Commons Sitting of 13 May 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alexandra, (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill,
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wadhurst and District Gas Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Castlebar, Lurgan, and Water-ford." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FOREIGN TRADE.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd April; Captain Murray]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd April; Captain Murray]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    H.M.S. "DOMINION" (REPAIRS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some seventy naval mechanicians have been recently employed on His Majesty's ship "Dominion" to do the work usually done at His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, by civilian fitters and artificers, and that during that time some 150 civilian fitters and mechanics were discharged on the ground that there was no work for them to do; and whether he will take steps to secure that similar work be done by civilian instead of naval ratings or other wise so order the work in the dockyards as to secure continuity of employment to the workmen and prevent these discharges which are so prejudicial to the workmen?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I have already stated, the employment of naval mechanicians for such repair work of the Fleet as is within their capacity is entirely within the discretion of the Fleet officers. At the inspection of His Majesty's ship "Dominion's" defects the Admiral Superintendent and the Fleet officers decided together what work should be done by the dockyard and what by naval ratings. The recent discharges at Chatham were found to be absolutely necessary after most careful investigation of the work to be done.

    ENGINEERING BRANCH.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that engineer lieutenants promoted from chief and artificer engineers are qualified to sit for the examination for the senior list, as in the case of other engineer lieutenants, and to wear the senior ring after eight years' service; whether there are now engineer lieutenants promoted from the chief artificer engineers so qualified; and will he at once take steps to secure to them the enjoyment of this privilege?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): In addition to having eight years' seniority as engineer lieutenant and passing the necessary examination, the regulations lay down that, in order to qualify an officer for the senior list, he must have served for not less than three years as watchkeeper on board a sea-going ship in commission and must possess an educational certificate. None of the engineer lieutenants promoted from chief artificer engineer now on the list have the necessary qualifications.

    GOVERNMENT DOCKS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the number of completed Government docks on the east coast capable of accommodating a battleship of the latest type; and what is the corresponding number of German docks on the North Sea coast?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the reply to both parts of the question is "one."

    MATERIEL.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the total amount estimated to be spent in the cur rent financial year on the construction and maintenance of matériel; how is this sum divided between national dockyards and private contractors; and what is the estimated proportion of the total accounted for by the payment of labour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is regretted that it would not be possible to give a satisfactory reply to the question as drawn, and the labour involved in arriving at even an approximate estimate of expenditure under the heads indicated would be out of all proportion to the value of the information to be obtained. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind the estimated expenditure on shipbuilding, repairs and maintenance provided for under Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates, he will find many useful particulars in the programme of shipbuilding printed with the Navy Estimates on pages 180, 181, and following.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Would it not be illuminating and instructive if we could get the cost of the annual overhaul which every ship has to undergo?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know of no reason to add to the voluminous Returns which are at present published.

    NEW HEBRIDES.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the
    1086
    dissatisfaction in the New Hebrides over the working of the condominium, he has been urged to station a British man-of-war in the group throughout the year; and whether he has any intention of considering such a proposal favourably?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is hoped that it will be possible for British men-of-war to spend a considerable time in the New Hebrides this season. One is on her way there at this moment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a petition presented to the French Resident in the New Hebrides, purporting to be signed by British subjects, requesting that the Archipelago may be brought under the French flag; and whether information has reached him, either directly or through the Admiralty, showing that several of the signatories were of doubtful nationality and that most of them had been charged with grave irregularities towards the natives?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): My attention has been drawn to the petition in question, and I have received information with regard to certain of the signatories which prevents my attaching undue weight to their representations.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is not what is in the question practically accurate?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would sooner that the hon. Member did not take more than I have said.

    AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN PROGRAMME.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any official information showing that the Austro-Hungarian Government propose to lay down two or more large armoured ships of the "Dreadnought" type to replace the old ships of the "Monarch" class; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in view of his statement in the House of Commons on 22nd July, 1912, in regard to such further development of naval power in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No official information as to the number of large armoured ships which the Austro-Hungarian Government propose to lay down can be given until the Naval Estimates have been approved by the Austrian and Hungarian Delegations.

    HOSPITAL SHIP.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether, in the Estimates for 1912–13, money was allocated for the provision of a hospital ship; whether such a ship was designed; whether the design was approved by the medical department; whether the construction of the ship has not been proceeded with; whether, in place of it, a merchant ship acquired by the Admiralty is being converted by them into a hospital ship; if so, what is the reason of this action on their part; and has it the approval of the medical department?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The facts are as stated in parts 1 to 5 of the question. As regards the 6th part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the Admiralty letter to the Treasury, printed on pages 103 and 104 of the Navy Appropriation Account for 1912–13. The arrangements for the purchase and conversion of the vessel have been drawn up in consultation with the medical department of the Admiralty throughout.

  Native Labour Commission.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Lord Delamere before the Native Labour Commission in East Africa, in which he states that, if every native was to be a landowner of a sufficient area on which to keep himself, then the question of obtaining a satisfactory labour supply would never be settled; whether these views are almost universal among the white settlers in British East Africa; whether the Colonial Office proposes to take any steps to deprive the natives of their land in order to make them work; and (2) whether the suggestion made before the Native Labour Commission, in favour of making roads within the reserves and requiring the natives to work on such roads without pay, has been recommended by the Governor or received any sanction from the Colonial Office?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on the 7th of May.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is Lord Delamere, who has views on native labour, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British East Africa?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think that he certainly has been. I am not quite certain
  1088
  whether he is now. I will inform the hon. Member.
  Sir W. BYLES: Are the natives to lose their land in order to be forced to work? Can I have an answer to that one question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I dare say that the hon. Member can have an answer to that-one question if he will give me notice of it.

  Malay States (Loan).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether it is proposed to raise a loan for the Federated Malay States in London; if so, what is the amount of the loan and to what purposes is it to he devoted; and whether the necessity for raising such loan is in whole or in part due to the earmarking of other funds of the States to pay for the cost of the "Dreadnought" which is to be presented to the British Navy?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the amount proposed is £6,000,000, and is to be applied to the construction of railways and other public works and for the purchase of lands and materials in connection therewith. The heavy programme of development which has been and is being undertaken in the Malay Peninsula renders the issue of a loan unavoidable in any case, though it is obvious that the sums set aside for the construction of the "Malaya" have pro tanto increased the commitments of the Federation.

  INDIA.

    PRESIDENCY BANKS.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any of the presidency banks still press for a removal of the restriction which disables them from drawing, discounting, buying, or selling bills of discharge or other negotiable securities, other than those payable in India or Ceylon, or the restriction which prevents them from borrowing money or receiving deposits payable outside of India or Ceylon?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): The Secretary of State has not received applications from any of the banks for removal of these restrictions since the passing of the Presidency Banks Amendment Act of 1907,

    1089
    which removed certain restrictions previously in force.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is there an arrangement between the Presidency Banks and the Exchange Bank in order not to compete with one another, so as to maintain their profits against the Government and the general trader?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I should like notice of that question.

    GOLD BULLION AND SOVEREIGNS.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any figures to show the amount of gold bullion or sovereigns sent annually from this country to India and from India to this country through the parcels post; and whether he can state the average time taken by such parcels to cover the distance between London and Bombay by the shortest route?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not immediately available. The answer to the second part is about sixteen days.

    PAPER CURRENCY DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if there is any undertaking on the part of the Government of India to encash the notes of the Paper Currency Department outside India?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, Sir.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked if the metallic and invested reserves of the Indian Paper Currency Department are treated as a separate and distinct trust fund, reserved entirely and for all times for the convertibility of the currency notes?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer is in the affirmative, but, as explained in paragraphs 108 and 117 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Finance and Currency, the reserve also serves other purposes which do not conflict with the one mentioned in the question.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state the difference between the purchase price and the current market price of the securities belonging to the Indian Paper Currency Department; and what steps it is proposed to take to provide for the
    1090
    depreciation of invested reserves before declaring profits of the note issue?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The depreciation amounts to about £676,800. It will be seen from Section 19 of the Indian Paper Currency Act of 1910 that the latter part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked on what principle the amount of Indian Paper Currency Gold held in London has been regulated in the past; and whether it is intended to adhere to or alter that principle in future?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Past practice is summarised in paragraph 108 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Finance and Currency. As regards the future, the Royal Commission made recommendations in paragraph 117 which are being considered by the Government of India.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India if he will state what is the object of holding at present in London £6,100,000 belonging to the Indian Paper Currency Department?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer to this question is to be found in passages of the Report of the Royal Commission to which I have just referred.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the passages?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Paragraphs 108 and 117.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us now, without referring me to the Report of the Royal Commission, why this large sum of money is kept in London?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate the value of the careful investigation of the whole subject set out in the Report.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: May I ask whether this large sum of money would not be more properly in the vaults of an Imperial State Bank of India?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: That matter is very carefully gone into in the Report.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say to what part of the Report he refers?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have already said that if the hon. Member reads the recommendations of the Commission, he will find the answer.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Are we to understand, then, that the India Office accepts the recommendations of the Royal Com-mission?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No; the hon. Member must wait a reasonable time for the consideration by the Government of India of this very important matter.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Then are you not using the Report of the Royal Commission merely to evade answering questions?
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is this Report sacrosanct, like the Fowler Report?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The whole matter is under consideration, and is not accepted at the present time.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the freedom in Ireland from foot-and-mouth distemper for some time past, save in certain restricted isolated scheduled districts, and of the demand for fat and store animals from many parts and places in Great Britain, he will consider the expediency of modifying the existing Regulations in order to facilitate movement and trade?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend is carefully considering the possibility of modifying the existing restrictions, and hopes to be able to make an announcement on the subject shortly.
  Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand that in an answer to-morrow on this subject the right hon. Gentleman will give us the details of what he intends to do?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Can the right hon. Gentleman say tomorrow when some of the ports will be opened for fat cattle for slaughter?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement on the subject shortly, but I cannot promise it for to-morrow.
  Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been directed to the injury inflicted on the animal industry in Ireland owing to the existing Regulations; and whether he will
  1092
  confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture, with the object of modifying them and providing further facilities for trading in live-stock between Ireland and Great Britain?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I am in constant communication with my right hon. Friend and with his officers upon this question.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasing recognition among eminent veterinary experts of the impracticability of the entire eradication of swine fever in Great Britain by means of slaughter and restriction upon movement or otherwise, he will consider the desirability of extending the reference to the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever now sitting, so as to enable them to consider and report upon, not only the question of eradication of the disease, but also that of its efficient control and possible cure?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: There is no need to extend the reference to the Departmental Committee, which is already sufficiently wide to enable them to consider the questions suggested, and my right hon. Friend understands that they are in fact doing so.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make that fact known to the Committee? They are not aware of it at the present time.

  Committee of Imperial Defence (Colonel Seely).
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Prime Minister whether the late Secretary for War is still attending Committees at the War Office and is still dealing with Army matters; and whether he is still a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part, the late Secretary of State for War is still summoned to meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers it a sound principle that an ex-Cabinet Minister who has lost the confidence of the Cabinet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order,

  1093
  order!"]—should sit upon Committees which concern the Department that he has just vacated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not lost the confidence of the Cabinet.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If the right hon. Gentleman has not lost the confidence of the Cabinet, why—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from the question on the Paper. Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke.

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Franchise).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the Government will introduce a measure to provide the machinery necessary to enable all officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, whether ashore or afloat, duly qualified to vote, to exercise their franchise at the next Parliamentary election unless serving in far-off seas?
  Earl WINTERTON—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"
  Earl WINTERTON: Order yourselves. We are not to have any more supplementaires.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"
  Earl WINTERTON: Order yourselves.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord not to attempt to keep order. That responsibility, I am sorry to say, is placed upon me. I do the best I can, and if I should require the Noble Lord's services I will invite him.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am bound to say, in justice to myself, I was rising to ask what I thought was a perfectly consequential question. I was not aware there was any order preventing me from doing so. Seven hon. Members opposite, for no reason, shouted loudly "Order" before you had said anything.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I had already called on Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, and he had risen to put his question.
  Earl WINTERTON: The only reason why I replied to hon. Gentlemen opposite was that I imagined you kept order, and not they.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that it is the existing practice of the Admiralty, so far as the exigencies of the
  1094
  naval Service permit, to give facilities to the officers and men referred to to exercise their franchise, and I may add that of the men of the mercantile marine. The case of absent voters, with which this matter is closely connected, involves some obvious hardships, for which, as I have recently stated, it is not easy to devise appropriate remedies, but the question is receiving careful consideration.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Will the Government include fishermen?
  The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to indicate assent.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a Bill dealing with this question before the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If I were to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a possibility by which the question could be answered in the affirmative, will he consider it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be most grateful.

  Grimsby Election.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the terms of the message sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the late Liberal candidate for Grimsby in which he states that the Unionist party are encouraging civil war in Ireland and mutiny in the Army; if so, whether he intends to take proceedings against any members of the Unionist party for this offence; and, if so, against whom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called to the message otherwise than by the terms of the Noble Lord's question. The answer to the latter branches of the question is in the negative.

  Jury System.
  Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister what steps it is proposed to take for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the recent Committee on the jury system?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Legislation is required to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and, having regard to the state of public business, I am afraid a Bill cannot be introduced this Session.

  Inebriates Bill.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Church of England Temperance Society urging him to pro vide an opportunity for the passage of the Inebriates Bill; and when he pro poses to put it down for Second Reading?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Second Reading of the Bill will be proceeded with as soon as the business of the House permits.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARMT SERVICE CORPS (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that F. C. Kerridge, a boilermaker, Bulford Camp, enlisted for the Mechanical Trans port, Army Service Corps, in 1909, in the belief that there was every prospect of his being well employed in his trade for the seven years; that, in view of the purchase of petrol lorries, Kerridge has only been employed at his trade on rare occasions; that, in consequence of this, he applied to be transferred to the Reserve at the end of five years' service, but the application has been refused; and whether, in view of the fact that the man's services as a boiler maker are not required, he will allow him to transfer to the Reserve and take work at his own trade?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): It is the case that this soldier applied to be transferred to the Army Reserve, on the ground that he was not employed at his trade of boiler-maker. Employment has now been found for him in this capacity at the Army Service Corps training establishment, Alder-shot.

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary of State for War when uniforms will be issued to the members of the National Reserve, as promised by the late Secretary of State?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot find that my right hon. Friend made any promise such as that stated in the question. The matter has recently been considered by the Army Council. The wearing of military uniform is contrary to the provisions of the National Reserve Regulations. No issues are contemplated.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether a sufficient number of rifles will be issued, together with ammunition, to the National Reserve to permit of target practice being carried on?
    Mr. TENNANT: Rifles are issued, free of cost of carriage, to county associations for rifle clubs of National Reservists within certain limits. Ammunition for practice with these rifles can be obtained at cost price.

    DEATH OF PRIVATE A. J. COLE (12TH LANCERS).
    Mr. J. WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private Allen J. Cole, of the 12th Lancers, was shot dead by Lance-Corporal Whelan, of the same regiment, while the regiment was at Harwich; whether the relatives of the deceased were telegraphed for without being informed of the nature and result of his injuries; what were the terms of the verdict; how does Lance-Corporal Whelan explain his having in his possession ball cartridges contrary to regulations; whether the Press were invited to be present at the inquest; and, if so, were they requested to keep all reference to this case out of their journals?
    Mr. TENNANT: A report is being obtained on this matter.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (ADVISORY COUNCIL).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked how often the Territorial Force advisory council has met since 1st January, 1913, and upon what dates?
    Mr. TENNANT: No meetings have been held since the date mentioned. The council has now been dissolved.

    RAVELIN BATTERY, SHEERNESS.
    Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the damage done to property in Sheerness by the firing of the guns of the Ravelin Battery at Sheerness last week; and whether any arrangement has been come to to compensate those whose property was damaged?
    Mr. TENNANT: The general position in regard to these cases is as I stated it on Monday in reply to the hon. Member for South-West Ham. I am investigating what took place on the occasion mentioned in the question.
    Mr. WHELER: May I ask if it is the fact that only three-quarter charges were

    1097
    used in those guns, and if the damage was so serious with only a three-quarter charge, would it not be advisable to consider the whole situation of the battery with a view to considering some other scheme of fortification?
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe it is true that three-quarter charges were used, but the War Office has not yet been informed of the nature of the damage.

  King Edward Memorial Site (Stamp Duty).
  Lord A. THYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Sir Homewood Crawford, honorary solicitor to the King Edward VII. Memorial Committee, made application to the Inland Revenue authorities to forego the Stamp Duty on the deed of conveyance from the city corporation to the Right Honourable Sir Vezey Strong, on behalf of the memorial committee, of the land for the public park at Shadwell, having regard to the purposes for which the land was to be used; is he aware that the Inland Revenue authorities refused the application on the ground that they had no power to grant the same; and that the said Stamp Duty, amounting to £700, was paid on the 2nd April; and whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to remit the amount so paid?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I understand that the facts are as stated in the question. There is, no provision of the law which would enable me to accede to the Noble Lord's suggestion that the amount of the Stamp Duty should be remitted.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this £700 had not been paid to the Treasury it would have been spent on increasing the amenities of the park for the benefit of the working-class population?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take that from the Noble Lord, but unfortunately I have no power to remit the duty at all.

  Miscellaneous Revenue.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any Return open to the public showing the different items of revenue included under the head Miscellaneous?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir. Full details are published in the annual Finance Accounts presented to this House.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Income Tax.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is with his authority that the Inland Revenue authorities are sending to the House of Commons forms relating to Income Tax Returns, which have in the past been sent to Members at their private addresses, and why this change has been made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware that any change has been made in the practice under which Income Tax Return Forms in respect of salaries of Members have always been sent to Members at the House of Commons, and not to their private addresses.
  Mr. FELL: May I hand to the right, hon. Gentleman a notice which I have in my locker—one which I have never received before?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to class foreign income as statutory income, and so make foreign income liable to Super-tax?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it is intended to tax coupons or income sent abroad and the income arising from their investment abroad; whether it is proposed to include for taxation purposes in this country income arising from securities held abroad not being the result of coupons or income sent abroad or from their investment abroad; and (2) whether in making an Income Tax declaration relative to investments abroad the person making that declaration will be entitled to deduct expenditure incurred abroad while travelling, or in any other way incurred on real estate abroad on which Income Tax has been paid in the country where that real estate is situated?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The points raised in these questions will be dealt with in the Finance Bill, and I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the Bill is circulated, which will be in a few days.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reckoning the amount payable as

  1099
  Super-tax, the rate chargeable upon the last £1,000 of a man's income will be payable upon his whole income in excess of £2,500, or whether a different rate will be charged in respect of each additional £1,000 above the said sum?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member will see from the terms of the Resolution that a different rate is charged in respect of the first £500 in excess of £2,500, and in respect of each additional £1,000 until the maximum rate is reached.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement in the White Paper has led to considerable doubt about its exact meaning?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will look into it.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if he is aware that Mr. Merry, of 113, Cyfarthfa Street, Roath, Cardiff, having moved from Canton, Cardiff, to the above address, has been, since his removal, unable to get the services of a panel doctor; and, seeing that his several applications to the Welsh Commissioners of the National Insurance Act have been productive of no satisfactory answer, whether he will state the reason of this state of affairs?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend is informed that the Welsh Insurance Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of any communication from the insured person referred to. It is understood that he was on a doctor's list prior to his removal, and that arrangements have now been made for his transfer to another doctor's list. It was open to him to obtain treatment at any time from the doctor on whose list he was first placed, or to make a fresh choice of doctor by means of his medical card in the district of his new residence.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what provision is made for change of doctor in the case where an insured person moves from one place to another; and, if notice is given on the day of removal, say from one part of London to another, how long a time should elapse before an insured person is given another doctor in his or her new domicile?
    Mr. W. BENN: A fresh choice of doctor is exercised, in the circumstances referred to, by means of the medical card already in the insured person's possession. The card sets out clearly the steps to be taken by the insured person for this purpose, and no delay need occur.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If and when an insured person has adopted all the necessary requirements to which the hon. Gentleman has called my attention, will he consider the question whether a month or six weeks is too long before A or B should be provided with a doctor?
    Mr. W. BENN: If the insured person has his medical card, all he has to do is to show it to the doctor, and he will receive immediate attention.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Where the person has moved to another part of London, say seven or eight miles away from his original residence, how can he go to the original doctor?
    Mr. W. BENN: In that case the insured person would go to another doctor on the list, and send in his card, the second Part B, and he will receive immediate attention.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is of no use the hon. Member shrugging his shoulders at me.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether any application for a water mattress was made to the Welsh Commissioners, under the National Insurance Act, in the case of the late Charles Overton, of 21, Commercial Street, Blaenllechan, Rhondda, South Wales; if so, why this was not supplied; and whether the cause of death was cystitis and exhaustion from bed sores?
    Mr. W. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the article referred to is not included in the list of prescribed appliances which is scheduled to the medical benefit regulations, and an Insurance Committee has therefore no power to supply it.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of supplying some of these appliances to the districts where a very large number of accidents necessitate their use?
    Mr. W. BENN: I am afraid it would be impossible to add very expensive appliances of this kind to the schedule of the medical regulations.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that this insured person died because of the inadequacy of the treatment received under the Act?
    Mr. W. BENN: No; That suggestion is absolutely unfounded. The water mattress was not supplied because it was not scheduled, and it cannot be scheduled on account of the expense.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (VALUATION).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether in undertaking the valuations of approved societies under the provision of the National Health Insurance Act those societies which include members in Wales and England, and in which members have voted themselves into England, the valuation will be made of the whole society or of those portions of the society situated in Wales and England separately; and whether the valuations of such societies in Wales will be made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners or by the Joint Commission; and whether by groups of lodges or by counties?
    Mr. W. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to Sections 36 and 40 of the Act of 1911, and Section 16 of the Act of 1913, which provide fully for the cases to which he refers. International societies will be treated as a whole unless representations have been made, and the Joint Committee are satisfied that the members resident in one or more parts of the United Kingdom desire separate treatment. If a society has registered branches, these will be valued separately, but the arrangements required under Sections 37 and 38 of the 1911 Act for pooling their surpluses and deficiencies will either extend throughout the society—subject to any provision for national treatment—or be within geographical groups determined by the society itself under Section 40. All valuations will be made by valuers appointed by, or with the approval of, the Treasury.

    PANEL DOCTORS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. FELLasked if the due payment of the remuneration of the panel doctors depends in any way on the amount of the actual sums available and not on the work done among the insured persons who may be on the doctors' panel?
    Mr. W. BENN: The remuneration of doctors on the panel depends, in accordance with their agreements with the insurance committee, upon the number of
    1102
    insured persons in the area and the sums made available to the committee for the purpose in respect of these persons.

    ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the allowance for administrative expenses of the insurance committees of the smaller burghs and less populous counties in Scotland; and whether any part of the additional money proposed to be found by the Treasury will be devoted to these necessitous committees?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the funds available for administrative expenses to meet the reasonable expenditure of certain insurance committees in Scotland, especially in the smaller burghs and scattered county areas; whether it is proposed that any of the funds provided in the Budget for insurance purposes should be devoted to improving the financial position of such committees; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to secure that all committees shall have adequate means for fulfilling the duties imposed upon them?
    Mr. W. BENN: I would refer to my reply to similar questions on the 4th May, to which I have at present nothing to add.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Association of Insurance Committees of Scotland, including the committees of the larger and smaller areas, have passed a resolution asking for this?
    Mr. W. BENN: Representations have been received from various quarters.
    Mr. F. WHYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication that these committees will be relieved of this burden?
    Mr. W. BENN: The matter is being considered by the Commissioners, and it is being decided with all possible expedition.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the Government accept responsibility for seeing that all the insurance committees have at their disposal adequate funds?
    Mr. W. BENN: The funds provided by the Act will be adequate for the purpose of the committees.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The committees?
    Mr. W. BENN: Yes, the committees.

    ARREARS (REDUCTION OF BENEFITS).
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the draft Regulations recently published relating to reduction of benefits for insured persons in arrear will be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons?
    Mr. W. BENN: The Regulations, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, will be laid before the House immediately after the expiration of the period of forty days now current during which public notice of the proposal to make them is required to be given under the Rules Publication Act, 1893.

    NURSING (GRANT).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what will be the exact amount of the Exchequer Grant towards nursing in connection with national health insurance; what authority will have the administration of this Grant; and whether the county nursing associations will be utilised for the purposes of a national scheme of nursing?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Grant for nursing will this year amount to £50,000, and next year to £250,000. The details of the administration of this service are still under consideration, but I will certainly bear in mind the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to pay any part of this Grant to the approved societies so as to enable them to reduce the drain on their resources owing to prolonged illnesses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is one of the matters which is under consideration at the present moment.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will it have any effect on the Highlands and Islands Medical Fund, or does that still go on?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will go on certainly.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Are we to contemplate those Grants being made without knowing properly what they are?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know from what statement of mine the hon. Gentleman draws that conclusion.

  Agricultural Rates Act.
  Mr. BALDWINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the changes proposed in his Budget speech will necessitate any amendment of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The adoption of the new system of the payment of Grants to local authorities will render certain provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, inoperative, and these provisions will be repealed.

  Public Trustee.
  Mr. HOAREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to recommend the appointment of an advisory committee of financial experts to assist the Public Trustee in questions of investment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Public Trustee is an officer under the control of the Lord Chancellor, from whom, and not from me, any recommendation on the lines suggested in the question would properly come.

  Higher Education.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises that set-back which higher education, particularly in rural areas, has suffered during the last twelve months owing to the reduction of Grants by the Board of Education in respect of continuation classes through lack of financial resources; and whether he will include among the new Exchequer Grants proposed to be made to the local authorities for educational purposes a special contribution to this, the weakest and most important rung in the educational ladder?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received no evidence of a general set-back in higher education, such as the hon. Member suggests. I am, however, aware of the difficulties attending the organisation of continuation classes in rural districts, and the point raised will not be overlooked.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason for refusing Grants to continuation schools?
  Mr. PEASE: So far as I am aware there has been no reduction of any Grant to continuation schools.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: There is in my county.

  Elementary Education.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether any of the voluntary schools transferred to the State during the last year belonged to the Roman Catholic Church; and, if so, how many?
  Mr. PEASE: None of the voluntary schools transferred to local education authorities during the last statistical year were Roman Catholic schools.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of them were Church of England or national schools?
  Mr. PEASE: I think there were thirty-five voluntary schools transferred last year.
  Mr. KING: Mostly Church of England schools?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to disturbances that took place at Dowlais Roman Catholic girls' school on 1st May; whether these were caused by the dismissal of a teacher by the Merthyr local education authority; whether any teacher has been dismissed, and why; and whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
  Mr. PEASE: The Board have no information with regard to the disturbances referred to by the hon. Member beyond what is contained in the public Press. The local education authority informed the Board on 16th April that they had given certain assistant teachers at the school one month's notice of dismissal on 1st April on the ground that their services were not required owing to the diminished number of children attending the school. I regard the situation with considerable concern, but, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1902, I am not aware of any circumstances which would enable me to intervene.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked whether, having regard to the fact that the age of children attending higher elemen-
  1106
  tary schools was raised in 1910 from ten to twelve, while the scale of Grants in respect of such scholars was reduced, the Government will consider the advisability of improving the Grants; and, if so, whether they will substitute a block Grant for the existing scale?
  Mr. PEASE: I am considering this among other points in connection with the contemplated reform of the system of Grants for elementary education. I hope to be able to give further assistance to education of this character, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite announcement on the subject.
  Mr. E. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he does anything further, appoint some kind of Committee or Commission to inquire into the working of these particular schools, and their relationship to the secondary schools and others; in many districts it is very unsatisfactory indeed?
  Mr. PEASE: I think I have fairly full information before me; if the right hon. Gentleman desires to give me any further information, I shall be very glad to receive it from him.

  London County Council (Education Grant).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education what is the approximate amount that the London County Council will receive in the current year from the proposed Grants for the necessitous areas and the provision of meals, respectively?
  Mr. PEASE: The Regulations will be issued in a short time, and the amounts due under them to each Authority will then be ascertained.
  Mr. HOARE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman even now give the approximate amounts?
  Mr. PEASE: It would only be a shot. I think I had better wait till the Regulations have been approved by the Treasury, then I can give the actual information.
  Mr. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Regulations will be published?
  Mr. PEASE: Very shortly, I hope. They are before the Treasury at present; I expect them back in the course of two or three days.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Grant to London in respect to the provision of meals is to be calculated on a basis of 50 per cent. of the cost of providing these meals?
  Mr. PEASE: I anticipate that it will certainly be 50 per cent. of the cost incurred in 1912–13, the last year for which we have statistical information.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Calculating the cost of administration as well as the actual cost of the food?
  Mr. PEASE: Well, I do not like to say exactly that that is so before I have the particulars before me.
  Mr. HAMILTON: Will the Regulations include Grants for other areas to those mentioned in the question?
  Mr. PEASE: Oh, yes.

  Teachers' Registration Council.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether it is intended that teachers in private schools recognised by the Teachers' Registration Council shall participate in the pensions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it was proposed to grant to secondary school teachers?
  Mr. PEASE: The proposal relates to all those schools which are aided by Grants from the Board of Education, and to those schools only.

  Government Departments (Wages).
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there are any employés of his Department twenty-three years of age and on full time earning less than 22s. a week; and whether he proposes, on the lines of the Post Office, to raise their wages to that amount?
  Mr. W. BENN: There are twenty-seven male employés who receive less than 22s. a week. Of these, three are pensioner messengers who receive 21s. a week. It is not proposed to alter the rate. Three are labourers who are receiving the current rates of wages, twenty are employed in the Royal Parks and Osborne. Their rate of pay is now being considered by a Departmental Committee. The remaining case is that of a draughtsman temporarily engaged to do some tracing work.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I ask whether the policy of taking these pensions into consideration and paying a less rate of wages does not tend to depress the normal rate of wages?
  Mr. BENN: That is a question which is not strictly for my Department of the Office of Works.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any employés of the Board twenty-three years of age and on full time earning less than 22s. a week; and whether he proposes, on the lines of the Post Office, to raise their wages to that amount?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a somewhat similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on 7th May last, of which I am sending him a copy.

  Port of London (New Docks).
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state the number of men employed on the construction of new docks and other works in the Port of London; and whether that number is likely to be increased to a material extent within the next three years?
  Mr. BURNS: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that the construction of docks and other new works in the port is being carried out under nine contracts, and that the number of men at present engaged by the several contractors is approximately 2,600. The Authority do not anticipate that this number will be increased to more than a total of 3,000 during the next three years.
  Lord A. THYNNEasked whether the four members of the Port of London Authority nominated by Government Departments, in addition to the chairman, were parties to the Port Authority's refusal to enter into a conference with the local authorities with regard to the housing of the men employed on new construction in the port; and whether the Government have requested their representatives to see that this question is sympathetically considered by the Port of London Authority?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no knowledge of the way in which individual members of the Port of London Authority may have

  1109
  voted on any particular matter, nor do I propose to inquire. The members of the Authority appointed by Government Departments are not delegates who act under instructions from those Departments. I may add that the Port Authority inform me that they have not been asked by any local authority to enter into a conference as to the housing of men employed on new works.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Is it not a fact that the Housing and Town-Planning Council did invite the Port Authority to a conference with the local authorities to consider this matter, that the Port Authority refused, and that the local authorities accepted; further, is it not the fact that when it was brought to their notice that 2,600 extra men were to be brought into a congested part of London, the Government took no steps to see that suitable accommodation was available?
  Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord is misinformed. The Port of London Authority have acted very well in this particular matter. When I was at the Local Government Board they were in frequent communication with that Department. I had the pleasure, as it was my duty, of accompanying the chairman of the Port of London Authority to housing schemes, so that they could get the best examples for proceeding with the housing obligations in this particular district.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Is it not a fact that they have done nothing so far of a practical nature, and that it was owing to their failure to do anything that the conference in which they refused to participate was summoned?
  Mr. BURNS: No; the answer to the Noble Lord is that East Ham, which is the adjoining local authority, has not asked for any housing scheme of the Port of London Authority, and the Port of London Authority at this moment is doing everything that can be reasonably expected of an authority in that position to deal with this question.

  Ford System.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause to be prepared, and lay upon the Table of the House, a report showing the operation of the Ford system of payment so far as it has been introduced both in this country and in the United States?
  Mr. BURNS: As stated in a reply on 23rd February to the hon. Member for Yar-
  1110
  month, I think that any report on this subject would be more useful if it were based on the experience of at least a year.

  POST OFFICE.

    HIGH-SPEED WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
    Sir G. BARINGasked the Post master-General whether a high-speed wire less telegraphy demonstration overland, between the North of England and Scot land was given recently; and what was the result of the demonstration?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): A successful demonstration of wireless telegraphy at 100 words a minute was recently given by the Marconi Company between Chelmsford and Letterfrack (Galway); and it is proposed to adopt this method of working between a station which I am about to establish near Stone-haven and an existing Post Office station near Newcastle-on-Tyne, as a stand-by in case of the interruption of the overhead lines.

    GIRL PROBATIONERS.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Post master-General, with reference to the girt probationer class at Hanley, whether he will state the nature of the duties per formed by this class at 5s. a week; the designation of the class that performed this work prior to the creation of the probationer class; and the amount of wages paid for that work prior to 1911?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    PUBLICATIONS (POSTAGE).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the discrimination by the Post Office between monthly and weekly publications of the same class, whereby a weekly periodical containing political or other news may be sent through the post for ½d., even though it may weigh as much as 6 lbs. in some cases, while a monthly periodical containing political or other news of a similar class must pay ordinary letter or parcel post, which, in the case of a publication weighing 1 lb., would amount to 3d. a copy; whether he is aware that this discrimination acts as a severe handicap upon monthly journals, such as "Scottish Country Life"; and whether he will take steps to place all periodicals publishing political or other news on the same footing?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not the Post Office, but the Legislature which has decided that no publication shall be capable of being registered for transmission at the newspaper rate of ½d. per copy unless it be published in numbers at intervals of not more than seven days. It is the case that a copy of a registered newspaper may be sent through the post for ½d., although its weight may much exceed two ounces, which is the greatest weight which can otherwise be sent by post for ½d. I should welcome my hon. Friend's assistance in reducing the weight of many newspapers, but I am glad to say that I am not aware of any issue of any newspaper in the Post Office register, either daily or weekly, which has reached as much as 6 lbs., nor could a newspaper weighing that amount be sent at the newspaper rate, as a limit of 5 lbs. has been imposed by Statutory Regulation. The present newspaper rate burdens the taxpayer to an extent which may be estimated at several hundred thousand pounds a year. I can hold out no prospect of obtaining legislation to include in the newspaper rate publications which appear at intervals exceeding seven days, for, apart from the serious administrative and practical difficulties which would then have to be met, such a measure would enormously increase this burden.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Under what category does the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons come?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it would be regarded as a Parliamentary Paper.

    HOLT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Mr. FIELDasked when a day will be given, as promised, to discuss the Holt Report?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not able to state when the Debate on the Post Office Vote will be resumed. But I would remind the hon. Member that on the day already given to that Vote discussion was almost entirely confined to the Holt Report.
    Mr. FIELD: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact he promised the House—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should put down a question, and not make a statement.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the admission of the Holt Committee that registry assistants in the secretary's office, London, are a clerical class, he will favourably consider their claims for promotion to vacant third-class clerkships in the London telephone service?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Registry assistants in the Secretary's office have their own line of promotion; and I am not prepared to regard them as eligible for promotion to third-class clerkships in the London Telephone Service. Those appointments are filled by means of a limited competition, with the exception of a small proportion of the vacancies which are assigned to specially qualified assistant clerks.

    ENGINEERING BRANCH.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the engineering revision of 1911, if he is aware that the selected officers included men concerning whom it has recently been admitted that they have not come up to anticipations; that the rejected officers included men who were subsequently admitted to have been wrongly passed over and who were fully reinstated, as well as many others who are now admitted to be suitable for promotion; that some of the officers rejected on the score of alleged inefficiency have been performing in a satisfactory manner the duties of assistant engineer ever since the revision; and whether, in view of these facts, he will cause steps to be taken to remedy the grievance of the men who suffered from the revision?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The officers originally selected for advancement to the class of assistant engineers under the revision of 1911 have not proved unsatisfactory. Subsequent to the original selection a number of officers who in the first instance had not been regarded as fully qualified were promoted to the class of assistant engineers, their promotion taking effect from the date of the revision. The claims of other officers, who were reported to be qualified for promotion, are considered as vacancies occur, and a certain number of those officers have already been promoted. It is true that there has been some overlapping of duties as between second-class engineers and assistant engineers; but the circumstances are not such as to justify promotions in advance of vacancies.

  Mental Deficiency Act (Regulations).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board what is his authority, under the Mental Deficiency Act, for authorising the reporting to the Local Government Board under the Mental Deficiency Act Regulations of all women of bad character who are in receipt of poor relief?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have authorised no such Regulation. The Regulation to which my hon. Friend presumably refers is one which authorises the report to the Local Government Board of certain classes of mentally defective persons who are subject to be dealt with under the Act. One class will include any mentally defective woman who, being in receipt of Poor Law relief, gives birth to an illegitimate child, or is about to do so, or is living under conditions which are morally dangerous. Such a report is necessary in order to determine whether such circumstances exist as render desirable the transfer of a mentally defective woman from the care of the Poor Law authority to that of the county authority. The authority for the Regulation is Section 30, proviso ii., and Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary if he will state, with reference to the Regulations recently issued in connection with mental deficiency, on what Section of the Act he bases the right to demand details as to the parentage of the defectives and the age and mode of life of parents; and whether he proposes to alter the Regulations in this respect?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The local authority is obliged, by Section 30 of the Mental Deficiency Act, to ascertain what persons within their area are defectives subject to be dealt with by them, to provide suitable supervision for such persons, or, if such supervision affords insufficient protection, to take steps to secure their being sent to institutions or placed under guardianship. To enable the local authority to exercise a proper discretion in carrying out these obligatory duties, it is obvious that they must have before them information as to the circumstances of the defective, and the means of care and supervision which exist, whether by parents or otherwise. I think, however, that it is unnecessary to specify the "mode of life" of the parents as a specific subject of inquiry,
  1114
  and I propose to omit these words in the final form of the rule.

  Condition of Blind (Committee).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has appointed a Committee to inquire into the condition of the blind of the United Kingdom with no Irish Member on it; if so, will he state the reasons for this exclusion; whether it will be adhered to; whether Irish evidence is to be taken; and whether he will state the terms of reference?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee includes, as a representative of Ireland, Sir Thomas Stafford, the Medical Commissioner of the Irish Local Government Board. The terms of reference are—"To consider the present condition of the blind in the United Kingdom and the means available for (a) their industrial or professional training, and (b) their assistance; and to make recommendations."

  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Clubs).
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Home Secretary if, in consideration of the failure of the Bill in connection with the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday to obtain a Second Reading, he will recognise the necessity, in order that similar legislation may be carried, to bring in legislation to enforce that the sale and supply of drink in all clubs shall conform, as regards hours and other conditions, with the regulations that are or may be in operation as regards licensed premises?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will be aware that the House is in possession of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield which goes in the direction he indicates, and has been sent to a Standing Committee. The Government do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject this Session.
  Sir C. HENRY: Do I understand that the Government will give facilities for the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question ought not to be addressed to me, and at present it would be premature to address it to-anybody.

  Berkeley Street, Piccadilly (Congestion).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Home. Secretary if his attention has been called to the constant congestion caused in

  1115
  Berkeley Street, Piccadilly, by vehicles of all kinds stopping at hotels, houses, and clubs in that street and afterwards turning round; and whether he will consider the possibility of adopting, for narrow through thoroughfares such as Berkeley Street, the by-law at present in force in New York city which compels vehicles after setting down to continue in the same direction to the next turning, and which forbids vehicles from setting down unless they are going in the same direction as the traffic?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid Berkeley Street does not lend itself to the procedure suggested by the Noble Lord. Four years ago the Commissioner of Police endeavoured to introduce into London this method of approach and departure, but I understand that the experiment was not as successful as in cities laid out upon rectangular lines.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the case that at the time this experiment was made, the police had no power to ensure its being carried out? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the great monetary loss to traders and others caused by the congestion, largely due to the existence of certain hotels and clubs in these streets?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have taken all the relevant facts into careful consideration.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to secure that the Noble Lord's anxiety to maintain order out of doors is extended to maintaining order indoors?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman appoint a small Departmental Committee to consider this question to see if they cannot evolve some scheme?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider that point.

  Lough Erne Drainage.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a memorial from farmers of the Lough Erne drainage area pointing out the constantly recurring losses which they sustain by flooding from the Lough and River Erne, and requesting his Department to present a Bill to provide a remedy by the reduction of the standard level of the loughs;
  1116
  and whether he will advise the Department to accede to their request at an early date?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department have received the memorial referred to, and are in communication upon the matter with the Commissioners of Public Works, who appear to be the authority primarily concerned.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (AMMUNITION).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether any of the ammunition which has been seized from the Ulster Volunteers consists of brass-coated bullets, which are not permitted under the Geneva Convention to be used in civilised warfare; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that no ammunition has been seized from the Ulster Volunteers.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is now in a position to state, as a result of the special inspection of the estate of Lady Chapman, of Killua Castle, Westmeath, the total area outside of the demesne; the number of economic holdings on ordinary tenure with the right to till and build; the number and aggregate area of grass holdings with no right of occupant to till or build; the number of uneconomic holdings on the estate, including the rural village of Clonmellon; the number of holdings on the estate rated but derelict from excessive rent or want of employment; the number of recipients of outdoor relief from whom Lady Chapman takes rent; whether all the lands on the estate restricted to grass will be distributed for relief of the congestion on the estate; and the probable date of the distribution?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The estate referred to, exclusive of the demesne, comprises 3,900 acres, of which 600 are untenanted. The agricultural holdings number 124, of which seventeen appear to be held under yearly tenancies restricted to pasture. The village of Clonmellon includes some seventy non-agricultural holdings of less than half an acre, and fifty-four of the agricultural holdings on the estate appear

  1117
  to have a rateable value of less than £7. The Estates Commissioners are not aware of any derelict agricultural holdings on the estate, but they understand there are a few vacant houses in Clonmellon. The Commissioners are not aware how many (if any) of the tenants are in receipt of outdoor relief, nor are they in a position to say whether any of the lands held by the yearly tenants restricted to pasture will be available for distribution. Lands so held are not excluded from the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, and, as in the case of other tenanted land, can be purchased by the tenants.
  Mr. GINNELLasked what the area of Lady Chapman's demesne at Killua is; whether she is withholding from the sale any land outside the demesne; if so, how much; and on what grounds, having regard to the congested condition of the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The demesne, which the Estates Commissioners understand comprises some 500 acres, is not included in the lands for the sale of which proceedings have been instituted before them. The reply to the remainder of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether all the grass holdings on Lady Chapman's estate are non residential; and under what section it is proposed to sell to non-resident occupants having their homes elsewhere holdings on a congested estate on which they are precluded from building and from tilling?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners understand that the tenants of the holdings on this estate who hold under yearly tenancies, but restricted to pasture, reside on the estate or on neighbouring estates, and that they are in legal occupation for the purposes of advances under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question—asking under what legal enactment the holdings of the character indicated are sold on a congested estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Although holdings of this kind are not within the Fair Kent Clauses, they have been held to be tenancies within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and those concerned therefore are eligible to buy the holdings.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Galway (Barna) Railways and Harbour Bill, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

2. "That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit,"

3. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan and Great Northern Railway Companies Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit,"

4. "That, in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Second, Third, and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
Mr. Soames reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Rhymney Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Port of London Authority Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Reading to construct additional tramways and to provide and run trolley vehicles and omnibuses; and to make further provision for the health, local government,
1132
and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Reading Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Belfast to raise additional moneys for certain purposes connected with their tramways undertaking." [Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled. "An Act to empower the President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurers, and Governors of St. George's Hospital to acquire lands for and to erect a new hospital; to authorise the sale and disposal of the site of St. George's Hospital; to provide for agreements with the Governors of Westminster Hospital for amalgamation and removal to a joint site of St. George's and Westminster Hospitals; and for other purposes." [St. George's Hospital Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company in respect of their own undertaking and upon that Company and the Great Central Railway Company and the North Eastern Railway Company, respectively, in respect of joint undertakings; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of lands and for the completion of works authorised to be acquired and constructed by the Hull and Barnsley Railway Act, 1909; to revive the powers for the construction of works authorised by the Hull Joint Dock Act, 1899; and for other purposes." [Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company and the North Metropolitan Electrical Power Distribution Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powders upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the construction of new railways and other works and the acquisition of lands; to authorise the construction of railways by the South Yorkshire Joint Line Committee; and for other purposes." [North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Liverpool United Gaslight Company; to provide for the conversion of the existing capital of the Company; to change the name of the Company; and for other

1133
purposes." [Liverpool United Gaslight Company Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Bristol Waterworks Company to raise additional capital, and for other purposes." [Bristol Water Bill [Lords.]
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords],
St. George's Hospital Bill [Lords],
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill [Lords],
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Liverpool United Gaslight Company Bill [Lords],
Bristol Water Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 227.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 288.]
Bill [not amended in the Standing Committee] to be taken into consideration Tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Appointment of a Public Trustee for Scotland, to amend the Law of Trusts and Judicial Factors in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Colonel Greig, Mr. Barnes, Captain Gilmour, Sir
  1134
  John Jardine, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Morton, and Mr. Watt; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

  ACQUISITION OF LAND (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  "To facilitate the acquisition of Land by Local Authorities, and for purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. GORDON HARVEY; supported by Sir George Toulmin, Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Needham, Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir Maurice Levy, and Mr. Aneurin Williams; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]

WAGES BILL.
Sir RICHARD COOPER: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Wages Bill to provide for the approval of a living wage by local authorities, and for the registration of employers who pay less than approved wages."
This Bill is intended as a first and very moderate step towards securing a living wage to every able-bodied adult worker in England and Wales. I believe there is a general feeling amongst Members on both sides of the House that Parliamentary interference in rates of wages is attended by dangers and disadvantages. That may be perfectly true. But we have such appalling results arising from sweated wages that, in my opinion, the problem has got to be dealt with, for it is only by Parliamentary interference that talk and sympathy can be translated into action. For these reasons I submit the proposal, which is so very moderate—too moderate, I think—in its principles, that I venture to hope that it may meet with a wide amount of support. The object of the Bill is to discourage the payment of low wages and to require every employer who employs any person over the age of twenty-one years for less than the approved rates set up by the Bill to send notice of such employment to the Registrar of Labour to be set up by the local authorities. Then an approved rate of wages for every district is to be determined or made by the local authority, and the Bill, too, provides certain hourly mini-mum rates of wages, varying for men and women respectively, and the approved rate is determined by the local authority and constitutes the minimum rate, below which no local authority may fix any such rates. The approved wages to be fixed under the

1135
Bill are hourly wages, and where the wages are calculated on any other basis, of time or by the piece, the onus is laid upon the employer of proving that the rate of wages he pays would yield at least the same amount of money as the approved rate. Each local authority is required to appoint an officer, to be called the Registrar of Labour, whose duties are to keep the register required by the Bill, and generally to supervise in its enforcement. Any employer who employs a person whose age is twenty-one years for less than the approved rate is required to send in notice to the registrar of the local authority within forty-eight hours of the commencement of such employment, and such other particulars as may be prescribed. The registrar to the local authority is required to enter such particulars into a register to be kept at the office of the local authority, and it is to be open for public inspection. Upon giving notice that he no longer employs any person over the age of twenty-one at a rate under the approved rate, the employer may require the Registrar of Labour to delete his name from the register. The Board of Trade is authorised to appoint officers to serve the purposes of the Bill and to make annual returns to Parliament.
This Bill would affect close upon three million people in this country. It is permissive in its action, and it depends upon moral force. While I personally would like even at this stage to take a much more drastic step than I am doing, I believe that even this simple starting point will effect a very great deal of good, and I hope for that reason the Bill may meet with general acceptance. If it is fortunate enough to be placed upon the Statute Book. I am convinced that within three years' time a large mass of public opinion on the problem of what is a fair living wage to pay to any able-bodied adult will be so developed that this House will be ready to bring forward a very drastic and compulsory Bill. There is only one particular feature of this Bill to which I will make any reference, and that is one which I will emphasise, because it is the feature of the Bill I anticipate that will meet with the most criticism, especially from those least acquainted with the lives and conditions of the people. The problem of what is a living wage will become the issue at local elections, and to me this is a very valuable feature. In the
1136
first place, the wage boards or trade boards are not suitable bodies for settling what is a fair living wage for any particular district, and I cannot see that any other body is as capable to lay down this living wage as the elected representatives of the public in the locality. Secondly, I believe we want in this country more than anything else, to educate public opinion up to what a living wage or a fair wage is; and lastly, this feature will be a real incentive to the ill-paid workers, to this large number of workers who to-day are outside any form of trade unions, and it is only by this means, in my opinion, that the large mass of casual and unorganised labour in this country can be raised from a position of under-paid helplessness to one of fair existence.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Cooper, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr. Montagu Barlow, and Sir Mathew Wilson. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to terminate the Establishment of the Church in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. HOARE: The last thing I wish to do is to look a gift-horse in the mouth. At the same time it is a curious commentary on the proceedings to which we have been reduced by the Parliament Act and the Closure Resolution which the House agreed to yesterday that we should be given three hours for the comparatively narrow issue of the Financial Resolution, but that we should be denied

  1137
  three minutes to deal with such questions as compensation to curates or the robbery of the churchyards. I had expected that the Home Secretary would have explained the nature and the scope of this Resolution. As he has not done so, the Committee will perhaps bear with me whilst I point out why it is that the Financial Resolution is necessary at all. What it is that the Committee will be pledging the finances of the country to if the Financial Resolution is carried? Why is a Financial Resolution necessary at all? Let hon. Members of the Committee think what is likely to happen when the Bill comes into operation. The three Commissioners will have been appointed. They will be immediately called upon to begin the work of Disestablishment and Disendowment. They will have no funds at their disposal until the clergy in the Welsh dioceses begin to die off, and the life interests fall in.
  The first object, therefore, of this Resolution is to provide salaries for two paid Commissioners, something for office expenses and other incidental expenses which will be involved in putting the Act into operation. The first charge, therefore, that will have to be met will be the salaries of the two paid Commissioners. That is a very important consideration. Think, for instance, of the dismay of the two nominees of the Government who have been appointed paid Commissioners if they have no means of obtaining their salaries! As far as I can see from a close study of this Bill, the only two individuals who are likely to gain at all will be the two paid Commissioners. What an appalling calamity if these two nominees of the Radical Government have to go without their salaries for a very few weeks! In order to avoid this great calamity this Committee is asked to place at their disposal the credit of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] We are reduced to a curious state of affairs when the credit of the country has to be pledged to carry out the spoliation of the most ancient part of the National Church. In order, therefore, to carry out this disastrous operation this Financial Resolution is required. If Members of the Committee will look at Clause 30, Sub-section (3) they will find there provided as follows:—
  "The Treasury may, if they think fit, guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners."
  1138
  In Sub-section (5) it is provided that—
  "For giving effect to the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury, in aid of any money applicable under this Act for payment of principal and interest for the time being accrued, due in respect of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of this Act, may cause to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, such sums as may be necessary for payment of the said principal and interest, or of any part thereof respectively."
  Those few observations explain why a Financial Resolution is necessary at all. I therefore pass from that to the second question that arises, and this is an even more important question for the consideration of the Committee. What is the amount in which the Treasury are likely to be involved by the passage of this Resolution? Members of the Committee will notice that in the Financial Resolution no sum at all is mentioned. That is somewhat unfortunate, and it always seems to me that when a Committee of this House is asked to pledge the credit of the country to a large financial operation, some sum should be placed in the Resolution. I am aware that in this case a difficulty arises, and two contingencies have to be contemplated. In the first place, it is possible that the authorities of the Church might feel themselves bound, in view of the very hard conditions which are offered them, to refuse the scheme of commutation. In that event, the Commissioners would only have to find the amount-necessary for certain forms of compensation to particular officers and owners of particular kinds of property. In that case, the sum to which this Committee would be pledging the credit of the country would be a comparatively small sum. If, on the other hand, commutation is accepted by the authorities of the Church, then the case is very different. In that event, the guarantee of the Treasury would be pledged to a very large extent. I propose to take both those contingencies in turn and to offer to the Committee certain observations upon them, and in the course of my remarks to ask the Home Secretary certain questions which seem to me to be important.
  4.0 P.M.
  First of all, suppose the Church does not accept commutation. In that event, the Welsh Commissioners will be required at once to find certain sums to compensate certain officials and the owners of certain

  1139
  kinds of property. In this connection I would refer the members of the Committee to Clauses 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Bill. In those Clauses they will find that compensation is to be offered to the owners of private patronage; and, secondly, to the holders of certain freehold offices, or certain offices which in the opinion of the Commissioners are analogous to freehold offices. In addition to that, they will have to find a comparatively large sum to pay out the lay owners of tithe. Let me say, in passing, it is very significant of the whole of this Bill that, whilst the rightful owners, the clergy and those connected with them, are deprived of their tithe, the lay owners are to receive compensation. With reference to the owners of private patronage, I do not imagine that the Commissioners will have to find any large sum immediately, for I see that under the Bill they will not be required to pay the compensation until two years have elapsed. By that time some of the life interest will have fallen in, and they will consequently have at their disposal a fund from which they can pay that compensation. Again, unlike the Irish Act, they will have to find not a penny of compensation for curates. The result, therefore, is that the only forms of compensation they will have immediately to find in the event of the Church refusing the commutation are compensations to lay tithe-owners. The Home Secretary shakes his head. I was making that statement on the strength of what he said in the previous Debates we had last year.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I know the statement to which the hon. Member refers. It is quite an obvious misreport.
  Mr. HOARE: I am quite ready, of course, to accept what the Home Secretary has just said. I was very much surprised in reading through the Debate last year to find that statement was made, not on one but on two occasions, and that it should have passed uncontradicted. It comes, therefore, to this: The Commissioners will have to find compensation immediately for the holders of certain freehold positions. I want to ask the Home Secretary, before the Debate closes, What is the sum which he estimates they will have to find in this connection? It is important that we should know this sum, for,
  1140
  if we do not know it, we shall be pledging the credit of the Treasury to the advance of a sum of about the extent of which we know nothing at all. Further, there is another point in this connection. It is quite clear that in questions of this kind many legal difficulties are likely to arise. What is a freehold office, and what is not? What is an office analogous to a freehold office? Legal questions are sure to arise, and I fully agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), in the course of a previous Debate, that many complicated questions of law will arise, and that the Commissioners and the suitors will be placed at considerable expense in getting those questions settled. No doubt the Home Secretary has made some estimate of what this expense will amount to. I think it would be a very suitable opportunity if, in the course of this Debate, he informed us how much he considers the Commissioners will have to spend under this head, and how much, therefore, the Treasury will be pledged to.
  I own I am somewhat shocked by what was said in the course of the last Debate by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Welsh Radical Members. He said that he did not contemplate that the Commissioners would be placed to any great expense, because they would be given, or he hoped they would be given, very drastic powers for bringing questions to a speedy issue. It fills me with dismay to think of these three irresponsible gentlemen, unnamed and removed entirely from the control of this House, settling expeditiously without delay summarily and, possibly, arbitrarily questions of the greatest importance not only to the Church, but also to particular individuals. I pass from that part of my argument to the second part of it. Suppose, on the other hand, that the Church accepts commutation. What is it then to which the Treasury will be pledged? The Treasury will then be pledged to the raising of a very large sum of money. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member says that is not a fact. May I again refer him to the words of the Resolution and to the Sub-section of Clause 30 that I have just read? No doubt he will have an opportunity later on of explaining how it is, when the Committee is empowering the Treasury to guarantee the expenses of the Welsh Commissioners, that it is not involving the Treasury in a very-large guarantee.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: It is optional on the Treasury to do it if they like.
  Mr. HOARE: If that is the case, I cannot see why we should be called upon to pass a Financial Resolution at all. On two previous occasions we have been called upon to pass a Financial Resolution, and the opinion urged by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has, I think, never been urged in any of the Debates that have yet taken place. I differ from the view the hon. Member holds. It is my opinion, and I think it is the opinion of the Home Secretary, that if the Church accepts commutation the Treasury will be called upon to guarantee the raising of a sum of money amounting certainly to £2,000,000, and probably to about £2,160,000. In the last Debate we had some very important points brought out with reference to this guarantee, but certain points were left somewhat obscure. The Home Secretary stated that the rate of interest upon which the commutation scheme was to be based would be 3½ per cent. It was also stated in the Debate, and I think he stated the fact, that the rate of interest in the case of the Irish Act was only 3 per cent., and that, therefore, the conditions which were being offered to the Welsh Church in this respect were better than the conditions which were offered to the Irish Church. I have looked up that point, and I cannot find that the Home Secretary was correct in what he said. Reference to the Irish Act shows me that the rate of interest in the case of the Irish Church was not 3 per cent., but 3½ per cent., as in this case. I own I was somewhat surprised to find that fact, in view of what was said several times a year ago. In Section 51 of the Irish Act I find that "commutation moneys paid under this Act shall be calculated at the rate of £3 10s. per centum per annum." That is a very material point, for Members will remember that was one of the points made over and over again with a view to showing that in this one respect the Welsh Church has nothing to complain of. If the 3½ per cent. was a fair sum in 1869 when the Irish Church Act was passed, I maintain that it is not a fair sum now.
  Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Member suggest that it should be more or less?
  Mr. HOARE: I am suggesting that the terms should be better. It should be more. Perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am asking whether the hon. Member suggests that the rate of
  1142
  interest should be calculated at a higher or a less rate than 3½ per cent.?
  Mr. HOARE: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is arguing that the rate should be higher.
  Mr. HOARE: The rate of interest on £2,160,000 should be less. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is a much better expert in financial questions than I am, and no doubt he will press that point later in the course of this Debate. Secondly, in the case of the Irish Church Act, 5 per cent. was allowed for working expenses. In this case only 2½ per cent. is to be allowed. I cannot conceive why that is so, unless it be to give the Welsh Church worse terms than were given to the Irish Church, for I feel sure everyone will agree with me when I say that the last thirty or forty years has shown that this business of life annuities is a very dangerous and difficult one to calculate, and the expense of managing a scheme of this kind, so far from having diminished during that time, has considerably increased.
  I think if the Home Secretary would go to any life office he would find that this was the case, and, therefore, if justice is to be done and the analogy of the Irish Church Act is to be followed, not only not a less sum than that given to the Irish Church should be given to the Welsh Church, but a sum greater than the 5 per cent. that was given in 1869. The Home Secretary, in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution a year ago, made a great deal of the fact that the latest life tables were to be taken for the commutation. He said he had consulted the tables of 1911 of the Clergy Mutual Society, and that under those tables the clergy, owing to their greater longevity, would come off better than they would under the ordinary tables. That no doubt is the fact, but it is nothing for the Home Secretary to boast about. Of course, when you are compensating individuals for their life interest, you take the latest available tables under which compensation can be accurately estimated, and it is no sort of generosity to point to the fact that the Clergy Mutual tables are taken. If you are going to compensate these clergy properly there are no other tables you could take. The fact that since the Irish Church Act came into operation the average lives have increased somewhat in duration, of course

  1143
  makes it all the more necessary that the last available tables should be taken, and particularly the tables of an office which deals particularly with the lives of the clergy, like the Clergy Mutual Society.
  In this connection I want to impress upon the Home Secretary the difficulty in which this Committee are placed. He told us he was basing his estimate on the report that he had received from a well-known actuary (Mr. Wyatt), and this Committee, before it is asked to pass an important Financial Resolution like this, surely has a right to see that report. Take what happened in the case of the Insurance Act. A number of actuarial reports were made out, and in every case they were laid on the Table and placed at the disposal of hon. Members. I urge that when we are asked to pass a Financial Resolution of this kind we ought not to be required to do it until we have a report of this nature in our hands—a report which directly concerns the matter upon which we are required to give an opinion. We are placed in an even greater difficulty for another reason. The Treasury is to be asked to give its guarantee for a sum which we do not know, to be placed at the discretion of Commissioners whose names we have never heard. Was this House ever before required to give a blank cheque to three absolutely unknown individuals? These individuals, whose names we do not know, are to have very wide powers of discretion, and anyone who looks at the Schedule which concerns the commutation will find that they will be in a position to decide proprio motu many most important questions. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should be given their names before we entrust to them these very extensive financial powers. The Home Secretary, in answer to a question a week or two ago, stated that he would give their names on the Third Reading of the Bill. But surely this is the proper time. It might influence certain Members considerably in the decision upon which they are called upon to arrive this afternoon. Are any of them Members of Parliament?
  What happened in the case of the Irish Church Act? Mr. Gladstone, a great financier, stated in the House that the duties were so important which the Commissioners were called upon to perform that he desired to take the earliest opportunity of announcing their names to the House, and the result was that, in the
  1144
  Committee stage of the Bill, their names were given, and the House was placed in the position of knowing who it was to whom they were asked to entrust important financial duties. The question is even more important, because the salaries of the Commissioners are to be paid out of a sum, the authorisation of which we are called upon to make this afternoon. What will that mean? It will mean that their salaries will be removed from the Consolidated Fund. They are to be paid out of moneys now belonging to the Welsh Church, and these three unknown individuals will consequently be removed entirely from the criticism of this House. This may, indeed, be the last opportunity we shall have of considering whether these three individuals are fitted or not to undertake these important duties, and I therefore urge, as strongly as I can, on the Home Secretary that we should not be called upon to wait until the Third Reading of the Bill, but should be told at once who these three individuals are. I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions in regard to this Resolution. I want to know, first of all, what is the estimate of the sum which is to be found for compensation; secondly, will he lay on the Table of the House the actuarial report on which he has based his commutation estimate; and, thirdly, and most important of all, will he state to the House the names of the three officials who are to be called upon to undertake these important duties?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman's criticism is not, if he will allow me to say so, quite as acute as the other criticisms which on previous occasions he has directed against this Bill. I am led to the conclusion that it was not quite a figure of speech when he said he was not an expert on financial matters, because he seemed to have entirely misunderstood what rate of interest means in calculating the value of an annuity. He seems to have supposed we were doing an injustice to the Welsh Church by not putting the rate of interest and calculating the present value of the annuity at a higher rate than 3½ per cent. But I remember a great deal of opposition was raised to our putting it so high as 3½ per cent. The fact whether the rate should be 3½ or 4 per cent. must, after all, depend on the Money Market of the day. The hon. Gentleman complains at one moment that our commutation proposals

  1145
  are unfair and at another moment that they are less fair to the Church than were the Irish proposals. He may make either of those charges or both, but he must keep them separate. If he says they are not as fair as the proposals were for the Irish Church, he must examine them in relation to the Irish Church and not in relation to his general idea of what is fair. It is quite true we do not allow as much as was allowed in the case of the Irish Church for management expenses. In the case of the Irish Church the allowance was 5 per cent., and it was an excessive allowance. We allow only 2½ per cent. I admit that the Irish proposals were more generous to the Irish Church than are our present proposals, but what are we getting on the other side of the account? The Irish Church took the ordinary life tables, and allowed 7 per cent. in respect of the greater longevity of the clergy. But there is a far greater difference between the ordinary life tables and the life tables we authorise the use of than is represented by 7 per cent., and it will be found that the number of years' purchase—and, after all, that is the ultimate test—which the Welsh Church will receive from commutations is considerably higher—the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) shakes his head—but it is the fact it is considerably higher than was given in the case of the Irish Church.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that in detail?
  Mr. McKENNA: Last year I went very fully into the subject.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is thirteen years in the case of the Welsh Church against 12.8 years in the case of the Irish Church. What I was dissenting from was the expression "considerably higher."
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's memory is quite accurate.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have looked it up this morning.
  Mr. McKENNA: What I stated just now was that, under our proposal, on the estimates of the value of life interests placed before me, interpreting the actual Clauses of the Bill, I am advised that the number of years' purchase of the life interests will be twelve and three-quarter years. That does not include any percentage for management—that is simply
  1146
  the present value of the life interests taken on the average over the whole of the clergy, and that amounts to twelve and three-quarter years.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it taken on the average age of the clergy?
  Mr. McKENNA: This point has nothing to do with age. After taking the individual age of each clergyman and reckoning what the life interest will be worth, we find, taking the whole of the life interests of existing clergy, that the estimate of the present value of the total annuity would be twelve and three-quarter years. I say that that estimate is considerably more favourable to the Welsh Church than was the Irish proposal.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You said that in the case of the Irish Church it was 12.80. I do not see how 12.75 can be more favourable than 12.80.
  Mr. McKENNA: In the case of the beneficed clergy in Ireland the total amount—I am speaking from memory now—did not amount to anything like 12.80 years' purchase. If you take the whole amount paid to the Irish Church, including management, compensation to curates and everything else, then it is true that it does seem less. I am now comparing life interests with life interests, and I assert that my original statement was strictly accurate, that, on our calculation of life interests, we are giving much more favourable terms to the Welsh Church than were given to the Irish Church. I apologise for being led into this topic. It is not really relevant to the present Debate, and I only deal with it in order to answer the hon. Gentleman's first charge that our proposals are not as generous to the Welsh Church as were the Irish Church proposals. The second point he made was that our proposals are not fair. Not one word has he said in justification of that charge. My hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone) complained yesterday that no opportunity was given to discuss an Amendment which he had put down which would put the value of a life interest under commutation at twelve and three-quarter years' purchase. That is precisely the estimate that we made.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You do not guarantee that.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course it is not in my power to guarantee anything in this Bill. I shall not be a Commissioner. But

  1147
  on the best advice I am able to obtain on the words in the Bill, that must be the interpretation put upon it, and, in practice, I believe it will be found that twelve and three-quarter years' purchase will be reckoned to be the true value of the total life interests. The hon. Gentleman's first question was what was the necessity for this Resolution? He answered that in his own speech, and the first answer was, that in order to provide the salaries for two nominees of the Radical Government, we are reduced to pledging the credit of the country. I suggest to the hon. Member, if he wishes to argue this question fairly, that that is not a reasonable interpretation of this Motion. As a Churchman, he asks us to take a fair and liberal view of the claims of the Church, yet in putting that before us, he makes such a charge as that and alleges that we are moving this Motion in order to provide salaries for two Radical nominees.
  Mr. HOARE: Is that not accurate?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not true. He proceeded to answer it himself in the course of his next question, which was, "What amount is involved?" In determining what amount is involved, the only point he never mentioned was the salaries of the two Radical nominees. He proceeded to argue, quite truly, that we have to buy out the rights of private patronage, and may do it from within six months of the Bill coming into operation. That will be a claim that can be made upon the Welsh Commisioners for the value of the advowson; they will have to meet it, and they must have funds to meet it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of bringing this Bill into operation will fall upon the capitular estates. In the event, which I trust we may be long spared, of a bishop happening to die, then I admit there would be immediate funds upon which the Commissioners could draw, but in the absence of a life interest falling in, the only immediate sources of revenue of the Welsh Commissioners will be the annual amount of the first fruits and tenths which, in an ordinary year, may not amount to £20.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: How are the Commissioners to be paid?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is the point I am answering. The Commissioners will have to bear the immediate charge, quite apart from their own salaries.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They will have to be paid.
  Mr. McKENNA: They will have immediate charges for the purposes of their office. They will have to take an office and pay rent and rates; they must employ clerks, all of whom will have to be paid, and they have, under the Bill, to meet certain immediate charges. They have got to compensate for the loss of the rights of private patronage. I was reported to have said in a previous speech that they have got to be compensated for tithe rent charge; but it should have been the rights of private patronage. They have to pay compensation for any loss of freehold offices. These are burdens which will fall upon them immediately, and to meet which they will have no means. We therefore propose that they shall be empowered to borrow money.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: For their own salaries, too?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already stated that.
  Mr. HOARE: Then what I said was accurate?
  Mr. McKENNA: When the Noble Lord discusses this matter, I am sure with the best intentions in the world, he seems quite incapable of doing ordinary justice to his opponents. I stated most clearly that in addition to the salaries of the Commissioners, they would have to take an office, they would have to employ clerks, and they would have to pay compensation for the rights of private patronage and for the abolition of certain freehold offices. All these are matters which will require the expenditure of money, and at the beginning, as long as none of the existing holders of benefices or any of the bishops die, there will be practically no funds in the hands of the Commissioners. Therefore, under the Bill we authorise them to borrow money. Now we go further, and ask for the authorisation of this House to be given to the Treasury to guarantee any necessary loan that may be raised by the Commissioners. The amount of the loan, obviously, must be very uncertain. If, as I have said, it should so happen that a number of the present occupants of ecclesiastical office should die immediately after the Bill came into operation, there would be no need to borrow at all. The amount of the expenses must inevitably be small, but they cannot

  1149
  be calculated, because they depend upon factors we do not at present know.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You could have a maximum.
  Mr. McKENNA: We could not have a maximum. We do not know what is the value which will be given for the rights of private patronage. Under the Bill it is not to exceed one year's purchase. We do not think that in the majority of cases as much as one year's purchase will be given.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You have not mentioned that as the maximum.
  Mr. McKENNA: I should not like to contemplate it. The Bill does not contemplate that, as a maximum, one year's purchase should be given in every case—by no means! It is possibly the maximum in any one case, but it is not possible in all cases.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is conceivable.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible to give an estimate as to the number of freehold offices, and it is quite impossible to determine what the judgment of the Commissioners will be as to the amount of compensation to be given, but in all matters the Treasury will be in a position to decide whether the amount it is proposed to borrow for the purposes I have named is a fairly reasonable amount. I am sure that Noble Lords wish to treat this matter seriously. Assuming that the Bill is to go through, they must surely be anxious to assist the Commissioners in carrying out the terms of the Bill, because it is all to the interest of the Church that the way of the Commissioners should be made as easy as possible. This part of the Resolution amounts to very little. The amount must depend primarily upon the period when existing life interests fall in. In any event it cannot be large. Except for the fact that the Welsh Commissioners will have no income at all at first, it would be hardly worth the consideration of this House. But there is a second factor, problematical also, but far more important. If commutation is accepted by the Church, the Welsh Commissioners will have to borrow immediately a sum exceeding, it is quite safe to say, £2,000,000. That sum, of course, must depend upon the value of the life interests at the moment. As hon. Gentlemen know, the value of the life interests of the clergy from year to year depends upon the value
  1150
  of the tithe rent-charge, which is in itself a varying factor. It so happens that the value at the present time is a rising value. Consequently, such estimates as were made in 1906 as to the total value of the life interests of the clergy are to-day considerably below the mark. The only estimate which I can speak of as being an accurate one is twelve and three-quarter years' purchase. In 1906 the annual value of the property upon which the twelve and three-quarters might be calculated was, I think, £157,000. To-day I believe the sum would be considerably larger. Consequently, while I know one factor, the twelve and three-quarters, I do not know the other factor which is the total value, but certainly it would amount to over £2,000,000 sterling.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say the whole of the £2,000,000 is to be paid at once? I do not-take it to be so from Sub-section (3) of Clause 18—it can be paid over in proportion.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that Sub-section really raises the point. I will look further into it. But whether immediately or not immediately, the Welsh Com missioners in all will be liable to pay to the Representative Body a sum exceeding £2,000,000. They can only obtain that sum of money by borrowing, and unless they have a Treasury guarantee for the loan they could not borrow at anything like as cheap a rate as we have estimated they can borrow in our commutation proposals. It may be said that, inasmuch as the whole cost of bringing this Bill into operation falls upon the transferred capitular estates, and ultimately, therefore, upon the University of Wales, any additional burden upon the funds of the Commissioners is not a national matter, but a matter only affecting the University of Wales, and is not therefore a fit subject for a Treasury guarantee. If that were the whole of the case, I should admit that there would be something in the argument, but it is not the whole of the case. We are able to offer certain terms to the Church by way of commutation, because we hope and expect to obtain the necessary capital sum with the assistance of the Treasury guarantee. If we cannot obtain, that sum in that way, we could not offer as favourable terms to the Church by way of commutation, and consequently it is not merely a matter affecting the Welsh University, but it is a matter affecting the

  1151
  Church in Wales, and it is therefore with a view to a whole national settlement affecting all parties in Wales, the Church and the University alike, that we ask the House to give us a Treasury guarantee for the loan which the Welsh Commissioners will have to raise. If the hon. Member who objected to the proposal succeeded in his object and defeated us upon the present proposal, the first and greatest effect of his victory would be that the same terms of commutation could not be offered to the Church. I hope the hon. Member will understand, now that we are drawing to a close of the dispute over this Bill, that once the Bill is through everyone will have a common interest. No one will wish to injure the Church. We shall all be only too anxious that the Bill shall work in the most favourable way to all the parties concerned. We are asking the House of Commons to assist the operation of the Bill by a Treasury guarantee. I admit that it is essential to the Bill. The Welsh Commissioners could borrow the money without a Treasury guarantee, but if the House of Commons refused its guarantee, we should still go on. We should still borrow our money, but instead of borrowing at 3½ per cent., or 3¾ per cent., or 4 per cent., we should borrow at 4¼ per cent., or 4½ per cent. We should still pay our way, but we could not give such favourable terms to the Church.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: You have to under the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the terms will work out quite differently.
  Mr. HOARE: You will have to have an amending Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: No doubt we should, but as it stands this proposal in itself would operate favourably to the Church, and I trust that hon. Members will not be so misled by their prejudices against the Bill as to vote against a proposal which is really in their own interests.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think the Home Secretary need flatter himself that we are at the end of this controversy. We are only just beginning. You may score a technical point by placing this undiscussed Bill on the Statute Book, but it will not be there very long, and we are likely to have this controversy all over again, under much fairer conditions than we have had in the last two
  1152
  years. The Home Secretary questioned a remark that I interjected in criticism of his statement that the terms of commutation in Ireland were considerably less favourable than those given in the case of Wales in the present Bill, and I pointed out to him that taking his own figure in his speech of last year, the difference was that in the case of Ireland it worked out at 12.8 years' purchase, and in the case of this Bill it works out at a slight fraction over thirteen. I want to know where is the considerably greater advantage in that very small difference. The Home-Secretary thought fit to question my remark, but I have it here. This is what he said on 13th June last year:—
  "In the case of Ireland, the number of years' purchase worked out altogether at 12.8 years purchase. That included a bonus, and the reckoning of the life-interest on a 3 per cent. table. We propose to give 12.75 years' purchase."
  He goes on to make certain additions—2½ per cent. for management, and a certain amount because you gave an extra year to the clergy, and he said that comes altogether to just over thirteen years' purchase. I really want to know, in the face of that statement, how on earth the Home Secretary can really pretend that these terms are considerably more generous than those given to the Irish Church. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter for a moment, he will see that they are much less generous. Longevity has greatly increased since the time that the Irish Church Bill was passed, and I do not think the small difference between 12.8 and thirteen really represents the increased longevity that has to be dealt with.
  Mr. CAWLEY: Does the hon. Member say that the table has not altered?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am talking of the effect when the new tables are applied. The effect of the old tables in Ireland on the allowance made was 12.8 years' purchase. The effect of these new tables is that the allowance made is just thirteen, and having regard to the increased longevity the difference is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman forgot another very considerable point of difference. In the case of Ireland, you gave compensation to the curates. In the case of Wales, you give no compensation whatever. Does not that make a great difference to what you are giving in respect of commutation?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the hon. Member has put the compensation to curates in the Irish case on the wrong side of the account.

  1153
  Compensation to curates is included in the total. If you take out the compensation to the curates in the Irish case, which historically we all know was given in many cases where it ought not to have been given, and consider only the balance given to the beneficed clergy, it amounted to nothing like twelve years.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think that is correct.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is my reading of the case.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The language used by the Home Secretary last year clearly did not take into account the question of curate's compensation. He talked right through of 12.8 years' purchase.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is the capital sum paid in compensation, representing 12.8 times the annual value of the property. The beneficed clergy did not receive the whole of it; the curates received some of it.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Only a small number of them. A good many of the other curates got lump sums, which did not come into the reckoning on the annual value of the property at all. What an exceedingly inconvenient position we are in to-day! The Government give us three hours in which to discuss the Financial Resolution. We can raise, if we like, a discussion on the terms of commutation, and we can allude, though we can do no more, to the fact that curates are omitted, but the whole thing is farcical, because we have no opportunity, as they have taken away the Committee stage of the Bill, and as they have denied us any Suggestion stage, of making any alteration in the terms which may become apparently necessary in consequence of our Debate this afternoon. It really is the most farcical proceeding which was ever performed in the House. It is all on a par with the way this Bill is being treated right through. Take the guillotine that we had two years ago. It was very similar to what we are doing now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it does not arise now.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We can discuss the terms of commutation, we can show that they are very unfair, and we can show that you are offering to the Church a bargain on which she may be a heavy loser, and it is in the interests of the Welsh people and not in the interests of
  1154
  the Church that there should be commutation at all. We do not want commutation. We are simply doing it to oblige you.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: You said it.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I said that in the general interests of peace it would be better to have commutation if you gave us fair terms.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Welsh Members never asked for commutation.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Did they not? The commutation proposal was made by the hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone).
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: And seconded by you.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In seconding I said it would certainly be to the advantage of both sides, and especially of the Welsh county councils, if there was commutation, and the Church would not object to it if the terms given were fair; but we do not consider that the terms given are fair. They are better than the terms which were originally introduced but they are not fair to the Church now. In the case of Ireland, the Irish Church gained considerably, because, owing to the fact that there were more clergy in Ireland than could be employed after Disestablishment, a large number of the clergy made a special bargain with the Church body, and took a certain amount in the way of compensation, and left, and the Church body was able thereby to make a very considerable profit. No one suggests that the same thing is going to happen in Wales, because we are determined, whatever you do, to employ as many clergy after Disestablishment as before. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would churches be closed?"] We hope to have no churches closed, though I dare say hon. Members opposite would like to see it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly by the votes they have given in this House they have shown from time to time that that is what a great many of them desire. We hope, not-withstanding the hard terms given for commutation, and other terms in the Bill, to keep all the churches open, and not to dispense with a single clergyman. That makes a considerable difference under the terms of commutation, because the Irish Church was able to make considerable profit, so to speak, by means of commu-
  1155
  tation—by means of the clergy making bargains with the Representative Body for less than they were entitled to. That will not happen in the case of Wales, and I think that point should have been taken into consideration when the terms were settled by the Government. The whole situation is embarrassing to the last degree. Look at this Financial Resolution generally; and here I blame the Parliament Act. The Financial Resolution was brought in really to be a very small matter indeed. It was merely to apply to the payment of the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners, and to the cost of buying out the lay patrons. In the first instance, the amount of money which would have had to be borrowed by the Commissioners under the Bill as originally drafted, and therefore the amount which would have had to be guaranteed by the Treasury, was really a trivial sum. But then they changed the Bill altogether. They put in this commutation, which is optional on the Church, and, having put it in, they treat it in the same Financial Resolution, which was intended for a totally different set of circumstances. That shows the exceeding awkwardness of the situation created by the Parliament Act, and the manner in which we have been treated throughout by the Government in connection with this Bill.
  There is another objection to this Financial Resolution. I think it has already been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) in his very able speech. It is that you are asking the House to allow a large sum of money to be borrowed. It will be a very big sum. It may be considerably over £2,000,000 which will have to be borrowed and guaranteed by the Government. And yet you do not tell us the names of the Commissioners to whom is to be entrusted all this money. Why not? I wish to ask the Home Secretary this question, which I have pressed upon him before: Why has he not announced the names of the Commissioners who are to be able to borrow this money which is to obtain the Government guarantee? We have not known them all along. Why are we asked to draw a blank cheque in favour of people we know nothing about? All we know is that one is to be a Churchman, and presumably the others are not to be Churchmen. What is the objection to giving the names? Is the Home Secretary prepared to give the names here and now?
  Mr. McKENNAwas understood to reply in the negative.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Why not? In every precedent we have had for a Bill of this sort the names have always been put in at once. In the case of the Irish Church the names were in the original Bill in 1869. The same thing happened in 1895. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to that unfortunate measure, which got no further, he will find that the names were put in. The Government then were not sure that the Bill was going to pass. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was anybody sure that the Bill of 1895 was going to pass? We all knew perfectly well that it was not going to pass. The Prime Minister said that it was like "ploughing the sands" on the seashore for a Liberal Government to bring forward certain measures. I suppose in the present case certain Gentlemen expect to get the fat rewards of their services to the party, and therefore you will not at present give us the names of those who are to be trusted with the right to borrow this large sum of money which the Financial Resolution is required to sanction. I object very strongly to the proposal to pledge the Government credit in the name of people of whom we know absolutely nothing. There is only one other point I wish to deal with. I really do not quite understand what is going to happen the moment this Bill becomes law. How are the salaries of these Commissioners going to be paid? Is that what you are going to borrow money for?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would depend upon the longevity of the existing holders of benefices.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Not, surely, benefices! You mean the bishops.
  Mr. McKENNAindicated assent.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Now we know where we are. You are speculating upon the short life or the long life of the bishops.
  Mr. McKENNA: The long life, I trust.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The long life! It is one of the very small consoling things that have come out in the course of our Debates that the bishops and clergy have long lives. That really is the position. You speculate upon the lives of the bishops, and you come down here and

  1157
  in the vaguest terms, without putting any sum in black and white at all, without putting it in italics, and telling us only that of the three Commissioners one is to be a Churchman and the other two not, ask the House to pledge the credit of the Government for a sum of money, but no one knows what it is likely to be. I do not know that my hon. Friends would be better off if they rejected the Resolution, but I protest against the way it has been brought forward, and the way in which the Government have arranged the time of the House, giving us a mere futile discussion when we might have had a useful discussion. You allow us to talk about things we cannot alter, because you will not give us a chance to make alterations. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I will support him.
  Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) did himself a certain amount of injustice in the speech he has delivered. First of all, he did himself great injustice by being quite inaccurate as to our attitude during previous Debates on this Bill. He said not only that we did desire to close churches, but he accused us of having openly said—
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, no, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon! I did not say that. I said their action and speeches were such that they led to the suspicion, and we thought that was their desire. Certainly that would be the effect of their action. I did not accuse them of designedly wishing to do it.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That is a very handsome statement on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, and his interposition shows that I was right in saying that he did himself injustice. He did himself injustice in another respect by showing that he is not quite clear in his own mind as to the circumstances under which the commutation scheme came into being, and as to whether the scheme is or is not desirable. If his argument on the commutation scheme to-day has any relevancy to the present discussion, it shows that he himself was wrong in welcoming it on its initiation by my hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone). We Welsh Members readily assented to it as a scheme which would be most advantageous to the future progress of the Established Church. These are the circumstances—
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am really sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. If he will look at the speech I made in seconding the Amendment in December, 1912, he will see quite clearly that I laid down specifically that I was only in favour of commutation if the terms were fair to the Church.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Take it so, and I will pass from that point. He did himself injustice in a still more important matter, because his observations were such as to make me think that even now, in the third Session this Bill has been before the House, he does not fully grasp what will be the operation of the Bill. Does the hon. Member want this Financial Resolution or not? I am assuming now that the Financial Resolution is a necessary Resolution if the commutation Clause, the introduction of which he welcomed on certain terms, is to come into operation at all. The hon. and gallant Member, after making his speech, sat down without telling the House frankly whether he desires any Financial Resolution at all.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know, I will tell him. What I said was that I shall vote against it as a protest against the way the Bill has been conducted. I do not see that as a matter of financial procedure this Financial Resolution is necessary. When the Commissioners come to borrow it would be perfectly possible for the Government then to come down and get the Committee of this House to pass a Financial Resolution ad hoc.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: A Bill would be necessary.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: A Bill would be necessary, but it is not necessary at this stage.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am looking at this Bill now before us in the third Session, and face to face with the commutation scheme. Though it is objected to in some small details, yet on the whole it meets with approval, and it certainly has met with the approval of all responsible people in the country. I quite understand that the hon. and gallant Member does not want the Bill to pass, but everyone here knows that it will be law in a few weeks from now.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think so.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That is a matter of opinion. There again the hon. and gallant Member is doing himself injustice as an old Member of the House in his anticipation of future events. If Clause 30 of the Bill is to stand, this Financial Resolution is necessary. I have listened carefully to the objections to the Resolution as stated by the hon. and gallant Member, and also by the hon. Member for Chelsea, and the first observation I have to make is that, without reference to the question whether the commutation is more generous or less generous than it ought to be, they are quite irrelevant. The strongest point in the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea appeared to be the allegation—and it is true on the face of things—that no money amount is mentioned in the Resolution—no formal indication is given of the amount which may be guaranteed, and which, therefore, the Commissioners may borrow. That, prima facie, is a point which is worthy of the consideration of the Committee. The answer is found by reference to the terms and the operation of Clause 30. That Clause confers upon the Commissioners borrowing powers. It says:—
  "The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve, borrow such sums of money as they may think expedient for carrying into effect any provisions of this Act, and may, give as security for the repayment of any sums so borrowed and the interest thereon, any part of the property vested in them by this Act other than any property required by this Act to be transferred to the Representative Body, but shall determine as between the several parts of property so given as security the part or parts to be primarily liable for the several sums so borrowed."
  These borrowing powers, then, cannot, from my point of view, affect the interest of the Church. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he once more refreshes his memory by looking at Clause 4, will find that all the property of the dissolved corporations is vested in the Commissioners. That is the first and necessary operation, because by the earlier part of the Bill the operation of Disestablishment is carried out by the dissolution of all the ecclesiastical corporations. Therefore, some provision has to be made in reference to the property of the corporations which so cease to exist, and Clause 4 vests it in the Com-
  1160
  missioners. By Clause 8 there is a distribution of the property, and automatically, when this Bill becomes an Act, and the Commissioners enter upon their duties, the operation of transfer by Clause 8 takes place, and the large amount of the property which comes for formal purposes under Clause 4 into the hands of the Com-missioners is transferred to the Representative Body without any question of discretion on the part of the Commissioners. By the operation of the Act certain other properties are retained in the hands of the Commissioners, and it is the only funds coming into their hands, in which the Disestablished Church has no interest whatever, that they can deal with for their borrowing powers. That being so, the Commissioners are not likely to borrow on their own credit—I do not know what their credit may possibly be—so that they can only borrow money upon the credit of the property mentioned in Clause 30.
  All that is asked by this Financial Resolution is that the Treasury may have power to guarantee any money that the Commissioners can borrow upon that security, and the money which they can borrow on that security is necessarily limited by main considerations. It cannot in any circumstances be a large sum. Therefore the limitation of the borrowing powers of the Commissioners is found there, and that answers the point that no limit is mentioned in the Financial Resolution. Some complaint was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley that we have only got three hours to discuss this matter, and he said that it was very inconvenient. I confess that I could not quite follow his remarks on that point. I think that the time given is a very reasonable time; I think the hon. Member for Chelsea cannot complain that we on this side are not willing to answer him; and, above all, I do desire to resent the attack of the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley.
  Mr. MOUNT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is under a slight misapprehension as to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the complaint made on this side of the House as to the time given for the discussion of this Financial Resolution. It is not that we complain of only having three hours to-night. What we complain of is that we should be prevented from discussing the more important parts of the Bill by the refusal of the Government to give

  1161
  any time for Suggestions. So far most of our discussion has turned on the question of commutation. We were told last night that one reason why there was no time for a Suggestion stage was because some of us on this side of the House had put down Suggestions covering a considerable portion of the Bill, and it was then pointed out that an hon. Member had put down a Suggestion dealing with the very question which we want to discuss; and it is a real grievance for us on this side that, while we are given three hours for this part of the Bill, we should not be allowed any time to make any Suggestions which have real practical effect. On the question of commutation I cannot help thinking that perhaps hon. Members have been led astray a little too much by the argument of the analogy of the Irish case. The other side are very apt to bring in the analogy of the Irish case when it suits them, but when it does not suit them, as, for instance, on the question of compensation of curates, or the fact that the Irish Bill had been the subject of a General Election before it was brought in, then the Irish case is not supposed to hold good. Yet on a question like this apparently it is to be used as an argument by the other side.
  I do not mean to take the analogy of the Irish case in reference to commutation. It is far better to try and see whether the proposals for commutation are fair to the Church. I remember, when for the first time the commutation proposals were discussed in this House, reading a very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Spell Valley (Sir T. Whittaker). I suppose that he knows as much about insurance and finance as anybody on that side of the House, and he pointed out that he had reason to doubt that the proposals of the Government were quite fair to the Church. He took exception to the 3½ per cent. basis on which the commutation scheme was based, and said that he thought that a 3 per cent. basis would be better. It is quite true that in a second speech which he made on a later occasion he, as other Gentlemen always do on the other side, said that a certain alteration which had been made by the Home Secretary in the commutation scheme was sufficient to justify him in supporting it, I may mention one or two reasons why I do not think that a commutation scheme on a basis of 3½ per cent. is fair and reasonable. The rate on which Government annuities are based is not 3½ per cent., but 3 per cent.
  1162
  Post Office securities are on a 2½ per cent. basis. They have a scheme which the Government themselves have to justify, for which they are security, and they ask for a better rate than they are prepared to give.
  Mr. McKENNA: What life tables are used by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. MOUNT: It is said that the Government are treating us favourably in this respect, but surely we ought to take the life tables of the insurance society which deals mainly with the clergy. But there is this great difference between tables which are taken by an insurance company, and tables which would be taken for a scheme of this kind, that there are no new lives coming in under this scheme that is proposed. I should have thought that this would have induced the Home Secretary, if he really wants to treat the Church fairly in this matter, to have given some advantage on the tables given by the Clergy Mutual Association.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is exactly what we have done.
  Mr. MOUNT: I think that the Home Secretary refers to the one year extra which he is adding. But what is that for? As I understand that one year extra taken at the beginning of the life is because of the prospective increase of longevity. Experience has taught us that as time goes on, with the improvement in the knowledge of medical science, and so on, the average length of life is increasing. This scheme of commutation, if I may take for a moment the analogy of the Irish case, is one that is likely to last a very long time. Although the Irish Act passed in 1869, I believe that even still there are annuitants receiving annuities under that Act, and I do say that the Government have not treated the Church in this matter of commutation in a spirit of fairness and reasonableness. But it is not only for this question of commutation that this money has got to be borrowed. That, no doubt, is the most serious question, if it is accepted by the Church—and it is as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley has said to the advantage not of the Church alone but of Wales in particular, that it should be accepted. It is the question of commutation for which the largest amount will have to be borrowed and raised. But I am bound to say that on the terms which the Government have offered the Church, I think that they would

  1163
  have to consider it very carefully before accepting it. Because what is it that the Church would make themselves responsible for with regard to the commutation scheme? They have got to pay all the annuitants during the whole course of their lives. It is quite clear that the interest on the £2,000,000 raised as the amount of the commutation fund will not, for the first year, pay anything nearly like the amount which they would have to find for annuities. Suppose that the Church Representative Body were enabled to invest this £2,000,000 at 3½ per cent., they would get £70,000, and they would have to find very nearly £160,000 to pay annuities in the first year.
  What does that mean? It means that they will have to sell the securities which they hold, and they have, in the investments which they make, to take every care that those investments are of a kind which will not depreciate. But that is not an easy thing to do with the present Radical party in power. They will have to guard themselves in respect of investments, and see quite clearly their way to meet the demands made upon them, if they accepted this commutation scheme. Let me say one or two words with regard to the other side of the question. Money has to be found for the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners, for the expenses to which they will be put, and for other purposes. What is to happen under the circumstances which have been already pointed out. The Committee must remember that in this Bill there are two dates, one the date of the passing of the Bill, and the other the date when Disestablishment comes into operation—a period of about twelve months. The Welsh Commissioners will have to start their work at once; payments will have to be made; they will have to set up a staff, and they will have to hold inquiries, besides which the question of the border parishes has to be settled as soon as may be before the date of Disestablishment.
  Inquiries will have to be held in all the border parishes to find out what their wishes are; and all that means expense outside the salaries of the Commissioners. All that expenditure has to be met before the date of Disestablishment, and after the passing of the Bill. Supposing—and I do not think it is an inconceivable possibility—that between the passing of the Bill and
  1164
  the date of Disestablishment, probably about twelve months, a General Election took place and we on this side took the seats of hon. Gentlemen opposite—a very likely contingency. What would happen when we come back and this Bill is repealed? The money has been borrowed and has been paid, and it would have to be found by the taxpayers of this country. Therefore it seems to me that while you are saying, as I dare say many are saying, that this is only the Financial Resolution on which you pledge the credit of the country, yet it is quite possible that the money which would have to be found would eventually come, not from the capitular estates, but out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. I think we have a great deal of justice in our claim that we ought to have had more time to discuss, not this Financial Resolution, but the other matters on which the Financial Resolution rests. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea in urging that we ought to know who are the Commissioners to whom this money is to be entrusted. Are they Gentlemen sitting on those benches opposite, and is that the reason why their names are not put in the Bill? Are they not to be published because their constituents would know the position in which they have been put by the Radical Government? I think we have the right to complain that we are asked to vote in the dark on this Financial Resolution, which pledges the credit of the country to an amount which we do not know.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS(who was indistinctly heard): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the Opposition did not require a larger space of time in which to discuss the Resolution. That has been painfully apparent ever since the discussion began, and the only reason why I get up now is to help Members opposite to eke out the time bestowed upon the Resolution. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down it was, if he will allow me to say so, absolutely irrelevant to the Resolution, and, indeed, every speech to which I have listened from the other side, and some of the speeches delivered from this side, have been devoted, not so much to objecting to this Financial Resolution, as to the terms of commutation or some other terms of the Bill which have nothing to do with this Financial Resolution at all. I should like to take note of two things that have emerged from this Debate in

  1165
  the course of the afternoon. The first thing is that on the admission of the Home Secretary himself the terms of the commutation scheme in this Bill are far more generous to the Church in Wales than the terms of commutation given to the Irish Church. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley pointed out that the terms of commutation to the Irish Church worked out at 12.8 a year. But that included not only compensation given to beneficed clergy, but also to the curates; but, in spite of the fact that the curates are compensated in Ireland, the terms given in the case of the Church in Wales are far more favourable to that Church than were the terms contained in the Irish Bill. That was a point that I sought to make last year when commutation was being discussed in this House. My statements were objected to—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mac-lean): I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine his remarks to the Resolution before the House.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: I am answering the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to commutation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he also informed the Committee that he rose mainly for the purpose of eking out the time allowed for the discussion of the Resolution.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: I have only been following the example of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who discussed the question of commutation and other matters. The other point to which I wish to draw attention has reference to an admission which was made on the part of the Member for Dudley, that this Bill would not close a single church in Wales—
  An HON. MEMBER: He said he hoped it would not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must request the hon. and learned Gentleman to address himself to the Resolution.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: With great respect, Sir, I would point out that you were not in the Chair when those statements to which I am replying were made.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not material to me. I have ruled that the hon. Member is out of order.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: I simply draw attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did make that statement, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw that lying pamphlet which has been circulated, and which has done so much duty in trying to get people to sign the petition by pointing out that the churches in Wales would be closed. With regard to the Financial Resolution, for my part I do not care whether it is passed or not. It is proposed mainly in the interests of the Church, because commutation has never been asked for by Welsh Members, and it is accepted merely because it is asked for on behalf of the Welsh Church by, among others, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Gladstone) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley. The demand for commutation never came from Welsh Members, and we have only accepted it because we thought that in the arrangements for the Disestablishment of the Church commutation would be a good thing for it. Otherwise, we have no interest in the matter at all. We have felt, however, that the acceptance of commutation has been made the lever in order to induce the Government to give larger concessions than they would otherwise have done. If the Financial Resolution be necessary to carry out the commutation scheme—and, indeed, to a very small extent it is necessary to oil the wheels during the twelve months between the passing of the Bill into law and the actual date of Disestablishment—then on that ground I propose to vote for it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I confess I feel some reluctance as a Welsh Member in regard to this Financial Resolution which seeks to raise money on the credit of England, Scotland and Ireland for Welsh purposes, because, by so doing, it affects, of course, the position of Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh supporters of this Bill. I am thankful, however, that we are going to get something. But I must say that the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon has been, like most of his speeches on all stages of this Bill, extremely unsatisfactory as an answer to the questions which have been put to him. The hon. Member for Chelsea put to him three definite points—one, what was the estimate under the Financial Resolution; secondly, whether there was an actuarial report behind the Resolution; and, thirdly, whether he could give the names of the three Commissioners for whose benefit this Financial Resolution is

  1167
  to be passed. The first question the Home Secretary did not answer; he said he did not know, and that we were to wait and see. The other two questions he never attempted to answer, nor did he refer to either of them in any way. If you are going to have a commutation scheme based upon a Financial Resolution alone, then I submit it is essential that we should have before us the Government calculations upon which their scheme is based. The question as to whether commutation will or will not be accepted by the Disestablished Church in Wales, if it is ever disestablished, depends as to whether the actuarial calculation on which the Government propose to raise this loan gives terms of commutation better than the terms which we can arrange amongst ourselves in the Disestablished Church. It would be for our actuaries appointed by the Established Church to compare that scheme which they could arrange with that of the Government, and in order to do so it is essential that we should have the actuarial report upon which the Government calculations are based. There is then the third point. to which the Home Secretary did not even refer, namely, the appointment of the three Commissioners who are going, practically, to be given a large blank cheque, amounting possibly to several millions, and whose salaries are to be paid out of the money raised by this Resolution, unless a bishop dies, so that it is really gambling with the credit of the country on the possible scratching of one of the Welsh bishops. I think it is essential before we vote upon this Resolution which gives those people their salaries, that we should know who they are to be, and as soon as possible, who are to be the vivisectors of the Church in Wales—the publicani appointed by the Government to carry out the cumbersome finance of this Bill.
  We have been told that one of the Commissioners is to be unpaid, and we have heard that he is to be a Member of Parliament, and there have been rumours that the Member for East Carmarthenshire was to be the unpaid Commissioner, or possibly he may resign his seat and become a paid Commissioner. It is rather important that we should know who are to be these Commissioners who are to have their salaries guaranteed from the State and who in future are going to batten on Church revenues, taking their salaries from church lands and property. The
  1168
  whole finance of the Bill is extremely complicated. In the first instance, will the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners include all the expenses for carrying out the necessary operations? They are to give compensation to patrons, and we do not know what that is to be. It is another blot in the Bill that where there is to be compensation you leave it to this unknown body to settle how much it is to be. They will also have to deal with very large sums under the commutation scheme, if it is assented to, which will probably amount to over £2,000,000. Is it perfectly clear that no claim can be made by any of the other beneficiaries under this Bill before all the life interests fall in? Is that the way in which, under this Bill, those marvellous county council schemes for eleemosynary purposes are going to be carried on? If that is so, it will be a very slow process as each vicar or rector dies, and there will then have to be a scheme for the next parish, and so on. We would thus have about a thousand county council schemes in Wales. That, apparently, is the intention of your Bill as drafted, and anything more cumbersome I cannot imagine. Is it not possible that there will be a claim by the county councils to have a scheme for the whole county, and would it not be better in the interests of everybody to have your Financial Resolution in terms to guarantee a loan representing the property which will fall in eventually to the Commissioners for distribution among the county council for the purpose of these new schemes? Again, I gather that until a bishop dies, although the salaries of the Commissioners are to be guaranteed, there is to be nothing for the Library in Wales and for the University of Wales. Is that how it works out? Those points show the hopeless character of the financial proposals of your Bill, which are to extend as long as the longest life of any rector or vicar throughout Wales.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONESmade some observations which were inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is one of the reasons why I wish to raise this particular point, that the scheme will not be carried out until the last life has fallen in—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—and until the last benefice has been paid back to the Treasury under the Financial Resolutions of this House, and certainly until the last of the Welsh bishops has died.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The amount to be raised by loan if commutation is accepted is to be transferred to the Representative Church Body for Wales.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When is it to be transferred? The Bill, I think, says "as soon as may be." What is the meaning of those words? It may be extremely difficult or extremely unwise for the Welsh Commissioners, owing to the state of the Money Market, to demand £2,000,000 on the credit of the Irish, Scottish and English taxpayer for the particular purposes of this Act. I think it is fair for us to know whether we shall get our money some time, and that that money shall not be diminished. Supposing the Commissioners borrowed this money upon the security named in the Bill, the glebes, and parochial endowments, and that they did so on bad terms, and that the security, which is largely Welsh land and tithes, goes down very considerably, what then is the position of the English and Scottish taxpayer?
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: It comes out of the sum which would otherwise go to the university.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The University of Wales would be the scapegoat in that case. It is quite sufficient for me to point out that the financial proposals were quite inadequately discussed and treated by the Home Secretary this afternoon. Looking to the future, the whole of this question is absolutely vague and left in the hands of three unknown Commissioners, who are being given a blank cheque to carry out at their own discretion and in their own time the various financial proposals of this Church Bill. We are precluded from going into any of the merits of the question one way or the other, and it is impossible in this Debate to do what we on this side desire to do, and that is to expose the iniquity of this Bill. This proceeding by Financial Resolution is the worst possible way to carry out the financial proposals of the Bill.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that he had been told some things and that he had heard rumours, and judging by the way he discussed the relation of the Financial Resolution to the Bill, I can quite understand that he had been giving rumours and things that he had been told, rather than from a reading of the Bill by himself. I quite agree with him that the
  1170
  proposals of the Bill are complicated and very difficult, and it would be quite impossible for me to give a full detailed answer now to some of the points he has raised, but I should like to refer to one or two of them. First of all, I answered by interruption his point about the diminishing value of the securities. The whole of this money, of course, will be raised upon the security of the capitular Endowments.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The whole £2,000,000 on the capitular Endowments?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. E. JONES: No; the £2,000,000, of course, will be raised on the security of the Treasury, through such security as the Treasury may think fit. That is in the first instance, but any loss or depreciation would be changed to the capitular Endowments. That is the point. It is not actually the principal sum that would be raised on the security of the Endowment, but any failure to pay interest or any depreciation. That amount would come out of those Endowments, the balance of which would otherwise have gone to the colleges of the University of Wales. The hon. Member also raised a point as to the county council schemes. The Commissioners have very little to do with the parochial endowments. They only arrange the transfer for the schemes, and the county councils have to bear out of the amount that falls into their hands the security for the proportion of the commutation that applies to that particular part of the benefices within their own area. That is perfectly clear, and the hon. Member need not be under any apprehension on that point. There was also the question whether the Commissioners would have to go on longer than three years in order to complete the work. If it is necessary to go on longer there is a provision in the Bill, but I do not see why the Commissioners should not be able to complete the work within the three years, or very soon after. It is only a question of arranging accounts, and they would balance themselves because, of course, they are in the shape of charges. As a matter of fact the Bill has provided that, if necessary, the charges shall be in the shape of mortgage. Therefore there need be no apprehension at all upon that point. There has been a good deal of rather confused discussion upon this Resolution. I really think that hon. Members have been making a mountain out of a mole-hill. They do not seem quite

  1171
  to apprehend why this Financial Resolution is needed. It is a very fine point whether we could not deal with the Bill altogether without a Financial Resolution. I am very doubtful whether, if the Financial Resolution had not been taken in the first instance, we should have suffered very much so far as the character of the Bill and its further stages is concerned. Hon. Members do not apparently realise that the Financial Resolution has only to do with the one point of the money being taken temporarily out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of enabling the loan to be made and guaranteed. The Commissioners could, if they liked, borrow outside. There is no absolute need for the Commissioners to go to the National Debt Commissioners for the money, if they can get better terms of their own outside—which is not conceivable—on the strength of the security that they have. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) seemed to think that by this Resolution we were pledging the Treasury to the expenditure of money. We do not pledge the Treasury to anything. The Clauses one after another make it perfectly optional for them to agree to do this or not. It is necessary to make this perfectly clear, because considerable use has been made of the point in the country. There is an attempt to construe what we are doing today as something that will involve a burden on the taxpayers, something which they would not have to bear if we were not engaged on this Financial Resolution. That is not so. It is only a temporary convenience. If hon. Members will read the Bill, they will find very strict provisions requiring the whole of this money to be paid back. There are very specific details in Clause 30, with which the most punctillious stickler for financial rectitude ought to be perfectly satisfied. The Clause says:
  "that if any money is guaranteed at any time by the Treasury, the Treasury shall cause the same to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund out of the funds in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, or of their successors in title to the property given as security."
  So that it is absolutely established, not by rumour, nor by a mere statement of the Home Secretary, but by the Bill itself, that every halfpenny in the way of interest or principal extracted in the first instance
  1172
  from public funds is to be paid back out of moneys which would otherwise go to the university or other bodies. With regard to commutation, hon. Members have again this year, as they did last year, assumed that because the Home Secretary has spoken about twelve and three-quarter years' purchase, that is binding upon the Church, that it ties the Commissioners absolutely, and determines what the character of the final commutation table is to be. That is a total misconception. The Home Secretary has only been saying, in order to ease the minds of hon. Members, what he is advised would be the probable nature of the terms that an actuary would in this year 1914 draw up. As the Bill stands, the Commissioners are absolutely free to draft the actual conditions of the annuity de novo according to their own view of what is the actuarial equivalent. Let hon. Members look at the terms of the Bill. Clause 18 (a) says:—
  "The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the date of commutation, pay to the Representative Body the aggregate value of the existing interests of holders of ecclesiastical office … such value to be ascertained in the manner provided by the Fourth Schedule to the Act, together with interest on that amount at the rate of 3½ per cent. per annum from the date of commutation to the date of payment."
  One thing that astonishes me is that while hon. Members are complaining about 3½ per cent. being taken in the calculation of the annuity, they are quite willing to have 3½ per cent. as the figure for the payment of interest that might accrue between the date of commutation and the actual payment. We do not hear a suggestion that that should be 3 per cent. They only want the different figure when it works out on their own side. It is also made perfectly clear that, as far as the Bill is concerned, you have only to take the question of interest and certain details in regard to the conversion of various lands into money, and, so far as you are prepared to trust the actuaries, the Church will get the precise sum to the halfpenny that the interests are worth. Hon. Members opposite may say that the Commissioners cannot be trusted, but if they say that they cannot trust the actuary, appointed, not by the Home Secretary, but by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to work out fairly the business tables of the aggregate value of the interests on a 3½ per cent. basis, it means

  1173
  that it is impossible to have any commutation scheme at all that is fair as between one party and another.
  But the Home Secretary has gone much further than that. He has put a tremendous bias on the side of Church people. The Bill does not merely say that an actuary shall do what an insurance company would do—that is, calculate on a mere business basis a 3½ per cent. table, but that he shall take into consideration certain special factors in favour of the Church. In the Bill itself, the actuary is instructed—that is what it comes to—to take extra things into consideration. He must have regard to the extra longevity of the clergy, and also to the difference in the death-rate according to various tables, as was explained the other day. When hon. Members have a scheme of that kind, it is not for them to complain that under the guise of a Financial Resolution we are trying to get them to agree to a scheme that is not fair towards the clergy and the Church. I think hon. Members would be wise to allow the Commissioners full powers. I take the view that it would be very much better for the Church, and certainly much more convenient for all parties, to have the matter settled right away at the beginning rather than that it should be dragging on, the money hanging about, and the property being subject to charges running over many years. I trust that after this discussion hon. Members will address themselves to explaining to the people whom they represent what are the real terms of the Bill itself in regard to the commutation proposals, because they are what will govern the Commissioners, and not the various rumours and the things which hon. Members have been told here and there, and which have no relation at all to the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Like my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why no time should be given to such matters as the compensation of curates, churchyards, glebes, and so on, while fuller time is given to this Resolution. If we had had our choice, we should have pressed the Government very hard to give us time to discuss those all-important matters, even though we had to sacrifice the time allotted to this. But if this matter is to be discussed, I want to know what is the real objection to telling us the names of the Commissioners? This is, above all others, the occasion for giving us those names. We are now finally sanctioning the money for which the national credit is to be
  1174
  pledged, and that money is to be managed by Commissioners whose names we do not know. We have pressed for those names several times. I cannot conceive what is the objection to giving them. It is supposed by the Government that we should criticise them so severely, or that their appointments will be so bad, that they dare not permit the names to be published? It is unfortunate, too, that we cannot ascertain what is the total sum for which the national credit is to be pledged. It is obviously likely to be a very large sum, and the Commissioners are to have power over it with no appeal. The Home Secretary said that it was not possible to calculate the probable maximum. Why not? It would be much more usual to put in some figures which the Commissioners-were not to exceed. It is our usual practice, in all financial matters, to estimate a certain figure which the Department concerned must not exceed. I can only presume that that course is not followed in this case because the Commissioners are to have an unusually free hand, and to do very much as they like. I should like, in respect of one or two particulars, to ask the Home Secretary a question. He said, as I understood him, that the lives of the clergy, for the purpose of estimating their interests, were to be taken at a year younger than they actually are. That, I believe, is admitted. But there is nothing, so far as I can see, in the Bill or in the terms of this Resolution which ensures that that year will really be allowed. If there is nothing in the Bill. I presume it will remain with the Commissioners to do exactly as they please; to calculate these interests on exactly what basis they like, and to ignore the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, that the lives should be taken at a year younger than they actually are. Certainly I cannot see that the Bill makes provision for it; that there is anything in the Bill which makes any provision in the matter. In Clause 18 it is stated:—
  "The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the date of commutation, pay to the Representative Body the aggregate value of the existing interests of holders of ecclesiastical offices … such value to be ascertained in the manner provided by the Fourth Schedule to the Act."
  I refer to the Fourth Schedule to the Act. There is apparently nothing there which in any way bears out the Home Secretary's promise that the lives are to be taken at

  1175
  a year younger than they are. I would urge that some more definite arrangement should be made to make certain that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman will be fully carried out by the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are to be given such complete control it is perfectly possible that they may arrange a basis of their own for estimating these life interests, and they can disregard what has been virtually said in these Debates, just because those matters are not put into the Bill. I would ask the right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of this Bill kindly to answer that point before this Debate closes. I cannot but repeat once more that it is most unfortunate that we should give such a free hand to the Commissioners, such a blank cheque in a matter of this sort, without knowing who they are, and who really is responsible to us for the law which we are passing. I would urge before this Debate is over that the Government would once more reconsider that decision, and would announce the names of the gentlemen who have been appointed, so that we can really judge to whom we are entrusting this great matter.
  Mr. KING: I think everybody ought to be grateful that we have been allowed these three hours extra for this discussion. The discussion has not been very exciting, but it has been very illuminating. To my mind the course of this Debate has shown one thing that I very greatly welcome. We have had several hours' discussion upon the Welsh Church Bill without recriminations and with practically no abuse on either side, and I think that upon that the Committee and the country can well congratulate themselves. This Debate has also shown what I have long suspected, that the Opposition do not really know their own minds in this matter. I propose, with your permission, Mr. Whitley, to point out in one or two respects how the Opposition, which I believe was well taken aback by the Prime Minister's generosity last night in granting this time, are absolutely nonplussed as to what action or line they ought to take this afternoon. In the first place, we have not, so far as I can understand, had in all the speeches delivered from the other side a clear word as to whether they are going to support or oppose this Resolution. We have not had one word praising it; we have not had one word condemning it. Though the hon. Baronet the Member for
  1176
  the City of London has been sitting throughout this discussion, although he generally rises in the course of Debates of this sort, when we are dealing with Money Resolutions, he has not risen once—
  Sir F. BANBURY: I rose just a moment ago.
  Mr. KING: I very gladly withdraw what I said, and congratulate myself that in one quarter of the House, at any rate, I was preferred to the hon. Baronet. Will he allow me to point out that here is an opportunity for him to bring in the principle which I think is a very good one, and which he generally tries to introduce into these Money Resolutions, the principle of limiting the amount which ought to be given. Why has he not already risen to propose an Amendment on those lines? Because he does not know at what sum he would fix the limit; because he would not be quite sure whether his Friends behind him do not really rely upon the bottomless pit—I mean pocket. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite hope to make the best of both worlds; I referred to the bottomless pocket of the Treasury. Hon. Members opposite do not know whether to oppose, to limit, to support, or to vote against this Resolution. They are quite taken aback, and do not really know in what condition they find themselves. May I point out another matter in which I am quite sure I shall convince the hon. Member for Dudley. In the course of his speech he said, what we were all very glad to hear, and which received support from every quarter of the House; that was his determination, and the determination of those who act with him, that not one church should be closed in consequence of this Bill, that not one minister of a church should be allowed to go without his proper sustenance. I entirely sympathise with that sentiment. At the same time, what is the attitude which has always been taken up by the Conservative party on this matter? I hold in my hands proof positive that the Conservative party as a whole take an absolutely opposite view. They are determined, if they can, that they will close churches or allow churches to be closed in consequence of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Here is a leaflet which is now being, I am told, distributed everywhere, a leaflet which says: "Church closed owing to Disestablishment by the Radical Government."
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask what leaflets issued by anybody, it does not matter whom—stating that

  1177
  certain things are going to happen—which have nothing whatever to do with this Financial Resolution—how they and such arguments can be in order?
  Mr. KING: May I speak on that point of Order? I propose to show that the action of this leaflet will be to render it much more necessary to provide money from the Treasury to pay.
  The CHAIRMAN: Even the hon. Member's ingenuity will not go so far as that. Clearly, that is an argument to be reserved for the Third Reading of the Bill, and not for a Financial Resolution.
  Mr. KING: With due respect to you, may I point out quite another line of argument, that the tendency nowadays is this: The Radical Government passes a measure. It is opposed in this House more or less strongly, and when it becomes law and goes outside it is abused, misrepresented, attacked—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must defer those remarks to the Third Reading.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Try another line of argument!
  Mr. KING: May I point out what seems to me a very material point. These Commissioners will have very great duties placed upon them. They will require all the resources and money, as well as their own individual standing and ability, to carry these duties through, and if they are attacked, as they are likely to be, and misrepresented, they will need a great deal more money. My argument I believe to be perfectly pertinent to this Debate. I am in favour of this Resolution, and whether the authorities, financial and otherwise, of this House oppose it or not, I shall vote for it. Whether or not they propose to limit the amount that the Treasury have to give, I shall propose that the Treasury be allowed to spend the uttermost farthing in carrying this Bill through generously and justly in the interests of all, and I hope that will be done. I hope this Resolution will be accepted. I should like to have referred to other of the remarks which have been made in this discussion. It seems to me rather trying that certain allegations can be thrown across the floor of the House from one quarter, and then, as the time approaches for the Division, a more rigid ruling is imposed on Members on this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I would not think for one moment of questioning either the judgment or the justice
  1178
  of the Chair, but there are some things that, with our limited capacities, we find hard to understand. Before I finish I must give expression to this opinion: that there are many errors which have been made on the other side which, though they have been allowed to pass, are not to be considered as incapable of answer. If they are not answered now they may go abroad, and the work of the Commissioners may be made more difficult, and the understanding of the Bill, so soon, fortunately, to be made into an Act, may be impaired, and there may be a greater difficulty in administration. I desire to point out these facts to the Committee in the firm conviction that the Government will carry out the policy of this Act generously and justly, and therefore I shall support it in the Lobby.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member opposite has made a characteristic speech quite, of course, irrelevant to any serious discussion of the subject. That, I' imagine, was his object. But I would refer to one of his observations. He said he regarded as generous the concession made by the Prime Minister of three hours in order to discuss this Resolution. I am quite certain of this, that there is nobody on this side of the House but who thinks that the three hours could be worse employed if we were discussing the Welsh Bill at all. This Resolution is of extremely narrow character. We have expressed our desire to discuss special matters connected with the administration of the Bill. We have particularly put down suggestions dealing with such matters as compensation to curates. We have not been allowed to discuss those, but we have been given time to discuss this. I cannot see why we should feel the slightest gratitude. We do feel that the Government by allotting three hours to a trivial discussion has shown how contemptuous they are as to the grave interests involved by this Bill. We also feel that those Members of the House who have shown interest in Amendments, Members who sit on the other side—particularly of the Labour Benches—have very grave responsibility in not pressing that these, and not this matter, should have been the subject of discussion now.
  We are asked also to express gratitude for the generosity of the Government, under this Resolution, in the matter of commutation. We have no gratitude whatever for the commutation. We never had. It is a mere business matter to arrange, and the obligations under this Bill are to

  1179
  be discharged to those who are living incumbents of the Church. It does not make the slightest difference to the pecuniary position of the Church whether commutation is granted or not. It is no value whatever from the pecuniary point of view, and I hear, with some impatience, that we owe the slightest atom of gratitude to the Government. Let me illustrate that. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Gladstone) was anxious, if I judge by the Notice Paper, to fix a particular period in which commutation should be made. This has been always refused by the Government, and this is the kind of spirit in which this commutation has been granted, even when we are asked to admire the generosity of the Government. It is obviously a matter of the greatest importance to the Church that it should know when this money is to be paid, and that is a matter we might well have been discussing this afternoon rather than this Financial Resolution.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asked us to see how generous the terms of commutation were, because he said the Government had given directions to the actuary to take into consideration the longevity of the clergymen and the future decrease in deaths. Of course, the actuary will have to take that into consideration, and the fact that it is put in the Bill neither increases nor diminishes its duty in that matter. It would be one of the ordinary factors in the consideration of this question that when you are to make a system of commutation which depends upon the lives of a particular class of persons, you are to consider their longevity, since it is well known that, taking ministers of religion as a whole, they have a greater expectation of life than most other persons, and it is evident that one of the factors that you would have to consider is the future decrease of mortality. But it is a matter of common knowledge that it is to be considered. It is utterly foolish to suppose any advantage has been secured for the Church by the mention of these things in the Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I did not say so.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understood the hon. Member to say so. There was one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Burghs which seems to me of some importance. I am anxious to know what is the time at which the Debate closes.
  The CHAIRMAN: At 6.45.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then I want to ask this. These schemes are to be made by the county councils. Will the Commissioners be entitled to borrow in order to finance these schemes, and, if so, will this Resolution cover that? That point never occurred to me until my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Burghs spoke, and it seems a serious matter and a point upon which I would like to have some information. I have the greatest possible difficulty in seeing how these schemes are from the business point of view to be made effective unless they have the power to borrow. I have never known quite, nor do the Government know quite, what schemes they have in view. I heard something about parish nurses. If the county councils were to establish parish nurses they would have to enter into some obligation to pay salaries. They would have to have some capital out of which it would come, unless there were some power to capitalise their future expectations. And if that capitalisation is to take place is that the manner in which the Commissioners should act? I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he will look at Clause 30 he will see that "the Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, borrow such sum for carrying into effect any of the provisions of this Act." It therefore appears that they will be able to borrow, and they would in that case be entitled to be guaranteed, under this Resolution, by the Treasury for their borrowing. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He ought by this time to be fully acquainted with the details of this Bill, and he ought to be able to tell me whether I am wrong. That leads me to say this: No one could read this Bill through without perceiving—it would be a mere platitude to say so—that the Commissioners have a vast amount of responsibility in dealing with this whole question. They are the pivot upon which the whole machinery of the Bill turns. I think in the circumstances the Government have behaved with great want of frankness to the House in not telling us the names of the Commissioners. I remember very well when the Bill was first introduced the names were left blank, and we understood on the First and Second Reading of the Bill two years ago when we came to Committee, we should be told the names of the Commission. But when we came to Committee, instead of being told the

  1181
  names of the Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman brought forward an Amendment which altered the form of the Clause so that it would be unnecessary to tell us. And the main reason, if I remember rightly, was that the Bill was unlikely to be passed for two years.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. I wish to ask, Is it in order to discuss at considerable length the Clause about Commissioners when we are on the Money Resolution?
  The CHAIRMAN: That point arose at this same stage of the Money Resolution last year, and I have refreshed my memory in regard to that Debate. I allowed questions to be put, but not to be argued at any length. The hon. Member is quite right. We must not argue here the merits of this Clause, nor at any great length the question of the names of the Commissioners. I would remind the Noble Lord that in his absence the question was raised by two or three other hon. Members.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should not have referred to the matter if an answer had been given. I do not want to press it, but I am quite sure you will feel, Mr. Whitley, with us that we have not been allowed on this occasion a very large latitude to discuss this Bill, and, although I recognise we must keep within the rules of order, I am sure you would not wish to restrict us very narrowly in discussing this Bill. All I am anxious to do is to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us these names? This is the right opportunity for doing so. Here is a Financial Resolution under which Commissioners are to be paid, whose payment is to be guaranteed. Surely this is the time upon every principle of Parliamentary discussion when you are in effect guaranteeing the salaries of the Commissioners to tell us their names. I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us now. He says he will tell us on Third Reading. Why not now? This is the right Parliamentary opportunity, and it is a very reasonable request. I am aware that this question was put once or twice before. I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not in his reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea give this information. He did not refer to it at all. He ignored it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to treat hon. Members on this side with discourtesy. I venture to express
  1182
  the strong view that now is the proper time to tell us the names of these Commissioners, unless there is, indeed, something of which the Government is ashamed.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "principal and" ["such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest"].
  I move this Amendment because I do not quite see why it is necessary that the National Debt Commissioners should guarantee the payment of the principal as well as interest. I do not want to allude to the question of the names of the Commissioners, but they will have control of the whole of this money. One of them is to be a Churchman and one is to be a Member of Parliament; we are not told that any of them is to have financial ability, and the Committee will recognise that merely because a man is a Member of Parliament or a member of the Church of England, that does not prove he has financial ability. The right hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that Consols are not guaranteed as to repayment of capital. There is an option to the Government by giving a year's notice at any time to repay by buying at par, but there is no obligation. Consols are merely annuities, and in the old days they were called the Three per Cent. Annuities. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman departs from that principle, and I think in the circumstances, and as we do not know who these Commissioners are, it is only reasonable that the same guarantee should be given for this particular sum of money to be borrowed as is given to Consols at the present moment. There is a further reason, and it is this: As I understand it, unless some Amendment of this sort is put into the Resolution it would be in the power of the Commissioners to borrow money for a certain time, repayable out of the Consolidated Fund. Of course, I do not want to go into the whole Bill, but I understand that the real security for this is not the taxpayer, but the property of the Welsh Church. If the Commissioners were able to repay their debt out of the Consolidated Fund, we have no guarantee that they would be careful over the administration of the corpus of the estate. We know they may sell it for museums or for nurses, as the Noble Lord has said, or for some other object. Therefore I think it is necessary that some sort of limitation should be put in. An hon. Gentleman opposite asked me why I did not move a limiting Amendment, and my reason is because I want

  1183
  hon. Members who are rather specially interested in this question to give their views to the Committee; and, secondly, because of the very meagre information given by the Home Secretary, it would be quite impossible to put in a limiting Resolution which would in any kind of way be efficacious. Therefore I would content myself by moving this Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: The analogy of Consols has no application to the present case, because the Treasury will not be the borrowers. The Commissioners will be the borrowers, and will borrow entirely on the security of the estates of the Church. The whole point is to enable the Commissioners to borrow as cheaply as possible, in order that the commutation moneys may be had on the best terms possible for the Church. If the limitation the hon. Baronet now proposes were accepted by the Committee, the effect would be that the Commissioners could not borrow as cheaply, with a result that would be highly detrimental to the interests of the Church.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the credit of the country is so bad that unless the borrower knows he is going to repay the money within a short time he will not get the money?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the hon. Baronet knows, the borrower can always borrow on better terms if you undertake to repay
  the capital as well as pay the interest. The hon. Baronet knows that as well as I do. If he only borrowed on the Treasury guarantee for interest the borrower would not have as good security as he would have if there were a Treasury guarantee for the repayment of capital.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, if he means that a loan repayable within a short time will probably be secured on better terms, but if he means that nobody would lend on the security of the Consolidated Fund—
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say they would not lend, but that they would not lend on such good terms. You would have to pay a higher rate of interest if you only had a Treasury guarantee for the payment of interest than you would if you also had a Treasury guarantee for the repayment of capital. That is obviously the fact.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I would ask the Home Secretary to answer the question I put to him. I particularly want to know if the Commissioners, when estimating the basis of life interest—
  The CHAIRMAN: Until we have disposed of the Amendment we cannot deal with that question.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES.

  [6.48 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Adamson, William

  Brockiehurst, W. B.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  De Forest, Baron

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dillon, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Doris, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duffy, William J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Barton, William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Falconer, James

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Field, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Cullinan, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hackett, John

  Martin, Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hancock, John George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowlands, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, Michael

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sheehy, David

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shortt, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morrell, Philip

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Morison, Hector

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, Philip

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Sutherland, John E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Hinds, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hodge, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Shee, James John

  Webb, H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Outhwaite, R. L

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kelly, Edward

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  King, Joseph

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Reddy, Michael

  McGhee, Richard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  Rendall, Atherstan

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Blair, Reginald

  1186

  1187

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Burn, Colonel C. F.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James F.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rolieston, Sir John

  Cassel, Felix

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Royds, Edmund

  Cator, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cecil, Lord (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Merylebone, W.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Keswick, Henry

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Croft, H. P.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Currie, George W.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

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

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Winterton, Earl

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Grant, James Augustus

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

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

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Younger, Sir George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banbury and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th May, to bring the proceedings on the Committee stage of the Resolution to a conclusion.
  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES.

  [6.59 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Arnold, Sydney

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Adamson, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barnes, George N.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mooney, John J.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hancock, John George

  Morrell, Philip

  Barton, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morison, Hector

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Muldoon, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayward, Evan

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nuttall, Harry

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Malley, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Shee, James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Clough, William

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Wiliam S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pratt, J. W.

  Crooks, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Cullinan, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  King, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  De Forest, Baron

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dillon, John

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Doris, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roch, Walter W. (Pembroke)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Maclean, Donald

  Roche, Augustine (Loth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Rowlands, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Falconer, James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

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

  Field, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sheehy, David

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Shortt, Edward

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Martin, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Goldstone, Frank

  Middlebrook, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sutherland John E.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Molloy, Michael

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  1190

  1191

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Webb, H.

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

  Thomas, James Henry

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Thorne, G. Rt. (Wolverhampton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wardie, George J.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gulland and Mr. W. Jones.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newdegale, F. A.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim. Mid)

  Bentinck, Lord H Cavendish-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon W. G. A.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boyton, James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Burdett-Coutts, W

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

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Butcher, John George

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cassel, Felix

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Cator, John

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Keswick, Henry

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Swift, Rigby

  Croft, H. P.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Currie, George W.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duncannon, Viscount

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macmaster, Donald J.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

  1192

  1193

  Watson, Hon. W.

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

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

  Younger, Sir George

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Bill to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN, proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th May, to put the Question, "That the Chairman
  do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES.

  [7.12 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Hinds, John

  Adamson, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hodge, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  De Forest, Baron

  Hogge, James Myles

  Alden, Percy

  Delany, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Armitage, Robert

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dillon, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Barnes, George N.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Barton, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Falconer, James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bentham, G. J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Field, William

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gill, A. H.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glanville, Harold James

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lundon, Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Greig, Colonel James Wilson

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  McGhee, Richard

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gwynn, Stephen Luclus (Galway)

  Maclean, Donald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hackett, John

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hancock, John George

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

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Martin, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cullinan, John

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Herbert General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Pratt, J. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Molloy, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morison, Hector

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Reddy, Michaed

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Neilson, Francis

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Webb, H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Shortt, Edward

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pirie, Duncan V.-

  Sutherland, John E.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  NOES.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gardner, Ernest

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Cator, John

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cave, George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Grant, J. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Gretton, John

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Croft, Henry Page

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Currie, George W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bird, Alfred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Blair, Reginald

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hibbert Sir Henry F.

  Boyton, James

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Butcher, J. G.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  1196

  1197

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Nield, Herbert

  Swift, Rigby

  Keswick, Henry

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Knight, Captain E. A.

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Touche, George Alexander

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Butler, (Shrewsbury)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

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

  Randies, Sir John S.

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Watson, Hon. W.

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Winterton, Earl

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sandys, G. J.

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

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

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Sanders and Captain Gilmour.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read a third time to-morrow.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It is a pleasing task to present to the House a Bill for the Imperial naturalisation of British nationality. It is an agreed Bill between the British Government and all the Dominions, and it is a final and welcome solution of a problem which for thirteen years has caused doubt, difficulty, and discussion, and which seemed insoluble, but it has been happily, although rather tardily, solved by good sense and good feeling on all sides. This matter was discussed by an Inter-departmental Committee in the year 1901, which made certain recommendations and suggestions that came before the Imperial Conference in 1907. In consequence of the criticisms made there, another Committee was set up in 1908, which produced a draft Bill which was sent out to and criticised by the Dominions, and reconsidered by the
  1198
  last Imperial Conference in 1911. At that conference certain general propositions were agreed to, and before the members of the conference had left the country a draft Bill prepared here was submitted to some of them. The whole Bill has been referred to and carefully considered by all of them. I can assure the House there has not been delay or disinclination on the subject here, but every time any amendment was suggested it meant a fresh reference of a new draft Bill to every one of the Dominions, which had to be considered by them, and the result is that the final stage was only reached late last year, and then we reached a unanimous agreement.
  It has been an absurd and intolerable situation in relation to naturalisation which we have undergone for many years, and the only wonder is why anybody tolerated it so long. British naturalisation has been valid throughout the Dominions, indeed, throughout the world, but Dominion naturalisation has only been valid in that Dominion in which it happens to be granted. An alien naturalised in Australia became an alien again the moment he crossed to New Zealand. A man who had become a British subject in Cape Colony before the Union, found himself a foreigner and alien when he went to the Transvaal even after its annexation. An

  1199
  American who has settled and got himself naturalised in Canada was Canadian if he went back to America, but American if he came to Europe; he was a Britisher nowhere. I am happy to say that this Bill cures all that. It is important it should be noticed here, and more important that it should be noticed elsewhere, that there is in the Bill no interference with the autonomous legislative rights of the Dominions. Clause 9 makes that point perfectly clear. It is, in fact, an enabling adoptive Bill dealing with naturalisation, and it is designed to afford convenience to the Dominions without compulsion. The Bill is founded on five conclusions of the Imperial Conference of 1911, and I am quite sure the House is willing that I may read them.
  "(1.) Imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, each Dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its Legislature thinks fit.
  (2.) The Mother Country finds it necessary to maintain five years as the qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the Dominions as well as to her, but five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom.
  (3.) The grant of Imperial nationality is in every case discretionary, and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months.
  (4.) The Imperial Act should be so framed as to enable each sell-governing Dominion to adopt it.
  (5.) Nothing now proposed would affect the validity and effectiveness of local laws regulating immigration or the like, or differentiating between classes of British subjects."
  A good deal of misunderstanding has existed in the past, owing to the diversity of the method, time, and qualification. An attempt to co-ordinate all these difficulties failed at first. There was a mistaken idea that similarity of result could only be attained by uniformity of treatment, but as soon as that fallacy was exploded a settlement became comparatively easy. The qualifying period for naturalisation differs very much in different parts of the Empire. It is five years in the United Kingdom, it is three years in Canada, and two years in Australia and South Africa. It need not exceed twenty-four hours in New Zealand. I think it will be clear to the House that there are obvious objections to reducing the British period of naturalisation—objections owing to our contiguity to the Continent, and the easy access of people from there, the establishment of old age pensions and national insurance which offer attractions to aliens from neighbouring States. But, indeed, it is not necessary to assimilate the time. An American, or indeed any alien, may become a Canadian subject in three years,
  1200
  and after two years more he may become a British Imperial subject by the certificate of the Canadian Government. It is only necessary that he should reside during the last twelve months of that time in Canada. The five years qualifying period for British nationality under this Bill may be made up anywhere, within the British Empire, so long as the last twelve months are spent in the place where naturalisation is sought and granted. The old Declaration sought from a man on naturalisation, was that he intended to reside in the United Kingdom. The new Declaration will be that he intends to reside within the British Empire. This Act applies to all Crown Colonies, and residence there will be as effective as residence in the Dominions or in the United Kingdom for naturalisation. But in the Crown Colonies naturalisation will be effected by the Governor of that Colony, and subject to his discretion and the discretion of the Secretary of State as well. In the past there has been some fear on the part of the Dominions that British or Imperial naturalisation might give rights of entry to people who, under their laws, are excluded immigrants. But it was quite obvious when the matter was discussed and considered that naturalisation could not and would not give rights which are withheld by law from native-born British subjects. There is no derogation in the Bill from the autonomous legislative rights of the Dominions as to the exclusion of any class of individual whatever their nationality, and all these are saved by Clause 26 of the Bill. These legislative rights of the Dominions are rather extended, because this Bill enables a Dominion Parliament to legislate on matters operating beyond the frontier of their own territories. Part I. and Part III. of the Bill codify the existing laws of British nationality, and apply universally with the saving that I have mentioned for Dominion legislation.
  Part II., which deals with Imperial naturalisation, has no effect in a Dominion unless and until it has been adopted by that Dominion. We know as a fact that they are all prepared to adopt it, and a Bill for this purpose is actually before the Canadian Legislature. The Bill, as I have presented it to the House, is long is longer than it would otherwise have been, but I deliberately take the responsibility of that in order to avoid the vice of legislation by reference. I hope later that may be counted to me as a virtue, and I trust

  1201
  I shall not suffer for it during the Committee stage or the Report stage. This Bill will really form a Consolidation Act of nationality and naturalisation. I believe it will be a complete and a convenient code for use throughout the Empire. I hope that the House will be prepared to give a Second Heading to this Bill in the short time we have at our disposal to-night, in order that it may go to a Committee upstairs, where the details can be thoroughly discussed. Of course, it can be rediscussed afterwards in this House, both on Report and on the Third Reading, if that be necessary. I am sure that any delay which might endanger the passage of this Bill would be undesirable when it is so greatly desired by the Dominions beyond the seas. After years of futile fumbling we have been able to obtain an agreed plan. All the problems which seemed so difficult have turned out to be comparatively simple, and under this Bill they are solved. When the Bill passes to the Statute Book we shall have secured that much desired affirmation—that a British subject anywhere is a British subject everywhere.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I rise to support this Bill and to express the hope that it will pass through all its stages without difficulty. It was inevitable that in an Empire such as ours, where each component part was given independence of legislation and autonomy, that the complications which have been experienced for a great many years and for generations will arise. I think I am right in characterising this measure, not as a Bill of this Government, because it is the Bill of the Empire as a whole. It is more a Bill of the Overseas Dominions than it is a Bill of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, although they have made it hard to co-ordinate the different opinions and views of the Overseas Dominions into this Bill, It has been a very difficult task indeed, and I congratulate the Overseas Dominions just as much as the Government on having produced a Bill which I believe will stand the test of criticism. I will give one or two illustrations of the extraordinary anomaly existing which I think will convey to those who are not familiar with the whole of the difficulties attaching to British subjects throughout the Empire the real state of things, and they will see that those difficulties are very real and very absurd. For instance, there was lately a Minister of the Dominion of Canada born in the United States.
  1202
  He was to be summoned to a Defence Conference in London. If he had arrived here as a member of that Conference, or a member of the Imperial Defence Committee, he would have arrived as an American and not as a British subject. I do not know that anything could have been done to prevent him from sitting on that Defence Committee, but one thing is certain. Suppose the Colonial Secretary had thought well to advise the Government to make that Gentleman a peer after he had performed his duty on the Defence Committee, he would not have been able to confer that honour because he was an alien, and a citizen of the United States.
  There is the case of a most distinguished public servant who has performed very large duties indeed for the Empire, and who, I believe, would be made a peer tomorrow were it not for the fact that, in spite of all the years he has spent in helping to build up the industries and transport of one of our oldest Dominions, he could not be made a peer, because, although he is a British subject in the Dominion, he is not a British subject in this country. The thing is absurd and anomalous. The right hon. Gentleman has this satisfaction, and so has this House, of knowing that this result has been achieved without this country departing in the least from its own position regarding naturalisation. That, I believe, to be a triumph of diplomacy. I do not want to assign credit in this matter, but it is certain that for this country to have retained its own naturalisation laws unimpaired, and at the same time to have secured complete British naturalisation to any citizen of the Overseas Dominions who qualifies is a great achievement. I am not speaking of this thing as a triumph of government, but I am speaking of it as one of the most living products of the larger affection that is growing year by year between the Overseas Dominions and this country. It is a product of naturalisation that did not exist twenty years ago, nor ten years ago in the same sense, and that it has been achieved must be a satisfaction to the whole country and to this House. Not one of the Overseas Dominions will find it necessary to alter its own naturalisation laws under this Bill. Its own laws will remain, but they are given extra territorial legislative powers, and they are going to be able to legislate for those who have already acquired naturalisation n their own Dominion to become by

  1203
  further residence of one last year in that Dominion, a subject of the British Crown throughout the Empire and throughout the whole world. That strikes me as being a very desirable thing if the Empire is going to have any inherent power and is to give any definite rights to its citizens. For the first time these definite rights are given as an act of the Imperial legislature to every subject in the Empire. There is the difference that this Bill does not give the rights of citizenship in any portion of the Empire It would be a mistake to suppose that if this Bill had been law before it would have altered the position of those Labour leaders who were deported from South Africa. Their position would be exactly the same so far as South Africa is concerned.
  Mr. BOOTH: And the Indians?
  Sir G. PARKER: Yes, so far as the Indians or anybody else are concerned. Citizenship must be acquired in each individual country within the Empire, according to the laws of that individual country, and that is not changed. We have in this Bill achieved a position for the British subject which the Colonial Secretary described so well when he said that a man who is a British subject anywhere will be a British subject everywhere throughout the world. Hitherto a localised British subject, if he were in difficulties in a foreign country, had no right to appeal to the British Minister or the British Consul for protection. That is a very serious thing. It is, of course, the fact that that protection was invariably given to the British subject, but it was given to the Colonial or the Dominion subject or citizen, though it was given as a courtesy and not as a right. There are hon. Members in this House who know the full significance of the protection of which I have spoken. For instance, in Canada there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who come in every year. Up to this moment they have been citizens of Canada. I have heard at public meetings in this country and at meetings in Canada the most bitter complaint of the fact that to be a citizen under the British flag, the Dominion of Canada gives them no rights to speak of themselves as British citizens. It is high time that we came to some agreement, and this agreement reflects considerable credit on all concerned. I trust that no obstruction of any kind will be offered to this Bill, because every Clause in it has been the
  1204
  product of negotiation, consideration, and accommodation between this country and the Overseas Dominions, and I appeal to this House the more especially because this House and this Government give away nothing whatever. It is the Overseas Dominions which in their great difficulty have expressed their willingness to adapt themselves to this truly Imperial law, the only one which exists in the truest Imperial sense, because the Copyright Act, which is an example of Imperial legislation, is still not Imperial in the sense that this Bill is. It is an unfeigned pleasure to me to have been for many years assisting to fight this cause to find this Bill brought forward with every hope of becoming law, and being a real contribution to Imperial legislation.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I have in my Constituency perhaps as many, if not more, naturalised British subjects than any other Member of the House, and they have a very keen interest in the Bill, not only because of the very valuable change enabling those who have been naturalised in the Colonies to become British subjects here on coming to this country, but also because it consolidates the whole of the laws in regard to naturalisation in this country. Speaking for myself I welcome anything which facilitates desirable people becoming citizens of this country. In my view once a person has determined to cast in his lot with this country, to settle down here, it is in the interests of the country, if he is a man of good character, that no artificial barrier should be placed between him and his becoming a full British subject. It is for that reason that I welcome the increased facilities which this would give to those who have been naturalised in the Colonies, many of whom I have seen in my Constituency, and who up to now have felt it a great grievance that in order to become British subjects here, they have to undergo the very trying ordeal, for it is a trying ordeal, of going through all the process which is required to become a naturalised British subject. I want to mention two or three points in the Bill which I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind with a view to seeing whether they cannot be dealt with upon Report. I refer particularly for the moment to Clause 2, which sets out what a person who desires naturalisation has to do, and paragraph (b) says: that he must be of good character and have an adequate knowledge of the English language. That seems an unfortunate phrase to put into an Act of

  1205
  Parliament. What is an adequate knowledge of the English language? When I went to read Clause 8 and to try to understand what the last two lines of it meant, I found that my knowledge of the English language was anything but adequate. This is quite a sample of a number of cases I have met with. A man of excellent character who had lived in my own Constituency for many years applied for naturalisation, and somehow was given to understand that he was rejected on the ground of the education test as it is called. He spoke English quite well. I gave him a piece of newspaper, and he read it. Then I dictated a very simple sentence to him. I could not make head nor tail of it, but on looking at it closely I got the clue. It was perfect phonetically. It was not good English, but any Englishman who took a little trouble could have deciphered it quite well. It is not necessary to have a severe test, as it is in many cases to-day. When the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was introducing this Bill in another place, he said the applicant must be a man of good character, and must speak the English language. That I agree with. But that is not quite the same thing as saying that he must have an adequate knowledge of the English language.
  There is perhaps an even more material point on Clause 10. This, I know, embodied the existing law:—
  "The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien."
  Speaking for myself, I think that is a very unsatisfactory position, but when I come to Clause 11 I think if something can be done to alter it, it ought to be done. Clause 11 says:—
  "A woman who, having been a British subject, has by or in consequence of her marriage become an alien, shall not, by reason only of the death of her husband, or the dissolution of her marriage, cease to be an alien."
  That means that if a woman born in this country, say, twenty-five years ago, marries an alien she becomes an alien. A year afterwards she becomes a widow and she is still an alien. The fact that she was married to an alien for one year constitutes that woman an alien for the rest of her life. Take the other case of a foreigner here at thirty years of age who marries an Englishman, She becomes an Englishwoman. She becomes a widow in
  1206
  a year, and remains an Englishwoman for life. I do not think that position can be established. I believe there is some suggestion that it has to do with the passing of property abroad, but my concern is for the very many poor women in Stepney who are not affected by property abroad, but are much more affected by the Insurance Act, and my suggestion is that it should be possible in Committee, in the ease of a woman who has simply become an alien because of her marriage to an alien, on her becoming a widow, to do what the Bill allows a child to do—
  "Any child who has so ceased to be a British subject may, within one year after attaining his majority, make a declaration that he wishes to resume British nationality, and shall thereupon again become a British subject."
  Surely you can give a woman who becomes a widow, without going through all this process of naturalisation, the right to make a declaration that she wants to resume her nationality! She will not do it if she is going to suffer by it in consequence of property abroad, but she will want to do it in view of the disadvantages which the poorer women suffer in this country through not being British subjects.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I understand that this Bill is the result of the Imperial Conference, and the minor difficulties which then existed have since been adjusted, and the present Bill is the conclusion which was arrived at from the point of view of the Mother Country and of the Imperial Dominions beyond the seas. It seems to mo that it is a fairly good Bill all round, and one which should pass. Of course, there may be some points which require modification, or perhaps further thought. In the main the Bill provides for some modification in the law which formerly existed in the United Kingdom, but it practically leaves the laws of the Dominions Overseas as they were before. The really important thing in this Bill is contained in Clauses 4 and 8, which provide means in cases of doubt and of exceptional character—in the case where the Mother Country is concerned—by which the Secretary of State may in his absolute discretion, as he thinks fit, grant a special certificate of naturalisation to any person. That gives a large power to the Secretary of State in this country, and it gives him the opportunity of correcting any disability or removing any doubt which might

  1207
  exist by the issue of a special certificate. Some provision is made in respect of the Dominions Overseas, because in Clause 8 it is expressly provided that the Government of any British Possession shall have the same power to grant a certificate of naturalisation as the Secretary of State has under this Act, so that in the case of our Dominions Overseas, wherever there is a special case in which the Government think a certificate of naturalisation should be issued, it will be issued; and the special merit of this Bill will be that, no matter whether these special certificates are issued in the United Kingdom or in the Dominions Overseas, they will remove a disability which previously unfortunately prevailed, and will prevail no longer.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I think the Bill is one which really deserves more consideration on Second Reading than we are able to give it at present. It passed the House of Lords with very slight consideration, and, I understand, even in Committee it was passed more or less pro forma, and it commits us far more than the House appreciates at present. We are in this difficulty. It has been promoted in order to meet the wishes of all our Colonies, and if when we get into Committee we ask to amend it in any details, I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, as we have had experience before, that it is a very dangerous thing to attempt in Committee to alter any details in a Bill which has obtained the assent of the representative bodies of our Dominions. For that very reason, if the Bill passes, we shall have passed an Act which it will be very difficult for us to amend. This is an Act of naturalisation, and it has been agreed to by all the Dominion Parliaments. We shall have considerable difficulty in this Parliament in altering our laws of naturalisation. I believe that consideration applies particularly to Part III. Part III. lays down the law affecting married women. I cannot believe that the law affecting the nationality of a married woman can continue to exist for many more years as it stands, and, in view of the general growth of opinion as regards the legal condition of women, it will be a very disastrous thing if we find the door shut, as I believe it will be if the Bill passes, to amendments on this particular branch of the question. I have never seen any reason why a woman should be forced against her will to become a foreigner because she marries a foreigner.
  1208
  I do not see in the least why she should not be entitled to choose which nation she belongs to, whether she is married or not. A man does not become a foreigner because he marries a foreigner, and why should a woman? This particular branch of the question has raised such serious matters for consideration that, in respect to the Old Ago Pension Act, we have had to practically abandon the principle that a woman loses her nationality because she marries a foreigner.
  Sir G. PARKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misapprehended the Bill. It is in two parts. The first deals with the Oversea Dominions, and the second part deals with this country. Our powers of legislation in this country are not in the least altered.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am very glad to have that explanation. L did not appreciate that. I was labouring under the idea that these particular proposals were to make our law in accord with the laws of the Colonies, and that we should find ourselves tied with regard to them. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Colonial Secretary with regard to this question, because, if the Bill goes into Committee, this is a point which will undoubtedly be raised. I hope it will be raised, and that, if possible, we will omit this portion of the Bill altogether, so as to leave the law as it stands without having to re-enact it. I do not wish to obstruct the Bill in any way, although I think it would have been better for the Bill, and the public generally, if we had been able to have had a thoroughly good Second Beading Debate upon it. I rose to draw attention to an important aspect of the Bill, namely, the provisions with respect to married women, and to express the hope that when this matter is dealt with in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will be open to receive Amendments on that question.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to obstruct the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dickinson) that it would have been better to have had a full day's discussion upon it in view of the important questions which are raised. I only rise to call attention to the proviso of Clause 8, Sub-section (1), which says:—
  "Provided that, in any British Possession other than British India and a Dominion specified in the First Schedule to this Act, the powers of the Government, of the Possession under this

  1209
  Section shall be exercised by the Governor or a person acting under his authority, but shall be subject in each case to the approval of the Secretary of State, and any certificate proposed to be granted shall be submitted to him for his approval."
  That Sub-section gives the Secretary of State in the last resort the right to administer the Act in British Possessions. I think it should also apply to British Protectorates. As the Sub-section now stands the British East Africa Protectorate, and Northern and Southern Rhodesia, would not be affected at all by the Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration whether the words "and Protectorates" could be inserted after the words "British Possession."
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I do not wish to say many words on the Bill. It deals, no doubt, with many matters of detail which will be proper for consideration in the Standing Committee. I am not afraid, like the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dickinson), that the criticism of these details will run counter to any of the objects which the Dominions have in view in regard to the main provisions of the Bill, which I take to be included in Part II. These matters were discussed at a conference attended by representatives of the Colonies, and I think the details which have been referred to can be discussed freely and satisfactorily without injuring the feelings of the Dominions. The really essential principle of the Bill is that it provides uniform nationality all over the Dominions of the Crown, and that it does not make the acquisition of that nationality possible to be obtained on easier terms. I understand that it will be possible to acquire British nationality all over the Dominions of the Crown under the same conditions as it can be acquired here. That strikes me as a great and valuable feature of the Bill. It is not right that a man should be incapable of acquiring British citizenship in the Dominions beyond the sea, and I hope that will be rectified, and that the details of the Bill will receive full consideration upstairs.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I have no desire to opposite the Second Reading of the Bill. I desire to associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) with respect to the Clauses dealing with the status of women. I think those who know the conditions of East London—and I think the same applies to some ex-
  1210
  tent in seaport towns—know that women often marry aliens without being aware that they are aliens at all. It sometimes happens that aliens are on the register as electors, and the wife of an alien has no idea when marrying that she is losing her British nationality. That is a very great injustice, not deliberately inflicted, I am sure, but arising out of the existing law. I think we should not allow the existing law to be re-enacted without modification. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will be able to redress that very great grievance which at present attaches to those cases, and that women will be allowed in future to exercise some option on marriage when they marry an alien, so that they shall not be treated as though they were semi-servile beings passing into the power of their husbands. I think a woman should have the right of having her personality recognised by law, and that she should have an equal right with a man of retaining her status. While that applies strongly in the case of married women, it applies far more strongly in the case of the widows of aliens. I hope that in this respect the Bill may be amended.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that between now and the Committee stage, and during the Committee stage, I will carefully consider this point, which is dealt with in Clauses 10 and 11, with the view, if possible, of meeting the objections. I cannot say positively now that I will be able to meet the point raised by my hon. Friends. I can make no promise at present, for I must consider the matter carefully. We must not interfere with the existing legislation of the Dominions. I cannot do better at present than say that I will carefully consider the point.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think after that declaration by the Colonial Secretary some of us will be reluctant to see the Bill going through the Second Reading stage in so short a time. I would make one further appeal to my right hon. Friend, and that is, that as far as possible the Committee should be allowed a free hand to follow its own convictions upon this matter. I cannot see for myself that there can be any party point in the Bill. I therefore hope that unless my right hon. Friend is able to hit upon some solution to meet all views, he will allow the Committee to express its views fairly and freely upon this question. I would press further that this should apply to the Report stage of the

  1211
  Bill as well. I think it would be very unfortunate if a small vote in Committee were to decide some of the questions which will be raised. In Committee only twenty Members are required for a quorum, but there have been cases recently of Committee after Committee breaking up because there was not a quorum. As the Session goes on there will be greater difficulty in getting a quorum. If only twenty-one or twenty-two Members came in to make up the necessary number, it would be unfortunate if the decisions of such-and-such small Committee were to bind this House. I feel exceedingly strongly upon the sex question. I am in favour of downright equality. I regard Clauses 10 and 11 as a piece of utter hypocrisy. Suppose the case of two people in the City of London who are of independent means and one is a British woman who marries an alien. She is treated as of no account whatever, and immediately she becomes an alien, although she may be on the register and able to vote for local purposes. She loses her vote, and if her husband dies, she cannot get back on to the register, although she is a ratepayer. Those who can conceive and defend an idea of that kind are hopelessly behind the times, and they are voicing the conditions of an Eastern harem. I am amazed that anyone should have the cool audacity to put such Clauses in the Bill. It is perpetuating the idea that woman is the slave and the chattel of a man as soon as she is married to him. I cannot think that, with the great ability and well-known tact of my right hon. Friend, it will be beyond his power to make a vast improvement in the Bill. Accepting his statement in good faith, I withdraw my opposition at the present time.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: This Bill represents the remains of a Bill which was introduced last year. It is a truncated Bill and only deals with one of the sub-
  1212
  jects which were in the Bill last year, namely, the granting of certificates of competency as masters or mates. In the Debate last year the late President of the Board of Trade made a distinct promise that in the Bill to be introduced this year there would be provisions dealing with other matters. Speaking on 16th July last year, he said:—
  "The Merchant Shipping Bill was introduced, and undoubtedly next Session such a Bill will have to be introduced for several purposes. I certainly propose to include some provisions as to the number of mates and engineers required in foreign-going ships"
  This Bill has nothing whatever in it in relation to this important question, namely, the officering of foreign-going merchant vessels. It has nothing in it with reference to the officering of home-trade cargo vessels, another matter which was included in the Bill of last year. As regards the granting of certificates of competency as masters or mates, this Bill deals with the authority of the Board of Trade over the examiners. This class of officer under the Board of Trade is made up of men who have served very many years in the mercantile marine before they enter the Civil Service at all, and they are men who must have commanded a ship for one year on foreign service. They must also be in possession of an extra-certificate, which is the highest possible certificate that can be obtained in navigation. And yet we find that these men in a great many cases are at present paid only the miserable salary of £200 a year, rising in most cases to a maximum of £300. The greatest salary throughout the United Kingdom is only £400.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR.
  Mr. BIRD: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when it is urgently necessary for the Government to make such provision as will avoid the danger of starvation and enforced capitulation should war unfortunately occur."
  In moving this Resolution, I may point out that a century has elapsed since Great Britain was threatened with an invasion, and, in fact, its very existence was threatened by a foreign Power. Within those

  1213
  hundred years former conditions have entirely changed, and new perils have arisen from which our ancestors were exempted. Whatever immunity from invasion our insular position confers is to an extent counterbalanced by the fact that we are compelled to import 60 per cent. of our food supplies owing to our vastly increased population. Formerly we grew all the food, or nearly all the food, which we needed. In 1903 a Commission on Food and Raw Material Supplies in Time of War was appointed by Mr. Balfour, of which His Majesty the King was a member. Its Report was issued in 1905, and it is a most businesslike Report, in all respects worthy of the able men whose signature it bears, most of whom I am happy to say are still serving their country, among them my right hon. Friend the Member for the Wimbledon Division of Surrey (Mr. Chaplin), who desired me to say how sorry he was that a long-standing engagement would prevent him taking part in this Debate to-night. Notwithstanding the gravity and urgency of some of the recommendations of this Report, no action whatever upon it has been taken, so far as I can learn, by the present Government, who assumed office shortly after this Report was issued. Surely, one of the first duties of every Government is to take such precautions as human foresight can suggest to provide a supply of food for the people in time of war. This duty the present Government has entirely neglected to perform during its nine years of Ministerial inaction, except, of course, for the gradual increase of the Navy, and the relative proportion of our food raised in these Islands has diminished, while the risk of our food supply from abroad being cut out or interfered with has more than doubled. From figures which I propose to lay before this House I think that I can show that this Motion is of infinitely greater consequence to the industrial classes than to any other section of the community. It is they who will feel most bitterly the pinch of want in war time. Before even the capture of a single ship by a hostile Navy, the very threat of war would send up the price of bread almost to famine level. Therefore, I appeal for support to hon. Members below the Gang-way opposite, who claim specially to represent labour, and for these reasons:—
  Great Britain occupies a unique position in regard to its dependence on food from abroad. This will be seen from the following figures, comparing the imports of
  1214
  wheat of Great Britain, Germany, and France with the population. Taking the years from 1908 to 1912, we find that in a population of 45,000,000 the average yearly import of wheat into this country has been no less than 150,000,000 cwts. In the case of Germany, with a population of 65,000,000, the imports of wheat per annum were 46,000,000 cwts. And in the case of France, with a population of 39,000,000, the yearly import of wheat was 14,000,000 cwts. If we examine these figures, we find that Germany, with a population half as large again as ours, imports two and a half times less wheat from abroad than we do. The total value of the agricultural produce, including sugar, imported into the United Kingdom in 1913 was close upon £250,000,000. This is an increase of £45,000,000 within the last decade. On most reliable evidence if is stated that the stock of wheat in the United Kingdom in September, which is the most favourable month of the year, represents only about sixteen weeks' supply. For the remainder of the twelve months, after this has been worked off, no more than six weeks supply can be relied upon. I think that these figures are sufficient justification for our demand that the Government should give this problem its immediate and most careful consideration. At the time that this Commission was appointed we had fleets patrolling the ocean highways in all parts of the world. In those days the incomparable supremacy of our naval forces was unchallenged. What is the position now? Owing to the calculated aggressive augmentation of fleets of other Great Powers, and one in particular, our distant fleets have been recalled and concentrated in the North Sea to protect the heart of the Empire from invasion. No longer does British commerce possess that efficient protection which it formerly enjoyed, and this at a time when our commerce is nearly doubled and our dependence upon outside sources of food supply has immensely increased.
  Our rivals have discovered the weak point in our armour, hence the feverish haste with which enormous navies are being built up by the leading Powers of the world. A new factor to be considered is the amazing development of science as applied to warlike operations. Of these latest methods of destruction and annihilation we have little or mo experience. We are, however, painfully aware that, if applied successfully, the most powerful battleships in a few moments may be sent

  1215
  to the bottom of the ocean. With airships above and submarines below, to say nothing of 15-inch guns and a few torpedoes thrown in, life on a battleship whilst in action will not be without zest and excitement. If by any catastrophe we lost the control of the seas, then we are face to face with starvation or enforced capitulation within a comparatively brief period. Personally, I have confidence that in actual naval fighting we should still maintain our old supremacy. But bearing these facts in mind, we are now confronted with the problem of how to secure a reserve of wheat stored in this country, and amunting to a six months' supply, which, I believe, the greatest authorities state to be the very minimum on which we can rely.
  This is a subject upon which the Royal Commission accumulated valuable and most reliable evidence. Their Report was adverse to anything in the nature of national granaries, both on account of the enormous cost and the frequent disturbance of the ordinary course of the wheat market. The remedies suggested were many and various. Out of these practically three only were regarded as worthy of serious consideration. They were, first, the provision of storage, rent free, to the importer or farmer, or any holder of wheat. Secondly, an inducement to the farmer by way of bonus to keep his grain in the rick up till June, or, at any rate, for a longer period than at present. Thirdly, a scheme of national indemnity against loss from capture by the enemy of foodstuffs coming to these shores. There are many serious objections to the second and third alternative, but time is not sufficient for me to state them. The provision of free storage, however, has many points in its favour, both on account of its moderate cost, and, above all, that it would not interfere with the ordinary course of trade. Often, in the wheat market, profits are exceedingly fine, hence free storage is a material consideration. The Royal Commission had much testimony laid before it bearing upon the magnitude and certainty of the British market, and that large consignments of wheat might be expected to flow into this country, with free storage at the disposal of the importer. Such was the confidence felt by the directors of the Trafford Park Company at Manchester that they made a firm offer to provide grain storage for 500,000 quarters of wheat on the banks of
  1216
  the Manchester Ship Canal upon exceedingly moderate terms, the proposal being that the Government should reimburse them the amount which they otherwise would have charged. The managing director of this company, Mr. Marshall Stevens, writing under yesterday's date, states:—
  "The question as to whether the grain warehouses would be sufficiently used, if provided, has been solved by the largest cash buyer or wheat in Chicago, and another well-known large operator in wheat. These two gentlemen have offered to supply sufficient grain themselves to keep two-thirds of the storage full if they had the whole of the storage allocated to them free of warehouse rent."
  I could give the names of these gentlemen to the Government if desired. If the experiment proved a success free grain warehouses could be erected at other ports where grain arrives. So far as my knowledge goes, there is no Department of the State upon which the responsibility rests for safeguarding the food supply of the people in time of war. The only Minister I can think of sufficiently heroic to undertake that position would be the President of the Board of Trade, whose well-known energy we all admit, and whose absence I regret at this moment. Coming to my own suggestion, perhaps land upon which wheat is grown might be relieved of some of the taxes to which it is now subject as an encouragement to increase the acreage of corn-growing, or, if that were insufficient, some other inducement might be held out. We are up against a great national peril, and no academic fiscal objection must be allowed to prevent us from adopting every possible and reasonable precaution. It is also worth while considering whether it would not be possible by some small subsidy to induce British shipowners to construct a few specially powerful, if I may so call them, greyhound grain-ships, capable of accomplishing the voyage here in very-fast time. These ships should be sufficiently speedy to escape any predatory foreign merchant craft specially armed for the purpose of intercepting our wheat supply. There could be no better safeguard against panic than the announcement in war time of the arrival of another of these greyhound grain-ships.
  With regard to the countries from which we obtain our wheat supply, Canada stands out as rapidly becoming one of the most important. The ocean route to this country is the most easily protected by our fast cruisers from fear of attack. We could also rely upon the active co-operation of

  1217
  our loyal fellow subjects in the Dominion. After all, it is to the strength and efficiency of the Navy that we in these islands must look for the safeguarding of our food supplies and the protection of our general commerce. Any stores of grain we may be able to accumulate must be regarded as the means of avoiding possible panic and supplementing the temporary shortage of our supplies oversea. Looking at another aspect of the question, dwelt upon to a great extent by the Royal Commission, according to the evidence tendered to that body by Mr. B. T. Hall, Mr. G. D. Kelly, and Mr. Charles Booth, and Mr. Rowntree—men intimately acquainted with the less prosperous in the labour world—the price of foodstuffs would be doubled under the stress of a great war. It is quite possible, unless some provision were made in the matter of food supply, that 8,000,000 of the working classes of this country would be plunged into semi-starvation, or brought nearly to that stage of misery. In the meantime, it is the duty of every Member of this House to bring this matter under the consideration of his constituents. We shall also enlist the valuable aid of the Press in creating such a state of public opinion upon the urgency of the question of our food supply in time of war that the Government will be unable any longer to neglect this important subject. I beg to move.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to second the Motion.
  From the crowded condition of the benches, I cannot help feeling that the House of Commons hardly realises the importance of this subject, or the responsibility which rests upon it. No one can foretell what the result may be in the next European war in which we may unfortunately find ourselves involved. We, of course, with the courage and assurance of our race, are quite prepared to assert that no matter what may be the vicissitudes of war in its earlier stages, the final result will find neither the British Empire dismembered nor the British race disintegrated. We all dislike war. We hope it may never happen, but we cannot help agreeing with that dictum of Napoleon's, which said, that "no war can be carried on without running risks." The day may come, however, when we may find ourselves saying, in the words of Nelson, "Is the honour of the people of our country worth the risk. If so, in God's name, let us get to work."
  1218
  Owing to the complex condition of European politics, we may wake up some day and find ourselves involved in a great European war much against our wish, but surely, with such a chance before us, it is our duty in these times of peace to make such preparation to meet the dangers which we know must ensue if war comes on. Of all those dangers, I regard the question of food supply as the biggest. The moment war breaks out, and almost on the declaration of war, food prices are bound to jump up. At the present time, in what I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls prosperous times, the working classes find it extremely hard to make both ends meet, but if war should break out, and prices jump up, I cannot see how they could possibly manage. Seventeen years ago the danger, not of starvation through inability to pay the prices, but of absolute famine to our country, owing to our losing for the time being the control of the sea, was considered of such importance that in this House a Motion was moved by Sir Henry Seton-Karr, seconded by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh), and carried unanimously, and it read as follows:—
  "That in the opinion of this House, the dependence of the United Kingdom on foreign imports for the necessaries of life, and the consequences that might arise therefrom in the event of war, demand the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government."
  A Royal Commission was appointed, and reported in 1905, and I think Members of all parties were thoroughly interested in the Report. The Liberal party has been in power almost ever since, and, as far as I can gather, it has taken absolutely no steps to provide for food in time of war. My reason for saying that is an answer that was given to me by the Prime Minister on the 9th March, in reply to a question which I put to him in regard to granaries. The reply was:—
  "The Government have various aspects of the question of food supplies in time of war, including that suggested by the hon. Member, under consideration, but at present a final reply cannot be given."

  I should like to give a few reasons why price of food is bound to go up the moment war is declared. In the first place, we have a precedent for it. If we go back to the last great European war in which we were engaged, the Crimean War, we find that it is recorded that in 1853 the price of wheat was 53s. 3d., and after war with Russia was declared, in 1854, the price of wheat is recorded as 72s. 5d. Some people, of course, may say that we were fighting against a great grain-producing country. My answer to that is

  1219
  this, and I ask the House to recollect the facts, that at the time the population of the United Kingdom amounted to 27,000,000, and the total amount of wheat and flour imported amounted to less than 3,000,000 qrs. To-day our population amounts to 45,000,000, and we are importing in the neighbourhood of 28,000,000 qrs. Can it be wondered at that prices should go up if the supply is curtailed. Let me mention a few reasons why, regardless of sentiment, and regardless of precedent, we must expect the price to go up. In the first place, in case of war, the grain-growing countries might perhaps prevent the exportation of wheat. Russia prevented it in 1891 to other countries on account of the poor harvest. A country might say, if we are not in the war now we may be in it next year, and if our peasants should be called to the colours our crops will be neglected, and we will have a short supply, and it is better for us to horde up our grain. We may therefore find the difficulty that from some of the large exporting countries that grain was not allowed to be shipped.
  In the second place, freights would go up enormously. The very moment war was declared, if we were interested in it, shipowners would find out where their steamers were, and until they knew what the war insurance was going to be, they would cable their captains to lay their ships up and await instructions. Those who had tramp steamers on the ocean would endeavour to charter them for transport or coal carriers, or try to get for them cargoes that steamers belonging to belligerent Powers had been chartered to carry, but were unable. My experience, even in the Russo-Japanese war, was that freights jumped up to an extraordinary amount without what seemed to be any just reason. Then there would be the effect on owners of wheat abroad. Some of them might say, "We are not going to ship our wheat, we will wait for higher prices." Others might agree to sell, with the result that speculators would buy and hold the wheat in order to procure higher prices. Then we come to the question of insurance. To-day the insurance on wheat coming from America amounts to about three-eighths of one per cent. If war occurred, and a war insurance was put on, we might have 25 per cent., 30 per cent., or 40 per cent. insurance. During the Russo-Japanese war 25 per cent. was paid on ships sailing from America to the East,
  1220
  and that was a war where there was no very great risks. It is interesting to consider what the result would be on the price of wheat simply as the result of a war insurance. Wheat to-day in America is about 34s. a quarter. The rate of freight amounts to 1s. 9d. or 2s. per quarter. The insurance amounts to less than 2d. per quarter. Therefore you have a value of about 36s. per quarter. Adding 25 per cent. for war insurance, the price would jump immediately to 45s. That is provided we got the wheat at its present low price, and provided we got low freights—things which are both impossible in case of war.
  Again, we would have, not only the extra cost, but the great risk. It would not matter what the insurance was, if the goods were not delivered. Grain coming from South Russia would have to pass through the Dardenelles. There is no reason why the Dardenelles might not be mined, and merchant ships prevented going through. Grain coming from the East in vessels passing through the Suez Canal and traversing the Mediterranean would have a very hard time in a narrow sea like that from submarines, mines, and torpedo-boats. Grain coming across the Atlantic might be sunk or captured by merchant ships armed by foreign countries, or by explosives dropped from aeroplanes. The dangers to transportation in the next war will be greater than they have ever been. Some people may say, "We are living in a civilised age; food for the people will not be considered contraband." We need only recollect that in the Declaration of London it was agreed that foodstuffs, if going to any port which was considered a base for supplying the enemy's forces, would be contraband. I trust that there is no port in England which, in case of war, will not be defended. If it is defended, it will have to be by the armed forces of the Crown; and if the armed forces of the Crown are there, I defy anybody to say that under the Declaration of London foodstuffs coming to Great Britain would not be contraband.
  But whether they were contraband or not, it would make absolutely no difference. In the next war we are likely to see the Great Powers of Europe ranged in one camp or another; and those who are in the camp which is succeeding, those who know that they are going to conquer, will naturally say, "We must bring this war to a conclusion as quickly as we can. We believe that the best way to do it is by

  1221
  starving out the people with whom we are fighting. We know that we have signed an agreement that foodstuffs are not to be considered contraband, but we are quite willing to do what is fair; we are quite willing to go to a Prize Court after the war is over, and to pay the full price of the ship and cargo. We are quite willing to do what is right, but we are going to starve the people whom we are fighting." That is the position, as I see it, as far as the next war is concerned. I should like to quote what Prince Bismarck said regarding the taking of ships that were not carrying contraband, and that he had no power to take. I refer to the sinking by the Germans of British ships at Rouen at the time of the Franco-Prussian War, when they took and sunk them in order to prevent French gun-running up the Seine. When Prince Bismarck was spoken to about it he maintained that the measure in question, however exceptional in its nature, did not overstep the bounds of international warlike usage, because, he said:—
  "The report shows that a pressing danger was at hand, and every other means of meeting it was wanting. The case was, therefore, one of necessity, which even n time of peace may render the employment or destruction of foreign property admissible under the reservation of indemnification."
  People who would do that once will do it again. I want to speak very briefly on the question of the Royal Commission Report. As my hon. Friend has stated, it was a very strong Commission. Our present King, then the Prince of Wales, was a member. It dealt very thoroughly with the subjects brought before it, but the three matters that were discussed most of all were the provision of storage room rent free to the farmer; an inducement to the farmer by way of subsidy to keep his grain in the rick for a longer period than at present; and a scheme of national indemnity against loss from capture by the enemy of foodstuffs coming to these shores. On the first point the Commission reported:—
  "We have thought it our duty to consider whether any measure could be devised to minimise the risk of panic, and to maintain, as far as possible, a steady level of prices in time of war. It may be conceded that a large stock of grain existing within the United Kingdom would be a powerful, if not, indeed, the most powerful, or, as some may think, the only adequate means of attaining this end. The existence of larger stocks within this country might go far to allay the natural apprehension among the poorer classes that war might mean scarcity, or a serious and protracted enhancement in the price of bread. It is also, perhaps, worthy of consideration that the knowledge in foreign countries that the United Kingdom was provided, so far as food was concerned, against any sudden emergency might defeat any calculation which takes for its basis the possibility that the United Kingdom might, in face of salvation, consent to an ignominious peace."
  1222
  As I shall say a few words presently on the question of granaries, I will say nothing further on that point for the moment. The second point I should like to refer to is the inducement to farmers by way of subsidy. Surely we ought to endeavour to get more grain grown here in England. If only on account of our food supply in time of war, it would pay our country to give a bounty to get that wheat grown, and to have it at home. Thirdly, concerning the scheme of national indemnity against loss from capture by the enemy of food supplies coming to these shores. That seems to me to be very nice for the shipowner, and very nice for the man who owns the cargo; it might induce the shipper to forward his goods; but I should like to know, if anyone can tell me, what good it would do to the country to have this free insurance? What we want is to have the goods delivered here in England! That suggestion seems to me, from the standpoint of getting the food into England, simply useless. I should like now to make a suggestion—and I do so very humbly. I do so after having given the subject considerable thought, and after examination of all the authorities I can find. The hon. Member for Chester in 1897 wrote a very valuable article in the "National Review," showing the price it would be necessary to pay to get granaries erected. The easiest way of having a supply of wheat here in England would be for the Government to build granaries capable of holding 10,000,000 quarters of wheat.
  9.0 P.M.
  They should build them in the seaports: London, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Hull; in fact, all round the coast. Having built them, instead of buying the grain to put into them, they should say to the corn merchants and the farmers of England, "We will give you free storage provided you undertake to keep in store at all times three-quarters of the capacity of the granaries: if you will keep three-quarters of the capacity, which would mean 7,500,000 quarters, the Government will agree to advance you the money on it free of interest, and all that they ask is that in case of war they shall have the right to requisition that supply at the price it was when it was put in, plus a profit of, say, 5 per cent. to the corn merchants and farmers." The modern silo granaries are capable of not only cleaning and drying, but of handling this stuff as quickly as it can be handled. If we had 7,500,000

  1223
  quarters of grain at all times here in England, if, as I hope our home supply would be greater, we could feel, if war broke out, that at least for three months we were not in danger of starvation. The cost, of course, is large. Some people may say, "Oh, it is too large for the Government to undertake." According to the estimates that Mr. Yerburgh has made the cost of putting up all these granaries, of the machinery, of the arrangements for handling or cleaning, would be about £4,000,000. Working expenses, including the wages, superintendence, inspection, central administration, coal, materials, printing, etc., would be about £208,000. Depreciation, including repairs to the buildings, machinery and insurance, would amount to £195,000. The interest, taking it at 3 per cent. on the wheat, which I have taken at 36s. per quarter, would amount to £405,000. In all it would be a charge on the country of some £900,000 per year. But that would go to decrease the cost of handling the wheat hero in England, and would give us a supply here. If the Government could see their way to put out that amount of money they could very easily recoup themselves by a registration tax on foreign wheat brought into this country at 1s. per quarter. I should like, in conclusion, to say that while in peace time party politics engender bitter feelings, whilst some of us feel that the Government is destroying things that we love, that they are trying to pass legislation on noxious nostrums, that we do not think will ever pay, while the Government, on the other hand, might say that the Opposition is frustrating, or trying to frustrate, legislation which is based on heavenly inspiration, there is one thing about the people of Great Britain, and that is, that when an enemy appears all party politics are dropped. We then stand together as one man against the common foe. Surely this is the time when such a state of affairs should exist? So far as providing a food supply to our people is concerned, we should look upon it as a grave matter and one to be attended to. I hope that the House will see its way to say to the Government: "It is time for you to be doing something; do not waste any more time thinking and considering, but get to work, and let us have a food supply here for our people." If you do this, you will find behind you not one party, but the whole House of Commons as one man.
  Major GUEST: I do not think anyone, least of all one who is a soldier, can deny the vital importance of the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because it strikes at the very room of this country in time of war. A great deal of what I have listened to from the last two speakers is borne out by the Royal Commission of 1905. But I think the question divides itself rather into three different categories. If this country retains, as the Mover distinctly said he hoped it would—and, of course, we all hope it will, and think it will—control of the sea, this problem can in no sense arise. If, on the other hand, we lose control of the sea, I think that almost whatever steps we take we are bound eventually to be driven to the situation of having to capitulate to a hostile Power. We might be able to defer for some time that dreadful calamity, but although our storage system, whatever that might be, might stave off the evil day for a time, once we cease to control the seas surrounding this country I feel that eventually disaster will inevitably arise. There is the other problem, which, I think, is perhaps one that needs review. That is the problem that arises when we retain partial control of the seas, in which our Fleets are only able to neutralise force of the hostile Power. Looking at the Royal Commission Report, it seems it me that the Admiralty clearly say, "Under circumstances such as that, when we have not lost total command of the sea, it will be practically impossible to blockade the seas surrounding this country."
  It becomes then a question not of what stores of food we have in this country, but how long the stores which are here will last, and what powers there may be, or what circumstances are, by which the food supplies of this country are renewed? I think it is quite true that in the event of our being totally cut off from foreign nations, the wheat supply produced in this country is a very small and negligible quantity. It is true that in August just before the harvest the yield amounts to about seven weeks' supplies in the country. It must not be forgotten that in case of the absolute inability to bring supplies from abroad, although we might not have wheat, there are other cereals which would lengthen the period before the total supply was used up. But perhaps a more important question is a question of the industries in this country. If we could not

  1225
  get raw material, in addition to the rise in the cost of food which of course is admitted, we should be in most dreadful straits with regard to our industries. I noticed that figures were given in this Report which show that the supplies of raw material for our industries do not, in the main, exceed above six or eight months' supply. Cotton is limited to six months, wool to eight months, iron to two months, leather to nine months, and petroleum to six months.
  But I think it must be remembered when we are taking into consideration the amount of food actually in this country that we have always at sea in ships coming into these ports a large quantity of food supplies which we ought to be able to account for in time of war. We have a consistent stream of food coming in in addition to the food stuffs in this country within a week's sail of this country. That means additional supplies for something like a fortnight, or slightly more. The Admiralty view, if I may judge from the Report of the Commission, is that although the shipping will be to a certain extent in danger, they do not anticipate that anything like a very large addition to the risk of the shipping will be shown. I think they put the figures at about 5 per cent. above the normal loss as that which may be experienced in time of war, and after all, that is not a very large amount. I am prepared to think that the ship-owners in view of the increased prices which they will get for their wheat in this country will keep their ships at sea in the hopes of getting through and selling their grain at higher prices.
  With regard to the two proposals mentioned by the hon. Members opposite, the most important, I think, is the proposal of national indemnity; but it would be, of course, putting a very costly charge on this country to undertake a system of indemnity for all ships. I have not got the figures of the total shipping which carries grain at the present time, but in 1903, the latest return I have been able to get, it was estimated that something like 9,000,000 tons of cargo shipping was plying at sea, and if that was valued at £10 a ton it would amount to £90,000,000 of total cargo, so that if the Government paid a State insurance on cargo, as well as shipping, it could certainly pay on double that total value, which would amount to from £180,000,000 to £200,000,000 of shipping and cargo, which would have to be insured. That would mean that the Government
  1226
  would have to pay a rate of 1 per cent., which would amount to £2,000,000 insurance on that shipping, and I feel sure that the rate of insurance would be higher than 1 per cent. The Motion recommends this proposal of State insurance, but I think it would be very costly. I am inclined to think that the high prices which would rule in this country, although one naturally dislikes the idea or thought of food going up in price—but I believe the high prices that would rule in that emergency would in reality induce shippers to bring their grain to this country quite apart from the national indemnity suggestion. Then with regard to the plan for granaries. There is a suggestion that the Government should erect or should subsidise granaries. I think the cost that would fall upon the Government would be really prohibitive in either case. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution mentioned that in the case of merchants being induced to store their corn in Government granaries, the cost would be to this country about £4,000,000 additional expenditure, and about £1,000,000 a year in insurance.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I said £4,000,000 initial for building, but I said that £900,000 would cover the interest on that.
  Major GUEST: I beg pardon. I rather gathered the initial cost would be about £4,000,000, and that upkeep and interest and insurance would mean a very large increase per quarter in the cost when that grain did come into the market, and I am not sure that is really a good solution of the question. I honestly think the best policy to pursue is the policy advocated by the Admiralty, and that it is not the best policy to lay up stores of corn, but to have a Fleet which is sufficiently powerful and sufficiently concentrated to absolutely defeat any Fleet that may be brought against it. And if I might venture to repeat something I said about a fortnight ago, in which I think I was unintentionally misrepresented about the Mediterranean, there is a tendency rather to diffuse our shipping throughout the world, and I cannot help but thinking it is an unwise policy. I admit that in foreign seas we must maintain such ships as may be necessary, but every ship taken away for a foreign part of the world is so much more endangering the loss of a decisive battle which must be fought and on which the whole existence of this country and the food supplies of this country is dependent. These expedients, though they may be palliatives

  1227
  do not seem to be a real remedy. I am strongly of opinion that the suggestions contained in this Motion would involve the country in very large cost. The main cost this country has to bear is to maintain its position in the world, and to maintain the people of this country in sufficient food and raw material in time of war, and to see that the Fleet of this country should keep and maintain the safety of the country by winning a decisive battle against a hostile fleet, and retain absolute and entire control of the seas.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I want to suggest a line of thought to those considering these matters, which I think is too often overlooked, and which I cannot help feeling we would all do well to remember every now and then. I will endeavour to do so very briefly and without using any figures at all. Whether we consider that the danger with respect to our food supply in time of war is not a very serious matter, or whether we consider it is a matter of critical and national importance, as the Mover and Seconder of this Motion contend, whatever may be our pet remedy to which we attach the greatest importance, we must all agree that one of the most desirable, if not the most desirable, line upon which to meet this question is to endeavour to secure an increase in our food production at home. I will not trouble the House with any consideration except that of food. I may take it for granted that we should all for this and other reasons desire to substantially increase the acreage of wheat at home.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I take it for granted that we all wish to increase the wheat production of this country. In my opinion a very great mistake is made by those people who do not consider carefully the question of wheat production, and the causes that have brought about a decrease in arable cultivation in this country. In this matter some people think of nothing else but the market price of wheat, and hardly admit any other consideration, but I think I am right in saying that in order to ascertain why a balance on a profit and loss account is on the wrong side, you
  1228
  have to consider all the items in the account. I claim—and the highest authority in the country support my contention which is no new or original one—that the principal cause of the decline of arable cultivation, and consequently of wheat production, has not been the fall or uncertainty in the price of wheat, but the impossibility for the farmer to grow wheat successfully without a cleaning crop in his rotation, and the further impossibility of growing a cleaning crop on a large scale without any loss. It is more the burden of the growing of cleaning crops than the price of wheat which has been responsible for the decrease in arable cultivation. If I may assume for the moment that there is at least a justification for this opinion, which is held by many notable agriculturists, I would suggest that in considering how to meet this problem of our food supply we should attach the most careful consideration to this question of cleaning crops. I know quite well that it is possible to clean land without a root crop. But if you ask 100 farmers about the cleaning of their land, you will find ninety-nine will insist upon a root crop for the purpose. This is very largely the result of habit or custom which has grown up, and if I may put it in this way, it is due to the ultra-conservative nature of the English farmer, whatever his polities may be. I know education will do a certain amount of good, but not all that is needed.
  I do not wish to enlarge upon this point, but it suggests many possible lines. It is now some ten or twelve years ago since I first began to devote serious attention to the question of wheat supply. Very rapidly I hit upon what I consider one of the alternative methods of dealing with it, and during the whole of the intervening-years I have devoted the greater part of my time to an endeavour to establish the best industry in this country simply for that purpose. I attach even more importance to the introduction of the sugar-beet industry with the object of eliminating loss from the rotation and thereby increasing wheat production, than I do to all the employment it gives, and the production of a necessity of life at home. I sincerely believe that if this and other crops could be introduced—and they might very rapidly be introduced if a policy of official encouragement were adopted—the immediate effect would be a great increase of arable cultivation, and an inevitable increase in the production of wheat. I would

  1229
  point out to those who find some difficulty in accepting the proposals for a bounty on wheat production or wheat storage, or a still greater objection to a protective duty as a means of increasing the production at home that the question of the cleaning crop, or of the other years in the rotation, at once offers a profitable and promising field of study. I would further say, without criticising in any way the many alternative methods of dealing with this question—and I do not think to deal with it satisfactorily any one method will be anything like sufficient—that we want a policy which will be felt through a number of different channels, but of all the possibilities, whether alternative or running side by side, this, I think, is the best. There is, to begin with, a reasonable expectation that it might be very cheap; I mean cheap to the taxpayers of the country, who would have to bear the cost of any Government support that was given, whilst most of the others are very costly. It has the additional advantage of promising benefit to the country in many other ways, besides that of securing of food supply in time of war. Employment, rural population, and many other matters would all be assisted. Therefore, I think this proposal is preferable to all. I will not apologise for having introduced a rather new line of thought or for having left the line that was taken by my hon. Friend who moved and seconded this Motion. I hope to hear from the President of the Board of Agriculture that he and his colleagues not only will devote, but have devoted and are devoting attention to this aspect of the question and are endeavouring by studying the whole, rather than one item of the farmer's profit and loss account, to encourage a policy which will bring back a great acreage into arable cultivation.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has made a suggestion, but I do not think that it will solve the question brought forward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Guest), if I may say so, hit the nail on the head. You may propose what you like in the way of an indemnity or a granary, or you may make suggestions such as my hon. Friend has made, but the real question is to keep the command of the sea. If we keep command of the sea, we can keep command of our food supply. We have not got command of the sea, as we hold that we used to have it in days gone by. We have
  1230
  brought all our fleet round our coast, and we have denuded the trade routes almost altogether of cruisers. Although our people require more food, and there is more food and more raw material water borne, our defences are a great deal less than they were. What is the use of arming at all if we cannot feed our people? That is the first necessity of all. The report of the Royal Commission has shown the danger that exists, that danger has increased enormously, and it is still growing. We have no machinery for the distribution of food in this country. Supposing four ships chartered for Bristol or Liverpool, food ships or raw material ships, were put down by the enemy. You have no machinery to get food, and that food would be short. We are very short of food; we are much shorter of food than people generally make out, particularly if you have not got any machinery of distribution to carry it from one place to another. We have no machinery for distribution, and that, in my opinion, is a weak point.
  We must prepare this question of feeding our people in time of peace. You cannot possibly do it in time of war. What on earth is the use of suggesting an indemnity? That is not going to feed the people. It is only going to feed the shippers who are gallant and plucky enough to send their cargoes of grain to sea. It is no method of feeding the people in anyway whatever. The most nervous people in the whole world are the shippers. They are always running in and out of Lloyd's, and the moment they embark a cargo they get a telegram to say it has arrived. If two or three were put down, they would not ship, and up would go food to famine prices, and you would not be able to feed your people all through not thinking this out before in a time of peace, instead of leaving it to the last moment and to a time of war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite spoke about raw material. Of course, food is the most important, but raw material is almost of the same importance. Where are men to get their wages if we do not get the raw material punctually and with certainty, particularly if the price of food rises, as it undoubtedly would? The hon. Gentleman rather wishes things to remain as they are. He said, "Trust the Admiralty." That is a thing I never did in my life, and, without being egotistical, I may say that I have generally been right. Here is a glaring danger staring us all in the face. We are more

  1231
  and more dependent upon food water-borne to feed our people, and we have less defences to command that food. Less than ten years ago we had a four-Power standard, and we had Fleets on every sea. Our trade routes were adequately protected, and our naval bases were adequately protected, gunned and manned. That has all gone. What do we do now? We argue in naval defence whether we have one or two heavy battleships more than another Power. There is, therefore, this tremendous question of how you are going to feed your people in time of war. There is no organisation whatever for doing it. The Admiralty has done one thing—they have armed merchant ships. That is a very good proposal, but it does not give us anything in the nature of the security we had when we had cruisers on the trade routes. Our merchant ships will only be able to protect themselves against similar ships of the enemy. They will never be able to do anything against cruisers. Not only are our trade routes unprotected, but there is also the oil route, this new gambling experiment we have had in the Fleet. I hope I am not out of order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I am glad the Noble Lord sees that he is running near the line. His recent remarks certainly are far more suited to the Naval Estimates than to the Resolution before the House, and I do not think that we can call upon the Minister for Agriculture to reply to the remarks of the Noble Lord on the Naval question.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: With great respect, I submit it is a question of the protection of our food routes. There is only one method to secure that, and it is to have an adequate Fleet at sea. The other methods suggested are agricultural methods, but they are not practical methods. The only method is to have an adequate Fleet at sea to guard our trade routes. To feed our people now with certainty that is what is required. We certainly are not capable of doing it in the event of war. The danger has increased enormously, while the defence to meet that danger has decreased. As to the other schemes, I would like to see national granaries, because you would then have in your country so many quarters of wheat to meet the case of a sudden emergency, and it is the sudden emergency that you must be prepared for.
  1232
  You therefore get back to the point that we want more ships abroad, and that we shall have to secure the command of our trade routes, and secure it against any sudden outbreak of war.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: It is somewhat surprising that when the House of Commons is called upon to discuss a question which is apart from politics altogether, and is merely a question of national importance, we do not seem to get a very overflowing attendance of Members, at any rate, on the Government side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own side!"] If comparisons are to be made I think that it will be found that the Opposition compares not unfavourably with the Government side. I venture respectfully to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Motion on having brought this question before the House and before the country. Everybody must admit it is one of increasingly urgent importance. A Royal Commission sat on it and reported in 1905. We are now in 1914. The Noble Lord who has just spoken (Lord C. Beresford) pointed out with great truth that the crux of the question now, as then, is the subject of transport to our shores. It is almost obvious, in an island home such as ours clearly unable to provide a sufficient food supply for its ever increasing population, with a great part of the daily food coming from over the seas, with 45 per cent. of the meat consumed coming over the seas, with the present condition agriculturally—it is quite obvious that the real crux of the question is the safety of the transport which brings our daily supplies to our shores. In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1905 that is pointed out in clear and precise terms. In section 90 of their Report—I am not dealing with the Memorandum or recommendations, I am dealing with the Report of all, including His Majesty the present King—we find these words:—
  "However ample may be the sources of supply, and however anxious the country of origin may be to sell, it is obvious that the quantities which the United Kingdom will obtain and the prices which will have to be paid, must ultimately depend on the safely and sufficiency of the transport available."
  If that was true in 1905 it is still more true in 1914. But the conditions of transport have changed in those ten years. We have seen practically a revolution in them. There is the danger of explosives from above and beneath. There are wireless telegraphy, submarines, and the increased power of explosives, and all these add a

  1233
  hundred-fold to the dangers of transport. When I was a boy one used to read the stories of Jules Verne about people who dived under the sea and men who fought in the air. We looked upon him as an agreeable teller of fairy stories. But the picture of yesterday is the fact of to-day, and the dreams of now are the events of the future. Indeed, if it was dangerous to transport in 1905, and if the question was then urgently demanding the consideration of the country, it is surely still more urgently crying out for it at the present time. Therefore I welcome the Debate we have had, and I venture to think it is of great, and indeed, supreme importance, apart from the arena of party politics altogether. Let us consider for half a moment what the effect would be if there were, under existing conditions, an outbreak of war, with our present supplies of food. Here, again, I turn to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1905, and I do not think that I can improve on the words which were uttered at that time, and which, if true then, are equally true now. In paragraph 253 of the Report I find these words:—
  "But we do regard with much concern the effect of war upon prices, and especially, therefore, on the condition of the poorer classes, for they will be the first to feel the pinch, and it is on them that the strain of increased prices will chiefly fall."
  If that paragraph stood alone it would render this question one of urgent importance, and one demanding the attention of the Government. The Noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, with great truth, that the question was really, not only one of the increased price of food, but also of the contemporaneous shortage in the supply of raw material, which must of necessity affect the amount paid to the wage-earners of the country, because if you had an outbreak of war and you had difficulty in controlling the transport of food, that difficulty would be still greater in the transport of raw material, and the result of that would be to immediately affect the output of manufacturers, and consequently to affect the wages of the wage-earning classes; and then contemporaneously you would have the increase in the price of food. Here, again, I turn to the Report, and I find this question adequately and eloquently put forward in these words:—
  "The effect of war will not make itself felt only in an increase in the price of food, but the same causes will naturally operate to raise the price of imported materials for industry, and also to increase the cost of exporting manufactured articles. The British manufacturer may, therefore, have to struggle at one and the same time against increased
  1234
  cost of production and additional expenses in placing his manufactures on the foreign market, and it seems almost certain that, under these conditions, some markets must be lost."
  They go on to say that he can only meet this—
  "either by reducing his output if higher prices lead to restricted consumption, or by diminishing his expenses through a reduction in the wages of those in his employ. Obviously, either of these alternatives must press heavily upon the working man."
  So that, look at it which way you will, the persons who will suffer first and last are the working classes of the country. Surely this Government, which affects to be a democratic Government, and which has the interest of the working classes so near to its heart, must see that the time has at last arrived when this question of the food supply should, and indeed must be, taken into their immediate consideration. In 1905 this question was considered by the Royal Commission to be urgent, and they unanimously passed recommendations which they thought should be immediately undertaken. Let me read to the House what they said:—
  "Having regard to the importance of complete preparation being made in peace to provide for the exigencies of sudden war, we desire to express the hope that there will be no undue delay in taking this step, and in completing all arrangements necessary; for the effective operation of any such scheme will depend upon knowledge during the apprehension of war that it is ready to be promptly put in force."

  The Royal Commission then reported that those schemes, more particularly the schemes to which hon. Members who had spoken have already drawn the attention of the House, such as the provision of free granaries, should be given an immediate trial, that a small Departmental Committee should be at once appointed to make regulations to put the three schemes into effect, and to give them a trial in order to see whether they would meet what everybody then recognised as being an immediate danger to the whole of the country. That was in 1905. We are now in 1914. Nothing has been done; not a step has been taken. Since 1906 this Government has been in office with an adequate working majority for all their interests. One Bill after another to meet party interests has been passed, and this, a crying national necessity, has been left absolutely untouched. The time has arrived when at last the Government should see that these recommendations, already nine years old, which have the authority of perhaps the finest and most representative Royal Commission of modern times behind them, should be given a trial. Those who think that the danger is remote and that it does not press, and, therefore,

  1235
  that the Government need not take it into their immediate consideration, live in a fool's paradise.
  War nowadays is not announced, like a Government programme, for the coming week. It breaks out unexpectedly if it breaks out at all. You go to sleep one night in peace, and you wake up the next morning and find you are at war. You wake up one day and find that Tunis is involved in war, and you wake up the next day and you find there is a revolution in China. Equally suddenly do you find an outburst in the Near East and the Balkans. Is there any man in this House who does not know and believe that during the crisis in the Balkans this country was within measurable distance of being dragged into war? These things occur with dramatic suddenness. It is very difficult to make the man in the street, the ordinary man who does not take the trouble to read and understand, apprehend that the danger is immediate. There is truth in what the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said, that, if you want to avert these dangers, you must prepare for them in time of peace. When war has once broken out, it is then too late to try to make the preparations you have left unmade, for the danger is already at your door. If this question is going to be undertaken at all, now is the time for it to be undertaken. I confess, speaking not as a Member of the Opposition, but as a patriot and an Englishman, that I deplore that this question has been left untouched for nine years, despite the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I cannot understand why the time of the country has been occupied with all sorts of controversial Bills, while this question of supreme national interest has been left to await a Debate of this kind at this time in the House of Commons. If the Government really have the interests of the nation at heart, instead of those of their own party, they will see that the time to undertake this great question is now, and not in the future.
  Colonel YATE: It was laid down a minute or two ago, when the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Maclean) was in the Chair, that this was an agricultural question and that the Minister for Agriculture would answer it. It is a matter upon which I have been putting questions to the Prime Minister for the last three or four years, and he has continually replied that
  1236
  it was under the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I had hoped that to-night, when this great national and vital question was being raised, the Prime Minister would have told us what were the conclusions of the Defence Committee on the subject, and that he would have given us some assurance that the matter had not only been considered by them, but that some practical solution had been arrived at. All will acknowledge that in a case of this sort the essential thing to be considered is that should war be declared against us at any time we must be faced with a most serious rise in the price of foodstuffs. If we are suddenly confronted with a starving population, the situation might speedily get beyond our control. The starving millions will not starve quietly. We have the Poor Law organisation in this country, but that is only accustomed to deal with about 2½ per cent., and it might be stretched to deal with 5 per cent. of the population. On the outbreak of war, the Poor Law authorities might find themselves suddenly confronted with 30 per cent. of the population on their hands, and we have not the slightest organisation of any sort to deal with that large mass of people. As the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) said, we have absolutely no preparations made in this country for any distribution or organisation of any sort. The first material thing is so to arrange with the Poor Law institutions throughout the country that they should be able to take in hand the large access to the number of the population with whom they would have to deal, and that they should be so organised as to be able to expand from a peace to a war footing in the least possible time.
  I do not want to dilate on any of the questions that have been raised. We want something practical to be done. Various suggestions have been made. We have had it suggested that all food supplies in the country at the time of the outbreak of war should automatically become the property of the Government at market prices. Then there is the question of stimulating the cultivation of wheat in this country by a bonus. The details of that have no doubt been considered by the Minister for Agriculture. We have never had any consideration given to the Report of the Royal Commission on the question of the storage of grain that I know of. Granaries have been suggested, and another question that

  1237
  I brought to the notice of the Prime Minister was the question of increasing those mercantile elevators and silos which are now, I believe, working most successfully at Liverpool as a commercial undertaking. Some little encouragement might be given to increase these. If we get wheat stored in this country and at the seaports, another thing ought to be done, and that is that an Export Duty should be put on wheat offals. We want to have all the offals kept in this country and not exported abroad, as is so largely done now. We are losing greatly in the country by the export of offals, and we ought to do every to prevent it.
  Another question which has been raised is the encouragement which should be given by the Minister for Agriculture to the more scientific methods of wheat cultivation. It is shown that the Manitoban wheat fetches a higher price in our markets than home-grown wheat, and experiments have shown us that varieties of wheat can be grown which would give a higher market price. That is another suggestion which the Minister for Agriculture might see if he cannot further. Finally, of these suggestions that I am bringing to notice I should like to accentuate the fact that the municipalities and boards of guardians should draw up a scheme for distributing food in time of war. Another question that has been suggested is the Channel tunnel. I formed one of a deputation to the Prime Minister on this subject, and I supported the suggestion simply because nothing whatsoever had been done by the Government in all these years to help in any way to increase the supply of food in time of war in this country, and I supported it because it might possibly give us an extra route by which we could import food in time of great emergency. Whether that would be possible or not I cannot say, but it was on that ground that I urged it. I said our dangers had enormously increased. What with mines laid round our ports and in the Channel, we might find our fleet hemmed in at a most critical time. What with aeroplanes and submarines, and all the other dangers we have to take, we require every road by which we can possibly get food, and for that reason I advocate the Channel tunnel. The Minister for Agriculture, I hope, will give the whole question his consideration. It is a vital matter for the nation. It is under the consideration of the Defence Committee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman
  1238
  has the authority of the Defence Committees to speak on the subject, and to tell us exactly what is going to be done, and that without any delay, while we still have peace.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEE: We are all very pleased that the Minister for Agriculture should be sufficiently restored to health to take part in our Debate, but I must demur altogether from the suggestion that this matter is merely a departmental one with which he is solely concerned, and that it is not one of the greatest matters which could possibly be brought before the House of Commons. This question of our food supply in time of war was referred to by the Royal Commission, which was personally one of the strongest which has ever been got together in this country. At the opening of its report it says:—
  "We consider that it is a subject—the right solution of which involves literally the life or death of at least half of our population?"
  In the event of even a temporary stoppage of our food supplies in time of war, it is at least as important as any with which the House of Commons has been called upon to deal in the course of the present Session. I think we have some cause for complaint at the way in which this Debate has been treated by the Government side of the House. An opportunity was deliberately taken by a prominent Member on the Government Benches to try to count out the House. That attempt was supported and abetted by a large number of Members of the Coalition who were actually present within the precincts of the House, and waited at the doors in the hope that the Debate might be brought to a premature end. There were Members of the Government actually present in the House who deliberately abstained from coming into the Chamber in the hope that the Debate might be burked, and, while that may be all within the Parliamentary rules, it is not creditable to the Government or its supporters that a subject of this importance should be attempted to be treated, I am glad to say, unsuccessfully, in that contemptuous and unpatriotic fashion. I make an honourable exception, of course, in the case of five Members of the coalition, who have attended throughout this Debate. They have been constantly here, and I am sure we welcome the interest which they have taken in the Motion. But what is much more important than the action of the House to-night is the

  1239
  action of the Government with regard to this matter. This question was thoroughly investigated by a Royal Commission ten years ago, and at frequent intervals since, to my own knowledge; questions have been addressed to the Government as to what steps they are taking with regard to the recommendations of the Commission, or with regard to their policy in the matter. We have always been put off with the same kind of answer—"the matter is under careful consideration," and "all due steps will be taken,"—and we have been informed two or three times in the last few years that the matter has been engaging the special attention of a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. We, of course, have been deeply interested to know that this matter is receiving consideration. We feel that we are entitled to-night to ask what is the result of these deliberations of the Government? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow was a member of the Sub-Committee in question, and I trust, and I am sure we are entitled to expect, that he will have been authorised to speak on behalf of the Government and to inform us of the conclusions which have been arrived at. But in the meantime we cannot help expressing the view that this subject has been consistently and unaccountably neglected by the Government, and whilst we know that it is one of a purely non-party character, which can bring neither votes nor political profit to one side or the other, it should not on that account be considered as unimportant by the present House of Commons.
  Whilst we have been waiting and perpetually put off by this statement extending over the whole period the Government have been in office, there is no doubt whatever, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends to-night, that the dangers referred to by the Royal Commission have been, as a matter of fact, constantly increasing. Our home supply of food has been decreasing. The amount of our imports from abroad has been increasing, and, therefore, our dependence upon foreign supply has been increasing. Meanwhile our relative naval strength has been steadily waning. That cannot be denied by the right hon. Gentleman, and if the question was urgent in 1905, it is surely much more urgent to-day, and I think we are entitled to ask the Government now to state what their policy is, as this is probably the only opportunity we
  1240
  shall have in the course of this Session. I am speaking at a disadvantage in having to precede the right hon. Gentleman who may have a great deal of importance to tell us. In the absence of any official policy adopted by the Government, I suppose it is natural for private Members of the House, who cannot have access to official knowledge of these matters, to press their own individual solutions of this problem. Personally I doubt very much whether there is any one road to a solution of this question—that is to say, any road which is really practicable under the circumstances. Of course, there is is one absolutely complete solution if it could be obtained, and that is that we should grow all the food in this country which our population would require, even in the case of a prolonged war. I am sure the Minister for Agriculture will have, at any rate, a theoretical sympathy with a policy of that description, but we all know that it is a mere counsel of perfection, because, so far from our growing a larger proportion of the food we consume, we are growing less. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not agree with this, I am sure it is an opinion which is held by many hon. Members on this side, that the actual policy of the Government is not to encourage, but to discourage the growth of agriculture in this country, and to treat the agricultural industry as an undesirable thing which ought to be persecuted by every means of oppressive taxation which can be devised even by the most ingenious and fertile of Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  If we have to reject that solution, there is the second best solution referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) and others, and that is that we should maintain our Navy at such a strength that all our trade routes over which our food supplies arrive in this country should be rendered secure against attack, but the Government have, if not in theory, at least in fact, rejected that solution, and there is no prospect, so far as I can see in the proposals made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that our trade routes would be secure in time of war. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Guest) enunciated what I thought was a most dangerous heresy, for he suggested that it was really wrong that we should attempt to retain command of the trade routes by ships operating on them. On the contrary, he suggested that we should draw all our ships back to

  1241
  Home waters in order to defeat the main fleet of an enemy. A most important thing in strategy is to defeat the main fleet of the enemy, but if our ships were collected for that purpose, our food supplies on the trade routes might be interrupted and great suffering might be caused to the population, although we were about to conduct a successful battle against the main fleet of the enemy. I protest against this solution. While it may be sound on strategic lines, it does not contribute in any way to the safety of our food supplies in time of war. I do not wish to enter into the question whether our naval strength is adequate to our needs.
  Take the specific case of the Mediterranean. It is well known that a large proportion—I am not prepared to state the exact figure, but it is something like 50 per cent.—of our food supplies come to this country via the Mediterranean. We know that at the time the Report of the Royal Commission was drawn up we maintained such an overwhelming naval superiority in-the Mediterranean that the British Fleet absolutely dominated that sea, and that our trade routes through that sea were, humanly speaking, absolutely secure. Now we know that the situation is very different to-day. We know that, so far from our having a predominant force in the Mediterranean, the Government is not proposing even to maintain a one-Power standard in that sea, and yet ail the time the proportion of food stuffs which we receive via that route is steadily increasing. It is perfectly clear that if we unhappily engaged in hostilities with the Triple Alliance, we could not count on a single ship bearing food supplies coming safely by the Mediterranean route. I do not think the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has ever been more effectively destroyed than it was by the preface to a pamphlet written by my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth. I am sure he would be too modest to quote it himself, and if he will allow me I will do so. He says:—
  "The Mediterranean—a trade artery which supplies 60 per cent. of our foodstuffs—has been evacuated. Why? In order to provide adequate defence in Home Waters for the heart of the Empire in Home Waters. To efficiently defend the heart, the arteries are left undefended. Cutting the arteries would be as fatal as a stab in the heart."
  I venture to support every word of that. I think it could not be more forcibly or better put. I quite agree with him that of course, apart from the impossibility of
  1242
  growing everything that we require for ourselves, the only effective solution is that which was laid down by the Royal Commission, and every responsible body that has considered the matter, namely, that we should retain sufficient command of the sea to guard our trade against any interference. I now come to minor solutions. They are not solutions at all; they are palliatives, but I think many of them are well worthy of consideration. There is the question of Government granaries. I do not wish to do more than just refer to it. It has been dealt with by other Members to-night. There is the solution of free storage, which was supported by my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution, and for which there is a great deal to be said.
  Then there is the other system of storage—to encourage the farmer to maintain surplus grain in the rick during the season of the year when our Home supply falls to the lowest point, and encourage him to do so by a system of bonuses, under a scheme which has been very lucidly explained, in a pamphlet, with which, no doubt, the House is familiar, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst). I will not go into that now, beyond saying that his conclusion, with which I am inclined to agree, is that a system of bonuses of that description would not cost more than £1,000,000 a year at the outside. Finally, there is the solution, which has also been referred to this evening, of a national indemnity. All those suggestions are well worthy of consideration, and, if combined, might do a great deal, in the absence of the big solution to which I have referred. But if one had to choose between them, I would, personally, be inclined to favour the last two schemes, encouraging the farmer to keep more corn stored in the rick, and a national indemnity. The former has an advantage over the free storage system that you would get the corn better distributed over the country, and avoid the whole of the very heavy initial cost of putting up free storage granaries. However, that is only a personal opinion. On the last point, that of the national indemnity, I am not suggesting that there should be a system of free national indemnity to all shippers for all goods which are on transport and which might be lost in time of war. I think that that would be an impossible system and would lead to the greatest abuse.

  1243
  But the proposal was considered very carefully by a highly qualified Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, three or four years ago. It was really a Treasury Committee, and I venture to say that it looked at the matter from the severe Treasury point of view with regard to this question, as all Treasuries used to do up to the reign of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It deprecated increased and uncertain expenditure. It also deprecated formidable burdens on the taxpayer, and no doubt it was taking the proper normal and judicial Treasury line. But it cannot be suggested for a moment that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer could make seriously any objection to a proposal of this kind on the score that it would either be expensive, or that it would throw any additional burden upon the taxpayers of this country. If the thing is good surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find the money as gladly as he has for any other of the attractive schemes which have been laid before us in other directions. I think that the question of national indemnity is of real importance, because the danger, as I apprehend, to our food supply in time of war is not so much the danger or the sense of actual loss as the apprehension on the part of the community and the shippers as to what may happen, an apprehension which leads to panic among the people, and nervousness among the ship-owners and insurance companies, with the result that the food prices and insurance rates go soaring upwards, possibly quite reasonably, but, still, they do go up. As a result, even though they may not be unreasonable, the price of food is placed beyond the reach of the poorest section of the community, and the insurance rates are put so high that they can scarcely be taken advantage of. It is true that both prices and rates may steady down later on in the course of the war, after the conditions are better understood. The real danger will come at the beginning, when the Government of the day is faced with a starving, or half-starving, population, when it is faced by panic pressure of many kinds, demanding that this and that step shall be taken, even though it be a surrender of national interests; and I do think, in view of that danger, that it might be well worth while on the part of the Government to consider a scheme of national insurance, not in the sense of
  1244
  national indemnity for all losses, but a scheme under which the Government would itself insure the shipping which was bringing our food supplies in return for payment of the premium, which would be fixed according to the zones of risk from which the shipping is coming.
  That scheme, as a matter of fact, was put forward in considerable detail by Lord Sydenham, who was a prominent Member of the Treasury Committee. It had this advantage, that, whilst the Exchequer ran a risk—I do not believe a very great risk—of having to pay heavy losses, there would, at any rate, be the certainty of the premiums coming in, and that would, at any rate, eliminate the factor of panic, which might make insurance impossible in the ordinary sense. If the panic is eliminated, then the shipping would go on, the food would come in, and I believe that would not only prevent a shortage but the rise of prices to a very considerable extent. That, I am aware, is a highly technical question, and one with which I am not competent to deal in a commercial sense. But I have read very carefully the Report of this Committee, and I shall be very glad to know whether the Government have any views with regard to this particular matter. Whatever views we may hold with regard to the proper solution of this question, it is quite clear, and it is becoming increasingly urgent, that something has got to be done.
  The peril, as I said just now, is increasing. The amount of food which we grow at home is not only decreasing but is bound to decrease rapidly in the near future on account of the new land policy of the Government. I do not want to attack that land policy, but no one knows better than the President of the Board of Agriculture that it is leading to more and more arable land going out of commission, and more and more land being laid down to grass. It is bound to have that effect. I have already referred to our relative waning naval strength. I trust the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us what is the Government's solution, for, after all, so long as the Government is in office, that is the only thing of great importance in this discussion. The Committee of Imperial Defence has been sitting for a long time, and we want to know the conclusions at which it has arrived, or, at any rate, what action the Government are going to take upon those conclusions. It is ten years since the Royal Commission reported. Surely ten

  1245
  years is too long a time for a Government to make up its mind! And I put this demand before the right hon. Gentleman in no party spirit whatsoever. I am perfectly certain that if the Government will produce any practicable solution it will be supported in every quarter of the House—just as much on this side as on the benches behind it. But I do think we are entitled to demand that this grave question, which, as I say, affects the lives of a very large section of our population in the event of war, is one which has got to be faced and met without any further delay.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in one point, even if not on many others, namely, that it is impossible to deal with this great question by any one single solution. It is far too large and complex for any Government or any succession of Governments, to devise one single scheme which will at once free us from the whole of the perils by which we must constantly be faced in time of war while we are dependent on distant parts of the world for providing us with our food supply. The peril with which England is faced is not English only, it is one common to all the Northern European Powers.
  Mr. LEE: Not to the same extent.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. It is a peril which is faced by all the Northern European Powers. It is impossible to quote any one Northern European Power which would not be starved if its oversea supplies were completely stopped.
  Mr. HUNT: It is not true.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Neither France, Holland, Belgium, nor Germany could feed themselves, nor could the Continent feed them if their food supplies were stopped. That is just as well known to German, French, and Dutch strategists as it is well known to us, The difference between the Northern Continental Powers and ourselves is that our peril is greater; and that is the reason why our means of defence are so much greater than theirs. In the main the question centres round the strength of the Navy. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth that if we are unable to keep open our means of communication all the other palliatives will obviously fail. But when it is suggested
  1246
  that we, the present Government, have actually weakened our Naval strength, I fear that I cannot agree wth him. This is not the occasion on which we can embark on a discussion of the comparative strength of the cruisers of the battle fleets of the Great Powers, but I would certainly, and with confidence, say this, that there never was a time when our trade routes, our main trade routes, were less likely to be menaced on the West of our Island than at the present moment. The concentration of naval supremacy in Northern Europe has undoubtedly freed us many parts of the world from hostile perils with which we were formerly faced. When it is suggested, not only that we have weakened the cruiser supremacy which formerly was ours, but that actually within our own shores we have done something to reduce the output of our farmers, and that British agriculture has been injured by the present Government in the last few years and that the fall in the crops of wheat was entirely to be laid at our doors, there I am afraid I cannot agree with any of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Whatever may be the reason for the fall in the output of wheat in this country, it is certainly not the doing of any one Government. Indeed, I think that we may, certainly in the last few years, challenge comparison with any of our predecessors in the assistance that we have given to British farmers. A larger amount of our national resources is now distributed to their aid and a complete system of national organisation has been at work for their benefit. That is shown in almost every part of the country by the renewed and active interest taken by the farming classes in themselves, and by what has been done by county councils and colleges, and by the Board of Agriculture, which has aided all. The discussion of the problem to-night has centred mainly round the supply of wheat. I think that even the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Courthope), who made reference to the growing of sugar-beet, had in his mind all the time an increase in the output of our wheat crop. A large increase of arable land is what he mainly desired. I believe that in the great and patriotic efforts he has made for the spread of beet growing in this country he has been prompted by the desire not only to start a new industry here, but also to increase the interest of farmers in arable farming. Even on that topic I do not think the Government is likely to confess

  1247
  that it has failed more signally than its predecessors. We are the first Government that has given any assistance to beet growing in this country, and the assistance given to the organisation with which the hon. Gentleman has been connected will, I hope, prove successfully that the experiment made in Norfolk and in the Eastern counties can be followed with profit in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  In discussing our perils, such as they are, it is a mistake to centre them all round the subject of wheat. The objects of those who wish to increase our food supplies, if they were restricted to the supply of wheat, would indeed be narrow. As a matter of fact, wheat, though an essential part, is now only a comparatively small part of the diet of our people. I noticed that in some of the figures with which we were favoured earlier in the discussion attention was drawn to the small proportion of wheat grown in this country; but no reference whatever was made to the amount of meat, poultry, eggs, rabbits, game, fish, dairy produce, fruit and vegetables produced all over the United Kingdom. It may be quite true that of the total amount of wheat consumed here in one form or another only about one-fifth is grown in this country. But if the whole of these food products is taken, you will find that, certainly in value, well over one-half is grown in this country. That is a much more sanguine estimate, I imagine, than many people would be prepared to make; but I make it on the authority of one of the best statisticians in this country, whose services we have at the Board of Agriculture—Mr. Rew, the head of our Statistical Department. In a discussion which took place at the British Association, on a paper written by him some few years ago, his figures were not controverted, and I think they may now be taken as being absolutely correct. The problem we have to face is the continuance and the keeping open of our trade routes for the supply of one-half of the food of our people. The keeping open of those trade routes is purely a naval question, it is true; but there may be other means of adding to the resources on which we have to depend, or of reducing the risks by which we may be faced.
  One or two hon. Members have suggested schemes which were discussed by the Royal Commission in 1904, and
  1248
  reported upon in the following year. I notice, for instance, on looking through their report that every suggestion made here to-night was made before that Commission, and everyone was rejected. It was a strong Commission, and they heard admirable evidence from men of all shades of opinion and in every walk of life. They came to the conclusion that you could not deal with the problem by national granaries, they dismissed the idea of freeing us from risk by inducing merchants and millers to hold larger stocks; they produced great objections to the scheme for the free storage of wheat; they declared that even the last suggestion received with favour by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that farmers should be introduced to keep their grain in the rick for a longer period, may be dismissed as impracticable; and they finally came to the conclusion arrived at by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, not for the first time to-night, but throughout the whole of his public career, that our first and most essential condition of safety in the matter of food supply lies with the Navy. Everyone of these palliatives may be dismissed as impracticable or useless.
  Mr. LEE: Not the national indemnity.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only one that I have not mentioned is that of a national indemnity, and that I propose to deal with. Let me first of all deal with the proposals which have been mentioned to-night. I think the hon. Member for Plymouth referred to the question of granaries. I will not deal with all the objections to them, but state only one which, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, was sufficient to make the scheme of national granaries impracticable. That was that if the grain is to be turned over sometimes—I do not mean merely handled inside the granary itself—the Government must embark on dealing, and if it had to buy and sell wheat it will probably be the largest buyer and seller of wheat in the country. It would be impossible for the Government to embark on these great dealings without disturbing the markets, except only on one condition, and that was that they ought to buy and sell at stated intervals, which were well known beforehand, and this would merely mean from the point of view of the Exchequer, that they would have to pay not only the—
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is not quoting me quite cor-

  1249
  rectly. I distinctly stated that I was opposed to Government buying, and that what I wanted to see was advances, on behalf of the 7½ million quarters of wheat, to the farmers and corn merchants, if they would keep that amount in store all the time.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that is the second stage of the scheme for national granaries. When the Government have discarded the first, the supporters of the scheme fall back on the scheme of free storage. The hon. Member goes further than that. He would not give a bonus for this storage. It would be not only the interest on the capital involved for the total amount of insurance, but would, in fact, give full indemnity to owners against any risk or loss which they might incur for having to store in large quantities. The Royal Commission thought in the first place that that inducement would not be enough to grain merchants. I believe Mr. Bridges-Webb was strongly of opinion that that inducement would not be strong enough to owners of wheat to keep their wheat for any length of time in storage. The Royal Commission went on to say that if there were free storage provided it would merely mean that there would be diminished stocks in private hands. It is perfectly obvious and well known that if there were any space in the free stores, the private owner would not be likely to go to the expense of the storage of his wheat in private granaries; therefore you will give more accommodation in the national stores and diminish the stocks which were held in private hands.
  Finally, the Commission held the view that nothing could be done one way or another, and that the expense in regard to this scheme would be of no substantial advantage to our stocks of wheat in this country. On the question of inducing the farmers to retain some part of the wheat in their ricks it is obvious that the cost must be large. First of all, you must provide for the cost of complete inspection. It is clear you must measure the amount of grain in the rick. You must provide the farmer with interest on the value of the wheat which he is induced to retain, rather than sell and turn into hard cash. You would have to give him compensation for such losses as the loss which comes from burning or deterioration from the weather. You would have to pay him insurance, and the amount, I believe, which is estimated as the probable cost of inducing him to keep the grain in the
  1250
  rick would be at least 5s. per quarter for six months and 12s. for twelve months. Nothing less than that would be likely to induce them to do it. What I know now of the farmers leads me to say, unhesitatingly, that even at the rate of 7s. per quarter there are many farmers who would not then keep their corn when they wanted to turn it into hard cash. They would use their wheat very much as a savings bank, and turn it into cash when needed, and it would be very difficult to prevent them adopting that custom. These schemes as they were discarded by the Royal Commission leave only one for which they had a kind word to say, and that was the subject of national guarantee. A national guarantee with an insurance against all risk has always had many attractions. I believe it was Lord St. Aldwyn who said that he never could understand any shipowner being opposed to it. I think he was quite right, for any form of national guarantee undoubtedly would put money into the shipowners' pockets. I have no unkindly feelings towards shipowners, but I should hesitate to make myself responsible for any scheme that was going to pay hard cash into their hands out of the National Exchequer. I therefore look on any form of national guarantee with a very critical eye, and I think I am only doing what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester did when Chairman of a Committee that dealt with this topic. I want to see a scheme that will hold water before I should be in favour of saying a word for it. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, who presided over the Committee in 1908, came to the conclusion that none of the proposals put before him could in the first place be so devised as to avoid the Exchequer suffering. That is to say, it placed to some extent a premium on dishonesty. If dishonesty did exist amongst shipowners, here was an opening for them. They might be able by manipulating their vessels in time of war, to get the whole benefit of the protection under a national guarantee at national expense, while they might dispose of some of their most unsuitable vessels at the national expense, and during the whole of this time you would not insure for yourselves a fuller supply of raw material or foodstuffs for this country, and what the total cost would be no one could say. When the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the question he found

  1251
  that, not only was the scheme unworkable, but that it was too costly, and I believe these two grounds alone induced him and his Committee to send in an unanimous report to the Treasury against any system of national guarantee which had been placed before them. I have no knowledge whether he is still of the same frame of mind, but I have no doubt that if he looked into the question again now as he did in 1908, with the same materials as before, he would arrive at the same conclusion.
  The Government, however, have not been prepared to take a purely pedantic view, nor are they prepared to lean purely on the findings of 1908. They have now under consideration a new scheme brought before them, and it has been examined by experts and an impartial Committee. The Committee of Imperial Defence is now considering some of their findings, and they will no doubt come to a conclusion in the near future. I am not saying anything as to what the decision of the Government will be, because it is perfectly obvious that vast business transactions of this character, of a highly technical character, must not be jumped at with rashness or undue rapidity, but must be carefully examined from the point of view of the Exchequer, and also from the point of view of the commercial interests that will be largely affected thereby. I said there were many directions in which the Government had shown activity, and I repeat again, that although the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth may believe that our naval strength is not large enough, I can say that, so far as ancillary measures are concerned, we have left no stone unturned. I should like to assure hon. Members that instead of our having neglected the entire subject since 1906, we have, first of all, inquired into the question which was left open by the Royal Commission, and we have gone further. In the first place, we have not overlooked the fact that, so far as our food supplies are concerned, it is essential we should have many defended ports in the world, not only for the purpose of enabling vessels to load and unload with safety, but also to provide them with places of refuge if their trade routes should be menaced by the enemy's cruisers, and so that they would be able to take full advantage of them until the trade route was clear. The Committee of Imperial Defence have been at work on this topic for several years, and
  1252
  they have been in communication not only with the authorities at home, but they have made arrangements with the representatives of the Dominion Governments across the seas. Much has been done with the Crown Colonies, and the matter is still under review, and will remain continually tinder review, so long as the conditions of our trade vary and the strength of our possible enemies may from time to time be altered.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it the intention, of the Government to restore those naval bases which have been dismantled?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only say that the whole subject is constantly under review, and we shall take action in the matter when they make recommendations which commend themselves to the Government. Another direction in which inquiries have been made, largely on the suggestion of the Royal Commission, is the sources from which we mainly draw our food supplies. It is obvious that the Admiralty cannot direct their cruisers in the direction where they are likely to be of the most service to traders and ship-owners if they do not know definitely along which route the largest number of our vessels are constantly passing. I was surprised at the small information on which responsible men have been inclined to act. Now we have reduced this matter to complete accuracy and we have ascertained definitely where most of our British ships are likely to be found in case our food supplies are threatened. We know now to what extent they may be liable to danger in various circumstances, and the whole of this information is now at the disposal of the Admiralty, and they can act on it as seems to them necessary. We have also conducted inquiries into the question of the sources of alternative supplies in the sense of keeping open the routes for our merchants in time of war, when some of those sources may be closed owing to us being at war with some Power that supplies us with large quantities of our food, and we have had to consider to what other sources we can turn. The Committee of Imperial Defence, with the assistance of the Customs and the Board of Agriculture and our experts, have made full inquiries into this topic, and our information upon this subject alone is much more complete than ever it was before.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Are these supplies abroad?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am speaking of our supplies abroad. In another direction we have been making inquiries, and that is with regard to the possible dislocation of our trade in time of war, which might prevent our food supplies coining into this country just as certainly as if they had been captured on the high seas, Suppose we were at war with one of the great European Powers, and some of our ports were rendered incapable of British ships taking advantage of those ports. Clearly it would be the duty of the Government to do what they could by means of some national organisation to provide other inlets for our food supplies, and other outlets for the materials we wish to send abroad. We have not waited for war to break out before making an inquiry into this. An inquiry has just been completed which will provide those who control our main lines of communication with fuller and better information than they have had before as to the possible expansion of our ports on the safer side, whichever it may be, and this will enable us, if our ports are closed along the whole of one coast, to keep open so many ports for the conduct of our commerce on the other side as will save us from starvation or famine. That is an inquiry of great value which has been exhaustively carried out. We have had the assistance not only of the representatives of the Government departments, but of the port authorities as well. And then, combined with that, and closely related to it, the Committee of Imperial Defence has conducted an inquiry into internal means of communication, and how far these and the distribution of food supplies might be affected in time of war, if by chance our railways were largely occupied for naval or military exigencies, or if many of our ports which link up with our railways were put out of action. There, again, we have the assistance of outside authorities as well as of those who are connected with Government departments, and sufficient material has been produced to show that in time of war we need have no anxiety, if the arrangements are carried out, for the distribution of such foodstuffs as we have within this country without interruption to the main centres of population. That brings us back really to the main point: What are the principal perils which we are likely to suffer? Undoubtedly our stocks in this country are greater than most people imagine. I believe that I am well within the mark when I say that in farms alone there is something like two
  1254
  or three million quarters of stuff available which could be brought into the market.
  Mr. HUNT: Is that all wheat?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am talking of wheat—I should say something like three weeks' consumption in the hands of farmers alone which could be brought into the market in time of war. [An HON. MEMBER: "What time of the year? "] Practically any time of the year. It does fluctuate, but it fluctuates far more with respect to the markets than it does with respect to the seasons. About three weeks' consumption is now to be found in our port granaries, and something like four or five weeks' consumption in second hand stocks. Then, I think, we should be fully entitled to take, at all events, a proportion of foodstuffs on passage, say some six weeks. That makes altogether about sixteen weeks, and sixteen weeks gives us breathing time. Certainly, if we did not have something like sixteen weeks' breathing time, I should look upon the situation as being much more perilous than it is.
  Mr. LEE: Would that apply to July and August?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A little less to July, August, and September than at other times, I agree, but very little less. At that time of the year, of course, the harvest of the world has not been gathered in, but, being a Free Trade country, we are able to draw our supplies from every part of the world, and so we keep them on a much more even basis than, for instance, does France. It is not a question merely of foodstuffs, and I think we should be very short-sighted if we looked upon it as such. It is a matter of raw materials as well. It is not only a matter even of foodstuffs and raw materials, which have to come into this country: it is also a matter of our manufactures and many of our raw materials which have to go out. If you cannot get food in, certainly people will starve in the long run; but, if you cannot get raw materials in and your manufactures out, people will not have the money with which to buy-food. If we cannot keep open our means of communication, not only for foodstuffs, but for our general trade, we shall certainly be in a state of general starvation. For that reason I think, as we rely to a large extent on the widespread resources of our mercantile marine, we must look mainly for our security to the Royal Navy.
  Mr. CROFT: I think we are entitled to complain that on a subject of tremendous military importance as this which we have been discussing this evening neither the Secretary for War nor the First Lord of the Admiralty have been present, and that criticism specially holds good when we have the President of the Board of Agriculture admitting that this is eventually a naval question. Yet the First Lord has absented himself, I believe, nearly the whole of this Debate. I should like to say one word with regard to the idea that this is solely a naval question. It is primarily a naval question, but not entirely. One fact which has been overlooked has been that on the outbreak of war you are going to have your trade food supplies cornered by operators in the United States, who at present have, unfortunately, so great a hold over the wheat supplies of the world. There is going to be an enormous increase of prices. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wiles) dissents. However good your sea protection may be it must be obvious to the hon. Member, who ought to know something about this, as I have stood on the Corn Market with him for many years, and we know that everyone who is operating in the United States will say, "It must be good for us to hold the wheat. We know that prices will go up." The shippers will be nervous, and the result will be that you will have an immediate rise of 10s. to 15s. per quarter to start with. There is not a single American business man who would not immediately seize that opportunity, and the hon. Member knows it perfectly well.
  Mr. WILES: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say he knew there was a corner being made at the present time.
  Mr. CROFT: No, what I was saying was that on an outbreak of war it must be admitted that those who control the wheat supplies of the United States will get control of the Canadian supplies. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government rejected the idea of an indemnity on the ground that an insurance of that description would be far too costly. But, after all, it will only take place after an outbreak of war, and then surely the question of cost cannot be considered, in the face of the very much bigger question which is going to be a deciding factor in the war—namely, whether our food supplies will hold out. The right hon. Gentleman says we have got sixteen weeks' supply, but that is not the point. The point is that
  1256
  prices are going up immediately to a prohibitive figure, and the result will be that the working classes are going to be driven to a state of desperation very early. I hope my hon. Friend will divide. It seems that the Government have been holding the question under review, and have been considering it for ten years. It is really as urgent and important as the Battle Fleet. It is one of our lines of defence, and it is an extraordinary thing, when we have pointed out to us the danger in which the country stands, no steps should have been taken by the Government.
  Mr. BIRDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: It seems to be suggested by the arguments to which we have just listened that if we are surrounded by a foreign foe, the working classes of this country will find themselves in exactly the same position as if Tariff Reform—
  Mr. BIRDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: They seem to be in almost exactly the same danger as they would be under Tariff Reform—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  HOTELS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed; but it being after Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned; Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Thursday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven of the clock.