the Third Reading? Here is a case where a borough is asking for much more than it ought to get, and the answer given to us is that the Bill can be cut down in Committee. What a farce! I have been Chairman of one of our great Committees in this House for some years, and I have seen town after town, with a great rateable value, promoting their Bills, and what chance have their opponents got? The outside rural districts are looked upon as a collection of private individuals, and what chance have they got before a Committee upstairs? I should like no municipality to be able to promote a Bill without getting a vote of the ratepayers. I should like it made obligatory that any municipality, before putting the corporation to the cost of a private Bill, should be obliged to state the case and prove that they have the support of the ratepayers. That is not the case now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it is!"] No, it is not universally the case, and the hon. Member who interrupted me is mistaken. There are ways, as those who are familiar with private Bills know, of overcoming those difficulties. I would like to see every obstacle thrown in the way of a Bill coming to Parliament for this reason, that the corporation can engage leading

  171
  counsel, and have as many of them as they like, but what are the opponents forced to do? The opponents, as a rule, are either groups of individuals or individuals. They have to amalgamate and to agree to a common course of opposition. The result is that the Corporation is practically in the enviable position of having possession, which is nine-tenths of the law. They have got the better side of the case to start with, and they have got the pockets of the ratepayers to fall back upon. If this House is to interfere in a case of this kind, then I am bound to say that I think they ought to interfere in this instance. You have got a very big borough, with a very large population, and they are anxious to go out. I do not blame the Local Government Board for taking the view they have taken. It is not their business to discriminate between the town and the country. It is their business to think
  solely what is best for the corporation and what is best in the interests of public health. They have done their duty, and I for one, find no fault with them at all, but their action does not relieve the House of Commons of its responsibility. Under our private Bill procedure we have got the right to say whether a Bill shall go further or not. In my humble opinion, speaking without any desire to criticise the action of the Local Government Board, but quite the contrary, I say that if ever there was a case in which the House of Commons should say "No" on the Second Reading this is one, and we ought to say it in the interests, not only of the outside areas, but also in the interests of the ratepayers of the borough of Croydon itself.
  Question put "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 178.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pringie, William M. R.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Armitage, Robert

  Hogge, James Myles

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Barnes, George N.

  Jardine. Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Jones, William (Carnarvorshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Blair, Reginald

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rowlands, James

  Boyton, James

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kelly, Edward

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Shortt, Edward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Snowden, Philip

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Cotton, William Francis

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cullinan, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Swift, Rigby

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

  MacVeagh. Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas, J. H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Middlebrook, William

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molloy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Malley. William

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

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Greenwood. Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Shee, James John

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Gulland, John William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Malcolm and Mr. Morison.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Arnold, Sydney

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

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Astor, Waldorf

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hackett, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Radford, George Heynes

  Bird, Alfred

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boland, John Pius

  Hayward, Evan

  Reddy, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bowden, Major S. Harland

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bull, Sir William James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hills, John Waller

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Buxton, Noel

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hinds, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cator, John

  Horne, Edgar

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cave, George

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Sheehy, David

  Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  King, Joseph

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tickler, T. G.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macmaster, Donald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Currie, George W.

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  White, Patrick (Mearth, North)

  Dillon, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Doris, William

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

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Neilson, Francis

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Younger, Sir George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Hugh Edwards and Captain Weigall.

  Gretton, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for three months.

SUPPLY
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,737, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915,
174
for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." [Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
Question again proposed.
It being Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Deputy-Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

FINANCE AND REVENUE BILLS (PROCEDURE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—"[Mr. Gulland.]
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: In view of the fact that we enter upon the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Wednesday, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say anything as to the procedure which the Government intend to adopt with regard to that Bill and the Revenue Bill?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): It will be convenient to Members if I give a short forecast of the procedure which it is proposed to adopt in reference to the Budget proposals. The Government propose to commence the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Wednesday of this week, and they will proceed with Parts I., II., III., V., and VI. of the Bill. In order to allow a wide field for Amendments with respect to Income Tax and Death Duties—and also to put in order the provision as to the National Debt—the Government will move an Instruction on going into Committee that the Committee have power to make provision for the amendment of the law relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax), Death Duties, and the National Debt. As I have already suggested, the Government do not propose to take Part IV. of the Finance Bill (the part dealing with Grants for local purposes) as part of the main Finance Bill; but they think it will be more convenient for all concerned if the matter dealt with in the Clauses forming Part IV., with the dependent Schedules, is dealt with in the Revenue Bill. This procedure will obviate the necessity of dividing the Finance Bill into two parts. In order to give effect to this scheme, the Government will not propose the Resolution required for Part IV. until after the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is finished. The consequence will be that, as far as the Finance Bill is concerned, Part IV. and the dependent Schedules will automatically disappear, as, having no Resolution to authorise them, they cannot be put to the House.
There is one incidental point in connection with the Finance Bill, which I may now mention, and that is that I have promised the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras that there will be an
176
opportunity for discussing the question of married women and Income Tax. In order to discuss the question raised by the hon. and learned Member, it may be necessary to have a Money Resolution, as nothing can be done which does not involve some small shifting of the charge. The Government will move the necessary Resolution, and will probably themselves propose a Clause dealing with the matter.
So much for the Finance Bill. Before the Committee stage of the Revenue Bill is reached, the Government will propose certain Resolutions which are technically necessary, in order to give authority to certain proposals which are contained in the Bill, and will also propose the Resolution which is necessary before effect can be given by the House to the proposals with respect to Grants for local purposes, which are now contained in Part IV. of the Finance Bill. The passing of these Resolutions will enable the present proposals of the Revenue Bill and the proposals of the Government with respect to Grants for local purposes, which, as far as the Revenue Bill is concerned, are additional proposals, to be considered in Committee. As far as the latter proposals are concerned, that is to say, the proposals as to Grants for local purposes, it may possibly prove more convenient to the House if, instead of adding the Clauses dealing with those proposals to the Bill as new Clauses in the ordinary Committee stage, the Government give effect to those proposals by recommitting the Bill for the purpose. If this course were adopted, the ordinary proposals of the Revenue Bill would be taken in Committee and reported to the House, and the Government would then move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of adding Clauses which represent the matter which is now Part IV. of the Finance Bill, and the dependent Schedules. The adoption of this course would enable the discussion on the Grants for local purposes to be kept separate from the other proposals of the Revenue Bill; and probably Members on all sides of the House would be glad if these proposals, as far as the Committee stage is concerned, at any rate, were dealt with by themselves, and independently of the other proposals of the Revenue Bill.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken several times in the course of his statement of the convenience of the House. Anybody who

177
listened to his proposal will come to the conclusion that the Government have been considering their own convenience a great deal more than they have the convenience of the House. For the third time they have modified their proposals. Obviously it is not convenient to discuss the various new proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adumbrated. It really shows very little consideration for the convenience of the House. The first intimation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer caused to be given to my Noble Friend the chief Opposition Whip, of his intention to make a statement on this subject to-night, reached my Noble Friend only about two hours ago. It is surely not a convenient Parliamentary procedure that the Government should delay making up their mind, or if they had made up their mind, should delay making a statement of their intentions until 11 o'clock two nights before the Bill was to be taken, and that especially when the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make is not merely a statement of how he proposes to carry out the intentions which the Government last expressed to the House, but involves the statement that the Government have changed their views since the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, and that they now propose a new form of procedure which we have never heard of until now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has muddled his own muddle, and
178
even if he gives his whole attention to the subject between now and when we take up the Budget, I doubt if he could make a greater mess of it than he has already done. I only desire at this, the earliest moment, to enter a protest against the proposed procedure in regard to the new Revenue Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced to-night. It will not be for the convenience of the House, whatever it may be for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Bill should be discussed in Committee in one form and be recommitted and then transformed into something else. In the circumstances in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has involved us, it would be much more for our convenience if he could have adhered, if not to the first edition of his Budget, at least to his second edition, and that he should have taken Part IV. of the Bill by itself as proposed, and if he were not willing to do that, then at least these Clauses ought to be moved and discussed as new Clauses in Committee in the ordinary and regular way.
Mr. PETO: May I ask if, when we get into Committee on the Finance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule; and may I also ask how many days he proposes for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?
Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock.