Sitting of 6 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill; Southwell District Gas Bill; Stockport Corporation Bill.—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords],—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords]; Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords]; Tollemache Estate Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill.—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J.).
Mr. PARTINGTONreported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.
Amendments to:—Swansea Valley Gas Bill [Lords], now Tawe Valley Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Bridgwater, Llandudno, and Whitley Bay." [Piers and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Rothesay." [Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Brough Water, Burgess Hill Water, Earby and Thornton Gas, East Hull Gas, Sevenoaks, Water, and Stour-bridge Water." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Caldicot and District Gas. Rainford Gas, Rothwell Gas, Tenterden and District Gas, and Woolmer and District Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Liverpool Corporation Tramways Extensions and Potteries and North Staffordshire Tramways (Amendment)." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Troon (Loch Bradan) Water." [Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 296.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petition for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 297.]
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]
Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Airdrie; Beddington; Cardiff; Carshalton; Coalville; Dundee (six); Exeter; Lockerbie; London (four); Oldhom; Southampton (two); Tilbury Docks; Turnford; and Wallington; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Gloucester, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Beeston, against alteration of Clause 20; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Hackney, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account presented, showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between 1st April, 1907, and 31st March, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of October, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 19, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Note exchanged between the United Kingdom and Sweden and Norway relative to the Agreement of 12th July, 1881, for the Mutual Relief of Distressed Seamen. November, 1907, to May, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1907, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1907, and the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Friendly Societies, Workmen's Compensation Schemes, Industrial and Provident Societies, and Trade Unions, Reports of the Chief Registrar for the year ending 31st December, 1907 [by Act]; to be printed [No. 210].
  Building Societies, Copy of Thirteenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar

  1209
  of Friendly Societies of the Proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts, etc., [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 211.]

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    English Historical Monuments— Suggested Royal Commission.
    MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Prime Minister whether a letter has been received by him asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission for England and Wales, to be appointed on the lines of the existing Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions in Scotland; and whether the letter was signed officially by the right hon. Lord Avebury, on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries, by Sir E. J. Poynter, Bart., President of the Royal Academy, and by Mr. T. E. Collcutt, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have received communications from the bodies mentioned recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission for England and Wales.

    Post Office Charge Clerks in North of Ireland.
    MR. MOORE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many charge clerks there are in the Northern District of Ireland; whether the officer now in charge at Crumlin, County Antrim, is one of these, and receiving the allowance; and, if not, whether he will state why a charge clerk was not sent to this office.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is no class of charge clerks in the Northern District of Ireland or elsewhere. When it is necessary to send an established officer to take charge of an office he is selected from a list of suitable officers kept by the surveyor. In the case referred to by the hon. Member it is not necessary to employ an established officer.

    The Superannuation (Post Office and War Office) Act, 1876.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Clause 5
    1210
    of the Superannuation (Post Office and War Office) Act, 1876, was complied with; whether the Treasury laid before Parliament the Return showing the names of all persons with respect to whom any order or warrant was issued in pursuance of the said Act; whether he will state if complete lists of all persons who were affected by this Act were complied by the officials of that period; and whether such lists are still in existence at post offices where such officers are employed.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Return was laid before Parliament in accordance with the terms of the Act, and was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 4th May, 1877. Copies of the Return are still in existence and are referred to from time to time as occasion demands.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that under the Superannuation Act, 1859, it is enacted that compulsory retirement shall take place at the age of sixty-five, he can state why it was necessary to fix the compulsory retirement age at sixty in the Superannuation (Post Office and War Office) Act, 1876, and if any officers scheduled under this Act are retained after sixty years of age; whether he will lay Papers upon the Table stating the special reasons why the said officers are retained; and whether, in all such cases, paragraph 3 of subsection (d) of Clause 2 was duly enforced.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Superannuation (Post Office and War Office) Act, 1876, was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1883, and, therefore, the special age limit of sixty no longer applies to the officers whose appointments were confirmed under the Act of 1876. I do not know why the age of sixty was fixed by the Act of 1876 as the age for compulsory retirement; but I may point out that the Superannuation Act of 1859 does not lay down any age limit. The limit of sixty-five years is fixed by the Orders in Council of 15th August, 1890, and 29th November, 1898.

    Scottish Judges as Bank Directors.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any official

    1211
    information as to how many of the Judges of the Court of Session and of the Sheriffs in Scotland occupy the position of directors of the Scottish Banks; whether he is aware that the fact that these two offices are so often combined tends to prevent the public entering upon litigation against the banks; and whether he will, in future appointments of judges, make it a condition that they shall not accept such posts in trading concerns.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no official information on the matters referred to by my hon. friend, but I understand that the only position ever now held by Judges of the Court of Session in Scottish banks is that of extraordinary director, which entails no duty and carries no salary. I assume that the same principles apply to ordinary trading concerns. It appears to me to be highly undesirable that a Member of the Bench should take an active part in the direction of a commercial company.

    Reduction of the Sinking Fund.
    MR. NIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it has been decided that four millions sterling are to be obtained by reducing the new Sinking Fund from ten and a-half millions to six and a-half millions sterling.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Sinking Fund portion of the fixed debt charged for the current year is estimated to amount to £9,785,000. There is no intention of reducing that amount in the current year.

    The Bank of Ireland Directors.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the action of Alderman Corrigan against Mr. Edward R. Read, the chairman of the late National Assurance Company of Ireland, which was at hearing for twelve days in Dublin before Mr. Justice Andrews and a special jury, and resulted on Thursday, 26th June, in the verdict of the jury, who found that Alderman Corrigan had been induced to purchase 1,000 shares in the National Assurance Company by the representations made in the reports and speeches of the chairman and directors, that these
    1212
    representations were untrue, that the defendant knew them to be untrue, and that as a consequence the plaintiff lost over £6,500 by the transaction; whether he is aware that on the Bank of Ireland list of directors are no fewer than four directors of the expired National Assurance Company, and that the National Assurance Company was accommodated by overdrafts up to £90,000 by the Bank of Ireland, by which the directors were enabled to conceal its true position and to postpone its winding-up, to the ruin of the shareholders; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Government accounts are kept in the Bank of Ireland, and that the late Treasury Remembrancer in Dublin Castle became a director of the Bank of Ireland while still holding the office of Treasury Remembrancer, the Government contemplate, in view of to revelations in the case of Corrigan v. Read, and in the public interest, any, and, if so, what, change in their relations with the Bank of Ireland and their dealings with it in preference to other banking institutions in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer is in the negative.

    Restoration of Evicted Tenants on the Tredennick Estate.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress is being made in the movement for the restoration of the former tenants of the townland of Derryonagh, on the Tredennick estate, County Roscommon; whether it is now two years since the farms from which they were evicted were offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners by the agent for the estate with a view to securing the reinstatement of the tenants in question; and whether any steps can be taken to expedite matters.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners were for some time in negotiations with the owner for the purchase of the property in question, but an agreement as to price could not be arrived at and the negotiations were abandoned. The Commissioners received six applications for reinstatement on the estate, but they do not intend to take

    1213
    action in any of these cases, and consequently they do not propose to reopen the negoitations for purchase.

    Police at Public Meeting at Kilmurray.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he car state why a large force of police was ordered to attend a public meeting held at Kilmurray, Sixmile Bridge, County Clare last month; and whether the presence of so large a force was in any way necessary.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The police authorities inform me that on the occasion in question a demonstration was organised for the purpose of denouncing an obnoxious person who resides in the neighbourhood, and the police were directed to attend in order to prevent intimidation, and generally to preserve the peace.

    Congested Districts Board—Amount Spent on Wages.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount spent in wages by the Congested Districts Board from 1st May to 1st July on the various properties of the Board in connection with improvement schemes.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) During the two months referred to the sum of about £9,400 was expended in wages by the Congested Districts Board upon the improvement of estates.

    Drainage of the River Robe.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reasons why the Congested Districts Board were unable to carry out the drainage of the River Robe, in the county of Mayo; and whether, in view of the loss suffered by the small holders adjoining the river through want of effective drainage, he will ask the Congested Districts Board to reconsider the question with a view to having the river drained.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I would refer to my right hon. friend's Answer to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Mayo on 14th April last.

    Restoration of Evicted Tenants in County Kerry.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of evicted tenants in Kerry; how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in their own or other farms by the Estates Commissioners; and how many have been reinstated by the landlord.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Up to 31st May last the Estates Commissioners had received 957 applications from evicted tenants in County Kerry. Of these thirty-nine have been reinstated or provided with new holdings by the Commissioners, eight have been rein stated by the landlords at the instance of the Commissioners, and 207 have been reinstated by landlords, some prior to and others subsequent to the passing of The Irish Land Act, 1903. 359 applications have been refused by the Commissioners, and the names of 210 applicants have been noted upon the list of persons suitable to receive holdings if such can be provided. The Commissioners have no information as to the number of persons evicted in the county, as they deal only with those evicted tenants who apply to them.

    Irish Primary Education Grants.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared, before finally deciding on the new method of allocation of the supplementary grant for primary education, to take steps to ascertain the opinions of the executive of the teachers' organisation on the subject.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My right hon. friend is prepared to consider any representations which the teachers' organisation may think fit to make to him, but he does not feel called upon to approach them in the matter.

    The Canadian Militia and the Ross Rifle.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government of Canada have decided to re-arm the Canadian

    1215
    Militia with the Ross rifle in place of the Lee-Enfields now in use; whether this change is being made owing to the superiority of the Ross rifle: and whether thorough trials or tests have been carried out with the Ross rifle in this country, and with what result.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Canadian Government is completing the arming of its Militia with the Ross rifle. The reasons for the adoption of this rifle by the Canadian Government are not known. The rifle was thoroughly tested in this country, and was not considered superior to the Lee-Enfield rifle.

    The Harvester Excise Act in Australia.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Federal High Court of Australia that the Federal Excise Act, commonly known as the Harvester Excise Act, which regulated wages in the case of the manufacture of agricultural implements by means of Excise duties levied when wages were not adjudged to be fair and reasonable, and which two manufacturers contended was bad law, was outside the power of taxation conferred by the constitutions; whether the Act was supported by the Australian Labour Party on the express understanding that wages were to be screwed up by Excise duties so as to compensate the workmen for the increased cost of commodities caused by the tariff; whether any information was forthcoming with regard to the working of the Act prior to the decision of the Federal High Court; how many of the Colonies are affected by the decision; and whether he would consider the advisability of issuing a special Report on the subject.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I have observed telegraphic reports in the Press of the decision of the Commonwealth High Court referred to by my hon. friend. I believe the Act had the support of the Labour Party in Australia, but I cannot, of course, express any opinion as to the grounds of their support. I have no information as to the working
    1216
    of the Act, which applies to all the states of the Commonwealth. The Secretary of State is not in a position to issue any special Report on the subject.

    Split Duties in Hull Post Office.
    MR. FERENS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, despite the recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee in regard to split duties, the postmaster of Hull has recently increased these duties on the female side by over 100 per cent., and on the male side to a considerable extent; and whether he will make inquiry as to the necessity for this step and why the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee have not been carried out.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee to restrict the number of split duties as far as possible has not been lost sight of, but I find that it has unfortunately been found necessary to increase the number of such duties at Hull in order to adjust the staff to the requirements of the service and to obviate the performance of overtime. But I am making further inquiry into the matter.

    Thursday Evening Postal Delivery at Banchory.
    CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a majority of the residents of Banchory desire the Thursday evening postal delivery, which was recently discontinued, to be resumed; and whether he will issue instructions to the effect that this should be done.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Thursday evening delivery at Banchory was discontinued, with the assent of the town council, in order to afford the postmen partial relief from duty on one day in the week, as in the case of many other officers. Some complaints from the public have been received, but it, is not clear that the restoration of the delivery is desired by a majority of the residents. I propose, however, to consult the town council again, in

    1217
    order to ascertain from them whether they, as the local representatives of the public, are of opinion that the concession to the postmen should be withdrawn.

    Post Office Territorials and Camp Leave.
    MR. BRODIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state approximately in what proportion of cases it will be possible for Post Office servants who are members of the Territorial Force to go to camp without providing substitutes; whether the order recently issued with regard to leave for camp will in effect mean that no men in the Post Office service will be able to attend camp without sacrificing the greater part of their civil pay; and whether he can state the number of men in the Post Office service requiring leave of absence for Territorial camps.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I regret that I am unable to state, even approximately, what proportion of the Post Office members of the Territorial Force will be able to attend camp on special leave without providing substitutes; I fear, however, it must necessarily be a small proportion only, as no reserve of staff is provided to meet such cases and the work of absentees must be dealt with from day to day. Moreover, the officers are away at the time of year when the staff is most depleted by holiday leave. The recent regulations issued by the Treasury with regard to leave to Civil Service members of the Territorial Force to enable them to attend camp will no doubt involve the sacrifice by most of the Post Office men concerned of a considerable portion of their civil pay unless they attend camp during their ordinary holiday. I shall not be in a position to state the number of men in the Post Office service who required leave for the purpose of attending camp until after the close of the training season.

    Prevention of Tramcar Accidents.
    MR. HARWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Board of Trade has power to insist upon the application to every tramcar of some appliance to prevent accidents; and if it can require the best known for that purpose.
    1218
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Tram-cars worked by mechanical power are subject to regulations made by the Board of Trade, which requires suitable lifeguards, brakes, etc. If any type of such appliances showed undoubted superiority its use could be required by regulation.

    Irish-Trade Statistics.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received representations from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce in favour of the separate classification in the official Returns of Irish imports and exports, not only in regard to foreign countries but also in regard to England and Scotland; and whether he has come to any decision in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The only representations on the subject received from the Belfast Chamber were addressed to the Departmental Committee which is now sitting to consider how far any change is desirable in the form in which the Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom are published as regards the countries from which imports are received and to which exports are sent. I understand, however, that the Committee are of opinion that this matter does not fall within their terms of reference. I will give careful consideration to any views which the Belfast Chamber may lay before me, but, as the hon. Member is probably aware, the question bristles with difficulties and could not be dealt with without legislation.

    Compulsory Attendance at Church of School Children at Wheatley (Oxon).
    MR. MORRELL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a question that has occurred at Wheatley, in Oxfordshire, with regard to the children being taken to church on last Ascension Day; whether it is a fact that, although the school was not opened on that day, no proper notice of a holiday was given; that after the children had assembled at the school at 9 a.m. they were at once marched to church, and that one child who attempted to go home, in accordance with his parents' wishes, was not allowed to do so; and whether

    1219
    he will cause inquiry to be made into the case.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have no information as to this case, but I will cause inquiries to be made.

    Grants for Higher Education in Ireland.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have asked from the Treasury grants for the purpose of establishing higher national schools in Ireland so to enable children from the national school to graduate for the University; and what answers have the Treasury given.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Commissioners of National Education have on more than one occasion proposed the establishment of higher grade national schools; but the Treasury has not seen its way to sanctioning the expenditure involved.

    County of London Pensions Committee.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the county of London, the appointment of the pensions committee is to be made by the borough councils or the London County Council.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As the Old-age Pensions Bill now stands the pension committee would in London be appointed by the London County Council, and not by the Metropolitan borough councils.

    Irish Agricultural Holdings
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state, as to the end of June, 1908, the number of agricultural holdings in each county, and in the whole of Ireland, under £10 valuation, purchased without enlargement under the Land Act of 1903; their aggregate area, Poor Law valuation, and price, omitting bonus; the number of the purchasers of these uneconomic holdings in arrear in the payment of their annuities; and the aggregate area of untenanted and non-resi-
    1220
    dential land in each country, and in the whole of Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that upwards of 47,000 holdings purchased under the Act of 1903 have already been vested in the purchasing tenants, and that in upwards of 110,000 cases purchase agreements have been lodged, but the holdings are not yet vested in the purchasers. The cases are not classified according to Poor Law I valuation, and the particulars asked for in the Question could only be obtained by an examination of each separate purchase agreement. The Estates Commissioners inform me, and indeed it is sufficiently obvious, that they could not undertake this very extensive task without totally disorganising the work of their office. I may however inform the hon. Member that particulars (including tenement valuation) of all cases in which tenant purchasers are in default in the payment of land purchase annuities are shown in the Appendix to the Annual Report of the Irish Land Commission. The area and tenement valuation of the untenanted land in each county of Ireland which is in the occupation of owners will be found in Table I. of Appendix VII. to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion.

    Restoration of County Longford Evicted Tenants.
    MR. J. PHILLIPS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have succeeded in purchasing any land in the County Longford, Ireland, in order to restore the County Longford evicted tenants; if so, will he state how many acres and the name of the lands so purchased; and when will the tenants be restored.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have purchased, under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the estates of F. W. Cusack and R. O'Brien in County Longford. On the former estate 244 acres of untenanted land were acquired, and on 151 acres thereof three evicted tenants were reinstated. On the O'Brien estate 45 acres of untenanted land were acquired, on which an evicted tenant was reinstated. The Commissioners are

    1221
    at present negotiating for the purchase of the estate of L. J. Dopping Hepenstall, on which there are 168 acres of untenanted land, which it is proposed to give to nine evicted tenants, and for the estate of R. Davoren, on which there are 155 acres of untenanted land. The Commissioners are not at present able to say how much of this will be given to evicted tenants if they should acquire the estate. Further, the, Commissioners have published in the Dublin Gazette a notice of their intention to acquire, under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, the estate of H. B. Armstrong, on which there are 117 acres of untenanted land.

    Grants for Scholarships in Ireland.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have on several occasions asked for grants to give prizes and scholarships to brilliant boys in Irish national schools, so as to graduate in a technical school or in a University; and whether the Treasury have in every case refused.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, with a view to encouraging national teachers to obtain University degrees, have asked for funds to give a special bonus to teachers who have succeeded in obtaining University degrees; and whether, seeing the importance of this matter, in view of the establishment of popular Universities in Ireland, the Treasury will consider the justice of this claim by the education authorities in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that the Commissioners of National Education have asked for grants for the purposes mentioned in these two Questions, but the Government have not found it possible to grant their requests. I would remind the hon. Member that a considerable grant is now being made for the more pressing purpose of increasing the emoluments of the teachers generally.

    Training of Irish Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements will be made to enable teachers in training to attend University lectures and graduate during their training course.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I should hope that it will be found possible to give teachers in training an opportunity of attending University lectures.

    Disposal of Unallotted Portion of the Claremount Lands.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what the intentions of the Congested Districts Board are as to the disposal of the unallotted portion of the Claremount lands, Clare-morris, County Mayo, at present on their hands.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board intend to dispose of the unallotted portion of the Clare-mount estate by adding it to the small holdings on the adjacent Dale estate.

    Evicted Tenants—Claim of John D. M'Auliffe.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the claim of John D. M'Auliffe, an evicted tenant on the estate of Mr. Devyanes Smyth, Ballygibbon, Blarney; and, if so, whether it has been placed on the approved list of those who are to be provided with holdings under the Act of 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The Commissioners have decided to take no action upon the application.

    Grants to Irish Intermediate Education Board from Surplus Duty on Intoxicating Drinks.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount

    1223
    of the surplus duty tax on intoxicating drinks that has been available for Irish Intermediate education in each year since the amount of the Irish Intermediate grant was made dependent on the amount of intoxicating drink consumed in Ireland; and will he consider the advisability of making this grant dependent in future on some source other than the present one.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amounts which have been paid to the Intermediate Education Board, under Section 3 (ii.) of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, are as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    1891

    39,042

    6

    11

    1892

    47,526

    13

    3

    1893

    44,164

    4

    11

    1894

    44,261

    9

    5

    1895

    40,718

    15

    10

    1896

    47,232

    15

    7

    1897

    50,841

    14

    0

    1898

    54,174

    19

    8

    1899

    57,975

    7

    8

    1900

    71,400

    2

    5

    1901

    64,730

    16

    2

    1902

    56,583

    14

    10

    1903

    59,430

    14

    0

    1904

    56,156

    3

    4

    1905

    50,385

    6

    10

    1906

    48,255

    19

    6

    1907

    49,916

    17

    3

    1908

    49,504

    7

    1

    The hon. Member appears to assume that the amount payable to the Intermediate Education Board under this head is dependent solely upon the quantity of intoxicating drink consumed in Ireland. The amount of the Irish portion of the Customs and Excise duties grant is fixed by Statute at nine-hundredths of the total grant for the United Kingdom, and this total grant depends upon the duties paid in the United Kingdom generally. The residue of the Irish portion of the grant, after the payment of £78,000 annually to the Department of Agriculture, is payable to the Intermediate Education Board. To alter the allocation of the grant or to provide funds for Intermediate education from another source would equally require legislation, and it is by no means sure that any change which could be made
    1224
    would be advantageous to the funds of the Board.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Admiralty Expenditure on Coal.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the total amount estimated to be spent by the Admiralty during the current financial year in the purchase of coal; and what would have been the total increase of this charge on the Naval Estimates if the contract price of all coal purchased had been raised by 1s. 6d. per ton.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): The reply to the first part of the Question is approximately £1,784,800. In regard to the second part of the Question, it is not considered to be in the public interests to furnish information bearing upon the consumption of coal for the Fleet.
    MR. MARKHAM: But why is it not in the public interest, seeing that the Admiralty always pay 1s. or 1s. 6d. per ton more than anyone else?
    MR. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to make a statement as to the amount of coal actually consumed by the Navy. I have given the cost.

    Southampton County Association's Recruiting Circular.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a poster bearing the Royal Arms, and ostensibly issued by the County of Southampton Territorial Force Association, in which Hampshire men are invited to defend their country and home and so avoid conscription; and whether he will direct that such unwarrantable expressions be not introduced into official public announcements.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is anything either

    1225
    unwarrantable or improper in the suggestion that the men of Hampshire should defend their homes and country?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): In reply to my hon. friend I do not see anything in the circular that is in the least degree open to exception. My sympathy is wholly with the Hampshire Association.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman give it as his opinion that that Association is entitled to use the expression "and so avoid conscription" in a public document bearing the Royal Arms?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not know whether my hon. friend wishes to invite conscription. I am obliged to this Association for pointing out an additional motive for coming into the Territorial Army.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is that Association, as a public body, entitled to give such an expression of opinion as is embodied in the phrase "and so avoid conscription"?
    MR. HALDANE: I should have thought most certainly.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Does the right hon. Gentleman associate himself with that argument?
    MR. HALDANE: Certainly; I think the Territorial Force is a considerable bulwark against conscription.

    Volunteer Long-Service Medal.
    EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if a Volunteer, who has served sixteen years and does not join the Territorial Force, is eligible for the long-service medal, whereas a Volunteer who has served more than sixteen years and less than twenty years, and who joins the Territorial Force, and whose term of service in the Territorial Force, together with his term of service in the Volunteers, reaches twenty years, is not eligible for the long-service medal; and,
    1226
    if this is the case, what is the reason for this apparent inequality of treatment.
    MR. HALDANE: As I have already explained to the House, no inequality of treatment was intended. In view, however, of the apparent dissatisfaction on this point it has been decided that Volunteers of sixteen years service who have joined the Territorial Force may have the option of being considered either for the long-service medal or the new efficiency medal.

    Dockyard Territorials.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty have declared that they have the first claim on the services of all men employed in the Royal dockyards, and that they would not permit any man belonging to the Territorial Army to leave his work on Army mobilisation unless he could be spared, he can assure the House that all dockyard men in the Territorial Force will, on an emergency, be able to perform the duties for which they are enlisted.
    MR. HALDANE: I must refer the hon. Member to the Amendment to Section 1 of Clause 17 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, moved by the Leader of the Opposition and accepted by the Government, with regard to the special arrangements to be made for individuals whose services may be required in other than a military capacity, and to the discussion on this Amendment and one moved by himself. To this I have nothing to add.
    MR. ASHLEY: But may I ask what special arrangements have been made?
    MR. HALDANE: Will be made?
    MR. ASHLEY: No, what special arrangements have been made to deal with men employed by the Admiralty who have been allowed to join the Territorial Reserve.
    MR. HALDANE: The clause says that arrangements will be made, and they will be made accordingly when the necessity arises.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will the arrangement be such as to enable them to defend their country in time of danger?
    MR. HALDANE: That entirely depends on the necessity of the situation.

    The Territorial Force Returns.
    MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men that have joined under the Territorial Forces Act under the twelve months agreement, and how many, if any, have joined under the age of eighteen; and what is the total number of men and officers who have

    Provisional Return. Territorial Force. Strength on July 1st,
    1908. Summary. All Arms. (N. C. O.'s and Men.)

    District.

    Establishment.

    Strength.

    Percentage (nearest whole number).

    No. 1 (Highland)

    …

    25,965

    15,332

    59

    No. 2 (Lowland)

    …

    27,112

    15,937

    59

    No. 3 (Lancashire, &c.)

    …

    36,712

    22,341

    61

    No. 4 (Welsh)

    …

    27,073

    16,384

    61

    No. 5 (Yorkshire, &c.)

    …

    38,116

    23,522

    62

    No. 6 (N. Midland)

    …

    19,613

    12,599

    64

    No. 7 (S. Midland)

    …

    20,163

    13,227

    66

    No. 8 (S. Western)

    …

    26,397

    14,357

    54

    No. 9 (Eastern)

    …

    20,879

    11,774

    56

    No. 10 (Home Counties)

    …

    22,045

    10,268

    47

    London

    …

    38,124

    17,610

    46

    Total

    …

    302,199

    173,351

    57

    MR. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many officers short there are?
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir; but I think there is a much larger percentage of the officers than of men.
    joined in the various parts of the United Kingdom up till 1st July.
    MR. HALDANE: The Returns are not yet quite complete. The information at present available shows that the total number of non-commissioned officers and men who have enlisted is 173,351; details by districts will be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. The number of men who have enlisted for one year is about 113,500. The Returns do not contain information regarding the ages. The total number of officers who have joined is 8,326 (excluding veterinary officers and chaplains). Appended are the figures referred to in the foregoing Answer—

    Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any workmen have been discharged from Woolwich Arsenal since 1st January last, and, if so, how many; and whether

    1229
    any more are to be discharged during the remainder of the year.
    MR. HALDANE: Excluding boys whom it has been found impossible to engage as men on reaching the age of twenty-one, thirty men have been discharged (all at their own request) during the period 4th January, 1908, to 27th June, 1908, from the factories for which a minimum establishment was fixed. In addition, during the same period, forty-five men have been discharged, as is usual during the summer months, from the Building Works Department, for which no minimum was fixed. No men have been discharged on reduction; and it is not anticipated that any men will be so discharged during the remainder of the year from the factories for which a minimum establishment has been fixed, except at their own request, or in cases where they have completed some special work for which they were specially engaged.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: May I ask whether, when the numbers of workmen are increased, favourable consideration will be given to the claims of the men who have been discharged?
    MR. HALDANE: I should think wherever that can be done it will be done. We are very reluctant to discharge anybody, and those who are discharged will have the first chance.

    Woolwich Arsenal Inquest.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the inquest held at Woolwich on the death of James Reynolds; will he say if the deceased had been a workman at Woolwich Arsenal and had been discharged; and, if so, how long he had worked at the Arsenal, when he was discharged, and for what reason.
    MR. HALDANE: My attention has been drawn to this unfortunate occurrence. The deceased workman was employed in the Royal Laboratory for twenty-two years, and was discharged with a gratuity of £27 15s. 6d. on 17th August, 1907, owing to the necessary reduction in the establishment.
    MR. FELL: Had the deceased any pension?
    MR. HALDANE: No, only a gratuity.

    New Cavalry Sword.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give any information with regard to the new pattern cavalry sword; and how soon the cavalry will be armed with it.
    MR. HALDANE: The new pattern has just been approved and manufacture will at once be proceeded with, but no statement can yet be made as to the date when the cavalry will be re-armed with the new weapon.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I hope they will be manufactured with all possible speed.

    Supposed Foreign Spies in England.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps, if any, he intends to take with regard to the facts forwarded to him on the subject of the military men from a foreign nation who have been resident for the last two years, on and off, in the neighbourhood of Epping, and who have been sketching and photographing the whole district and communicating their information directly to their own country.
    MR. HALDANE: As the law of this country stands at present, everybody, whether he is an Englishman or a foreigner, is at liberty to go about and, if he likes, to sketch and photograph, excepting in places where there are fortifications. Nor am I aware that in other civilised countries the law is materially different. And I wish to add that I neither attach as much importance as does the right hon. and gallant Member to the results, nor in this case do I feel so certain as he does about the facts.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in foreign countries where similar proceedings are carried on there is a very speedy method of ending them?
    MR. HALDANE: If you go near fortifications, either here or there, you will find yourself very summarily dealt with, but you may go and sketch over the whole of Germany, so far as I am aware.
    MR. TOMKINSON: Is it not open to anybody to buy Stanford's 25-inch scale map, which shows the whole country, with every particular in regard to roads, elevations, etc., better than anyone could possibly sketch it?
    MR. HALDANE: Yes; and I believe on the Continent you can buy the general staff maps in addition. Very little importance is attached to that.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his action of two years ago in stopping the military reconnaissance of Great Britain, in case an invasion takes place?
    MR. HALDANE: The hon. Gentleman appears to have little confidence in the capacity of our people. The military reconnaissances were stopped because they were not suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. The most careful study of the ground will be made in the future by the forces charged with the defence of the country.
    MR. ASHLEY: Why not institute proper reconnaissances?
    AN HON. MEMBERasked whether this state of things was increasing in this country, and whether the same process was not going on in the New Forest and elsewhere.
    MR. HALDANE: I do not think so. I was told that a most certainly authenticated case had been discovered of three foreign officers taking observations not long ago. They were living apparently in great luxury at a house down in the country, with motors and champagne. On investigation I discovered that they were three gentlemen of a quite different character, not in the least associated with military matters,
    1232
    nor anything so desirable. This is the kind of thing which is constantly coming up.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather turning the whole matter into ridicule? Does he approve of the system which is apparently going on in our midst?
    MR. HALDANE: My Answer is that it is not apparently going on. If foreign staffs want to obtain that kind of information they would not be so foolish as to do it in the way the right hon. and gallant Member speaks of.

    War Office Coal Purchases.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total amount estimated to be spent by the War Office during the current financial year in the purchase of coal; and what would have been the total increase of this charge on the Army Estimates if the contract price of all coal purchased had been raised by 1s. 6d. per ton.
    MR. HALDANE: The amount of coal estimated for consumption in the United Kingdom, including the ordnance-factories, may approximately be taken at £300,000, and the total increase at 1s. 6d. a ton would have amounted to about £26,000.

    The Special Reserve.
    MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men have been transferred from the artillery and infantry Militia to the corresponding arms of the Special Reserve; how many men have joined the artillery and infantry of the Special Reserve as recruits; and how many men who have been transferred to, or have joined, the Special Reserve, have passed, or are about to pass, to the Regular Army on completion of the prescribed period of service in the Special Reserve.
    MR. HALDANE: The Returns for 1st July have not all reached the War Office. If the hon. and gallant Member will put

    1233
    down his Question on Monday next, I hope to be able to give him complete figures.

    Strength of Infantry of the Line.
    MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any further reduction in the establishment or strength of the infantry of the line; and, if so, whether it is proposed that such reduction shall be effected by destroying additional units or by reducing the number of officers and men in existing units.
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

    War Establishment.

    Remarks.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Horses.

    Battery Royal Horse Artillery (with Mounted Brigade)

    7

    219

    242

    Including 1 Medical Officer, 1 Veterinary Officer, 1 Armament Artificer, 7 Drivers Army Service Corps and 2 Royal Army Medical Corps for water duties at-attached.

    Brigade Royal Field Artillery (including Ammunition Column)

    25

    939

    959

    Including 1 Medical Officer, 1 Veterinary Officer, 1 Armament Artificer, 26 Drivers Army Service Corps and 4 Royal Army Medical Corps for water duties attached.

    Ammunition Column for Battery Royal Horse Artillery, with Mounted Brigade

    2

    118

    151

    Including 7 Drivers Army Service Corps attached.

    Ammunition Column for Brigade Royal Field Artillery

    5

    311

    389

    Including 9 Drivers Army Service Corps attached.

    Establishment of Line Battalions.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have yet been taken to effect the promised increase of the establishment

    Artillery Statistics.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the war strength of a battery of Royal Horse Artillery and a brigade of Royal Field Artillery, respectively; and what is the strength of the ammunition column required for the service of a battery of Royal Horse Artillery and a brigade of Royal Field Artillery in time of war.
    MR. HALDANE: The figures are rather too long to be read out, and I will have them circulated with the Votes and Proceedings.
    Appended are the figures referred to—
    of line battalions on the British establishment; what is the increased establishment proposed, and what is the additional number of' rank and file which must be added to the present strength of

    1235
    in the Army order to raise battalions on the British establishment from their present actual strength to the contemplated increased establishment.
    MR. HALDANE: As I have already explained to the hon. Member in answer to his Question on 6th April, no steps can profitably be taken to raise the establishment of line battalions at home until the existing shortage on the present establishment has been made good.
    MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that when the shortage has been made good the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise the strength?
    MR. HALDANEI will consider that when the shortage has been made good.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What is the additional number of rank and file that would be required?
    MR. HALDANE: It varies with each individual battalion.

    War Office, Salisbury Plain Estate, and Small Holdings.
    MR. LEHMANN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a communication has been received from the Wilts County Council, asking whether any land on the War Office Estate in the Salisbury Plain area will be made available to meet the demand for small holdings in that district; and, if so, what answer has been sent.
    MR. HALDANE: The possibility of making certain War Department land near Bulford available for small holdings has been under consideration, and it is hoped shortly to make a definite offer to the Wiltshire County Council of an area in that district.

    Public Servants and the Territorial Camps.
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether copies of the circular sent round to Government offices stating the terms and conditions under which public servants will be granted leave to attend
    1236
    the annual training of the Territorial Army will be placed in the Vote Office.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): Instructions on this subject have been issued to various public Departments, and I hardly see any necessity, therefore, for placing copies in the Vote Office.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Can individual Members see the regulations?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.

    Transvaal Gold Law.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received a reply to their communication to the Governor of the Transvaal on the subject of the draft Gold Law of that Colony, especially in respect of Sections 127 and 128 thereof, under which special disabilities are to be imposed upon coloured persons, including British-Indians.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Secretary of State has not yet received a reply, but we are inquiring when the reply may be expected.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I will repeat the Question this day week.

    Migration of Boers.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if any large parties of Boers are leaving the Transvaal at the present time; and, if so, where are they going and what is the reason given for their abandoning that country.
    COLONEL SEELY: I have seen a statement in the Press that a party of Boers proposes to emigrate to East Africa, but I have no official information on the subject.
    MR. FELL: Is it not the fact that a party are also going to the West Coast of Africa?
    COLONEL SEELY: I have no official information, but I hope to have before long, and shall then be pleased to supply it to the hon. Member.

    Transvaal Native Land and Tax Bills.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the Transvaal Government has now placed His Majesty's Government in possession of information showing that the Native Land and Tax Bills at present before the Legislative Assembly are less harmful to the position of the natives than has been suggested; and whether His Majesty's Government will keep the House informed of any changes made in the Bills or known to be contemplated by the Transvaal Government.
    COLONEL SEELY: No communication has yet been received from the Transvaal Government, but the Secretary of State has seen a letter from the Minister for Native Affairs, a copy of which I shall be glad to communicate to my right hon. friend, in which the objects of the Native Occupation of Lands Bill are enumerated. The first is to prevent the farming of natives by European landowners, a practice which has no doubt tended to become an evil and a danger. The Bill, which has been published in the Transvaal Government Gazette of 23rd May, and which appears to have been partly based on some of the recommendations of the South African Native Affairs Commission, raises some difficult questions and will no doubt be fully discussed and very possibly amended in the Transvaal Parliament. With regard to the Tax Bill further inquiries are being made.

    The French Tariff.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to when the Commission engaged in considering the revision of the French tariff is likely to report; and whether it will be possible for the French Government to give effect to their recommendations by executive action in anticipation of the approval of the Chamber and Senate.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,Saffron Walden; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, but His Majesty's Embassy at Paris will, of course, keep us informed of the progress of the Committee's proceedings to the best of their power. My right hon. friend is informed that it would require Parliamentary legislation to raise or lower Customs duties. According to the latest information he has received, a very considerable time must elapse before the practical results of the inquiry now being conducted can be felt.

    United States Head Tax on British Travellers.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the head tax on British travellers to the United States of America, imposed by the Immigration Act of 1903, was last year raised to $ whether, seeing that Canadians are exempt from such tax, he can take steps, by the imposition of a reciprocal tax on passengers from the United States to our ports or otherwise, to obtain equal rights for all British subjects proceeding to the United States.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: My right hon. friend is aware of the increase referred to by the hon. Member, but is unable to make any statement with regard to the imposition of a reciprocal tax on arrivals in British ports.

    Unclaimed Dividends.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the publication of a Blue-book giving the names and addresses of the original holders of unclaimed Government stock and dividends, so that the heirs may be made aware of the property to which they are entitled.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The advisability of adopting the course suggested by the hon. Member has been more than once

    1239
    considered, but I agree with my predecessors in thinking it undesirable. The compilation of such a Return as the hon. Member suggests, besides involving great trouble and expense, would in my opinion not only fail to serve any useful public purpose, but would encourage the submission of unfounded claims.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: How is it possible to advance a proper claim if the public has not opportunities of ascertaining what property is held? Will the right hon. Gentleman oppose a Motion for a Return with this information if moved by a private Member?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not like to answer before seeing the form of the Motion on the Paper.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: The money does not belong to you.

    Old-Age Pensions.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the receipt of outdoor relief after 1st January is a complete bar to an old-age pension, or is it the intention of the Government to fix an annual disqualification, as is done in the Registration of Voters Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under Clause 3 (1) of the Bill, as proposed to be amended on Report, the receipt of outdoor relief, at any time between 1st January, 1908, and 31st December, 1910, will, subject to the exceptions provided for in the clause, be an absolute disqualification, unless, of course, there should in the meantime be further legislation.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: Is it not too severe a penalty to debar from pension for all future time persons who have been so unfortunate as to have to accept relief during the existing year?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
    SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how far his original estimate of the cost of the Old-
    1240
    Age Pensions Bill is modified by the new sliding scale.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gave it as my opinion during the debates in Committee that the total cost of the scheme with the sliding scale would amount to about £100,000 more than that of the original proposals.

    Pay for Extra Police Duty.
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any members of the Metropolitan Police Force, A Division, employed in Government buildings, who performed considerable extra duty during the recent visit of the President of the French Republic to this country, and who have not yet received the two days extra pay granted to the police for this extra duty; and, if so, whether he will see that this extra remuneration is at once given to them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Certain police officers employed in public buildings performed extra duty on the occasion of the recent visit of the President of the French Republic. The claims of these officers are receiving consideration, and all who are entitled to it will shortly be given the two days extra pay.

    Fairfield Shipbuilding Company, Govan —Employment of Young Persons.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Home Office authorised the prosecution of the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Govan, for illegally employing young persons after seven o'clock in the evening on two occasions, and that the sheriff took the view that a trade dispute created conditions under which it was unreasonable that employers should ad-here strictly to the law and imposed a nominal fine; and whether he proposes to take any further action in this matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the proceedings in this case,

    1241
    which were undertaken by my Department. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, I have communictaed with the Sheriff-Substitute, who informs me that he did not say, and does not think, that a trade dispute creates conditions under which it is unreasonable that employers should adhere strictly to the law. The assistant-manager of the Fairfield Company stated that in the confusion and dislocation of work caused by a recent strike the young persons had been employed illegally, but not by his sanction, or to his knowledge. He expressed the great regret of his company for this occurrence, and undertook that special vigilance should be used to prevent its repetition. In these circumstances, the Sheriff-Substitute thought a nominal fine, coupled with the expenses of the prosecution, would meet the case. This firm has borne an excellent character in the past, and the occasion in question was the first, I believe, on which they have been prosecuted. I see no ground for questioning the propriety of the Sheriff-Substitute's decision.

    Bishop of London's Midnight March.
    MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a summary of the Police Report on the Bishop of London's midnight procession in Westminster on the night of 4th April last; will he say whether it is a fact within the knowledge of the superintendent of police and the police officers who accompanied that procession that the spiritual Lord referred to came face to face with from 150 to 200 drunken men on that occasion, and whether he took a number of drunken men out of the public-houses; and, if so, whether he will state the number and what punishment was meted out to them, and the names of the public-houses whence these drunkards were taken by the right rev. Prelate.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a Question on this subject on Thursday last; the police who were present report that they saw no drunken persons.
    MR. H. C. LEAasked whether, in the absence of a report from the police on the subject, the House was to assume the Bishop of London told the truth or a falsehood.
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied that he had the fullest confidence that the Bishop of London made a perfectly bona fide statement.
    MR. H. C. LEA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the police have been sadly lacking their in duty in not having reported on the matter?
    MR. GLADSTONE: They reported to me when I asked for information.
    MR. H. C. LEA: Is it not the fact that accompanying the procession were an inspector and several constables, and if the Bishop of London had gone into various public-houses on the line of route and dragged out those drunken men, ought not a report to have been made by the inspector in charge to Scotland Yard?
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTSIs it not the fact that the statement of the Bishop of London was corroborated by independent witnesses who were present, including one magistrate?
    MR. REES: Is it not probably a question of the standard of drunkenness?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I can add nothing to what I have already said. I have no doubt of the bona fides of the statement of the Bishop of London. But I am not responsible for what he said, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would communicate with the Bishop himself.
    MR. H. C. LEA: The right hon. Gentleman disclaims any responsibility for the Bishop of London's statement; but is he not responsible for the conduct of the police, and can he explain why they have not reported the grave departure from the public peace of which the Bishop of London complained?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not the slightest reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the police in the matter.

    Prison Treatment of Suffragists.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice in Ireland to treat political prisoners as first-class misdemeanants; and if he will give instructions that the suffragists sentenced in London on Wednesday last be accorded like consideration.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that in Ireland where prisoners are imprisoned for offences against the ordinary law which were committed in the course of a political campaign, no special treatment is accorded them on that ground. I cannot grant any special treatment to the ladies committed for refusing to find sureties.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of prisoners sentenced by police magistrates, he is empowered to order that they should be treated as first-class misdemeanants; whether he or his predecessors have exercised that power within recent years; and, if so, in what cases and on what grounds.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In the case of a person committed to prison in default of finding sureties I am advised that I have no executive power to make such an order. The division in which a prisoner shall be placed must by law be determined by the magistrate in his discretion. As regards convicted prisoners also, the Home Secretary has no executive power to alter the division in which these prisoners have been placed by the Court. In two cases which occurred prior to the Prison Act of 1898 the treatment of prisoners convicted on indictment was, for special reasons, varied by means of the grant of a conditional pardon from the Crown; but I should be acting unconstitutionally if I advised his Majesty to exercise this power in such a way as to over-ride, with regard to any class of prisoners, the discretion now given by the law to the magistrates.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman state
    1244
    how it came to pass that Dr. Jameson and the other leaders were treated as first-class misdemeanants, after having been convicted of a most serious offence; and seeing that they were so treated, surely these ladies might be treated in the same way?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that Dr. Jameson was a convicted prisoner before the passing of the Act of 1898, which directly put the responsibility of deciding in which division a prisoner should be placed upon the magistrate.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But the Act of 1898 did not in the slightest degree arrogate the power of the Home Office to advise the Crown to mitigate any sentence whatever.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hold that it would be perfectly unconstitutional on my part, if I suggested the exercise of the Crown's prerogative in order to over-ride the decision the responsibility for which under the law rests with the magistrate.
    MR. MORRELL: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the magistrate?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if in any of the numerous cases in Ireland under the Statute of Edw. III. a single person convicted was treated otherwise than as an ordinary prisoner.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That Question should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.

    Taxicab Speed.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the speed at which taxicabs are driven on the streets of London, with consequent danger to other traffic, especially in residential squares, where approaching carriages and cars on cross-roads are obscured by trees; and if he will take steps to check this practice.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Both from correspondence and from personal observation

    1245
    I am satisfied that some of these cabs are driven in a reckless and dangerous manner, though I am told that they seldom exceed the speed limit of twenty miles an hour. The police do their best to stop such driving, and though it is often difficult to obtain the necessary evidence, they have successfully prosecuted sixty motor cab drivers in the last twelve months.

    Lights on Vehicles.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of any order recently made by the Lancashire County Council, exempting from the provisions of the Lights on Vehicles Act, 1907, all harvesting vehicles during the months of June, July, August, September, and October; and whether, in view of the danger caused by this unlighted traffic to users of the roads he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, I have received a copy of an order made by the Lancashire County Council in February last, to the effect stated in the Question. The order was made in pursuance of the power conferred on county councils by Section 4 of the Lights on Vehicles Act, and is not subject to my approval. I have no power to take any action in the matter. I may add that the Bill as introduced, contained no exception for harvesting vehicles, and that the exception was agreed to by the House of Commons on the Report Stage.

    The London Police Commission.
    MR. A. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Police Commission, in which it is stated that Eva D'Angely was guilty of solicitation for the purpose of prostitution on 24th April, 1906, and that her arrest by Police-Constable Page was justified, and that the conduct of Police-Constable Page and of the other officers and constables concerned in the matter was discreet and correct; whether he is aware that in May, 1906, the conduct of Police-Constable Page, and the other officers and constables connected with the arrest, was severely censured in the
    1246
    Press, and by persons having incomplete information, that the officers and constables were unable to defend themselves against such unjust censure, and consequently suffered in character and reputation; can he state whether any of the newspapers or persons who inflicted injury upon these officers and constables who were performing a difficult duty correctly and with discretion, have offered them any reparation or apology; and, if not, will he consider whether he will take steps to obtain reparation and apology on their behalf.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, the facts are as stated. But the confidence of their superior officers at a time of considerable difficulty was never for one moment withdrawn from Police Constable Page and the other constables concerned. As regards the latter part of the Question, I should like to say that, however unjust were the charges against these officers, their fullest satisfaction must be in the complete vindication of their action and in the splendid tribute paid to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of the Metropolitan Police Force generally in the careful and decisive Report of the Royal Commission.
    MR. A. DEWAR: Is it not a fact that those constables were prohibited by the Regulations from defending themselves two years ago, and that they cannot, as advised, raise an action for damages for defamation without the consent of their superior officer? If they are advised to raise an action will the right hon. Gentleman see that consent is given?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, it was in the power of the constables themselves to take action two years ago, but they did not take action because of the appointment of the Royal Commission. It was thought right that any proceedings should be deferred until the Report of the Commission was received. It is now a question for the consideration of the police whether any action shall be taken.
    MR. A. DEWAR: I should like to ask whether the measure of damage cannot be estimated in pounds shillings and pence? Have they not received complete exoneration from the moral aspect,

    1247
    but is there not a financial aspect which still remains?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That would be a matter for the Courts.
    MR. A. DEWAR: But will they get the right hon. Gentleman's consent to raise an action if so advised?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I should prefer not to give an Answer at the present moment.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received any apology at the Home Office to tender to the constables for Questions asked in this House by three hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Members for Blackpool, East Marylebone, and Chorley—in which, day after day, the most shocking imputations were made against these constables?
    MR. GLADSTONE: As far as I know, nothing has been said or done by the hon. Members in question.

    Price of Bread in Germany.
    MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to correct the error on page XXXVII, of the Report on Cost of Living in German Towns, whereby the price of bread in Germany is made to appear four times its actual price.
    THE EARL OF RONALDSHAY: At the same time may I ask the President of the Board of Trade if the price of rye bread in Germany varied from 5¼d. to 7½d. per pound, as stated in the recently published Report by the Board of Trade [Cd. 4032]; and, if this is so, will he state whether the price of the 4 1bs. loaf in Germany varies from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I would refer the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, who has put down a Question on the same subject, to my Answer to the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on Wednesday last.

    Railway Companies and Cyclists.
    MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether
    1248
    he has received an application from the National Clarion Cycling Club for representation at the Railway Conference to endeavour to arrive at a general agreement with regard to modifications of the existing law and relations between railway companies and the general public as far as cyclists are concerned; and whether he can how undertake that, at some time before the close of the Conference, the request shall be granted.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which I have previously given my hon. friend on the subject. The Board of Trade are at all times ready to receive and consider any information or arguments which may be laid before them with regard to this or similar grievances, but it will hardly be possible for the Railway Conference to go into questions of the rates and conditions for carrying particular articles.

    British and German Savings.
    THE EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of savings in the Savings Banks of Great Britain and of Germany in 1907; and what has been the increase per cent, in each case during the past ten years.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand on inquiry that no official figures are available with regard to the amount deposited in Savings Banks in the German Empire, as a whole, for any later period than the end of 1904 or any earlier period than the end of 1900. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the information which the noble Lord desires.

    Daylight Saving Bill.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the issue of the Report of the Select Committee on the Daylight Saving Bill; and, if so, whether the Department have expressed any opinion relative thereto.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have read the Report of this Committee with much

    1249
    interest and with a lively recognition of the advantages which the Bill in question appears at first sight to offer to all classes, and especially to the working classes. I have arranged for the whole subject to be carefully examined by the Board of Trade in consultation with representatives of trade, labour, and transport interests. Pending the result of this examination it is not possible for me to express an opinion.

    Report on Wages and Prices in Germany.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Report by the Board of Trade on the question of wages and prices in Germany has been withdrawn; and whether such withdrawal is for correction only or is final.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Report in question has not been withdrawn, and is now on sale. A page containing a clerical error obviously inconsistent with the text has been corrected.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: Will similar information be obtained regarding Belgium?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid a similar inquiry was in contemplation, and would, he hoped, be shortly begun in connection with the United States. No doubt such an inquiry in relation to Belgium would be interesting, but these inquiries were expensive, and the Board of Trade must be careful not to embark upon them too lightly.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade by whose authority and at whose instance the Report on prices and wages in Germany was prepared; what is the approximate cost of this Report, and out of what Vote will it be paid; and if the instructions to the persons who made the inquiries will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Report in Question was prepared by the authority and at the instance of the President of the Board of Trade. The cost of printing is borne by the Stationery Office Vote, and amounts to about £400. The cost of
    1250
    making the inquiry in Germany is borne by the Board of Trade Vote, and, amounted to about £4,000. The instructions given by the Board of Trade are not embodied in any single document, but the methods adopted in the inquiry are clearly indicated in the volume, especially on page V. of the Prefatory Note and pages XI., XII., XIII., XVIII., XXIX., XXX. and XXXVII. of the General Report.
    MR. FELL: Can corrected copies of the Report now be purchased? And how will further mistakes if discovered be dealt with?
    MR. CHURCHILL: All documents emanating from Government Offices are very carefully prepared, but sometimes a misprint escapes attention.
    MR. LYTTELTON: In what form has the correction been made? I understood it had been inserted in the Blue-Book.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A part of the issue had already gone out when the mistake was discovered. I assume the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest it was an intentional mistake, because that would be a slur on the permanent official.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Oh. no.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am glad to hear that. The issue was stopped immediately the error was discovered to enable a new page to be substituted for the incorrect one.

    Unemployed Act, 1905.
    SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in dealing with the question of the unemployed in the coming autumn and winter, he will, in addition to renewing the Act of 1905, issue an order giving greater elasticity of administration, so as to cover a larger number of deserving cases, and more effectually to meet the varying requirements of different districts and populations. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on recovering his health.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I do not think that I could promise to issue any Order on this subject, and indeed I am not sure precisely what alteration in the existing Regulations my hon. friend desires. But if he will inform me precisely what his suggestions are I will give consideration to them.

    Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state when it is hoped to begin the Committee stage of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope to be able to commence the Committee stage next week.

    Telephone Mouthpieces.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to say why the telephone companies should not be called upon to permit the adoption of the flat mouthpiece such as is allowed abroad, instead of the present retrograde and antiquated instrument, in the interests of hygiene and cleanliness.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have no power to call upon the National Telephone Company to adopt any particular form of telephone. The standard patterns now in use are, however, those which are considered most efficient by experts both in this country and in the United States, and it is easy for any subscriber to keep his telephone in a clean and sanitary condition. I am not sure which particular pattern the hon. Member has in view, but if he will give me information with regard to it, I will have it examined.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONproduced a telephone transmitter and asked the Postmaster-General to have it examined carefully.

    Medical Inspection of Children.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has
    1252
    been called to the failure of certain local education committees to carry out their statutory duties of providing for the medical inspection of school children and to the inadequate salaries which some local education authorities propose to pay for this important duty; whether he proposes to take steps to ascertain the manner in which these duties are about to be performed, and, if so, when these steps will be taken; and whether he proposes to inform the various local education authorities of any measures contemplated to compel them to undertake and carry out the duties which Parliament has cast upon them.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to certain cases where the local education authority have resolved to take no action under Section 13 of the Act, or have postponed indefinitely the consideration of the question. Steps are being taken, both by correspondence and by local investigation, to ascertain the manner in which arrangements for medical inspection are being initiated, and a clause has been inserted into the Code requiring, as a condition of the payment of the annual grant in respect of any school, that satisfactory provision should be made for the medical inspection of the children attending the school. Failure on the part of the local authority to comply with the requirements of the Act may, therefore, in addition to, and not in substitution of, other statutory remedies, result in the refusal of or deduction from the grant. Special attention has been called to this matter in the prefatory memorandum to the Code, and I think the publicity attaching to the Code will suffice to apprise the authorities of its requirements. The Board have no control over the salaries payable by local authorities to the officers engaged in medical inspection, except in so far as inadequate remuneration may be found to result in the efficiency of inspection; and until the various schemes are in working order and the Board have had opportunities of comparing the methods and efficiency of medical inspection in the various areas, I should not be prepared to say whether any particular salaries can be regarded as insufficient.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: Can any steps be taken to secure that schemes are brought up by the local authorities?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Some steps must of necessity wait until the schemes are brought forward, but if it is found that a local authority absolutely refuses to take action in respect of the medical inspection of children we shall make the necessary deduction from their grant.
    MR. H. GOOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the provision, prescribed in Article 58 (b) of the Code for 1908–9 for the medical inspection of all children admitted to an elementary school on and after 1st August, 1908, and of all children expected to leave school before 31st July, 1909, necessarily includes all or any of the requirements specified in the Board of Education's Circular 576, page 8, Section 11; whether, it is necessary that all the above examinations should be conducted by a qualified medical practitioner; and, if the Answer be in the negative, which of the above examinations may be conducted by: (a) teacher; (b) a qualified nurse; whether the use of the schedule in the Board of Education's Circular No. 582, pp. 4 and 5, is obligatory, and whether it must be filled up in every particular.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: As I recentl stated to a deputation, of which the hon. Member formed a part, inquiries as to the methods or machinery of medical inspection should obviously be addressed to the Board in writing and if made will receive prompt attention and, as far as possible, full replies. It is impossible to deal satisfactorily or completely with matters of detail within the limits of an Answer across the floor of the House, and I think I should be exposing both the Board and local authorities to risk of misunderstanding if I attempted to do so. If the hon. Member communicates with the Board on behalf of a local authority, I shall be glad to see that he has a written reply without delay.

    School Object Lessons.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education where he is aware that
    1254
    the children attending St. Bride's School, near Newport, Monmouthshire, were recently granted a holiday by the headmistress in order that they might attend an otter hunt as an object lesson; whether the object lesson was to teach the children the duty of kindness to animals; and whether such object lessons meet with the approval and sanction of the Board.
    SIR IVOR HERBERTasked the right hon. Gentleman before he answered the Question, to give due consideration to the fact that the people of Monmouthshire, and the people of Wales generally, combine a great zeal for education with an irrepressible love hunting.
    MR. REES: Does the Board of Education propose to pronounce an opinion on the ethics of otter hunting or any other form of sport?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have received no information as to the incident referred to. I understand, however, from my hon. friend's Question that the school was closed and the children were given a holiday, in which case I have no power to intervene. It is within the discretion of the local education authority to direct or permit the closure of the public elementary schools in their area on such occasions as they think fit, provided they are open a sufficient number of times to satisfy the requirements of the Code. I need hardly say that the Board do not regard otter hunting as an object lesson.

    Hyde Park Carriage Entrances.
    MR. H. GOOCH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the fact that the south side of Hyde Park contains five gates for carriage traffic, while the north side contains only two; and whether he could arrange that the gate on the north side at the south end of Albion Street, Paddington, should be made available for carriage traffic.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): I regret that there are no funds available for such a purpose.

    1255
    I shall be prepared to consider the question when the Estimates for next year are under consideration; but I cannot give any pledge in the matter, as the initial and annual expense would be considerable.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of a charge of this kind being borne by the people who avail themselves of the improvement and not by the general public?
    MR. HARCOURT: I think that would be worth consideration.

    Girl Clerks in the Post Office.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that girl clerks in the Post Office are now to be paid at the rate of £42, rising by £3 increments to £48 per annum, and are after two years service promoted to permanent women-clerk-ships, while boy clerks employed in the Post Office and other Civil Service Departments, who do similar work, are paid at the rate of £39, rising by increments of £2 12s., and have no such prospects of promotion open to them; and can he say what is the reason why such distinctions, as regards salaries, increments, and promotion are made between boys and girls who perform similar duties in the public service.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: My attention has been drawn to the scale of pay for girl clerks quoted by my hon. friend. The conditions of service of boy clerks will probably be altered very shortly, and I do not, therefore, propose at the present juncture taking action on the lines suggested by the Question.

    Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
    MR. P. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now give any particulars of the proposals of the Treasury with regard to the employment of boy clerks in the Civil Service; and whether he will undertake that in future no appointments of boy clerks will be made in excess of the number which can be
    1256
    absorbed into the permanent establishment of the Civil Service.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: It is intended that in future the boy clerks should enter between the ages of fifteen and sixteen, and that they should be discharged on attaining the age of eighteen unless they have been successful in the competition for assistant clerkships, the limits of age for which will in future be seventeen to eighteen instead of nineteen to twenty-one. I cannot undertake that the number of boy clerks employed will not exceed the number for which permanent appointments can be found, though I am making inquiries as to the probable results of the new terms, on the percentage of appointments; but as those unsuccessful in the competitions will not be retained as boy clerks after the age of eighteen they will be in a better position than at present to obtain subsequent employment.

    Public Trustee and Stockbrokers' Commission.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the practice of the Public Trustee to endeavour to arrange with stockbrokers for the return of half the commission charged by them on transactions for estates under his control; and whether any moneys so obtained are placed to the credit of the respective estates concerned, or, if not, what becomes of them.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): There is a distinction made between cases of sale and those of purchases made for investment. The Public Trustee is authorised by the Treasury under the Statutory rules to make a charge of ½ per cent. for the trouble and responsibility involved in making an investment, and out of this he pays the stockbroker. This office, therefore, gets the benefit of any commission returned. In the case of sales, the Public Trustee charges no fee. The broker is paid out of the Trust Estate, and consequently that estate gets any commission returned. In the case of a sale for the purpose of making a new investment, when done in one Stock

    1257
    Exchange Account, the ½ per cent. investment fee covers the brokerage on both transactions, and consequently any commission returned is retained by the Trustee.
    MR. RIDSDALEasked whether this somewhat complicated arrangement was made public by the Official Trustee.
    SIR W. ROBSON: It is made public. The Public Trustee is authorised to make this charge of 10s. per cent. but it is not stated that out of that 10s. he pays the broker.

    The South Western District Coroner.
    MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been drawn to the practices of the coroner of the South Western District, and to allegations concerning them; and whether the Lord Chancellor proposes to take any steps in this connection.
    SIR W. ROBSONreplied that the attention of his noble friend had been previously called to this matter, and all that could be said at present was that it was under his consideration.

    Clyde Pilots Grievance.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a trial at Glasgow on 15th May last, before the sheriff of the county of Lanark, in which a Clyde pilot was charged under the Merchant Shipping Acts and convicted of negligently navigating a ship he was piloting so as to cause an alleged risk of collision with H.M.S. "Harrier" and danger to the lives of those on board the vessels; whether he will take into consideration the exceptional circumstances (in particular that, although this matter involved the exercise of the best practical seamanship in its decision, it was decided by the sheriff, who did not possess any nautical knowledge whatever and was without assistance from anyone who had such knowledge, and that before the trial the pilot had been examined as to the occurrence by the Clyde Pilotage Board, by whom he was licensed, and had been exonerated from all blame
    1258
    in the matter); and whether he will, in view of the circumstances of the case and of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Act does not extend to Scotland, take steps to secure a reconsideration of the case, with the assistance of nautical assessors.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by my hon. friend and it has received my best consideration. I am advised that a re-hearing of the case is not legally competent, and as to reduction of penalty I do not see my way to interfere.
    MR. JOYCE: Is the meaning of that Answer that a man can be tried under the law of the country by an incompetent authority and be refused a fair trial by a competent authority if he asks for it?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I do not accept that description.
    MR. JOYCE: I hope my friends the pilots will take cognisance of this and press the matter further.

    Trawling in Moray Firth.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what length of time has elapsed since communication was first entered into by his office with the Board of Agriculture with a view of advising the Foreign Office in its negotiations with the North Sea Powers for closing the Moray Firth against trawlers.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Negotiations have for some time been in active progress on this matter. The first statement that I made on the subject was in the month of March, and I hope my hon. friend will accept my assurance that no time has been lost.

    Irish Banknotes.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the changing of an Irish bank note in Great Britain on payment of a commission of 1d. in the £, whether the inter-bank arrangement of charging commission is

    1259
    laid down by the Bank of England; if not, under what statutory enactment is the charge made; and does the inter-bank arrangement or the statutory enactment apply in the case of an Irish bank making payment of its own notes in one of its branches in London.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The Bank of England has no power to lay down any arrangement for other banks on this subject and no such arrangement has been voluntarily agreed to by other banks at their suggestion. Perhaps I may remind the hon. Member that an Irish bank note is an engagement by an Irish bank to pay a sum of money on demand at a certain place or places in Ireland. The bank which issues the note cannot be compelled to pay it in London; nor can any other bank in London be required to do so. If London banks are willing to cash such notes on payment of a commission, no statutory enactment is necessary to enable the commission to be charged.
    MR. FLYNN: Then do I understand that if an Irish bank with a branch in London desires to give cash for its own notes it can do so without interference from the Bank of England?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Certainly, so far as I know.

    Board of Trade Vote.
    MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in allotting the Committee of Supply, he will arrange for the Board of Trade Vote, in order that attention may be called to the divergent statements regarding the cost of living in Germany contained in the Report of the Board of Trade just issued compared with the Reports of the British consuls in Germany.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Board of Trade do not admit that there is any such divergence as is suggested in the Question. I am sure that they will be ready to consider any statements which the hon. Member or others may submit to them.
    MR. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman in allocating days to Supply set one apart for this Vote especially in view of the depression of trade in this country?
    MR. ASQUITH: I cannot yet say what Votes will be taken.

    Royal Commission on the Poor Law.
    SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to its bearing upon the questions of the aged poor and of the unemployed, he will represent to the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law the urgent importance of the Report being laid before Parliament this year.
    MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board stated on 20th May that the Royal Commission were not without hope that they might be able to present their Report in the autumn, but that it was impossible to give a precise date by which it would be issued. I cannot at present add anything to that.

    The Unemployed Grant.
    SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can arrange that his announcement as to money grants for the unemployed shall be made prior to the discussion of the Vote for the Local Government Board.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not prepared at present to make any statement on this matter.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 212.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 212.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]

  HOP INDUSTRY.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.)
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Old-Age Pensions Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—(Mr. Asquith.)

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [22nd June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. James Mason).
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that the supporters of the Bill, when discussing its merits in the country, had recently been very forward with charges of inhumanity against those who were opposing it, and they on that side of the House did propose not to allow such a charge to go forth without first instituting an inquiry into the history of the measure during the last fifteen years. He thought that would be a convenient opportunity for such an inquiry. Historically, the case put forward by the miners' representatives was first advanced from the point of view of the limitation of output, the idea being that by so limiting it they might succeed in raising wages. If they turned to the reports of earlier meetings at which the question was discussed by the representatives of the men, and looked also at the reports of the earlier debates in that House they would find that that point of view was emphasised. It was not without interest to remember in the same connection the finding of the Home Office Committee re-
  1262
  calling a very familiar fact to those who had studied the question, that—
  "By combination the workers have secured a direct relation between the price of coal and their wages."
  Fortunately they were not left to unassisted conjecture as to the object of the miners' representatives in that House, because many of them had already published their views upon the subject and they were on record for anybody to read. He was interested in what had fallen from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire who, in April last, speaking at Cresswell, made the following observations which threw no small light upon the secret history of the movement—
  "With regard to the Eight Hours Bill, it would be the salvation of the coal trade of the country, and if it did not pass wages would very soon fall."
  Clearly that was the object with which the agitation was commenced. But then, finding that the consumers of the country were very dissatisfied with that point of view, and that it became increasingly unpopular in the constituencies, hon. Gentlemen advanced it less conspicously and fell back on the contention that in the interests of the unemployed it was desirable to limit the output. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester, when introducing his universal Eight Hours Bill earlier in the session, said there were trades in which hundreds of thousands were employed, the regulation of whose hours of labour would provide openings for the class of men who were now shut out from an opportunity of work altogether. But the economics of both those proposals having become the subject of general derision among those who were in any way qualified to speak upon the question, it became necessary for the miners' representatives in the House to fall back on a totally different contention, and, in despair, they began to ingeminate a cry of humanity. In connection with this historical resume fortunately he had not to ask the House to depend merely on his own accuracy. He commended to the indulgence of the House the remarks of a far higher authority, those of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, who, speaking on the Eight Hours Bill, in 1901, said—
  "My hon. friend has said it is not the object of this measure to limit the output of coal, but,

  1263
  this was really the object with which the agitation began. At the Bradford Trade Union Congress in 1888 it was distinctly stated that it was to restrict the output of coal, which was about 20,000,000 tons more than was necessary, but when it was found that the British consumer would have something to say to any limitation of the output, then the promoters took another line, and said that if the hours of labour were reduced employment would be found for a greater number. When the weakness of that was pointed out, the promoters fell back on a third line, that the Bill would increase the safety of the miners.'"
  There was one further observation of a prefatory character he made about the position which the Labour Party and the miners' representatives in the House had taken up in regard to the eight hours question. From the beginning to the end their attitude from the economic point of view, and indeed their competence to understand the elements of the problem had been absolutely discredited by the Report of the Committee recently appointed by the Home Secretary. The Chairman of that Committee made some observations to the House during the earlier portion of that debate, when he said—
  "An eight hours law such as that which would have been enacted by the Eight Hours Bills which have formerly been submitted to the House would have produced a shortage of coal which would have caused insufferable public inconvenience and possibly disastrous consequences to the trade of the country."
  That was the Bill which hon. Members below the gangway and miners' representatives in the House had been insistently and vehemently pressing on the attention of the country and Parliament for the last twenty years, and they now had the authority of a Committee to the effect that if those proposals had been carried into law the result would have been insufferable public inconvenience, and possibly disaster to the trade of the country. In addition to that the Labour Party had not found it convenient to go before the Committee and give evidence in support of their views. They had found it easier to make rhetorical appeals to sentiment in the House, than to present reasoned arguments and undergo cross examination before a competent tribunal. The only pretext put forward on behalf of the Labour Party for not doing what other parties had been content to do throughout our long Parlia-
  1264
  mentary history was that there had already been enough discussion of the measure and that more consideration of it was unnecessary. It might, perhaps, be a sufficient answer to that objection to quote a statement made by the Home Secretary in a recent debate to the effect that—
  "Ever since 1890 the economic side of the question has never been considered by any neutral authority."
  They were told by the representatives of the miners that miners throughout the country all wanted the Bill, and one hon. Gentleman, representing, he believed, a Welsh constituency, in the course of the debate the other night, said that that was a sufficient reason for passing it. He could not admit that premiss, and he would dispute still more warmly the conclusion; and on this point he would like to quote the finding of the Committee to the effect that—
  "It is quite conceivable that a situation might be created by an enhanced price of coal under eight hours in which the economic interests of the men might be opposed to the economic interests of the country."
  When they were told that the miners of the country were in favour of it, it became extremely important to ask what it was of which they were in favour, and upon what proposition it was there had been that expression of unanimity on which so much reliance was placed. He invited the attention of the House to a somewhat instructive lesson as to the view of the men. Those who spoke for them in that House commonly said that by working harder, by having fewer holidays, and by taking fewer short days, production would not be appreciably reduced. That was the argument laid before the House and judiciously combined with the humanitarian argument. But the argument used before the men was of a totally different character. The question they were asked and which they had answered was as far apart as the Poles from the House of Commons contention. Here again he asked the House to accept not his evidence but that of a conspicuous advocate of the Eight Hours' Bill. Briefly summarised, the question put to the men was: "Are you in favour of obtaining the same wages for shorter hours of work?" That was the only question the hon. Member asked the

  1265
  miners, and was it surprising that whenever and wherever it had been asked of the men it has been answered affirmatively? The hon. Member for the Ince Division put this question before his constituents. Speaking on 12th April, he said—
  "The actual hewing price paid in forty-eight pits in South-West Lancashire was 2s. 9d. per ton. If the Bill became law, the hours worked would be reduced by one-eighth or one-ninth, and they would have to put one-eighth oil the hewing price. They would get such an amount per ton as would compensate the men for the limitation of hours. One-eighth upon 2s. 9d. gave them about 4d. per ton, and adding 2d. more for other labour affected, 6d. per ton would completely clear all the increased cost to employers."
  Was it astonishing that at the conclusion of such a speech they should get an unanimous vote in favour of the Bill now before the House? Was it surprising that manual labourers should answer "yes" when asked whether they were in favour of working fewer hours for the same wages? The admission made by the hon. Gentleman that the increased price would be 6d. was not without interest, because clearly no allowance was made for the increase of price on account of plant and machinery turning out less coal. He did not think it would be seriously disputed that it was an under estimate. On that point they had the finding of the Committee which had not been challenged and which the Home Secretary had in fact accepted. Would the representatives of the miners deal with that point, not so much from a rhetorical as from an argumentative point of view? The Committee had found that the adoption of the eight hours day, whether sudden or gradual, would result in a period of embarrassment and loss to the country at large. It would reduce the average working hours by 10·27 per cent., and increase the cost by from 1s. 6d. to 2s. per ton. It was extremely important that the Committee should recollect in this connection that that variation by no means represented the variation which would follow in the market price. Certain qualifications were put forward by the Committee which, to some extent, it was suggested would affect the figure put forward by the witness called on behalf of the mine-owners. The first modification suggested was the probable effect of new plant and machinery to
  1266
  be introduced by the mine-owners. Was it contemplated that the new plant and machinery was to be introduced upon commercial principles or not? Was it suggested that that new plant and machinery would pay or would it not pay? If it was considered that it would pay he suggested to the Home Secretary that the mine-owners of the country, who had had generations of experience and who had devoted their minds to the problem of how to make the largest profit that could be made, were better judges whether or not new plant or machinery could be introduced with success than a number of Socialist amateurs, who had never had any responsibility at all for the conduct of mines, or any experience of the standing charges, of the economic consequences of excessive capital outlay. If they were not to pay what inference was to be drawn? If new machinery and plant were to be introduced which would not pay, obviously the price of coal would have to be raised so as to cover the loss on that plant and machinery. It was suggested as a second qualification that if this Eight Hours Bill was introduced the men would work very much harder, that their productivity during the limited period would be greater than during the longer hours. Fortunately, he could give an authority upon this point who was entitled to speak with weight. He referred to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck division of Northumberland. The hon. Member contemplated that very argument that productivity would increase if the number of hours were reduced. Speaking in that House in 1901 he said—
  "They intend to keep up the production of coal by increasing the intensity of labour; but is the rush and the hurry thus created not likely to increase the risk of the miner? The increased intensity of labour is the very thing which causes a number of the accidents that do happen."
  If to that observation, put forward with very great weight by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck division, was added the argument so obvious in the case of old men, it must be conceded that the intensity of labour was likely to produce more accidents, and, therefore, too much importance or effect could not be given to the second qualification. The third suggestion was that the men would work on double shifts. He invited the Labour

  1267
  Party specifically to enlighten the House as to their attitude with regard to a double shift. Was their view that the men were prepared to agree to a double shift in order to lessen the shortage of production which would be caused by this Art? Up to the present no answer had been given to that question at all Fortunately, the House was not left without evidence on that point because the South Wales Miners Federation published a list of their objects and this was one of them—
  "To endeavour to secure by legislation a reduction of the hours of labour in mines to eight hours from bank to bank, and oppose the system of double shifts."
  It would be very interesting to discover from the Home Secretary, or from those responsible for the very able Report of the Committee in view of the shortage which would otherwise be produced, whether they had taken into consideration the fact that up to the present no responsible representatives of the miners in that House had ever said that they would consent to the system of double shifts. If those three qualifications had no real value they were left face to face with the reduction stated by the Committee and assented to by the Home Secretary; that was to say, the loss of production would be 25,783,000 tons calculated on the output of 1906 and the reduction in the hours of all classes underground will be 10·27 per cent. The question which he ventured to ask was why were his constituents to pay a greatly increased price for their coal—and many of his constituents themselves worked ten, twelve, and even fourteen hours a day—[Cries of "Shame."]—it might be a shame but he was dealing with facts. As he had stated many of his own constituents worked ten, twelve, or even fourteen hours a day, and would anyone inform the House why people in that position, with the slenderest possible margin left after making provision for the necessities of life, should pay a higher price for their coal in order to allow a class, who were admittedly remunerated above, and more healthy than any other class of manual labour, to have an eight hours working day. He noticed that a Member of the Labour Party who was going to vote for this Bill made a speech at the Church Congress
  1268
  in which he dealt with the state of poverty at the present time. He said—
  "Out of a population in these islands of 68,000,000, 20,000,000 were always poor 12,000,000 were always on the verge of starvation, and 1,000,000 were always unemployed."
  He invited the hon. Member to say why those 20,000,000 people who were always poor and those 12,000,000 people who were always on the verge of starvation, and the 1,000,000 people who were always unemployed were to pay more for their coal in order that the coal miners might enjoy shorter hours. At this point the supporters of the Bill took refuge in declamation and humanity. When they came to the humanity argument they found that the whole case, as far as the health of and danger to the colliers were concerned, had been shattered and destroyed by the Report of the Committee. [Cries of "No, no."] Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway questioned that statement, but up to the present none of them had dared to question it by reasoned arguments in debate. What did the Committee say on that point? They said—
  "While the risk of fatal accident is much greater than among males generally, the risk of death by disease is much lower, their mortality being 10·6 less than that of all occupied males and 23·2 less than that of all males."
  So that as far as the general health statistics which had been quoted were concerned no case whatever had been made out for any special treatment of miners. Now they came to the accident statistics, and what was the case of the Government? The accident statistics were lower than those of sailors, for whom no one proposed to legislate. The Government had no case at all, because on their own showing if eight hours was introduced the men were going to work holidays and short days, so that the total time exposure to accident would hardly be reduced at all. They had had some figures of great assistance in discussing this question of the health and danger to miners supplied by the hon. Member for the Ince Division in the course of the late debate. The Home Secretary based certain statistics upon he mortality or accidents to men above the age of sixty-five years, but the hon. Member for the Ince Division gave the right hon. Gentleman and the House some interesting figures which, at the moment, were not before the right hon.

  1269
  Gentleman, and which perhaps the House would like to have placed again before it as to the number of men above the age of sixty-five years who were employed in mines. The hon. Member for Ince, who he was sure was very accurate in his figures, stated that one in seventeen of the men employed in the mines to-day was above the age of sixty-five. He further stated that the total number of men working underground at the present time was 757,887. So that they arrived at the fact, taking 1 in 17 as the proportion, that there were 44,581 men above the age of sixty-five who were at present working underground as hewers in the mines. [Cries of "No."] That was how the figures worked out. It was useless to cry "No": the calculation spoke for itself. The number above ground on the same calculation was 177,081, and taking 1 in 17 again that gave a total of 10,416. So that the total number of men at the present time above the age of sixty-five employed in mines was no less than 54,997. That was really a very respectable total for a trade which was considered to be so unhealthy. Was there a single other manual occupation that could show results like these? It was for those engaged in this occupation that the very poor of these Islands were asked to make the sacrifices which were put forward in this Bill on the special ground of their health and safety. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to curdle the blood of the House—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): No, no.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he would assume that that was not his object, although it seemed to be the effect of his words. He did not know whether the mine which the Home Secretary gave as an illustration was that in which the right hon. Gentleman himself was either proprietor or part proprietor. The right hon. Gentleman said, in giving his own experience—
  "I know what it is in the working faces when there is not a direct current of air, when the air is stagnant and grows foul."
  If the right hon. Gentleman knew that that was the case, if he actually came across working faces where the air was foul and stagnant because there was no direct
  1270
  current of air, it was his duty to report himself as a mine-owner to himself, the Home Secretary, for having broken Rule No. 1 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which provided penalties for this very case. It was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman's amateur judgment was quite deceived by conditions which were very normal. Now he wished to add a word or two upon the amazing postponement of the operations of this beneficent measure for five years. Here was a Bill commended with great eloquence upon humanitarian grounds which was alleged to be necessary to preserve the safety of miners, and yet for some unaccountable reason such was the callousness and inhumanity of the Government that these enormous advantages to the mining population were to be withheld for five years. What could the explanation be in regard to this delay? Could it be that the Government were now alive to the extreme improbability that they would be sitting where they were in five years, and that they preferred that this disagreeable issue should be contested, when it was contested, not by themselves, but by their successors? It was perfectly clear that one result of introducing this five years provision was that Parliament deliberately excluded itself from the teachings of five years experience which were to follow upon what was admitted to be an experiment in the Bill in a provisional shape. Had any reason been advanced why Parliament should cut itself adrift from the teachings of the next five years? None except the importance of avoiding momentary trouble. The Prime Minister, in discussing this question, must have apostrophised his unwarlike colleague—
  "Give peace in our time, because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only Thou."
  They were told that they could derive no useful lesson from the reception which this Bill was receiving at bye-elections. He noticed that those who represented the miners in this respect explained that the constituencies had been deceived at recent bye-elections by mercenary statements made by the representatives of the mine-owners. That explanation suggested some curious and interesting reflections upon the subject of government by democracy. He

  1271
  supposed the Labour Party was the most democratic Party, and it had always been a source of surprise to him that when the democracy had come to a decision which was hostile to their self-appointed exponents the democracy had always been deceived. If it was on the Licensing Bill that an adverse decision had been come to, the people of this country were the credulous dupes of an odious trade. If, on the other hand, an adverse decision was come to with reference to the question of an eight-hour day, then they had been misled and deceived by the statements made by the hired minions of the mine-owners. If hon. Members below the gangway provided an accurate reflex of the voice of the democracy, and had tongues in their mouths, could they not go to the constituencies and controvert those grave misstatements instead of whining about them elsewhere? [AN HON. MEMBER: Which they did do in Manchester.] The hon. Gentleman said they did do it in Manchester. He could not congratulate them on the success of their effort. He could not recollect whether the Socialist candidate obtained a hundred votes. For himself, he firmly believed that the people of this country had plainly grasped the general principle of this privilege-creating measure. He had no hesitation whatever in the vote he would give on the Second Reading, and fortified himself in giving that vote by an admirable observation which was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham, whose experience in these matters was immeasurably greater than that of the hon. Members who declaimed from the I abour benches. The hon. Member addressing his fellow-workmen said—
  "You have power in your own hands, and to come to Parliament begging and beseeching is derogatory to our character as men'"
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has declared that we on this side of the House are disposed to charge him and his friends with inhumanity. For my part I have no desire to make any such charge against
  1272
  them, but I do most specifically charge him and his friends with the grossest political inconsistency in opposing the present Miners' Eight-Hours Bill. Year after year in this House measures, precisely the same in principle, and, as the hon. and learned Member truly said, more drastic in their details, have been proposed, and when these have been before Parliament, never on any occasion has any responsible Leader of hon. Members opposite raised his voice in protest against such a Bill. While the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who spoke against this Bill at a previous stage of the discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, year after year, and decade after decade, kept repressed within their bosoms the fires of indignation which are now allowed to blaze forth, others of their colleagues were active in this House and the country advocating this very Bill, which we are now told is disastrous to the liberty of the subject and most injurious to the commercial prosperity of the country. If I am obliged to mention the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I do so in no degree in order to attack him, for his absence from this House under circumstances which we all deplore, must necessarily close our lips. But it is necessary to this argument to say that in 1894, shortly before an important general election, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, declared himself in a speech at Birmingham strongly in favour of what he called an experimental eight-hours day in the mining industry. Following that speech, leaflets and posters were issued by the million all over the country, containing what was called Mr. Chamberlain's Programme. I have here an extract from one of these. There were eight points in that programme, one of which is an Eight Hours Bill for the mining industry. While the right hon. Gentleman was carrying on an active propaganda on these lines—I remember posters were to be seen on every hoarding containing this very programme, and on the strength of it I believe thousands and tens of thousands of votes were won for hon. Members opposite—while he was carrying on this propaganda, endorsed as it was by Lord

  1273
  Salisbury, the then Leader of the Conservative Party, not one of his colleagues disavowed that policy, and from that day to this I do not think a single Leader of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has raised a word of protest against the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. I cannot understand how right hon. Gentlemen opposite can reconcile their attitude to day with their attitude in previous years, and we are entitled to ask any right hon. Member on the opposite side who takes part in the debate this specific question: How can they venture to denounce not merely the details, not merely the method and extent of the application of this Bill, but the very purpose and principle of the Bill itself, which their distinguished colleagues have actively advocated in the country?
  The speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, like most of the other speeches made against the Bill, turned out so much on the question of principle as on the question of its actual effect. Will the effect of this Bill in practice be to impose a heavy or appreciable burden on the poorer classes of the country and upon the industries of the country? I fully admit, and my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has admitted again and again, that if it were to cause the price of coal to rise permanently 1s. 6d. or 2s. per ton, or any sum approaching that, the effect would be most injurious on the industries of the country, and even a stronger case would have to be made out for the Bill than has yet been made out. But the question of the effect is to be solved not by the indignant rhetoric of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but by careful economic inquiry, and we are not prepared to accept as necessarily accurate the estimates of cost given by the coal-owners themselves. The hon. and learned Member has said that the estimates which have been made by experts that there would be a permanent increase in the price of coal of 1s. 6d. to 2s. per ton have not been seriously challenged. These statements have been challenged and disputed again and again, and if we leave the statements made by deputations, and by hon. Members in speeches in the House of Commons, and turn to statements made at bye-elections, in
  1274
  which the hon. and learned Member takes such an interest, we shall find even more grossly exaggerated statements than those which have been quoted. I have here a leaflet which was issued at the Pudsey bye-election. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I do not know whether hon. Members will cheer the statement that it contains. The leaflet says that the consequence of this Bill will be an increase in the price of coal, not temporarily, but always, of 5s per ton, or 3d. per cwt. and that every vote for the Liberal candidate is a vote for dearer coal. That is what the hon. and learned Member calls the people of this country firmly grasping the principle of this measure. I think there is little glory and little credit in winning bye-elections by methods of this kind.
  Whenever any measure for the regulation of labour and the improvement of the industrial conditions of the people has been proposed, without exception it has been denounced by those who are interested parties on the other side as likely to impose burdens infinitely greater than have actually been caused. I came across the other day an ancient precedent, but it is so apt that I cannot refrain from quoting it to the House. It was the case of one of the early Factory Bills in 1830, proposed for the limitation of the hours of labour of children of six years of age and upwards, who were in those days working in textile mills thirteen to sixteen hours a day, under the lash of the overseer. A petition was presented to this House from the textile employers in one part of Yorkshire declaring in precisely the same language as is used to-day, that no one more than themselves desired to benefit all classes of work-people, but that if the hours of these children were reduced as proposed it would be utterly impossible for them to make profits, that Parliament must remember the continual pressure of foreign competition, and that nothing could be more pernicious then legislation interfering with the methods of industry and the processes of trade. That is an old precedent. I come down to a more recent one, and one which touches this very trade, and the Mining Association which is so active in putting before the country those exaggerated statements. I turn to a deputation which was received

  1275
  by the late Lord Salisbury, accompanied by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and Sir Matthew White Ridley. It consisted of the leaders of the coal-owners of the country and was in opposition to the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1897. The president of the Mining Association on that occasion said that that Bill would react on the number men employed, that general disaster would follow the passage of the Bill, and that the amount of liability ought to be reduced. He further said that he feared the price of coal would be affected, and that the burden imposed by the Bill would amount to 2d. to 3d. per ton. Those right hon. Gentlemen opposite paid not the slightest attention to them, or to those estimates. They went on with the Bill as it stood. They knew the statements were exaggerated for the purposes of political propaganda, and the result proved that that was the case. After some years the Home Secretary appointed a Departmental Committee with a view to amending legislation on the same subject, and then it was found, from the evidence of the coal-owners, that the actual cost of the Workmen's Compensation Act had amounted not to 2d. or 3d., but to just over ½d. per ton. The Mining Association on that occasion was wrong, no less than 80 per cent. in their estimate. I think there is reason to believe that the wrongness on this occasion will be an even higher percentage. The Departmental Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Gloucester has been praised, and rightly praised, by both sides of the House. That Committee carefully considered the estimates laid before them by the mine-owners, including this 1s. 6d. or 2s. increase in the price to which hon. Members have referred, and the Committee unanimously declared that that estimate could not be in any way accepted and that it was far beyond the mark. I do not propose to-day to enter into the details of the economic aspect of this question. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary has done so effectively. My hon. friend the Member for Gloucester also dealt with it very fully, and I believe the President of the Board of Trade will refer to it again. I would only mention two facts in this connection. One is a
  1276
  precedent which comes from another country, Austria, where the hours of labour in mines have been reduced by law. In 1902 the hours were reduced from twelve, bank to bank, with ten actually spent in work, to nine, bank to bank. What occurred in the first year was an increase in the output per man per shift of 3·9 per cent., and in the second year of 6·6. The reduction of the hours from twelve to nine in Austria has been followed by an actual increase in the product of the mineral, so that this one illustration is enough to show that we cannot assume that a decrease in hours necessarily means a decrease in the output. There is another point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. It is this. We had from the hon. Member for Gloucester, who was the chairman of the Departmental Committee, at an early stage of the debate, a most judicious, thoughtful, and convincing speech, which I am sure carried weight in all quarters of the House. The hon. Member who spoke last accepts my hon. friend as authoritative when he speaks in censure of the terms of the Bills proposed by the mining Members, but he ceases, I suppose, to regard him as authoritative when he supports the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Gloucester put these two questions. He said: "Will this Bill lead to a temporary shortage which, although small in amount, would have the effect of raising the price of coal for a time to an exorbitant figure?" and, secondly, "Would it lead to a permanent ant smaller rise in the price of coal?" My hon. friend, speaking not only with the knowledge that he has personally of the trade but with the further knowledge gained as chairman of the Committee, answered both these questions in the negative. He said that the Bill, as proposed to be amended by the Government, and if further amended in two particulars, would not have that effect. Now these two particulars in no way touch the substance or essence of the Bill. My hon. friend would like to see the Bill come into full operation, as we propose it should come into operation, at the end of five years, but that instead of an eight-hours day being established in five years in two steps, he desired it should be established in

  1277
  three. Secondly, he proposed that at the end of five years there should be not an eight hours day plus one winding, but a seven and a half hours day plus two windings. There is no difference in substance; there is only a slight difference in arrangement and administration. But with these two alterations in the Bill, which, of course, will receive due consideration when the Bill is in Committee, my hon. friend declared, speaking with the authority which the House is ready to recognise, that this Bill would in his judgment cause neither a sudden and temporary exorbitant rise in the price of coal nor a permanent small rise in that price. With that expression of opinion, I think hon. Members may, with an easy mind, as we members of the Government can do, support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for the Walton Division asked: "Why should miners in particular have the benefit of this legislation?" That is a question which has been asked over and over again in the course of these debates. "Why should miners have a preference over all other trades in the country whose work is as burdensome, and many of whom work as long hours as miners; why should this one industry be placed in this privileged position?" Well, there are two reasons. The first is that if you take into account the severity of the labour which is performed by the miners; if you take into account the extreme danger of their occupation, and the great discomfort of working day after day and year after year for one's whole working life below ground, out of the sunlight, away from the light of day, there is no trade in the whole country which for a moment stands in a similar position or can make a claim in an equal degree for a fuller measure of leisure for the men engaged in it. The second reason is that for twenty years this proposal has been made by the miners. For twenty years it has been discussed again and again in Parliament, and has, on some occasions, been unanimously endorsed by the House of Commons. We hold that, whatever may be the case for any other trade, the time is fully ripe for this measure to pass into law. When nearly 1,000,000 men
  1278
  engaged in an industry ask for such legislation for the benefit of men who are overworked in the class to which they belong, it needs stronger arguments against the Bill than have been offered by hon. Gentlemen opposite before Parliament would be entitled to reject it. There is another argument in favour of the Bill, although I do not attach so great importance to it as those that I have just stated. This movement for an eight-hours day in the mines is not merely a national movement; it is an international movement. Already the hours of labour in mines in Germany and the United States of America are shorter than they are here. Already France has legislated with the view of securing an eight-hours day for miners, although the measure on her Statute-book does not go as far as this Bill. An amending Bill has, however, now been introduced. Already Belgium is treading along the same path. There was a time when England led the whole world in industrial legislation. It was one of the proudest boasts of our Parliament that it was so. But during the ten years of reaction between 1895 and 1905 in that, as in many other things, we have fallen into arrear. But I am sure the House will agree that it ought not to be said that it is England which is holding back the other countries in the world, that it is long hours here, unfair competition from England, which prevent the miners of those countries from gaining the boons which they ask for.
  And lastly, I put this point, and I ask for it the most earnest consideration of the House. What is the alternative to this Bill? If this Bill is rejected by hon. Members opposite, as they wish it to be rejected, what will be the consequences? We are told: "Here is an organised trade, with a strong trade union, well able to look after itself. Why should Parliament interfere? If the men want an eight-hours day why not allow them to secure it by their own efforts?" The hon. Member for Rhondda Valley told us that in South Wales, where the miners work ten to eleven hours all the year round, three times they had been to the employers and asked them to agree with the miners for a shorter working day, and that that appeal had been three

  1279
  times rejected. Well, if this Bill is not to be passed, and if the miners are to be left to their own devices and to the strength of their own organisation, it means a coal strike, and nothing else. The right hon. Member for St. George's clearly suggested that in a speech the other day. He told us that the laws in restraint of competition had been repealed, that the Trade Disputes Act had been passed. What more do you want? Why not take advantage of that, he suggested. I do not think that that is an eventuality which the House will contemplate with any degree of equanimity. All the suffering of women and children involved by a gigantic strike; all the poverty imposed on respectable families of working men plunged into debt; all the dislocation of trade; all the indirect effect on other industries as well as on their own industry; and in the end the men, perhaps, starved into submission—and the position to remain as it was before: that, let it be understood, is the policy suggested by the Opposition. The policy of the Government is this Bill.
  MR. BECKdesired to say only a few words on this measure. In the first place, he frankly confessed that he knew nothing about the coal industry, but he had listened with great and anxious care to the debate that day, and on the occasion when the Bill was last before the House, and moreover had read a considerable amount of matter on the subject, and he had come to the conclusion, with great reluctance, that the promoters of the Bill had been defeated in argument by those who were opposed to it. He could not be expected to admit that there was, either on the Ministerial benches or on those below the gangway opposite, a lack of ability, and he could not help thinking therefore that it was the case for the Bill which was weak. They had had speeches describing the hard case of the miners and the long hours they worked. He had the honour to represent an agricultural constituency, and he thought of the hours worked by those who returned him to Parliament, and of the misery caused by the temporary rise in the price
  1280
  of fuel last winter; and it seemed his duty to oppose, with the greatest reluctance, on behalf of his constituents the Bill now before the House. There was one phrase used by the hon. Member for Ince in the very interesting speech which he made on the last occasion which particularly struck him. He said that the miners—the husbands, fathers, and brothers—had a right to a larger share of home life than they enjoyed at present, and that those dependent upon them had a right to a greater share of their society. He questioned whether these men did not get a far greater share of home society than ninety-nine out of every 100 of his constituents. He questioned whether it was right to penalise the overwhelming majority of the workers of the country for the sake of a comparatively small part of the population, and whether it was not a fact that a great majority of the workers would be only too happy to exchange conditions with those employed in the great coal-mining trade of the country. He would not have intervened in the debate if he had not decided after much thought to vote against the Government. As he had said, he knew nothing of the trade and was merely there to listen to the debate and to try and understand all about this complicated measure; and it seemed to him that the arguments against the Bill were practically overwhelming, that they had not been adequately met, and that that proved conclusively that there was no possibility of meeting them. As regarded the charge of political inconsistency levelled against the Members of the Opposition by the hon. Member who had just sat down, it was one of the advantages of being a new Member that one had no political history, and that therefore his withers were entirely unwrung. Although consistency was a very noble virtue it was a very doubtful whether in politics it was a virtue at all. The Report of the Commission very considerably altered the argument for the Bill. Not many of those who voted on a Friday afternoon and on private Members' nights had any but a very hazy knowledge of the subject under discussion. He, at any rate would be exceedingly sorry that he should be forced for the rest of his life

  1281
  to support many things which he had voted for in a nebulous frame of mind. He had already said that he knew nothing practically about the coal industry, but he had pondered very long on the subject of the Bill, and with great reluctance he should be bound, as a matter of principle, to vote against it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the Bill had met with a degree of opposition which, apart from licensing measures, was unparalleled in his experience of Parliamentary Bills. Most of the Members in the House had received that morning a document from the Coal Consumers' League. At one time he thought of asking Mr. Speaker's opinion as to whether or not it did not come very near being an attempt to intimidate Members of the House of Commons. He would read, if he was in order, one paragraph from that document bearing on the statement which he had just made. The third paragraph read thus—
  "A recent Resolution passed at the Emergency Conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce called upon the members of the commercial community to rise above political considerations and defend the country's commerce, and to this end to offer to the Government during the whole of the stages of this Bill relentless opposition, both in the House of Commons and in the country"
  That of course, was perfectly allowable, but then the document went on to say this—
  "This call is being magnificently answered, and the Government, if they persist in this measure, will learn during the next few weeks that there is pitted against them the solid ranks of the manufacturers of the kingdom, who have sunk their polities in the determination to protect their trades."
  He had a much higher appreciation of the intelligence of the commerical community of this country than to believe that any of them had any apprehension as to his trade being in danger through the passing of this Bill, or any Bill of the kind. A statement of that kind was merely a piece of political bluff used for the purpose off rightening and intimidating timid Members of the House against voting for the Bill. He did not intend to recapitulate the arguments so often used with regard to the conditions of the miners. One argument that had been urged before in the course of the debate
  1282
  was that a mine was not exactly a health resort, and he wished to make two points upon that subject. They were told that the death-rate among miners was low, but to those of them who had had the misfortune to be born and reared in colliery villages and who had had to work in the pits, the explanation was obvious. People of weak health left mining and went to work in other occupations above ground; consequently those who remained and went into the mines were the healthiest members of the mining community. That in itself had a considerable effect in reducing the death rate of miners. Then with regard to the 54,997 persons employed underground who were over fifty years of age, to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, who used the figures, referred, they were not hewers, they were not the actual, workmen who were producing the coal, and a little more knowledge of this subject would have convinced the hon. Member that the bulk of these men were managers, officers, and others in similar positions—officials generally—and that so far as the actual working miner was concerned, the actual hewer, his statement was far from true. A great deal had been made of the Report of the Committee which inquired into this measure, and upon whose Report this Bill was based. The hon. Member for Liverpool, like others, quoted certain statements from that Report. It was needless to say that they quoted statements which best supported their view of the case. But the most extraordinary thing was that the statements quoted were not taken from the Report itself, but were taken from the reasons of the Committee which culminated in the Report. If hon. Members turned to the Report they would find that at the present time the average week at present worked was a week of forty-three hours and thirteen minutes, which spread over six days gave an average of seven hours and a quarter a day for each day of the week. The Committee said—
  "After analysis and inquiry we believe that a certain portion of the time now lost could be utilised under a legally restricted day."
  The point of that statement was that the average time now being worked in collieries, partly through the arrangement as to stop days and partly through

  1283
  broken days from causes over which the colliery companies had no control, was largely under the eight hours proposed by the Bill. If that were so, taking the country as a whole, there would be no reduction of output under the Bill, and as a consequence no increase in the price of coal. That seemed obvious.
  MR. MARKHAM: The miners do not work on Saturday.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid they did hot require to work on Saturday. Let them take Scotland. At the present time, during the past few months, twenty collieries had been closed down altogether owing to the falling off of the demand. In all the districts in Scotland the time worked was under four days a week. The men were perfectly willing to work five and a half days a week, eleven days a fortnight, if there was a demand for them to do so. His contention was that under the Bill, instead of working three and a half days of nine hours each per week, they would have to work four or five days if the demand was the same under the eight-hours day of the Bill. But he would take again the Report of the Committee as meeting the point just raised by the hon. Member opposite: this was what the Committee said—
  "The hours of labour in mines at present vary from six and a half in Durham to ten hours in Monmouthshire."
  He asked the hon. Member's attention to this because it seemed to him that this bore upon the point he had just raised. The Report went on to say—
  "After deducting stop days and short days the average time worked is forty-nine hours and fifty-three minutes a week."
  What this Bill proposed to do was to strike off the one hour and fifty-three minutes a week, and that being so he repeated that the apprehensions which had been raised as to the terrible effects of this Bill would be absolutely groundless.
  MR. MARKHAM: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment, I should like to remark that the Nottingham Miners' Association has passed a Resolution that no pit shall work
  1284
  on a Saturday, and no pit has worked in that district on a Saturday for many years.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he quite understood, but he was afraid that the hon. Member had not been listening to what he had been reading. The Committee said that after deducting stop days and short days the average time worked was forty-nine hours and fifty-three minutes, and that being so all that this Bill proposed to do was to strike off one hour and fifty-three minutes a week. He had already pointed out that with the broken time now suffered the actual output under the Bill would not be reduced, because the miners then would work for five days at eight hours instead of four days at ten hours each, as in the case of Monmouthshire. He came now to the question of cost; that was the crux of the debate. The great question was whether the Bill would increase the cost of production. Obviously if it did not decrease the output it would not increase the cost of production, and their argument was that in the working of the Bill it would not increase the cost except in certain districts. It would do so, of course, so far as South Wales was concerned, but not in other cases. Let them assume that there would be a slight increase of cost under the Bill owing to the reduction of two hours per week. The profits now being made in the coal trade were more than amply sufficient to meet the increase in the cost. He had in his hand a return from the balance sheets of some twenty of the leading colliery companies of Great Britain. He would not trouble the House by reading the whole list, but he would like to give figures showing the premium at which the shares of these companies were now being sold in the market, the purchase of shares being a very fair indication of the earning power of the colliery—the dividend earning power. He had made a selection from all parts, England, Scotland, and Wales. The shares of the Ashley Tidsley Colliery Company were selling at a premium of 205 per cent. The North Navigation Colliery, Limited, that was a Welsh concern, their preference shares were selling at 105 per cent. The Bear Pit Colliery

  1285
  Company, Limited, they were selling at 118¾ per cent. The Colliery Company shares were selling at 335 per cent. The Fife Colliery Company, Limited—that was a colliery working in a district in which the eight-hour day had been in operation for thirty years—were selling their shares at a premium of 500 per cent. Another coal and iron company was 175 per cent., and Wilson Clyde Coal Company, Scotland, was 321 per cent. He submitted that assuming there would be a slight increase in the cost of the production of coal owing to the operation of this Bill, the enormous profits which were now being made by these concerns, and which had been continuously earned for the past twelve or fourteen years, could be taxed to meet the extra cost without calling upon the consumer to pay one single farthing extra. Perhaps that could best be shown if he took a concrete, case. He had compiled from nine collieries in Durham, where the working day of the hewer was six and a half hours, figures taken from their own balance sheets for the year 1906. The average selling price of coal in Durham for that year was 6s. 5d. per ton at the pit top. The profits from these collieries declared upon them after providing for depreciation, sinking fund, mineral royalties and other charges, were £753,000, and the output was just over 14,000,000 tons. The number of persons employed was 37,617. The average profit returned from these collieries worked out at just a trifle over 1s. per ton. The profit per miner employed in those collieries was £20 0s. 4d. per annum. The dividends paid worked out at an average of £20 0s. 4d. a year for each man and boy employed in the nine collieries. Therefore, he submitted that even assuming that this Bill would increase the cost of production there was a elear and ample margin to draw upon, without adding one penny either to the cost of the coal of the labourer, of the poor in our big cities, or for our manufacturers.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: The price of coal is much too high now.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Exactly so. Lest it should be said that the figures were abnormal and peculiar to one year
  1286
  he wished to quote two sets of figures from the Newcastle Chronicle of 22nd June, 1908, ten days ago. They gave first of all the profits of a Welsh colliery company. They did not give the name. It appeared in the commercial column of the Newcastle Chronicle, and might be taken as genuine. In 1904–5 the dividends on that colliery, paid by that colliery company, amounted to £74,000; in 1906, £89,000; in 1907, £128,000; in 1908, £183,000. That was a progressive increase each year for this Welsh coal company. Now he came to a North Country coal company, the figures being taken from the same source. In 1904–5 the profits of the North Country coal company were £88,000; the name in this case, as in the other, was not given. The profits in 1906, were £161,000 in 1908, £266,000.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman got the figures for 1890?
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was giving the figures up to last year; 1890 was a long way back. It was eighteen years ago; it was ancient history. He had said, in the course of his remarks, that the profit during the past twelve or fourteen years had been the best ever known in any similar period of the history of the coal trade of this country. And it should be remembered that these were the years in which ruin was predicted because of the Workmen's Compensation Bill and other measures of that kind. On that point might he quote an authority which he thought would still carry weight with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House. This measure had been before Parliament now for twenty-one years. In 1887 the late Stephen Williamson was requested by the Scottish miners to introduce an Amendment into the Mines Regulation Bill, then going through the House, in favour of eight hours a day for boys in Scotland. It was defeated. In the following year he wrote to the late Mr. Gladstone, and also to the late Lord Randolph Churchill, asking for their opinion and attitude towards the Eight Hours Bill of the Miners. In the course of a lengthy reply, Lord Randolph Churchill wrote as follows—
  "As at present informed, I know nothing which will prevent me from voting for the

  1287
  principle of such a measure which, might be submitted to Parliament, provided that the persons who are qualified and competent to speak directly on behalf of the Labour interest were in its favour."
  That condition this year at least was fulfilled in regard to the Miners Eight-Hours Bill. His hon. friends opposite, who had so long and so ably conducted their opposition to this matter, were now no longer in opposition. They had, therefore, unanimity in regard to it. Lord Randolph Churchill went on to say:
  "Eight hours labour, eight hours sleep, and eight hours mental and bodily recreation seem to me to be an ideal which a democratic legislature in its care for the welfare of the whole people may wisely and profitably endeavour to aim at."
  Then he further goes on to point out—
  "If that tends to a diminution of the great mass of unemployed at present existing, as might be reasonably expected, and also probably to a diminution, though not necessarily a large diminution, of the profits of the capitalists, the latter disadvantage, if disadvantage it be, would be largely outweighed by the very great social and political advantages which would be secured by the establishment of a higher standard of comfort and contentment among our labouring population."
  That was their case to-day. It might be that the Bill would make slight inroads on the profits now being made on the coal mines. But against that loss to individuals they placed the welfare of nearly 1,000,000 of their workpeople. The hon. Gentleman on his right had said that industry was being crippled through the high price of coal. He agreed. They were not responsible for that. The profits in the North of England on coal getting had in some cases increased by over 100 per cent. The dividends had doubled, and there was a 5 per cent. increase on the wages of the men. There went to the men 5 per cent. increase, and to the coal owner 100 per cent. increase. These were the men who, out of their bloated dividends, were providing the money to mislead the country in regard to this measure. He had seen many statements in regard to Bills before that House, but nothing more absurdly ridiculous had been said about any measure than had been said about the present Bill at election time. He ventured to say that there was not a man on those benches or among those who were opposed to the Bill who would go into a mining constituency
  1288
  and repeat the statements he had made in that House. For twenty-one years the colliers of the country, by an overwhelming majority, and now with unanimity, had asked Parliament to pass this Bill. What was the alternative? The House might refuse to pass the Bill, or the House might so amend it as to make it impossible for the miners to accept it. What was the alternative? The miners were determined to have the eight hours day either by the peaceful methods of legislation, or by the more barbarous method of a strike. If a strike occurred it would not be merely Lancashire and Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland, or Scotland and Wales, which would strike, but it would be the whole country, and every colliery in Great Britain would come to a stop until the eight hours day had been won. Surely the hon. Gentlemen who feared the effect of this measure upon trade, could hardly contemplate a crisis of that kind with equanimity. Then as to the argument about the poor. Last winter when there was a slight spell of cold in this city of London, these men who controlled the markets doubled the price of coal to the poor in order to enhance their own ungodly profits. Knowing what the effect of the Bill would be, knowing it would bring a release from imprisonment in the mines to hundreds of thousands of sturdy, honest decent fellows, knowing also that our industries would not suffer, and that the price of coal would not be increased, they asked, the House to pass the Bill in such a form as would give this long desired reform and prevent the greatest industrial dispute of which this country had any record.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he looked upon this subject from a different standpoint from that taken by his hon. friend behind him and the hon. Member who had spoken from above the gangway opposite. He agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds in the admirable speech which he made a fortnight ago. He was particularly interested in that passage of his remarks which showed how the moral, intellectual, and social condition of the younger generation of miners would be enormously improved by the passing of this Bill. He welcomed the Bill because he thought it was an

  1289
  attempt to define the relationship between capital and labour. In defining the relation between capital and labour they ought to begin by finding a way to make the labourer more comfortable and a more worthy citizen. When a man had been an excessive number of hours at labour he went out of it fagged, his brain too tired to think. It was a reasonable division that he should have eight hours work, eight hours sleep, and eight hours to do what he pleased. This question interested him not so much because of the long hours of the labourer, but because when he looked round Christendom, with its two or three hundred millions of inhabitants, he found that a hundred millions at least did not get enough to eat from January to December. In Great Britain, with its forty-four odd millions of inhabitants, he did not think it was any exaggeration to say that ten millions at least got up in the morning and went to bed at night, having spent the whole day without getting bread enough to live on. It was impossible for these people to make intellectual or moral progress. They had not, as Charles Lamb said, been brought up but dragged up. They had never had a fair chance. They had been starved, mind and body. He was perfectly certain the only way for them to meet the question was to look it squarely in the face, and, if they possibly could, extend the eight-hours movement to every other trade in Great Britain, Putting aside all theories, every true lover of progress would admit that the mainspring of progress was good wages. The shilling or half-crown which was left over after the bills were paid on Saturday right meant education, self-respect, and manhood. It filled a town with good sanitary dwellings, and erected public libraries. It ensured progress and guaranteed it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the Bill would threaten property and ruin trade, but, in the words of Bancroft, the fears of one class were not the measure of the rights of another. There was something more sacred than property, trade, and vested interests. He believed in trusting the people. One of the characters in Disreali's book, "Vivian Grey," said: "The people are not always right." Another replied: "The people are seldom wrong." If they
  1290
  trusted the people, the good and the bad, the wise and the ignorant, they would not necessarily get perfect institutions, but they would get the only institutions possible as long as human nature was the basis and the only foundation upon which they built. After all, what was education? It was not Greek and Latin and the air-pump. Book-learning did not make 5 per cent. of the mass of commonsense that made the world, transacted its business, and trebled its power over nature. The ideal Scotsman was not a scholar. Two-thirds of the inventions which had made Great Britain the workshop of the world did not come from the colleges or schools of science, but had struggled up, forcing their way through all obstacles; our workshops and not our colleges had made Great Britain the mistress of the world. Selborne, perhaps the profoundest scholar of his time, said: "No man is wiser for his learning." He thought that was probably merely an echo of the old Saxon proverb, which said: "No fool is a perfect fool until he learns Latin."
  MR. PABKESsaid the speech they had just listened to was exceedingly eloquent, but it had very little to do with the Eight Hours Bill. It was rather inconsistent of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary when, on a previous occasion, they said that they on the Unionist side of the House did not take the trouble to oppose the provisions of the Bill. Now that they understood the position, and did take the trouble, they were taunted with their inconsistency, an inconsistency brought about entirely from the fact that the House of Commons and the public understood the question for the first time. After all, the question was not altogether what the front bench thought or what the back benches thought. The absolute question they had to consider was—would this Bill decrease the quantity of coal, would it increase the price, and was it approved by the commercial community? Anything that was for the benefit of the country as a whole, and of the miner in particular, he would not oppose, but the question was whether the Bill was for the benefit of the country as a whole. He very much doubted it, and he did not think at present, the

  1291
  case for the Bill had been made out. The hon. Member for Merthyr had indulged in a good deal of talk about strikes which was a little out of place in a discussion of that kind. He did not think it was right to put a pistol at the head of those who opposed the Bill and the public generally by saying that if the Bill was not accepted there would be a devastating strike throughout the country. He believed there was a quite sufficient spirit of arbitration and conciliation amongst the miners and the proprietors of coal mines to settle any question in dispute without going to the arbitrament of a strike. He did not anticipate for a moment if they could not settle it in that House that it was without the bounds of settlement outside in a conciliatory manner. The hon. Member for Merthyr had also spoken of the dividends of the mines. That was not the question. The question before them was not what dividends the coal proprietors got, but whether the Bill would increase the cost of coal to the public. If the hon. Member had given them the dividends during the last twenty-five years of those particular mines, there might have been a little more consistency. It was often the case in the coal as well as in the iron trade, of which he knew something, that they might go for years without getting any dividends whatever, and then there might be a few years of improvement. That was the case, he believed, with the coal mines. In the last four or five years they had had a boom, but how did they get on for years and years before that boom? Unless a boom came in some businesses in this country, it would be very bad for them. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had mentioned sixty hours in the factories. Was that a consistent analogy to the forty-three hours a week in the mines? No. Any trade which only worked forty-three hours in the week could not be said to be in a state of over-work. They were indebted very much to the Home Secretary for appointing the Departmental Committee. The right hon. Gentleman himself had rather sneered at the late opposition which came in like a flood in February, because of the Coal Consumers' League, but the great trades of the country, deputations of which came to him so numer-
  1292
  ously that they had sometimes to be lumped together in order to get time for hearing, were not moved by the Coal Consumers' League in the slightest degree. He attended one or two of those deputations, and the one he referred to specially was concerned with the iron, steel, and allied trades. They were unanimous against the Bill, and were of opinion that it would greatly increase the cost of coal. They were opposed to the Bill not because they wanted to do any harm to the miners, but simply because they thought it would interfere with the trade of the country. He remembered men getting up and giving their evidence as to what they thought would be the effect, and one after another said it would interfere to this extent. The cost of the coal used in various processes of manufacture was from 4 to 16 tons per ton of finished iron. Suppose the increase was not 1s. or 1s. 6d., but 6d. or 9d. Would anyone say when they had multiplied by 4 or 16 what the increase would be on the cost of manufacture? These manufacturers had not only to compete with the home producers, but also with an increasingly severe competition from abroad, and if they went on protecting the labour of this country in this way, so as to increase the cost of the articles produced, the tendency would be to reduce the production of those particular articles and in that way add to the number of the unemployed. The Under-Secretary had put forward two great reasons in favour of the Bill, namely, the severity of the labour and the great discomfort it caused to the miners. He (Mr. Parkes) had made particular inquiries with regard to the severity of the labour. He found that the man in a coal mine who was promoted to be a hewer of coal would not on any consideration if he could help it go and work on the top or on the bank. As a matter of fact the health of the miner was very much better than the health of the average worker in other trades; as a matter of fact, his health as far as longevity was concerned was above that of the man who worked on the bank. Whatever test they gave to health they would find that the miners stood in a very good position. With regard to discomfort he knew that the

  1293
  miner would sooner be down the pit during the hard winter than following any other form of labour. As to the severity of the labour and the discomfort arguments, in face of these facts they all fell to the ground. There were various tests which they ought to apply to this Bill. First of all, were the men overworked? He did not think that a man who worked only forty-three hours a week could be said to be overworked. Was the miner underpaid? He thought they might safely say that it was one of the best paid employments in the Kingdom. Was mining unhealthy? The statistics he had referred to and the Report of the Committee proved that that was not the case. Was the mining trade in a position to take care of itself? There was no trade so able to take care of itself. One of the greatest objections to the Bill was that it imposed a similarity of conditions on different districts. They could not, in consequence of the different conditions prevailing in different parts of the country, impose one set of conditions which would apply satisfactorily to all districts. The district he had in mind was South Staffordshire and the Cannock Pits. It was said that the coal miners might accelerate their speed of work, but even that was in itself a danger. It was said that the Bill would greatly decrease the tendency to accidents, but as a matter of fact it would increase that tendency. With regard to South Staffordshire, where they worked the thick coal, the two-shift system would be entirely inoperative. In those mines there had to be a great deal of repairing done to the roads and parts of the pits between the shafts, and that trouble was quite uniform in Staffordshire. If that part of the operation were hurried and not properly done the lives of the miners would be in danger. Then there was another thing with regard to South Staffordshire: there was frequently an enormous quantity of water in the mines which had to be pumped out by a pumping station specially erected for that purpose. If only a few of those pumps were stopped the working in the mines would also be stopped. If the Bill were carried in the way it was drawn it simply meant
  1294
  the destruction of the coal trade in that part of the country. He thought the opinion of the experts on the question in Staffordshire ought to be taken in preference to the opinion of the experts at the Home Office, and of other people who were not so greatly concerned in the trade itself. In the Cannock district, for example, they frequently worked only two and a half days per week. It was absolutely a season trade, and it would be absurd to employ two sets of men when, during part of the year, the men employed could only work two and a half days per week. For these reasons he maintained that it was impossible to frame one set of conditions in a universal eight-hours Bill which would be suitable to every part of the country. A good deal had been made of the mitigations mentioned in the Bill. At the present time the men worked forty-three hours and so many minutes per week, and it was assumed that the miners would work more regularly under the new system. That, however, was simply an assumption. He did not think himself that the men would be absent from work less under the new system than under the old. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan had referred to the opinions of the Chambers of Commerce, and said that they were dragooned by the Coal Owners' Association, and other similar bodies. Could they imagine 200 or 300 gentlemen from different parts of the country, representing the various Chambers of Commerce, all classes and trades, and altogether independent of politics, being dragooned by the Coal Owners' Association? He would say that if any body of men in this country was qualified to give an impartial opinion, entirely free from party bias, and which might be taken as the commercial Parliament of this country, it was the Associated Chambers of Commerce. That body decided almost unanimously to condemn this Eight Hours Bill for Miners. It was absolutely a slur upon the Chambers of Commerce of the country to say they were dragooned by the Coal Owners' Association. He did not think any case had been made out for the Bill. If the eight hours limit were imposed the trade would be very

  1295
  seriously injured. Every year competition was becoming more and more severe; if any hon. Member doubted that statement let him go into the iron and steel districts and he would see what they had to contend with at the present time. These were the questions they had to look at. He did not believe that the commercial opinion of the country was fully represented in the House of Commons upon this question. It was all very well to taunt the Opposition with not opposing the Bill before. They did not oppose it simply because they did not understand it; the Departmental Committee had been the means of their understanding it, and now that they did understand it they were opposed to it with all their might. There were times when the House of Commons did not represent the opinion of the country. He did not say there were not commercial men there who had opinions of their own, but the visible manifestations of those opinions was sadly lacking upon commercial questions. Therefore, he did not think they ought to be taunted with having abstained from opposition in the past and now rising to protest against the Bill. As a matter of fact, some of the districts would have to work longer hours than this Bill proposed, whilst other districts would have to work shorter hours. Almost every district had conditions peculiar to itself. They had their own way of working in a particular mine, and why should they not arrange some principle by which such cases could be met? It was fatal to the whole thing to have one cast-iron set of regulations supposed to meet all the varying conditions of mining. They ought certainly to have some arrangement by which each particular district could be dealt with on its merits. He knew there were some cases of hardship in South Wales, but why could not those particular districts be put into a different position? Why should they desire to apply this hard and fast cast-iron system to the whole country? By doing so they would wreck the interests of the country as a whole and fail to give that prosperity to the people which ought to be the object of all legislation. In this measure they were considering the interests of a small section of the community which
  1296
  was well able to take care of itself. It was a trade which was well paid and healthy, and in which the men were on good terms with their employers. It was really 42,000,000 people against 1,000,000, and by passing the Bill in its present form they were overlooking the interests of the 42,000,000 in favour of the infinitely smaller number who were well able to take care of themselves and whose grievances could be settled without this Bill in its present form.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that there had been considerable argument about the price of coal under the operation of an Eight Hours Bill. All prices were mere speculation and must, of course, be determined by the state of the market for the time being. It was impossible and indeed ridiculous that any Member of the House should say that the price of coal would increase 2s. or 3s. per ton in consequence of the Bill, because that entirely depended on the law of supply and demand. For example, the supply had only to be a little behind the demand for prices to rise out of all proportion. Therefore, those who spent their lives in and about coal mines had to consider the actual cost of working an eight-hours day as compared with the present system. Whether the price of coal would increase by reason of the reduced output which would inevitably follow depended upon the state of the market for the time being. If an eight-hours day had been passed in the first session of this Parliament he would not hesitate to say that the price of coal might have been 30s. a ton instead of 10s. The coal trade was now in a depressed condition. He was very sorry indeed to notice that the Labour Members were not present in larger numbers in an important debate of this kind.
  MR. GLOVER: The Labour Members are absent because they are now holding a meeting.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that it was a very poor excuse and a very poor argument when an important Bill was down for consideration to say that hon. Members were attending another meeting. The effect of this Bill, so far as South Wales was concerned, would be very

  1297
  serious and there would be a large reduction in the output there. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Bosworth division and himself were directors of a large company in South Wales which produced over 1,500,000 tons of coal per annum. The House was aware what the hon. Baronet said about the profits of the coal trade, and he would like to give his own experience of the profits of mines with which he had been concerned during the last five years. The hon. Member for South Glamorganshire had given the case of two collieries in South Wales as if they were typical of the whole coal-mining industry. They did not show a fair average of the coal-mining industry. The hon. Member ought to have taken the whole of the South Wales mines if he wished to show the fair average. Instead of doing so, he had taken two of the best mines. In the case of one of the mines the whole of the capital had been built up by not spending any money on capital account and by paying no dividend for a long series of years. All these matters seemed never to have occurred to hon. Members who talked on the question. The collieries he was connected with during the last five years had raised 13,802,149 tons, they had paid in wages £3,596,190, and in dividends £443,600. The average profit over the past five years amounted to 7·7d. per ton in dividends. The Socialist Party told them that the men received 5 per cent. and the owners 95 per cent. The figures he had quoted showed that for every £1 paid in wages the companies got 2s. 6d., or in other words for every £100 paid in wages the profit was £12 10s. If a Socialistic Government took over the mines, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil desired, there would only be an addition of £12 10s. on every £100 paid in wages at the present time. That was, of course, after allowing for all the coat of equipping and sinking collieries and interest on the capital involved. In addition to that he contended that in many cases collieries did not set aside sufficient money for depreciation. There was no use referring to special collieries. Coal-mining depended on whether the conditions were favourable. Good collieries could make money while other collieries adjoining lost money. What
  1298
  they could only arrive at was the average, and though his own experience might be wrong he believed that in the last twenty years the profit made in coal mining on the average was not 6 per cent. on the capital value. It was not more in the companies with which he was associated. In his opinion the question of cost entailed by the Bill depended entirely upon the men themselves. In South Wales the men worked longer hours than in any other part of the country, except some districts of Lancashire, where they were practically the same. Even in Wales, where the men had always raised every possible obstacle to the introduction of modern methods of working, and where great difficulties existed for colliery managers and those connected with the undertakings, he believed if this Bill came into operation and the men met the coal-owners fairly in the matter by the introduction of double shifts, there would not be, so far as South Wales was concerned, an increase in the price of coal. It would be asked at once, "Where are the men who are going to work the double shifts?" He might say that in the case of a colliery with which he was associated there was one of the most able general colliery managers in the country, and he was of opinion, after going carefully through the figures, that even in the pits with which his company was associated, if they could work double shifts with the men they now had they would reduce the cost by at least 1s. per ton. That was to say, if, when the Eight Hours Bill came into effect, they closed half the working places in which coal was got and worked double shifts, the cost of getting coal would not be increased beyond what it was to-day. The men in South Wales, however, would not accept this as they did in the Midlands, Warwickshire and Nottingham. So far as he was concerned he did not think that his union friends could say that he had been hostile to their programme, that the men should receive a decent living wage, irrespective of the selling price of the commodity under the old sliding scale, but he said that under the ridiculous system now in force in South Wales the cost of getting coal must be enormously out of proportion to what it ought to be. He was not sure but

  1299
  that the cost of getting a ton of coal in South Wales to-day was 50 per cent. more than in the Midlands, where the conditions were practically the same. So far as the miners were concerned they had pursued a more enlightened course in the Midlands than in South Wales. The coal-owners in the Midlands had always been treated with what he might term good common sense in the management of their collieries. He might say that in a colliery with which he was connected in the Midlands he did not think that on the average the cost would be increased 3d. per ton. He thought that the maximum increase in the cost might be 6d., and that was in a case where the mining face was at a considerable distance from the shaft. In Yorkshire, Warwickshire, and Derbyshire, they were able to work double shifts and reduce the expense. In some cases they would be able to work three shifts. The difficulty in getting coal depended as he had said upon the men who were at the working face. He believed that the cost of getting coal in South Wales would be increased by at least 1s. per ton, while in the Midlands the increased cost would be approximately 3d. per ton, or in certain collieries a maximum of 6d. per ton. It had been said that this increased cost of getting coal would place the manufacturers of this country at a disadvantage in competing with the manufacturers of the world. Reference had been made to the effect on the iron industry and other industries by reason of this interference with the hours of labour. What were the facts? He had been down coal mines in all parts of the world, and he believed he was correct in saying that with the exception of the mines of Pennsylvania no coal was worked so cheaply as in this country, and therefore even with from 3d. to 6d. added in some cases to the present price of getting coal that would still leave us far and away above our competitors who wore to-day taking large supplies from this country and paying freight and railway charges in addition to the price of the coal. We had in this country abundance of good steam coal. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had spoken of two distinct classes of collieries, one producing steam coal
  1300
  and the other producing house coal. During the summer months the house coal mines worked short time because there was no market for what they produced. The production of the steam coal collieries was fairly even in both the winter and the summer months. During the coal boom of 1901 owing to sensational statements which appeared in the Daily Mail, and other papers of that class, people in the country got panicky on the question of the price of coal. Householders and others accordingly placed their orders for coal in the summer months, and the house coal collieries worked full time in the summer. People in the East End of London took in their coal supplies and put them away under beds by reason of the scare which had been created. The consequence was that the collieries were worse employed in the winter of 1901 than they had been for many years previously. If people bought their coal during the summer months, which they would not do, and which, he admitted, they could not do in many instances, he saw no reason why the output, so far as the Midland counties were concerned, should be decreased. So far as South Wales was concerned the position was different. There the miners were producing steam coal for which there was a steady market all the year round. If the cost of producing coal should increase 6d. per ton he wished the House clearly to understand that the coal-owners would have to increase the cost by 1s. That might seem an extraordinary statement to make, but it was absolutely common sense. If hon. Members would follow him he would explain how that came about. If they increased the cost of production by 6d., that meant for large and small coal. The additional cost would be incurred for the getting of the slack and small coal as well as the large, and, therefore, the coalowners would charge 1s. per ton more for the cobbles and large coal which householders consumed. That was what hon. Members did not see in the same way as those who were interested in the coal trade. About forty or fifty per cent. of the coal raised was slack which only fetched a small price. Hon. Members opposite knew perfectly well what was the position in South Wales.

  1301
  Appeals had been made to the House about the inhumanity of the colliery owners. It was true that they were producing coal at the high prices named, but the largest proportion of the money had gone to the men and not to the owners. If the hon. Member for Glamorgan saw the balance sheets of large companies he would find that over the last ten years the dividend had not been more than 3 per cent., and over the last five years not more than 6 per cent. He was not saying that the profits in the last year or two had not been large, but the hon. Member ought to have given a fair average of the profits made over a reasonable period. The hon. Member must be aware that these large companies had for years seen their shares continually depreciating in value.
  MR. BRACEsaid that if the hon. Member would challenge the figures he had given as incorrect, he would know what to do, and would deal with it.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he did not deny the hon. Member's figures for a moment, but he denied that the case which, he had put before the House was a fair illustration of what the coal-owners were doing in South Wales. The future in South Wales depended very much on how the men dealt with this question; because, unless something was done with the system of working in South Wales, the Bill would not only greatly decrease the output of coal, despite what hon. Members say, but—
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid he denied that in toto.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that the hon. Member had not had the balance sheet of the companies placed before him, and he did not know that the cost of getting a ton of Welsh coal often amounted to from 9d. to 1s. in timber alone. The hon. Member lost sight of that consideration. South Wales had been the cock-pit of the dispute, and the men were worse off than those in the Midlands. He had fear about the future unless a new policy was brought forward in South Wales,
  1302
  but no fear about the Midlands where a policy of common sense had long prevailed.
  MR. HEMMERDEsaid he had been somewhat surprised at some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite. They had heard something that day as to what had happened at recent bye-elections; but perhaps hon. Members had forgotten what happened at a few previous bye-elections. That became important when they were twitted by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, about having put up their economic consciences to auction. What had been the history of this question during the last three years? For nearly twenty years previously it was not a question which was seriously opposed by either Party, and at the last general election practically every Member for coal-mining constituencies came back to the House to support this measure. Not only that but even during the late Administration the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, in seeking re-election on joining the Ministry, declared himself, presumably with the consent of his Leader, to be in favour of an Eight Hours Bill; and again when he stood at the general election for Chorley it was on the same platform. So that if they on that side of the House were putting up their economic consciences to auction at the last general election, there were other people in the same case. The noble Lord was returned for Chorley only on account of his promise to vote for the Eight Hours Bill. Immediately after the general election there was a bye-election in Cumberland when the Opposition candidate was heart and soul in favour of an Eight Hours Bill. If hon. Members would carry their memory a little further back to a bye-election at which he was returned to the House, they would remember that his opponent who sat in the last Parliament for the Tonbridge Division of Rent voted and fought against the Bill. But when the hon. Gentleman came down to a North Wales constituency, he (the speaker) thought that as he was fighting for the principle which he had always advocated before he went to a mining constituency, that his opponent would in accordance with his previously declared views speak and fight against

  1303
  it. Not at all; he became a convert to the Eight Hours Bill; and he received a letter of good-will from the Leader of the Opposition. That was in 1906. In the beginning of 1907 there was a bye-election in North East Derby, at which a miners' representative was returned and the Conservative candidate was Dr. Court. He went down into the division for two or three days, and found that Dr. Court was standing in that division as a supporter of the Eight Hours Bill, and was claiming that twenty years experience as a medical man had proved to him that an eight-hours day underground was the utmost that men could work if they were to lead healthy lives. That medical gentleman was also fortunate enough to receive the benediction of the Leader of the Opposition. Later on, however, under the patriotic auspices of the Coal Consumers' League there began the development of the great movement to protect the shipping of the country which some hon. Members opposite professed to be so deeply interested in and the Opposition began to repudiate the whole principle of an eight-hours day. They were told that the Report of the Committee had entirely changed the situation. But the Report told them nothing that they did not know in principle before. If there were adaptations of conditions to meet the new needs there would be no serious rise in the price of coal. They had heard from hon. Members of experience that the possible rise in South Wales might be put at 1s. per ton, and in other parts of the country at 3d. per ton or 6d. per ton. That was the result of experience, and the opinion of the Committee too was that 1s. 6d. per ton was an exaggeration. How came it then that hon. Members for election purposes not only said the rise would be 5s. per ton, but when taxed with that in the House, did not repudiate but cheered it? How could hon. Members, who only the other day were in favour of an eight-hours day, justify the use of figures like that, arid declare that if an Eight Hours Bill were passed, it would result in the probable increase in, the price of coal by 5s. per ton? Since when had hon. Members on the Opposition benches become the guar-
  1304
  dians of the price of coal? Many things had contributed to the price of coal which they were always busy defending, such as land monoply and the ownership of mines by private individuals. He referred them to a passage in the Report of the Royal Commission as to certain extensive areas of coalfields waiting development. That was what made the high price of coal. The more mines that were opened the more coal would be produced, and the lower would be the price of coal. The present system of taxing land favoured the restriction of the output of coal, and also high prices. Let hon. Members who talked of the rise in the price of coal crippling industry turn their attention to the taxation of land upon its capital value so as to bring it into the market.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRISasked if the hon. Member could give an instance of any owner of coal who was not anxious for the development of his property?
  MR. HEMMERDEsaid he was pretty certain that there were coal-fields in his constituency that were in that condition. He had received a letter from a coal-owner in his constituency who did not seem prepared to deny that there were coal-fields in that district waiting development. He pointed out that if they were developed it would give employment to miners, and that by the present system of taxation which encouraged people to withold their land from development, the price of coal was increased. In fact, the real remedy for dealing with this question was a root and branch reform of the land system. He thought the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House when they came to ask the suffrages of a mining constituency was argument enough for the unanimity of the demand that was made. It was perfectly impossible for anybody, so great was the unanimity of this demand, to come forward in any mining constituency and not support the demand of the miners. If any hon. Member read the Report of the Committee with regard to the question of health of the miners and the hours which they worked they would find that matter

  1305
  not very deeply gone into, but quite apart from the question of health or the doctor's opinion of the effect of the hours upon their health there were certain matters familiar to them all, and he often wondered if hon. Members really believed that it was good for the health of any man to be underground for more than eight hours a day. He wondered whether hon. Members believed that any man could do hard physical toil of the character which these men did underground or over-ground for more than eight hours a day without suffering in health. He did not believe that they could, and although some doctors told him that they could he declined to throw over his own views and theories as well as to the effects of physical toil on men. Because many of these miners lived to an advanced age it did not show in the least that the life was a healthy one. They lived a very hard life and developed athletically, if he might say so, and physically, and the mere fact that these people happened to be healthier even than those who did no work did not in the least prove that physical toil for more than eight hours a day was good for them. It was his experience down in North Wales that the movement at the present time had its strongest supporters in the young men. It was what the Member for Ince said the other day, and it was his own experience as well, that the young men wanted leisure for recreation, and the ordinary light and pleasure of life. The human side of this question must enter into their thoughts. He found the real enthusiasm upon this question was among the very men who, if it was granted to them, would make the best use of it. He asked hon. Members if on a question that had been debated in this House for years they were going to change the whole of their views merely for the sake of an electioneering cry. The danger (if it existed) to our commerce must have been known for years. They could not possibly believe that simply to secure election or re-election hon. Members pledged themselves to a subject which they did not understand. They did them greater justice than that. Surely those who spoke for commercial England, and one hon. Member said the other day that there was not enough commercial men on the Ministerial side of the House—surely those who spoke
  1306
  for commercial England did not need to get their information from this Report; they must have known it for years. This danger of the rise in the price of coal as affecting the cost of production: had it not been thrown at the heads of all reformers who had tried to reform the hours and the conditions of labour of the workman? He did not suggest that they could continually reduce the hours of labour, and always get the same result, but did anybody suggest that the reduction of hours hitherto had ever had the result of increasing the cost of production? He remembered in a conference the other day upon the question of sweating Mr. Sydney Webb told a story of how he went over the great works of Sir Charles Tennant, and how Sir Charles pointed out many improvements that had been made by the men themselves to reduce the cost of production, when the cost looked like being increased by some advantages gained by the men for themselves by their unions. New machinery, new methods, a little more willingness among the men, and they would find they would not have a considerable rise in the cost of production at all. There might be a rise of just a few pence, but when they found hon. Members supporting their efforts to get into this House by literature which suggested 5s. per ton as the increase of cost under this Bill he began to wonder if they really believed that any increase would take place under the Bill at all. What chance was there of any increase? There was the same chance now as there was twenty years ago when they supported this measure—the same chance that there was four years ago when hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends supported this measure. Another question was, did the increase in cost mean increase at the pit's mouth, or increase to the consumer? There were other persons interested in the production of coal who could pay these few pence and prevent their coming upon the consumer. The cost of production to the consumer depended upon many things, as they knew, besides the hours worked by the men. But quite apart from the question of the increase in the price of coal, he believed the conscience of the country had revolted against putting men of the very best type that the country produced to

  1307
  work for unreasonable hours of labour and if there was a slight rise in the cost of production he believed the great bulk of the people of the country would be prepared to meet it. Although hon. Members on the other side of the House said that if the miners got their way in this Bill the cost of coal would be increased, it was a significant fact that all organised labour and its representatives in the House were unanimous in supporting the measure. Was it likely that hon. Members representing the Labour interest if they thought there was any danger of an increase in the price of coal would stand side by side with the miners in pressing this Bill on the House. He did not want to dwell at that moment on the proposed Government Amendment to the Bill The question (if this was a good Bill) whether it should be postponed, and, if so, for how long, would be settled in Committee. The tests put before them by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in the beginning of this debate had been satisfied again and again. Their own knowledge of physical conditions must tell them that the effect of this Bill would make for the health of the miners over the whole country. So far as the test of whether it was to the public advantage was concerned, what proof had they got that there would be a rise of a 1s. or 9d., let alone 5s., in the cost of production? It was merely assertion, without proof, and it would be proved if it could be. The assertion was made merely to turn to account a political situation. There were no figures to support it, and that being so he respectfully asked the House to support the Bill on behalf of his constituency, which was unanimously in favour of it, and not to be led away by any idea that there would be a great increase in the cost of production when they found in the world of organised labour men of every interest in every trade standing together unanimously in its favour.
  SIR CHARLES McLARENsaid there was one thing to be decided when they came to vote on the Second Reading of this Bill. A claim was put forward and had been put forward for more
  1308
  than twenty years by the whole body of miners of Great Britain, a body of men whose labour extended over every part of the country, who belonged to every race in these Islands, and who were not only among the hardest worked, but among the most intelligent of our industrial classes. They were banded together in the greatest and the wealthiest trade union of the world; they were represented in the House and also elsewhere by leaders of the greatest intelligence and knowledge of business affairs. These men had come forward and made this demand to Parliament to reduce their working hours to eight a day. They had taken that step every year for years after due deliberation in their unions and after consultation with their friends in the trade on both sides of the House. It was impossible to suppose that this great claim, put forward as it had been, could be brushed aside by mere technicalities, much less by such figures as were recently put before the House. For twenty years he had voted for this Bill, being largely interested in colliery properties, and every year that he had voted in favour of the Bill he had felt more and more justified in doing so, because although twenty years ago the conditions of the coal trade might have made the Bill a doubtful measure, he had never regarded it as one really dangerous to the industry. Twenty years ago the price of coal was very low, and old pits were being worked, but since hose days things had changed. There was a very largely increased demand for coal, and there was a much higher price; here were better profits for all the owners and much better wages and conditions of work for the miners. What vas more important still was that we had now a large number of new and admirably equipped collieries, and a large number of new shafts were now being sunk, and to these modern collieries this Bill would be no objection whatever. It was not the colliery in which the coal was worked within a short distance of the shaft that would suffer from an eight hours day; it was the old collieries in which the coal was far from the shaft and which were disappearing which would suffer. Now they had to ask themselves: Were there any valid and wide-reaching arguments which could be

  1309
  brought forward to meet the demands of the mining population for this Bill? There had been only one Member directly connected with the coal and iron trade who had that day spoken against the Bill. It was the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was very glad to see that he ignored the figures that had been recently circulated by the Mining Association of which he and others had a great right to complain. He had no hesitation in saying that those figures were entirely misleading. The figures put forward by his hon. friend the Member for the Mansfield Division he had no doubt were absolutely correct. In South Wales they would have an increased cost of 1s. if this Bill passed. He was very largely interested in South Wales coal and he was prepared to meet that increased cost without the slightest feeling of apprehension. Welsh coal was an article of first necessity not only in this country, but all over the world. People must have Welsh coal, and if they must have Welsh coal they must be prepared to pay the price. Hon. Members might be surprised, perhaps, when he told them that in these circumstances he did not see that any great misfortune would fall upon his shoulders, if he shared all the advantages which a Welsh colliery possessed with the men who worked in the pits. The men would get better conditions of labour, and it would not necessarily reduce the profits of the producer of the coal. If he got that shilling out of his foreign customer, he did not see why he should not cheerfully support the Bill. He would point out that Welsh coal was not a house coal at all, except for the immediate locality. If they went to the Midland collieries, the circumstances were different. There were a good many collieries in the Midlands to which the passing of the Bill would make a difference of about 2½d. per ton. In others it would make a difference of 3d., 4d., 5d., or 6d. In considerable groups of collieries in North Derbyshire or South Yorkshire they might suffer to the extent of more than 6d. a ton, but the average in any group they might take, would certainly not be more than 6d. The question of the market price of coal had been referred to. Every year the market price of coal
  1310
  rose or fell from totally different causes. Every advance of miners' wages of 10 per cent, meant a rise in the price of coal of 4d. or 6d. Every year London coal merchants put up the price of coal by 1s. to their customers in winter and nobody complained; and while they were willing to raise miners' wages, and allow even market fluctuations which in South Wales sometimes meant between 4s. and 5s. a ton, yet they had all this outcry and these exaggerated figures because the mining population of the country demanded a measure which would, perhaps, put up the price of house coal by 4d. or 6d. a ton. If hon. Members worked out the difference in price to the working classes they would find that it practically was not more than about one-eighth of a penny on a cwt., and that meant that if a man consumed a ton of coal every two months it would make a difference at the end of the year of 3s., or just about the price of a bottle of whisky. How could anybody come and say that that was a hardship on the consumer? This was one of those questions which the more they looked into it the less alarming it seemed. Everyone of his Conservative opponents for the last twenty years had been in favour of this Bill and, like himself, he was perfectly certain they had none of the alarm which had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, alarm which could not be founded, he thought, on serious conviction. He thought the statements they had heard were intended for the elections. It was necessary to make a little fuss in the House in order to justify the speeches which would be made at the elections. But he would be very much surprised if any considerable majority of the Conservative Party whom they found in the House would go into the lobby to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I have rarely listened to a more interesting speech than that which has just been made. It covered really a remarkable extent of ground. The hon. Member began by stating that 1s. or 1s. 6d. on a ton of Welsh coal would make no difference, because the foreigner will pay it. He went on to point out in language that we have heard before, and in a kind of detail we have heard before

  1311
  from those benches, at one time applied to the 4-lb. loaf, what an infinitesimal amount this would add to the cost paid by the workman for his coal. Then the hon. Member said I am quite prepared to pay this 1s. or 1s. 6d. on the price of coal but the hon. Gentleman does not belong to either of the classes which have been referred to in this House—either that large number who are on the verge of starvation, or that still larger number who have a constant struggle to prevent themselves falling below that verge. Turning from the speech of the hon. Member, I may say that I was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wisbech should have said that after listening most carefully he had come to the conclusion that the whole weight of the argument was against the Government he desired to support. The only surprise I feel, since he has become so candid, is that he did not go further and say that no argument at all had been put before the House on the other side. I do not think that is an exaggeration. Take, for instance, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Home Office. Nobody recognises better than I do that the hon. Gentleman is quite capable of making a speech if he has a reasonable case. What did his speech consist of? Two things. First of all an attack, and a very strong attack, upon us for our inconsistency. What does that amount to? It simply amounts to this, that so long as this was a question to be debated on a Friday afternoon it was an open question on both sides of the House. It was nothing more than that. In my own case, for instance, and I think it is typical, I was interested in the subject, and I listened to many of those speeches which were made, but I doubt very much whether they stated the case for the Bill. My own opinions were clearly expressed, for my constituents constantly asked me questions, and I had to give the answers. The charge has been made that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at that time, when he had the responsibility of office, did not come on a Friday afternoon. But it was the one day of the week when it was possible for him to obtain freedom, and he did not need to come and vote on this question, which at that time was purely academic. The hon. Gentleman's lecture on consistency had
  1312
  no doubt a great moral effect, but I think its moral effect cannot be greatly enhanced by the fact, as he informed us, that the debate is to be wound up for the Government by the right hon. Gentleman, who is the greatest exponent of the virtue of consistency to be found in the present House of Commons. Now, the next argument of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office was, I think, a far more reprehensible one, if I may say so. He wound up his speech by saying: "Your policy is a strike: our policy is this Bill." What does that mean? It means that the Government must not oppose this Bill because the coal trade threatens a strike. What a lesson that is to other trades! What will the railway men think of it, for we know that they think their hours too long? If we are to grant a Bill like this to one trade, for the reason that a strike is threatened, why in the world are you not to grant it to all trades? There is something more to be said on that point. Is the Government not greatly increasing the risk of strikes by passing this Bill? At all events the members of the Committee to which reference has been made so often take that view; they point out over and over again that controversies are sure to arise in consequence of this Bill, and they speak of the great danger which might occur in the country if those controversies were not met in the most conciliatory spirit on the part of masters and men. Take the position of the Northumberland and Durham miners. These men have been told that the Eight Hours Bill means a maximum of eight hours a day. But they work six and a half hours. The moment this Bill is passed, even in its amended form, the whole system of the Durham and Northumberland miners will break down, and it will have to be re-constituted, and those who have examined the question say that they see no way in which it can be re-arranged except by increasing the hours of the men who are now only working six and a half hours. Even with the best intentions, that represents a real difficulty—a difficulty which causes danger of a strike far more than the refusal of this House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill can possibly do. I should like to look more closely

  1313
  at the whole aspect of this question. So far everyone who has spoken in favour of the Bill, not excluding even the Home Secretary, has confined himself to one part of the question, namely, the humanity of the principles of the measure. That is a strong ground, but after all the history of the case is not so simple as that. We have the fact, for instance, mentioned by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, of men, I presume his constituents, who are working nearly 50 per cent, longer hours than the miners and for less than half the wages. That fact surely suggests at least the possibility that humanity may be on the other side of this question. If, therefore, this appeal to humanity is to be justified at all it must be justified on a more definite ground than that. It appears to me that the House of Commons would not be justified in passing this Bill until it has seriously considered the two points which seem to me essential for its proper understanding. The first of these points is whether or not the hours worked by the miners are so excessive as to demand at all costs immediate redress at the hands of this House. The second point is equally important. It is that whatever the House does it should do it with its eyes open, and after it has most carefully considered what the effect of this Bill will be upon all other classes of the country. Take the first point. Are the hours so excessive as to justify the treatment of a trade in a way that it has not been suggested at present that any other trade should be treated? We should expect, if such a case were to be made out, that it would be made out on the ground that the hours worked were such as to have so bad an effect on the health of the men that Parliament was bound to interfere. No such case has been made out. That point was definitely referred to the Committee. The Committee in their Report—and they gave the evidence on which their Report was founded—said unanimously that in their opinion there was no justification for the Bill on the ground of health. The Home Secretary, it is true, did not accept that finding of the Committee. Another hon. Gentleman, who spoke from below the gangway, rejected it on grounds
  1314
  which seem to me rather peculiar. He said that our common sense would tell us that nobody would like to be more than eight hours under ground. But one would not like to be a labourer engaged in steel works, or a labourer engaged in other trades, where they have to work under much worse conditions than those under which miners work, and where they men are less able to help themselves. But the Home Secretary has not accepted this finding of the Committee. He suggested that we should accept his opinion, but he gave no grounds for our so doing. He gave an argument which was knocked to pieces by my hon. friend behind me; this afternoon, and which I need not therefore further refer to now. But perhaps it may be said that, though this trade is not an unhealthy trade, it is a dangerous trade. That is perfectly true. Everyone admits it, and if it could be said that this Bill decreased the dangers of that trade, it would be a far stronger argument in its favour than any which has been adduced so far, but that is not even pretended. The Committee report that there is no evidence whatever that the hours have anything whatever to do with the accidents, and they report also that unless the gravest precautions are taken, this Bill itself will increase the danger. More than that, the hon. Gentleman who was the Chairman, of that Committee, in an interesting speech which he addressed to the House last week, told us that these precautions had not been sufficiently taken, in the Bill. Therefore he is of opinion that the Bill as it stands is going to increase, and not diminish, the dangers of the miner's occupation. But it may be said that this trade, although its defence is not justifiable on the ground either of danger or of health, is so hard a trade that on that ground Parliament is justified in interfering. I am not concerned with denying that it is a hard life. I should not like to lead it myself. I do not deny that. I have heard its hardships described in this debate and in previous debates in very lurid language. I remember also hearing hon. Members who had themselves worked in coal mines both as boys and as men, scoff at these pictures, and declared that they were entirely

  1315
  exaggerated and no true pictures of the miner's life. I admit that it is a hard life, but there are many other lives which are more hard and more unhealthy. For instance, without going into it, labourers in the steel and iron trades have a far harder life from every point of view than the miner, and yet the benefit to the miners is going to be an added injury and an added burden to other men who have a greater claim upon our consideration. I really do not wish to exaggerate this case in the least. I admit that the hours worked in some districts are far longer than I should like to see them if they could be altered. I quite admit that. There is no need of exaggeration there. But let the House remember that in those districts where the daily hours are longest, the pits never work six days a week. As a rule, I think they work five days a week, and in no case more than eleven days in a fortnight. Therefore, if you take the miner's hours as the hours of other workmen are taken, at the amount per week, they are not nearly so excessive as they seem when you take them by the day. But there is something else to be remembered in this connection. Miners by the nature of their occupation can take a voluntary holiday much more easily than men in other trades, and they do take that voluntary holiday. Is there not a great deal to be said from the miner's point of view for that method? Let the House remember that the miner in getting to and from his work has to spend a good deal of profitless time, not only time spent in being wound up and down the shaft, but in many cases time spent in walking under difficult conditions for a great distance, sometimes four miles. Surely, it is reasonable to say that a miner under such conditions would himself prefer if his wages depend on the amount of coal he turns out, when he was once at the coal face, to work as long as he safely could and take an occasional holiday, rather than have all that useless labour every day, and work shorter hours per day. I hope I have said enough to show that no case whatever has been made out for the hours of miners, in comparison with those of other trades—and that is the real point—being so excessive as to demand immediate redress by this House. But even if it were proved, and proved
  1316
  up to the hilt, that the hours ought to be lessened, even then the promoters of this Bill would not have made out their case. They would not have begun to make out their case until they proved that there was no reasonable prospect of better conditions being arrived at by the ordinary method of negotiations between masters and men. I remember some years ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Durham said—
  "In view of the opportunity which workmen now have for combination, this Bill is a plea of cowardice. They are forgetful of their self-reliance in beseeching the House of Commons to do what, if the exigencies of trade will allow, they could do for themselves."
  These words, it seems to me, are not only a sound view of this subject, but they are noteworthy also because they represent a radical difference between the new and the old trade unionism. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was asked at one of the deputations—and I will say he was very good for receiving deputations from all classes of the community on the subject—why not leave this to be settled in the way that other trades do? He gave this answer. It was impossible, he said, because of the immense variety of the methods of working of miners in different parts of the country. Now I ask the House of Commons, is it possible to find any words which more strongly condemn the Bill? These differences are not accidental. They are not arbitrary. They are due to real differences of circumstances, and could anything be more foolish than for a Minister and a Government which realise what the differences are, to attempt to stereotype the trade of the whole country with all these differences in one cast-iron mould? Everyone knows—it has been admitted by the last speaker in favour of the Bill—that there is no organised body of men which is more powerful—there is, I think, not one which is so powerful—than the miners. Their power is recognised in every direction, and it is certainly only putting it very mildly to say they are at least better able than the men in any other trade to procure for themselves the best conditions of labour which the circumstances of that trade admit. That is a fact. It is not surprising that the miners' representatives, in spite of that

  1317
  fact, should ask the House to press the Bill, but I must say it needs some explanation why other Labour Members who represent other branches of industry, should support the miners on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that the fact that they do so press it is a proof that it is not going to injure other trades. That is a very simple answer to make. Every one knows that these Gentlemen support this miners' Bill as a first step in a general advance in the same direction. They know that of all branches of men's combinations, the miners is the most powerful, and has the greatest political influence. It is for that reason that they are pressing on this Bill. They are pressing it, not because the miners need it more, but because they need it less than any other trade in the country. If that is their object it seems to me that they are beginning at the wrong end. If that is their object, every consideration of economics and of commonsense will suggest that this trade, instead of being the first to be dealt with, ought to be the last, for it is the trade on which the prosperity of all our trades depends. I consider that the circumstances under which this Bill is introduced into the House now are only another illustration of an evil which is admitted by everyone. The evil consists in the division between responsibility and power. The responsibility for this Bill rests on that bench. The power behind it rests there, and, personally I cannot believe that if these hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, instead of merely urging something else upon somebody else, were themselves responsible for this Bill they would not give more consideration than they have done, that they would not realise more fully than they have done, what the effect of the Bill will be upon the other working classes throughout the country. This brings me to the consideration of what seems to be the second point that we ought to take into account. Supposing we pass this Bill, what will its effect be upon the country? In other words, what price will all other classes of the community have to pay in order to grant this boon to the mining population? That the Bill is going to raise prices is admitted. I am not quite sure whether it was admitted
  1318
  by the Home Secretary or not. He quoted apparently with approval the finding of the Committee that the Bill would have the effect of causing loss and embarrassment to the country, but afterwards he embarked on an argument supported by an array of figures which seemed, so far as I could follow him, designed to prove that it would have no effect upon prices. The present Government is never so interesting, at least it is never so interesting to me, as when it is engaged in economic speculation. In that field they are supreme. The Prime Minister, who I am sorry is not present this afternoon, of course is easily first. During the short time that he was at the Exchequer he evolved a system of economics which, for its originality, its flexibility, and above all, its convenience, will excite the admiration and envy of all subsequent holders of that office. But the Prime Minister will have to look to his laurels. He has a rival now in the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary dealt with the strike of 1893. He gave us the average figure of prices to show that in spite of that strike, the price was lower in 1893, the year of the strike, than in the previous year, and that it was lower again in 1894 than in 1893. Then he turned to the other side. He went to the strike in South Wales of 1898 and showed that there, unlike 1893, the price was higher in 1898 than in 1897, and higher again in 1899 and 1900 than in 1898. Then he drew his conclusion, which is really so remarkable, that I should like to read the actual words—
  "So that at any rate for what it is worth, the average scale of prices does not seem to connect the sudden withdrawal of a large mass of coal with a sudden rise in price."
  "For what it is worth." I suppose he thought it was worth something, or he would not have quoted it. For what it is worth the figures and the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman lead to a conclusion which is certainly original, the conclusion, namely, that there is no connection between the relation of supply and demand and prices. That certainly is the only meaning that I can draw from his words, after considering them very carefully. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman does think there would be a rise. But after all his opinion—the opinion of any

  1319
  member of the Government—is not so important as that of the actual promoters of the Bill, the miner's representatives, for it is on the action of the miners that the extent or effect of this Bill will depend. The hon. Member for the Ince Division admitted quite frankly that the Bill would cause some increase in the price of coal. In a speech which the hon. Member delivered to a great meeting of miners in Manchester, which has already been referred to by my hon. friend, the hon. Member for the Ince Division told the miners that the effect of this Bill would be to add 6d. a ton to the price of coal on account of wages alone. It is obvious that if there is a rise on account of wages alone, there must, of course, be a rise due to other causes, as well. I know that what is said to the miners by hon. Members is much more important than what they say in this House, for this reason, that it shows what the miners expect as a consequence of the passing of this Bill. It is true that the hon. Member afterwards explained the matter, and said that he had left out of account the effect of co-operation between the masters and the men. I do not know what the hon. Member meant by that. If he meant that there was going to be a great increase in the output per hour, then I challenge him to go down to his constituents and say to the men that the effect will be that the moment this Bill is passed their wages per day will be reduced exactly corresponding to the shorter hours of work. Then I would like the hon. Member to turn to the men paid by results, and say to them: "Your wages will be reduced in the same proportion unless you turn out the same amount of coal in a shorter time." I think after making those statements to the miners the unanimity of which they now boast would very quickly disappear. But, an hon. Member, the Member for Glamorgan, incidentally used an argument to the effect that there would be no rise in the price because there would be no diminution in production. He said that the miners are paid by results, and their wages must be reduced unless they turn out the same quantity of coal in the shorter hours as they do now in the longer hours. Incidentally the hon. Member for Glamorgan claimed a
  1320
  certain amount of the virtue associated with the name of George Washington; but history does not relate that when George Washington became a politician he always found it possible to tell the whole truth. The hon. Member did not tell us another fact which is very material to the situation, namely, that for every sixpence added to the price of coal the miners receive an increase of 5 per cent. There were two methods by which it was suggested the miners would not suffer. One was by working harder and turning out more work in the same time; and the other was by working at the same rate and having higher prices for coal. If I had to choose I should certainly prefer the easier way, and so would the miner. We have all heard the story about the terrible evils which are going to happen from the shortening of hours. I am old enough myself to have seen many instances where the most exaggerated statements were made as to results which never happened. It is not always safe to be sure, and that is the only argument we have heard on this point. I wish, however, to point out that there is a very clear and marked distinction between shortening the hours of labour in an ordinary factory by agreement and shortening the hours of labour of coal-miners by Act of Parliament. I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would seriously consider that point. Where the hours are shortened in a factory the men know that, if they agree to those shorter hours when they are paid by the piece, their only chance of making the same wages is by turning out more work. But that is not the case with the miners. Coal-mining is distinctly a monopoly, for if masters and men in the coalmining industry combined, they could rule all the other industries. It is a monopoly for this reason also, that whereas the workers in all other trades have only one method of keeping up their wages, which is by turning out more work, the miners have a second method which has been preferred by the miners in the past, and it is the method of keeping up prices by diminishng the output of coal. Now, who are the promoters of this Bill? Its promoters are the Miners' Federation, and, as my hon. friend has

  1321
  already pointed out, one of the objects openly and avowedly expressed in the rules of the Federation is to prevent the adoption of the double shift wherever it is possible to do so. Under these circumstances is it not absurd, and is it not playing with the House of Commons, to come down here and say that they will do all they can to increase the production of coal?
  MR. GLOVER: What the hon. Gentleman has read is not contained in the object of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain.
  MR. BONAR LAW: No, but it is one of the objects of the Miners' Federation of South Wales. Is that not enough? I think I am right in saying that in the long run the interests of the miners will not be served by artificially raising the price of coal and diminishing the supply. Now, what use is this fact to us in estimating the effect of this Bill? We have to consider not what certain representatives think on this subject, but what the majority of the miners think. I am going to use what is not a very pleasant argument, but I use it with, all respect. It is that I do not think we could get a better proof of the truth of this fact than that which has been supplied by the debates on this subject. In previous debates some of the very best speeches against this Bill were made by miners' representatives. They are still here, but they are not making speeches on this subject to-night. Does anyone suggest that they have changed their minds? [AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.] No, but they have got to obey what has been ordered by the majority of their Federation; and in the same way it is the majority of the miners who will control the output of coal. I do not think that I am in any way exaggerating when I say that the majority of the miners of the country look upon this Bill as a means of getting a larger amount of wages for a smaller amount of work. The Committee, to which reference has so frequently been made, admit that there would be a disastrous rise in price but for some mitigation to which they make reference. I would like to go into the whole subject, but I do not want to weary the House and I will simply
  1322
  refer to one or two points. Those who formed the Committee said that they might look for some mitigation of this diminution of supply in the greater efficiency of the men working shorter hours. That does not seem unreasonable on the face of it, but it should be remembered that the hours given in the Returns are not the hours which the men are actually working now. As a matter of fact, you have to deduct the time taken going up and down the shaft and the walk to the working place, which often takes as much as an hour each way. I agree that that is work, but it is a different, kind of work from what is known as coal hewing. I agree that that kind of work does not tire the muscles and exhaust the men in the same way as coal hewing does. When the men are once down the pit and have gone through this superfluous labour of getting to the face of the coal, then it is in their own interest to turn out every ton of coal they possibly can. When you remember that fact I do not think it is wise to expect that there will be any great increase of efficiency in the work of the men. But we have experience to guide us on this point, and a little experience is worth any amount of speculation. In Lanarkshire, where the coal of Scotland is produced, an eight-hours winding day was introduced in the year 1900. I have had prepared these figures of the output per man in the Lanarkshire mines for the period before and since this change was made. I do not think it would be fair to take a single year on either side, and so I have taken an average number of years, and this is the result. From the year 1897 to the year 1899, the output of coal per man averaged 469 tons; in 1903–5 the output was 416 tons, and these are the last years for which returns are available. In the last years the falling off in the output is slightly greater taking percentages, than the falling off in the time limit, namely, one hour. But that does not represent the whole of the case. Under the eight-hours day in Lanarkshire, if half an hour is lost the men make it up by working the full time; so that under this Bill the falling off per man may be expected to exceed what happens under the voluntary arrangement now in force in Lanarkshire. The only other mitigating circumstance

  1323
  relied upon by the Committee is that there would be a great improvement, for which there was room, in coal-getting appliances. I think that is a very doubtful result. The House has to remember that it is just as much to the interest of every coal owner now to turn out as much as he can, and if he does not use the best machinery now what guarantee does the Bill give that he will be any wiser in the future than he has been in the past? It has already been pointed out that coal-cutting machinery cannot be economically used where there is a rigid day. The Committee point this out and give reasons for it. If, therefore, you establish a rigid day without making any variation in the case of those mines using coal-cutting machinery, that machinery cannot be used. As a matter of fact, no such mitigation is made in this Bill as it stands to deal with the question of coal-cutting. There are old collieries where it would not pay to expend new capital, and in the case of these old collieries, unless they work double shifts, they must go out of the market. Later on the Committee point out that the difficulties of having double shifts are insurmountable. That is the position of these old collieries, and this Bill is going to throw them out of operation. Is that not a serious thing? There are a number of old collieries which may not be taken entirely out of the market, but the Bill would not only remove that means of production and competition, but it would have a great effect on the amount which the consumer would have to pay. I am not going to speculate as to the amount of the rise. It is no doubt the fact that had this Bill been in operation a few months ago the price would have been more than doubled. What are the real facts of the case? The extent of the rise in price does not depend at all on any arithmetical relation to the cause which produces the rise. Take for instance what happened in 1899. The price of coal rose in a few months as much as 70 per cent. What caused that? It was simply because the demand rose very quickly. Everyone who needed coal began to be afraid that there was going to be a shortage, and they all competed with one another and the price rose out of all proportion to the additional cost. The same thing will
  1324
  always happen where there is an increase in the demand. I do not put any figure on it, but I say that anyone who scoffs at the possibility of the demand increasing more quickly than the supply and of a great rise in the price of coal out of all proportion to the additional cost knows very little about the matter. If it is admitted that there is to be a rise in price, it is no answer to claim that it is not going to be a big rise. I ask the House to consider what even a small rise would mean. It would mean that every family in this country—every working man in this country—and a great majority of them, remember, are worse off financially than before—would have to pay more for his coal. That would be the direct effect on the domestic consumer; but the indirect effect on the working class would be greater, for it would mean dearer coal for all our industries. That matter has been elaborately discussed in the Report of the Committee, and I am not going over the same ground now. There is no one engaged in the trade of this country or who has ever been engaged in it, who does not realise that the price of coal lies at the root of the prosperity of all our manufacturing industries. I would like to say something of the trade I am familiar with. Look at the effect which a slight rise in the price of coal has on the iron and steel trade. Iron furnaces have been built where coal and iron are found together. The iron trade now in this country rests exclusively upon a basis of cheap coal. Many ironworks were noted in districts where coal was obtainable, and now they have gone under. Iron-works must be near coal pits if they are to have any chance of surviving in the struggle of competition. If the House would realise that will be an increase in the price of coal, whatever it is—6d. 1s. or 2s. per ton—and what the effect of multiplying that four times would mean, they would understand what it means to the makers when they come to sell finished iron and steel. The iron and steel trade is one of those trades where competition now is keenest, not only in the neutral markets, but in our own home market. When you realise that, no man would be rash enough to say that the passing of this Bill may not have a most serious effect on

  1325
  the iron and steel trades of the country The hon. Member for the Ince division suggested that we on this side of the House are so vigorously opposed to this Bill simply because we were going about hunting for an election cry, and that at last we have found it in the cry "dearer coal." Well, I do not think that remark will have much meaning now. It would have had some meaning two years ago. Now it is very evident that the Gentle-men who sit on the Treasury bench are doing our work for us. We have really no need to go out of our way to forge weapons. They have been constantly forging weapons in greater number and efficacy, and with a greater amount of labour than we could have forged for ourselves. There is not much point in the remark of the hon. Member, but it was interesting and well worth noting for another reason. It shows that the hon. Member realises now that this proposal is not popular in the country, that it is something with which to go to the constituencies. That is a consideration to which, to do them justice, His Majesty's Ministers never turn a deaf ear, and I am bound to say that I hope and believe that the effect of it will be found in the subsequent fate of this Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has addressed the House in a carefully reasoned, closely connected, argument, and I feel sure that the House will accord to me a generous measure of indulgence while I endeavour to state generally the main reasons why the Government commend this measure to the support of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech made many complaints against this Bill, and indicated many evil consequences that he thought would flow from it, but, at any rate, whatever may be said against the measure, no one can say that the Government have acted with precipitation in bringing it before the House and the country. It has been debated for twenty years. Parliaments, Tory and Liberal, have affirmed the principle, and I do not suppose there ever was a similar reform put forward in this House upon a greater volume of scientific and accurate information,
  1326
  or after more prolonged, careful, and sustained scrutiny. If the debate on the Second Reading has thrown very little new light on this question, it is because it has been fully and thoroughly explored on former occasions, and not only has it been fully explored, but it is now illuminated by the admirable Report which has been presented by the Departmental Committee appointed last session. Whatever opinions we may hold on this Bill, I should suppose that the whole House would join in expressing its admiration of that document. Its comprehensive and lucid arguments, the moderation of its tone, the judicial, yet practical temper in which it is conceived, places us under deep gratitude to the hon. Member for Gloucester, and others who have collaborated with him in that work. This Report, while exciting approval on all sides, gives no complete satisfaction to any. It balances, and weighs, but it does not finally pronounce. It seeks less at deciding this controversy than at defining the limits within which its economic aspect may be said to lie. I think anyone who reads the Report with attention will feel after careful study that the limits of the economic controversy are moderately restricted. We have to consider on the one hand the gross reduction of one-tenth in the hours of labour of underground workmen, taking the average over all classes of men and all sorts of mines. And on the other hand we have as a set off against that gross reduction certain very important mitigations which are enumerated in the Report, to which I shall very briefly refer. The first economic question which the House has to settle is whether these mitigations which are enumerated will have the effect of overtaking the reduction which is to follow the curtailment of hours, or, if not, how far they will fall short in overtaking that reduction. I do not suppose that any hon. Gentleman is likely to change his opinion on a question of such complexity at this late hour of the debate, and, therefore, I shall only refer by name to these mitigations, bearing in mind how important they are. There are those which depend on the arrangements of employers, and those which depend on the volition of the workers. With regard

  1327
  to the employers there is improved organisation, by methods of haulage and winding, and other means specified in the Report. There is the more extensive application of coal-cutting machinery, and the sinking of new pits with modern appliances, which is progressing in many parts of the country. There is the system of double and multiple shifts. The extension of the system will not be so difficult as has sometimes been supposed. At the present moment, taking the statistics of 1906, a quarter only of the workers below ground are employed in mines in which there is only one coal-getting shift, and in all the mines in which there are two or more coal-getting shifts the first shift preponderates in number greatly over the second, and, therefore, in applying this system of double or multiple shifts, in so far as it is necessary to apply it, we shall not have to face the difficulty of a complete transformation in the methods of working a great many of the mines, but it will be a mere extension of the system which at present exists over a great portion of the coal-getting area. From the side of labour mitigations which may be expected as off-sets to the original reduction are not less important. There is the increased efficiency of which we have instances actually on record in this Report which has followed from the reduction of hours. There is the power of the worker, if he chooses, to increase his earnings on a short day; there is the field of absenteeism, which has always been felt as a reduction of hours, and which amounts to 6·6 per cent. of the working time of the mines, and there is the margin of stoppages through slack trade and other circumstances which at present aggregates 7 per cent. of the working time of the mines. Taking these last two alone, they aggregate 13 per cent. or considerably more as a margin than the reduction of working time which will be caused by the operation of this Bill, even when the full operation be effected. I say first of all then, let the House consider carefully whether from these sources it is possible to overtake the 10 per cent. reduction which, in the first instance, the Bill imposes. It is a question nicely balanced; it offers matter for fair argument this way
  1328
  and that, but taking all the considerations and means of mitigation singly and collectively and their action one on the other, it is surely very difficult to believe that masters and men, organised as they are and working together with good will, and with ample time to accommodate themselves to new arrangements, will not be able from all sources to overtake the comparatively small reduction in hours the Bill will effect. I am inclined to an opinion favourable to the use which will be made of these margins, but even if we assume, and it would be fair and necessary to assume for the sake of the argument, that there will be a net reduction in consequence of the passage of this Bill in the output of coal, that reduction must be temporary and transient in its character. For fifty years there have been continuous changes in the conditions of coal-mining in this country. The hours have been reduced, the conditions of boy labour have been restricted, wages have been raised, compensation has been provided, and precautions against accidents have been multiplied. All these changes, the wisdom of which nobody disputes, from a purely and crudely economic standpoint may be said to militate against production. We have heard many prophecies, but what has been the result? What has been the history of the coal trade? There has been one steady, unbroken expanse of output during the last fifty years. In the period of ten years ending in 1874, 76,000,000 tons were produced, in the next ten years 112,000,000, in the next ten years 145,000,000, in the next ten years 172,000,000, and in the last period of ten years 214,000,000—a figure which has been greatly exceeded since, if the average be taken. If it be admitted that there may be a certain reduction in output as a consequence of this Bill, that reduction must be considered, not by itself, not in isolation, but in relation to the steady and persistent movement of coal production for the last fifty years. To me it seems certain that the small temporary restriction will be lost in the general tendency to expansion, just as the recoiling wave is lost in the advance of the tide. But these arguments are wholly vitiated if it could

  1329
  be shown that the restriction of hours was so violent in its character, so sudden in its application, so rigid in its methods as, not merely to cause a certain shrinkage in the volume of the output, but, if it were large enough, to upset the economy of the coal mining industry. In that case there would be not merely a curtailment which might be mitigated, but we should have injured and possibly crushed the industry; and it is at this point that it is proper for the House to consider the safeguards introduced by the Government into the Bill. These safeguards are of the greatest importance. There is the safeguard of overtime. Sixty hours a year are permitted in districts where men work ten days a fortnight, twelve weeks of time will be one hour longer than the time allowed by the Bill; and where the days laboured are only four in the week, fifteen weeks of full time will be provided out of the provision of overtime. There are provisions with regard to the labour of certain persons permitted to remain below ground and there is a power which relaxes the Bill fully in an emergency which is likely to delay or arrest the general work of the mine, and of course, in any case where there is accident or danger. Finally, if there should be a danger of a corner or an unexpected rise in price, the Government have power by Order in Council to suspend the whole operation of the law in order to prevent anything like a serious crisis arising in the coal trade. I cannot bring myself to believe that with all these safeguards it will not be possible for the coal industry, if given time, to accommodate itself to the new conditions. It was only two years ago that I was invited from these benches to contemplate the approaching ruin of the gold mines of the Rand through the change introduced in the methods of working. That change has been introduced, with the result that working expenses have been reduced, and the standard of improvement has increased. In making the transition, if time had not been allowed to me to tide over the period of change, then, indeed, you might have had that, disaster which hon. Gentlemen opposite have always been ready to apprehend. There is here to be a gradual process of adaptation for which not less than five years is per-
  1330
  mitted. I was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square should have committed himself to the argument which, if it meant anything, meant that the great trade unions would have been doing a more manly thing if they had plunged the industries of the country into chaos and confusion by a general strike, than by coming moderately and patiently every year to demand this reform. The hon. Member for Brighton said that positive reasons, and not negative reasons, ought to be given in support of a measure which regulates the hours of adult labour—that you ought to show, not that it will do no harm, but that good will come from it There are, of course, such reasons in support of this Bill, but they are so obvious that they have not been dwelt upon so much as they might have been. Those reasons are social reasons. We believe that the well-being of the mining population, numbering some 900,000 persons, will be sensibly advanced in respect of health, industrial efficiency, habits of temperance, education, culture, and the general habits of life. We have seen that in the past the shortening of hours has produced beneficial effects in these respects, and we know that in those parts of the country where the hours of coal-mining are shortest, the University extension lecturers find that the miners take an intelligent interest in their lectures—and it is among the miners of Fifeshire that a considerable development in gardening and of saving to enable them to own their own houses, has followed on a longer period of leisure. But the general march of industrial democracy is not towards inadequate hours of work but towards sufficient hours of leisure. That is the movement among the working people all over the country. They are not content that their lives should remain mere alternatives between the bed and the factory. They demand time to look about them, time to see their homes by daylight, to see their children, time to think and read and cultivate their gardens—time, in short, to live. That is very strange, perhaps, but that is the request they have made and are making with increasing force and reason as years pass by. No one is to be pitied for having to work hard, but nature has contrived a

  1331
  special reward for the man who works hard. It gives him an extra relish which enables him to gather a satisfaction in search of which the social idler wanders vainly through the twenty-four hours. This reward, so precious in itself, is snatched away from the man who has won it if the hours of his labour are too long or the conditions of his labour too severe to leave any time for him to enjoy the reward he has won. I have here a quotation from "Principles of Economics," by Professor Marshall, who recently resigned the professorship of Political Economy at Cambridge, which illustrates with great force the point I am submitting without which I contend we cannot make our support of the Bill complete. Professor Marshall says—
  "The influence which the standard of hours of work exerts on economic activities is partially obscured by the fact that the earnings of a human being are commonly counted gross; no special reckoning being made for his wear-and-tear, of which he is himself rather careless. Further, very little account is taken of the evil effects of the overwork of men on the well-being of the next generation. … When the hours and the general conditions of labour are such as to cause great wear-and-tear of body or mind or both, and to lead to a low standard of living; when there has been a want of that leisure, rest and repose, which are among the necessaries for efficiency, then the labour has been extravagant from the point of view of society at large. … And, since material wealth exists for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of material wealth, the replacement of inefficient and stunted human lives by more efficient and fuller lives would be a gain of a higher order than any temporary material loss that might have been occasioned on the way."
  But it may be said that these arguments are general, and that special circumstances existed to differentiate the case of coal-miners from that of many other Industries in this country. Others have spoken of the heat of the mine, the danger of firedamp, of the cramped position, of the muscular exertions of the miner, at work in galleries perhaps a mile under the ground. I select the single fact of deprivation of natural light. That alone is enough to justify Parliament in directing upon the industry of coal-mining a specially severe scrutiny and introducing regulations of a different character from those elsewhere. The hon. Member for Windsor, who moved the rejection of this Bill, described it as a reckless and
  1332
  foolhardy experiment. I see the miner emerging from the pit after eight hours work with the assertion on his lips that he, at any rate, has paid his daily debt to his fellow men. Is the House of Commons now going to say to him, "You have no right to be here. You have only worked eight hours. Your appearance on the surface of the earth after eight hours' work is, to quote the hon. Member, a dangerous and foolhardy experiment?" Two hours more are demanded in the intere t of economics. I do not wonder a bit at the miners' demand. I cannot find it in my heart to feel the slightest surprise, or indignation, or mental disturbance. My capacity for wonder is entirely absorbed, not by the miners' demand, but by the gentleman in the silk hat and white waistcoat who has the coolness, the calmness, the composure, and the complacency to deny that demand and dispute it with him. The hon. Member for Dulwich—himself a convinced protectionist, with a tariff with 1,200 articles in its schedules in his coat-tail pocket—has given us a delightful lecture on the importance of cheapness of production. Think of the poor consumer. Think of the importance to our industries of cheapness of production. We on this side are great admirers of cheapness of production. We have reminded the hon. Gentleman of it often; but why should cheapness of production always be achieved at the expense of the human factor? The hon. Gentleman spoke with anxiety of the possibility of a rise in miners' wages as a consequence of this Bill. Has he considered the relation of miners' wages to the selling prices of coal? At the pit's mouth the underground-workers' wages are only 60 per cent, of the selling price of coal. Free on board on the Tyne the proportion is only 38 per cent. As coal is sold here in the south of England the proportion is less than one-fifth of the whole price. Is it not clear that there are other factors at least which require consideration before you decide to deal with the human factor which first attracts the right hon. Gentleman? What about mining royalties? In all this talk about the importance of cheap coal to our industries and to the poor consumer we have had no mention of mining royalties. No. We never mention that.

  1333
  That is never heard. Yet, will the House believe it, it is estimated that mining royalties impose a toll of 6 per cent., calculated on the price of coal at the pit's mouth, or considerably more than half the total diminished production which could result from this humane Act of labour legislation. The hon. Gentleman went further, and said: "Why stop here? Why don't your arguments apply elsewhere?" The Member for Cambridgeshire mentioned people whose conditions of life he thought worse than some of those of coalminers. Why stop here, we are asked. Who ever said we would stop here? I welcome and support this measure, not only for its own sake, but much more because it is, I believe, simply the precursor of the general movement which is in progress all over the world, and in other industries besides this, towards a reconciling of the conditions of labour with the well-ascertained laws of science and health. When we are told that because we support this measure we shall be inflicting an injury or injustice on other classes of the population, I say there is a great solidarity among all classes. I believe that when they consider this matter they will see that all legitimate interests are in harmony, that no one class can obtain permanent advantage by undue strain on another, and that in the end their turn will come for shorter hours, and will come the sooner because they have aided others to obtain that which they desire themselves. When the House is asked to contemplate gloomy pictures let them recur to the example of Parliaments gone by. When the Ten Hours Bill was introduced in 1847, a Bill which affected the hours of adult males inferentially, the same lugubrious prophecies
  were indulged in from both sides of the House. Distinguished economists came forward to prove that the whole profit of the textile industry was reaped after the eleventh hour. Famous statesmen on both sides spoke strongly against the measure. That Parliament, in 1847, was in the same sort of position as we are to-day in this respect, but how differently circumstanced in other respects. That Parliament did not enjoy the wide and accurate statistical information in every branch of labour which enables us to-day to move forward with discretion and prudence. They were not able to look to the general evidences of commercial security and expansion on which modern politicians can rely. They could not show as we can show, overwhelming examples of owlish prophecies directly disproved; they could not point as we can point to scores of cases where not only increased efficiency, but a positive increase in output has followed the reduction of the hours of labour. The principle was new, the future was vague. But Parliament in those days did not quail. They trusted the broad generous instincts of common sense; they drew a good, bold line; and we to-day enjoy in a more gentle, more humane, more skilful, more sober, and more civilised population the blessings which have followed their acts. Now it is our turn. Let us vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and in so doing establish a claim for respect from Parliaments to come such as we owe to Parliaments of the past.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 390; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 166.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex,Romf'rd

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barker, John

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset

  Boland, John

  Agnew, George William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brace, William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beale, W. P.

  Branch, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Brigg, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Brodie, H. C.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Byles, William Pollard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lundon, W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Chance, Frederick William

  Halpin, J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Ross'ndale

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Harwood, George

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Burham)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crean, Eugene

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Cullinan, J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim,N)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Menzies, Walter

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  Mooney, J. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morrell, Philip

  Devlin, Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Morse, L. L.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancras,N

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Myer, Horatio

  Dillon, John

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholls, George

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jacoby, Sir James (Alfred)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dunne,Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Nuttall, Harry

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Grady, J.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Alfred John (Knutsfotd)

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Gill, A. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T.Renfrew,W.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Glover, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  1336

  1337

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scott, A H (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sears, J. E.

  Vivian, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Seddon, J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Seely, Colonel

  Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick,B.)

  Walton, Joseph

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sheehy, David

  Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Radford, G. H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, Rt. Hn E (Clackmannan

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Reddy, M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart,-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Williams, A.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Summerbell, T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson, J W H (Somerset, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Elibank.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Toulmin, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Ceceil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Haddock, George B.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Cory, Sir Cllifford John

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cox, Harold

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Baring, Capt. Hn G (Winchester)

  Criag, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bull, Sir William James

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Fell, Arthur

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Rt Hn. Lt-. Col. A. R

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Cave, George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S)

  1338

  1339

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Renton, Leslie

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Winterton, Earl

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

  Moore, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Younger, George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Stanier, Beville

  Nield, Herbert

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Rawlinson, J. Frederick Peel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a committee
  of the Whole House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 391. (Division List No. 167.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Roynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Moore, William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee D

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Renton, Leslie

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S .(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A. (Worc.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cox, Harold

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Younger, George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Agnew, George William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horniman, Ernslie John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N

  Hudson, Walter

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Barker, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jackson, R. S.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jenkins, J.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Boland, John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brace, William

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lambert, George

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glen-Coats,Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh

  Glover, Thomas

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Ch'shire

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lundon, W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Chance, Frederick William

  Halpin, J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clough, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harwood, George

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Corbett, C. H. (Suss'x, E. Grinst'd

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Crooks, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Crossley, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Menzies, Walter

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  1342

  1343

  Mooney, J. J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Richardson, A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thompson, J W. H. (Somerset, E

  Myer, Horatio

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Tomkinson, James

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Nicholls, George

  Robinson, S.

  Toulmin, George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles, Philips

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Verney, F. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Vivian, Henry

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rowlands, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, T. W.

  Walton, Joseph

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Dowd, John

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  O'Grady, J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sears, J. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Partington, Oswald)

  Seely, Colonel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williamson, A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Price, C. L. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Stewart, Halley (Grennock)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Summerbell, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Rea,Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Elibank.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs) moved that the Bill be recommitted in respect of the schedule
  1344
  and in respect of the Amendments to paragraphs (i.) and (ii.) of the proviso in paragraph (a) of Clause 3, standing on the Notice taper in his name as Amendments to be moved on recommittal. He said that he made this Motion as the result of a general demand made by all sections of the House. The sliding scale was moved from the other side of the House and finally the Government recommended its adoption, and it was carried by a very great majority. But a minority ob-

  1345
  jected that it was not liberal enough, and pressed for an opportunity to discuss it, which the Government could not very well resist. The other points dealt with the medical relief clauses, and whether they included provision for food and necessaries in the case of childbirth. He assumed there would be no necessity for any prolonged discussion at any rate on those points.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Schedule and in respect of the Amendments to paragraphs (i.) and (ii.) of the proviso to paragraph (a) of Clause 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer as Amendments to be moved on recommittal."—(Mr, Lloyd-George.)
  MR. CARLILE*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans) moved an Amendment asking that Clause 2 be recommitted together with the other provisions to which the Motion referred. Clause 2 contained one of the most vital provisions of the Bill, and it had had no discussion at all. It was most unreasonable to pass such a clause without any opportunity being allowed for proper debate upon it. The clause dealt with the question of age. The age could be raised above seventy even on Report, and while there might be some in the House who would desire to raise it from an economical point of view there would not be many of that opinion. But there would certainly be a very strong Party who would be disposed to reduce the age, and that they should not have an opportunity of discussing the point seemed to be highly undesirable. There was clearly neither in the House nor in the country any unanimity as to the age, and that constituted a ground for its consideration. There was also no question under the Bill of providing for infirmity, and as the age was fixed so very high that some of their friends in the country were telling them it was no good to them because it was only "five bob a week when they were dead," that also seemed a sufficient ground for giving the House an opportunity of really considering whether seventy was the right age.
  MR. GRETTONseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the first word 'of,' to insert the words 'Clause 2 and.' "—(Mr. Carlile.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would not like to say it was not fair that they should be pressed at this stage, but, at any rate, he did not gather that the hon. Gentleman himself was in favour of reducing the age. At least he did not vote for it.
  MR. CARLILE: I did not get a chance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg his pardon. He did. A Vote was challenged on it by the Labour Members.
  MR. CARLILE: That was against the whole clause.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was understood to be a challenge upon the age-limit and the hon. Member had not himself expressed an opinion in favour of reducing the age. They clearly could not recommit the Bill to raise a point of that kind.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman could not show a little grace to the House and have the Bill recommitted in respect of Clause 2 which had never been discussed at all. It was true that Members below the gangway challenged a division on the whole clause, but though their intention might have been most excellent they never gave any information as to the particular grounds on which they were challenging a division. To say that his hon. friend had indirectly expressed an opinion about the age-limit because he did or did not vote in the division challenged by hon. Members below the gangway, who never explained the reason they were challenging it, appeared to be a quibble hardly worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not mind telling him he himself would certainly not vote

  1347
  for the reduction of the age-limit. He quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had no money at all at his disposal to meet the increased cost that would be entailed, but they ought to have an opportunity of discovering what was the general opinion in the House itself about the age-limit. It was a very important part of the Government Bill, and if it was worth anything at all it surely was worth an hour or two's discussion in Committee. It was the duty of Members to try to find out what was the general feeling of the House upon the age-limit, and what demands were likely to be made in future upon the Exchequer as a result of the change which would undoubtedly be made. He thought if the opinion of the House was taken upon the age-limit, the right hon. Gentleman would find there were few Members who were satisfied with it. Many hon. Members were pledged to get the age limit reduced below seventy, and therefore the Government ought to be prepared to pay not only all demands up to seventy years of age, but even up to the age of sixty-five if the country demanded it, and they should not have brought this Bill in at all unless they were prepared to find the money in years to come. There was another point which might have been brought up under this Clause, but which had not yet been touched upon. On the Second Reading they had a discussion upon the merits of a contributory scheme, but no discussion took place as to whether it would not have been possible for the State to give a sum of money to the various friendly societies in proportion to the amount held to the credit of their members. Men and women insured themselves in those societies against sickness and they had a certain sum placed to their credit, and at the age of sixty-five that sum was handed over to them. Surely it would have been possible to have assisted these societies by giving them some additional grant in proportion to the amount which the members had placed to their credit.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think this question arises now.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsubmitted that if the clause had been dealt with at all it would have been possible to have dealt with that question. As no opportunity had been afforded them of raising that subject in the discussion he thought it was very desirable, from the point of view both of the Government and of the House at large, that the subject should be considered. Unless the Government intended to make the House of Lords undertake the Committee stages of all their Bills it was desirable that the Government should reconsider their decision in regard to the recommittal of this clause.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the action of his hon. friend on this point was not only justifiable but inevitable. Why was the Motion to recommit the Bill made? They were told that it had been made in deference to the wishes of the Opposition and in consequence of the schedule not having been discussed. The real reason for recommitting the Bill was that the Government thought fit to move the closure by compartments Resolution before they had fully realised the main difficulties of the Bill, with the result that they had been obliged to abandon the fixed standard and adopt the sliding scale. Their own Resolution had operated so harshly upon themselves that the Government had found it impossible to listen to comments upon their new proposals. Therefore this Motion had been made to enable the House to discuss Government Amendments on the paper, and it was most improper to condemn the action of his hon. friend as unfair when that was the only opportunity they would have of raising the general question. It was the only opportunity of raising a debate on the question of the age-limit. He could not vote for a wholesale reduction of the ago from seventy to sixty-five, but some opportunity ought to be afforded for stating the counter-proposition which, while not hostile to the Bill, would have lessened the burden on the State.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): That is not relevant on this clause.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was dealing for the moment with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A scheme had been discussed amongst friendly societies which had for its object that very result, namely, to establish by a dual system a pension for those who had attained a certain age. This was the clause upon which the subject could be raised, and the House was afforded an illustration in this case of the extraordinary hardship caused by the operation of the closure by compartments Motion, which had shut out many questions in which hon. Members in all quarters of the House were interested. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they had had a chance of voting for or against the age-limit of seventy. When a division was taken under the Closure upon the whole clause it did not rest with those on the opposite side to define the reason for action on the part of those in whose counsels they took no share. That division was against the clause as a whole, and they were thus prevented from advocating a middle course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they ought to have voted with those who were entirely opposed root and branch to the Government proposal, but surely that would have been an unreasonable attitude to take up. Personally, he could not vote for a reduction of the age-limit from seventy to sixty-five, because it would inflict a monstrous injustice upon the country. He ventured to say emphatically that the action of his hon. friend and the Opposition in asking for an opportunity to discuss this clause was a course of which the Government could not fairly complain.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)said the right hon. Gentleman and his friends must make up their minds as to the best way of spending the limited amount of time at their disposal. [HON. MEMBERS: Why limited?] There was no intention of having a late sitting that night, and the Report stage came on to-morrow. The Sole object of the Government in recommitting the Bill had been already explained. It was a matter of perfect
  1350
  indifference to them whether the Bill was recommitted or not. He thought it was well that that should be clearly understood. In regard to the particular Amendment, it was an extraordinary thing that its supporters disclaimed any desire to alter the age-limit.
  MR. CARLILEdenied that as far as he was concerned.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that perhaps he went too far; certainly they abstained from expressing any desire for alteration. As regarded the time spent in Committee that was determined by the House itself. It always happened under a closure Motion that some points necessarily were shut out from discussion, which many hon. Gentlemen would like to discuss, but that very often was not the fault of the closure Resolution, but the fault of the way in which the time allotted was occupied. What they were anxious that the House should have the opportunity of doing was going into the question of the scale—the scale which the Government accepted from the other side of the House after considerable discussion, in order that they might have a further opportunity in Committee of considering whether the various steps of that scale were in accordance with fairness and justice. He earnestly appealed to the House to use the time now before them mainly for that purpose.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Prime Minister had suggested that his action was unfair. He did not think that charge ought to have been made. Unless some such words as "hereinafter provided" had been introduced, it would have been impossible to make the changes in regard to which there were Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he would withdraw what he said, if the right hon. Gentleman understood him to charge him with unfairness.
  MR. CURRANsaid he was a new Member, and he did not understand the tactics of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. It would be in the recollection of the House that his

  1351
  colleagues of the Labour Party challenged a division on the question of the age-limit. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that day were in the same lobby with the Government. Did the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment want the age-limit to be raised? [Cries of "No."]
  MR. CARLILEsaid he expressed no opinion as to raising or lowering the limit. He hoped that the Prime Minister would not put words in his mouth.
  MR. CURRANsaid he did not think there were many Members who would wish to increase the age-limit, although the hon. Member for St. Albans seemed to suggest that there were some. If another division could be obtained on the age-limit would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway vote in favour of a reduction? [Cries of "No."] If not, what was the purpose of the Amendment? The Labour Party did not wish to waste the time of the House with useless Amendments.
  MR. GOULDINGrepudiated the statement that no objection was raised to the age-limit from that side of the House. He referred to that himself, and said that unless they recommitted the Bill in regard to that clause in order to have an opportunity of reducing the age-limit the Bill would be practically a dead letter in the towns.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he had listened with amazement to the Prime Minister when he said the Government were perfectly indifferent whether the Bill were recommitted or not. Then the Prime Minister must be indifferent to the public opinion of the country, for the country wished this Bill to be properly discussed. He was amazed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that it was impossible to raise the principle of the scheme on Clause 2. What was to prevent there being added to the third condition another—that the claimant for a pension should prove that he had made a contribution during so many years of his life towards the pension? However, he passed that point. Nor could he understand the Chancellor
  1352
  of the Exchequer's saying that it could not be raised on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Preston. That hon. Member would have liked to raise it last week and probably would like to raise it yet. He was also amazed at the remarks of the Prime Minister, who said he was perfectly indifferent as to whether the Bill was recommitted or not and that he was indifferent to the public opinion of the country. The public opinion of the country was not indifferent. Public opinion wished to see the Bill thoroughly thrashed out, so that the interests of the aged poor should not be sacrificed.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he would support the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had scarcely concealed his opinion that this was an unfair method of procedure. The Opposition had protested all along that the Bill had not been properly discussed, and the Government now, by their own action, gave them an opportunity of discussing it, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was very unfair of them to take advantage of that opportunity. He thought they would be grossly wanting in their duty to their constituents if they did not on that, and every other occasion, take the opportunity of showing how the business of the House was conducted under a Liberal Administration. The Prime Minister had done nothing except to show contempt for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not intend anything to be discussed except the schedules and the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean; and that therefore any discussion was improper unless the Government wished it to be discussed. The Prime Minister when asked the other day about this Motion said that unless the House confined itself to the lines of discussion marked out for it, he would take care that there was no prolonged discussion. He protested against the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that it was through the delay caused by the Opposition that the question had not been discussed. He did not believe that for a moment; and if the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of listening to the debates he would not have made that suggestion. The hon.

  1353
  Member for Jarrow, who had made a speech on similar lines, was a Socialist. He had always observed that the feeling of Socialists was closely allied to tyranny. The hon. Member's position was that whatever the Labour Party did not approve of should not be discussed at all. As to the merits of the Amendment, he did not believe that anyone denied that Clause 2 ought to be discussed in Committee; and as it had not been discussed in Committee it was thoroughly right and imperative that they should ask for and have a discussion on it. The important and vital question whether pensions should not be given for age alone, but also for infirmity, had not been discussed in Committee at all, and it ought to be discussed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was ruled out of order by the Chairman.
  LORD R. CECIL: Certainly; because the hon. Member had not had an opportunity of raising the question at the proper moment. But there was another question on which the Opposition and the country required some explanation from the Government. The Government said that pensions were going to be given at seventy, but how were they to prove that the claimant was seventy years of age? Was the pension officer or the recipient to prove it? A man who had been only three or four years in a town might demand a pension because he was seventy years of age; but who was to prove it? Were they going to say to the claimant: "You must produce the registration of your birth before you can get a pension?" If that were the case, there were very few old people who would be able to produce a copy of their birth registration, even if they had money to pay for it. A very large proportion of the people of England were not registered at all. He thought the Compulsory Registration Act was only introduced about the year 1860. No suggestion had been made from any member of the majority opposite, who were living under servile conditions, as to how the age was to be proved. It was left for those on that side of the House to argue for the rights and liberties of the House of Commons. The suggestion of the Prime Minister had made all discussion im-
  1354
  possible. He did not believe there would have been the least obstruction. This action of the Government was an attempt to drive into five days the discussion of a Bill which was the greatest departure in legislation on the condition of the poor since the Poor Law Act of 1834. He maintained that the way the Government had burked discussion in the House was grossly unjust.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid that the Prime Minister had missed the point which was in the minds of the Opposition. He thought that the honour and dignity of the House were being sacrificed by this rabid use of the closure. The most vital clause in the whole Bill was to be closured without a single word of discussion as to the age of the recipient of a pension. The whole thing was to be relegated to one did not know when. They were told that the fate of the Bill was hanging on a thread. In all probability new points would be discovered in this clause. Some hidden points always turned up in full and free discussion. In the Education Bill of 1870 they would not have had the Cowper-Temple Clause if discussion had been closured.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the closure at large; but only the Amendment before the House.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he considered this clause the most important in the Bill and he thought that the procedure of the Government was a scandal.
  SIR JOHN RANDLESthought that it was almost unprecedented when a Motion was presented from the Opposition benches relating to one of the clauses of the most important Bill of the whole session, a Bill which was engaging the profound interest of the whole country, and when a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill was made, that the Prime Minister should get up in his place and tell the House that it was a matter of perfect indifference to the Government and that he did not care two straws what happened in the course of the debate. He did not

  1355
  think that the indifference of the Prime Minister would quite find the echo in the country which the right hon. Gentleman expected. If there was one thing which the country liked to see in the debates in the House it was that questions in which it took a profound interest were carefully and properly discussed. Such questions were those relating to the age at which pensions were to be distributed, whether at seventy or at an earlier period in the life of the recipient, or where the money was to be found for an extension of the age limit; and until these were made quite clear in the House of Commons there would be very great reason for dissatisfaction in the country. If these matters were fairly debated and shown to be impracticable or impossible he did not think that the Bill would be received with the gratitude the supporters of the Government anticipated.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid that they on the Opposition side of the House had a very strong opinion that the Prime Minister had not shown any fairness in the manner in which he was acting. There were some pathetic cases of men who were willing to work, and of men who could not find work, but one of the most pathetic figures in public life just now was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been loaded by his predecessor with this measure, and who had withheld from the House the information necessary for its discussion. They did not speak vainly. They knew of what they were speaking, and they knew that both the right hon. Gentlemen did, in fact, hold back the information to which the House was entitled—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERasked what bearing this had on the question.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid the real discussion on the particular clause which the Committee was now engaged in considering depended on the information they got from those who knew this subject from actual experience in life, the friendly societies, and that the Government withheld. The country was watching the right hon. Gentlemen, and the eye turned upon them was none too friendly. If they persisted in their present
  1356
  course what would be the result? It would be said that they were rushing into this matter without waiting for the Report of the Commission now investigating the Poor Law of the country, for the sake of getting votes at the next elections. That course would justly affect the treatment of this measure in another place.
  MR. REMNANT, as one who represented a London constituency, and who had sat on a Committee with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the old-age pension scheme of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester, where the age-limit was sixty-five, appealed to the Prime Minister to allow this clause to be recommitted. If he were allowed to do so he could satisfy the House that at all events in London the situation was a very serious one. The age of seventy was practically of no use to the working classes of London. If the Bill was to be given a fair test, and everybody wished it to be, it ought, at all events, to have an old-age limit which would provide for the needs of our great industrial centres. Then again, who was going to prove the age of the applicants for these pensions? Were there to be pension agents such as were in existence in other countries with all the accompanying disadvantages of that detestable system? We were laying up for ourselves a great store of difficulties under subsection (2) of Section 2. That subsection applied with great force to London with its dock labourers constantly going abroad for periods short or long. They were men who worked hard, and were they to be precluded from the pension that Parliament was anxious to give them? Those two points alone as affecting London justified him in asking the Prime Minister to reconsider this, and therefore he asked him to allow the clause to be recommitted for the purpose of considering them. The right hon. Gentleman said that time was limited, but he had suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule which would give them time to debate upon two points. If the right hon. Gentleman said he was indifferent but that time was limited, it could only mean that he intended to

  1357
  closure discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman did that then he must take the responsibility of it in the country.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not one of those who were prepared to lower the age-limit beyond that contained in the Bill, and he would not have risen in this discussion had it not been for the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Each made it a complaint that a clause which was not discussed in Committee should be recommitted. He was one of those who not only did not divide against the clause, but was foolish enough to support the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the division. He never thought the right hon. Gentleman would make that a complaint for not discussing the clause at some future time if an opportunity was given. He did not vote against the clause when hon. Gentlemen below the gangway challenged it, because there had been no opportunity for him or hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to say what they thought of it. He voted for the Government, but he was as anxious as anybody for a discussion as to whether, in accepting the Government Bill of a non-contributory scheme of a pension at the age of seventy, under certain conditions a contributory scheme should not be run supplementary to it with a pension beginning at an earlier age. There was one question particularly which he desired to raise on the clause, the question which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone and others had raised, as to residence. They had had a little discussion on that matter on Clause 1, and they were then met, quite reasonably, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the statement that the proper place to raise that question was on Clause 2. He raised the question of the interpretation of Clause 2, as to whether it carried out the intention of the Government, and as to what the intentions of the Government were, and the right hon. Gentleman said he could not discuss the intentions of the Government as embodied in Clause 2 before that clause was reached. He waited for Clause 2 and waited in vain, and now when the necessities of the Government forced
  1358
  them to come to the House and recommit the Bill in certain respects, he certainly supported his hon. and gallant friend in his appeal that they should recommit it in regard to a clause that had not been discussed. When the Prime Minister said it was a matter of indifference to him whether the Bill was discussed or not, he could quite imagine it was. It was a matter of indifference to the right hon. Gentleman whether any Bill was discussed. So long as his majority was ready to register his decrees he was content. The Bill was not being recommitted because hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side wished to discuss it. The right hon. Gentleman would never recommit a Bill under those circumstances. It was recommitted because of the demand of Members behind the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. NIELD, who was received with cries of "Divide," said he welcomed the cries of "Divide," because it showed the position of the party opposite at the present time. It showed that the Opposition were not to be allowed to discuss a crucial portion of the Bill. They were to be shut out by that offensive weapon the guillotine which had been used by the party in power in a manner in which it had never been used before in Parliamentary history. The Unionist Party was to be dragooned into anything which the Prime Minister chose to place before them. From his point of view this clause was the most crucial part of the Bill. When the contributory scheme was rejected it only remained to him to do his duty by his constituency, a constituency of between 23,000 and 24,000 people a very large number of whom belonged to a class that never lived until seventy years of age. [MINISTERIAL Laughter.] He did not know whether the merriment of hon. Gentlemen opposite was caused by that fact or the fact that he represented them. It remained for him to do his duty by his constituents and to endeavour to make this a real measure, which it was not and could not be whilst seventy years remained the qualifying age for the pension. Either the Bill was intended to be a genuine one or it was not; much could be done to make it effective in such a division as he repre-

  1359
  sented by the reduction of the age limit to sixty-five—for they could not put the London artisan on the same footing as the agricultural labourer when dealing with what was a fair pensionable age, for his work was such as to prevent equality of treatment. He (Mr. Nield) did not hesitate to describe the Bill as at present drawn as an electioneering device, flashed on to the electoral screen of the party opposite; but it would deceive nobody when the proceedings in Parliament in connection with it were appreciated in the country. Electioneering methods might well puzzle hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no doubt this was considered a desirable measure to dangle before the electors at the next election. If this scheme was to be regarded as an honest one, it should apply to those to whom it ought to apply. It might be very well to have seventy as the age-limit in the country. He wanted this question of the age to be discussed. They wanted to see whether the Bill was to be a real Bill, of benefit to the great mass of the industrial inhabitants of the suburbs of this great city, or whether it was to be a sham Bill. That was what they wanted discussed, and it was what had not been discussed yet because of the guillotine. [Cries of "Order."] Really, Mr. Deputy-Speaker had a truly remarkable number of auxiliaries to keep order. He entered his most emphatic protest against the conditions under which work was done in that House, and against the refusal to recommit the Bill in respect of so important a question as that of Clause 2.
  MR. FELLsaid there was a point he would like to raise, and which he had desired to present in the Committee stage of this Bill. He had put down an Amendment to Clause 2 for the purpose of confining
  the benefits of the Bill to British-born subjects. There was no one in that House or in the country who would not agree with him that the benefits of the Bill should be so limited. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if they passed the Bill without discussion, British-born subjects were to be alone benefited by the measure. If the Bill were recommitted he had an Amendment down which would raise the question. They had not heard as to the people who were to be benefited by the Bill. What of the British subjects in India: were those who were here now to be entitled to the pension? It might be that crowds of foreigners of the age of forty-five or fifty might come over here in the hope that, having resided in this country for the required time, they might get a pension. He did not believe that the country desired that it should be so. He believed that most of the people wished that the benefits of the Bill should be confined to British-born subjects. With regard to the question of the age of seventy years, that was a point which depended on the money they had; there was no doubt about that. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's schedule were adopted, he granted that they could not hope to alter the clause so as to provide for a younger age. There had been a case before the War Office in which a discharged man from Woolwich, who was broken-hearted, had committed suicide.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 302. (Division List No. 168.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A.(Worc.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Haddock, George B.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cross, Alexander

  Hope,James Fitzalan (Sheffield

  Bull, Sir William James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cave, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gordon, J.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Nield, Herbert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Mac Caw, William J. Mac Geagh

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile and Mr. Remnant.

  Moore, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Agnew, George William

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barker, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Essex, R, W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Joyce, Michael

  Beale, W. P.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Fenwick, Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Benn, W. (T' w' r Hamlets, S. Geo)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bethell, Sir J H.(Essex, Romf' rd

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brace, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Brigg, John

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bright, J. A.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs, Leigh)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B' ghs)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Halpin, J.

  M' Callum, John M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

  M' Crae, Sir George

  Cherry Rt. Hon R. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M' Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Clough William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harwood, George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Cotton Sir H. J. S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Menzies, Walter

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Crean Eugene

  Henry, Charles S,

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Crooks, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morse, L. T.

  Crosfield A. H.

  Highum, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crossley, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Murnaghan George

  Cullinan, J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf' rd

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Nicholls, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Robinson, S.

  Thompson, J W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rowlands, J.

  Toulmin, George

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, T. W.

  Verney, F. W.

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Vivian, Henry

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O' Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O' Dowd, John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Walsh, Stephen

  O' Grady, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Walton, Joseph

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seddon, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Parker James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Snowden, P.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

  Pollard, Dr.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Price, C. E. (Edinb' gh, Central)

  Stanley, Albert (Staff's, N. W.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Williamson, A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Richardson, A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Winfrey, R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Elibank.

  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he had an Amendment dealing with the lesser question of including the second subsection of Clause 2 which he submitted he should be entitled to move on a separate issue before the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone came on.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That might have been moved as an Amendment to the Amendment just disposed of, but the House has now decided that Clause 2 is not to be re-committed.
  LORD R. CECILmoved to recommit Clause 3 as a whole. To begin with, the Government were not satisfied with it as it stood, and they proposed to re-commit it in a very limited way in respect to two of the subsections and paragraph (a), which were not discussed. Almost all the discussion on Clause 3 was raised by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but even so, in spite of the
  1364
  known dislike of hon. Members to prolong proceedings they only managed to discuss four and a half lines of the clause, which, when introduced, was some thirty-five lines long. Not a minute was wasted. It was perfectly honest, straightforward discussion on questions of enormous importance, and so effective were the discussions that as far as they went they had succeeded in inserting very considerable Amendments. The Government had come to the conclusion that the whole of one subsection—he thought the most important of all—was absolutely indefensible, and had struck it out and substituted for it an entirely new subsection which, if the House had had an opportunity of discussing it, they would have found equally indefensible. The net result of the alterations was, that as far as he could see, not more than four lines out of the twenty of the original Bill remained, and instead they had sub-sections which occupied thirty-three

  1365
  lines of the Bill, almost all of which, both in drafting and in substance, was entirely new. No Amendments increasing the charge on the taxpayer could be introduced on Report, and the result was that the Government were asking the House to adopt absolutely without discussion or consideration, two of the most vital provisions in the Bill. He would not deal with paragraph (a) because the Government said it ought to be recommitted, because it was unworkable, or at any rate, highly unjust. He profoundly wished the right hon. Gentleman had devoted his exceedingly acute intellect to the consideration of paragraph (b), and he would have been able to convince the House and the Government that it was not less unjust and less unworkable than paragraph (a). It began—
  "If before he becomes entitled to a pension he has failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need for the maintenance of himself and those legally dependent upon him."
  That by itself opened up an inquiry which not even the Exciseman of genius who would have to work the Bill could possibly carry out. He doubted whether any woman would not come under that disqualification. It was extremely doubtful whether every married woman would not be disqualified. A woman had to show that she had worked habitually for the maintenance of herself and those dependent on her. It would not be easy for most married women over seventy to show that they had maintained themselves, their husbands, and their children by their work. The proviso that a person should not be disqualified who had continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty kept up his subscriptions to a friendly society was an astonishing one. Did it mean the ten years immediately previous to sixty? If it meant the period between fifty and sixty, it was just in those years that many working men found it most difficult to keep up their subscriptions. If it meant any period of ten years, a man who subscribed between the ages of twenty and thirty would be absolutely entitled to a pension though he might have been a wastrel in all the subsequent years. That matter had never been discussed. They had had no kind of explanation and there was no Member
  1366
  who had the least idea which construction was the true one. The clause went on—
  "By means of payments to friendly, provident, and other societies or trade unions or other approved steps."
  He could not believe that the Government had considered that difficulty, because it appeared to him that he must continuously for ten years have taken other approved steps. Why on earth should that be so? Supposing that a working man, as many of them did, made an investment by buying a little house property, why should it be necessary for him to spread the operation over ten consecutive years? He could not believe the Government meant that, but that was what their sub-clause said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his exuberant speeches had said he was going to make membership of a friendly society a charter for a pension. But nothing was clearer than that the clause provided no such thing. It was only to be a removal of the disqualification if he made such provision against old age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment, as might be recognised as proper provision for the purpose by regulation under the Act. The whole thing was left absolutely in the hands of regulations, and even then it was only for such provision as should be thought to be sufficient. Then came the most astonishing clause of all. It said—
  "And any such provision, when made by the husband, in the case of a married couple living together shall, as respects any right of the wife to a pension, be treated as provision made by the wife as well as by the husband."
  That meant that she might be an absolutely abandoned woman, yet if she had been fortunate enough to marry a man who had subscribed to a friendly society she would be entitled to a pension. It was absolutely unreasonable. He did not believe the Government meant it at all, but that was what they said. It was nothing short of a scandal that this clause should go to the country as the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons, when the House had no opportunity of considering it. Because the recommitment of the clause had been asked for from that side they would have no consideration at all. Probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not answer at all, or, if he did, it would be in

  1367
  a perfunctory way, and hon. Gentlemen behind him would support him with their votes, and that was the way in which legislation was carried out by a Liberal Government. If the Government considered some of their general election speeches and their promises to restore the House to the consideration of the country and to give the power of free, unfettered speech in debate, they must experience several inconvenient quarters of an hour. He did not appeal to the Government, but asked the House to allow the clause to be recommitted as a whole
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said he had had a much longer experience of the Liberal Party than the noble Lord, and he was consequently not so much surprised that their statements in the country had not been borne out by their policy. There were a good many reasons why this clause should be re-committed. One was that it covered nearly one-and-a-half pages of the Bill, and if they left out the first three lines, which were merely descriptive, the House would find that only about two lines had been discussed. He agreed that if the clause was adequately discussed they would probably be sitting until next Thursday before they got to any other part of the Bill. That would be an impossible course unless the Government had learned the lesson that it was a mistake to overload the session and try to drive a willing horse too far. Subsection (b) was a most extraordinary proposal. He did not think there was anybody in the House who could state what it meant. He had put down an Amendment to the clause, and if he had been afforded an opportunity of explaining his proposal he might have convinced not only the right hon. Gentleman, but also the party opposite, as to the necessity for it. "Means" might mean anything. Then there occurred the sentence: "Maintenance of himself and those dependent upon him." Really subsection (b) ought to have been a clause itself, and it needed considerable discussion. What was really happening was that all the details were to be left to somebody at the Local Government Board where the regulations would be framed. Parliament could not express
  1368
  its intentions on such questions until it had discussed them either in Committee or upstairs, and to give any department power to frame regulations in regard to a clause which had never been discussed either in Committee of the House or in Standing Committee was contrary to all precedent. He hoped the few words he had said might melt the stony heart of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he would grant the concession which had been asked for. If the right hon. Gentleman took that course and accepted his noble friend's proposal, he suggested that his noble friend should give an undertaking that the discussion should terminate in a reasonable time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to consider any just criticism from whichever side of the House it might come. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the first word 'of,' to insert the words 'Clause 3 and.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that on the Motion to recommit Clause 2 the noble Lord made as earnest, as eloquent, and as long a speech as that which he had just delivered in support of his present Motion. If, as the noble Lord said, a portion of Clause 3 was never discussed, whose fault was that? A day and a half of Parliamentary time, some ten or eleven hours, were allocated to the consideration of the clause, and he had no hesitation in asserting that within that time all the main propositions in the clause could have been debated. He was not going back on old precedents, but he could quote many in which far less time had been allowed for the discussion of clauses of much greater importance. [AN HON. MEMBER: When?] In the Licensing Bill and in the Education Bill there were many clauses which were never debated at all. He was not complaining of that at that particular moment. That was what happened under the operation of the guillotine, and the time to debate that was when the House was asked to adopt or reject the proposal of the Government on that particular point. He would not accept

  1369
  the noble Lord's invitation to point out what time had been wasted, and he would rather not apportion the blame, for that might lead to unnecessary heat. He had only the same answer to give to this Motion as had been given by the Prime Minister and himself to the previous proposition. The Government responded to an appeal made to them to recommit the Bill in respect of the schedule and of two other points, and they had been willing to give three or four hours for discussion and to suspend the eleven o'clock rule in order that the debate might not be interrupted.
  MR. WALTER LONG, speaking as one who had been responsible for the administration of the Poor Law, profoundly regretted the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman could not produce one precedent which would justify the action the Government had taken in regard to this particular clause, the first part of which not only involved a reform of the existing Poor Law, but invaded the whole Poor Law system. He marvelled at the attitude of the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the earlier part of the clause, The Government, in their own interests, would have been wise to have assented to the recommittal of the clause, even if it had involved another day's discussion. What did the Labour Party say? They said: "We do not approve of this Bill in many of its details; but we will do nothing by vote or speech which will retard its progress." They had not taken for the first time this very wise and broad view of the situation; they knew that the Bill contained something of what they wanted, and they knew that these limitations could never be maintained. He ventured to say that the proviso which followed the limitations was one which could not be considered. The first thing which the pension committee and pension officer had to decide and act upon was whether a man had habitually refused to work, or had habitually failed to work according to his opportunities and needs. Everybody could imagine hundreds of cases in every county in England and Wales where the condi-
  1370
  tions were so peculiar that it would be impossible to apply those words. He did not want a Second Reading discussion that night, although that was what they ought to have had on this clause. The clause as it now stood was not only about three times its original length, but it was going to pass through the Report stage, and from this House to the other House, and could not be discussed or amended. If he had had his way, he would rather have discussed this proviso to subsection (b) than any other part of the clause, for he believed they were going to do a great injustice by the proviso which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put in although he admitted that the Government had done so with the greatest desire to meet the case of the friendly societies. After listening to their speeches, and as a careful observer of their action in Committee, he was convinced that they did not realise what effect the Bill would have on the friendly societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised rather quickly in the course of a speech to put an Amendment in the Bill which would meet the friendly societies' case. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they were passing a Bill which would give old-age pensions, and to claim immunity for the blunders they were committing; but, unfortunately, there were people who would suffer under their mistakes. He understood that the effect of the proviso was that a man must have contributed to a friendly society for a period of ten years before reaching sixty years of age. That meant that a man who had during the best years of his life subscribed to a friendly society and had found it to be irksome, then falling into drink, would be justified in claiming a pension, unless it could be shown that he had led a dissolute life, as against the man who had never been a subscriber, but who had led a sober and industrious life. The proof that the clause was unsatisfactory was an Amendment to it on the Paper by an hon. Gentleman opposite. There were thousands of men who had not joined friendly societies because of the break-down of several of these societies in the West and South

  1371
  of England forty or fifty years ago, and these men, although they had led industrious respectable lives, would not be touched by the clause as it stood. Then they ought to have some explanation of the words "legally dependent upon." Take the case of a young married man with a family. He was bound to contribute to the maintenance of his destitute father and mother. Was the House going to enact that if such a man, with wages of 14s. or 15s. a week, failed in this respect that he was to be prevented from enjoying the privileges conferred by the Bill? It was a scandal that words which debarred men from claiming pensions should go through the House without debate, knowing as they did that it was only in Committee that they could make any alterations. He had been in the House for many years, and he had never yet witnessed obstructive tactics adopted by hon. Members without a feeling of regret. Hon. Members opposite who brought so lightly
  the charge of obstruction would find before a year had passed over their heads that every word uttered by the Opposition in criticism of the Bill would be justified in its working, and they would have to explain, and not the Opposition, why it was the Bill was pushed through Parliament at such great speed, and why criticisms and objections had found no response among the supporters of the Government and no answer from the Government itself. It was only because he honestly believed that if there was not some change in the wording the clause would operate unjustly, that he supported the Amendment, and the charge of obstruction made against them by hon. Members opposite was absolutely without justification.
  Question put.
  The House divided—Ayes, 72; Noes, 337. (Division List No. 169.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Moore, William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Gardner, Ernest

  Renton, Leslie

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gretton, John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Hills, J. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Keswick, William

  Younger, George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Forster.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Agnew, George William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Barker, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barnard, E. B.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barnes, G. N.

  Everett, B. Lacey

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beale, W. P.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bennett, E. N.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romfr' d

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brace, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brigg, John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Bright, J. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M' Killop, W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Menzies, Walter

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, Hon E. S.

  Corbett. C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Crooks, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crossley, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Dowd, John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Grady, J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jenkins, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Partington, Oswald

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Erskine, David C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  1374

  1375

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Toulmin, George

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Sears, J. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Seddon, J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Shackleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H .

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walton, Joseph

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waring, Walter

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Radford, G. H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitbread, Howard

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  White, J. D. (Dumhartonshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Whittaker, Rt Hn, Sir Thomas P.

  Richardson, A.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  William, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williamson, A.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Robinson, S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowden

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Russel, T. W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thompson, J W H. (Somerset, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Elibank.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. ASQUITH Mr. ASQUITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided—Ayes, 334; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 170.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Agnew, George William

  Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clough, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark;

  Brigg, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, J. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Barker, John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barlow, Perey (Bedford)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barnes, G. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Cowan, H. W.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Crean, Eugene

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, SGeo.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Crooks, William

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crossley, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Dickinson, W H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Grady, J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Malley, William

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jenkins, J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Essex, R. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pollard, Dr.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Radford, G. H.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lupton, Arnold

  Richardson, A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Fenfrew, W.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Robinson, S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W Brampton

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Halpin, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Harcourt, Rt Hn, L. (Rossendale

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Seaverns, J. H

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seddon, J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Seely, Colonel

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Menzies, Walter

  Shackleton, David James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, G. Hay. (Cornwall)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Snowden, P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  1378

  1379

  Steadman, W. C.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williamson, A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Summerbell, T.

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Waring, Walter

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Thompson, J W. H. (Somerset, E

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Elibank.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keswick, William

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Bill, as amended, re-committed in respect of the Schedule and in respect of the Amendments to paragraphs (i.) and (ii.) of the proviso to paragraph (a) of Clause 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer as Amendments to be moved on re-committal.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to insert the words, "including food or com-
  1380
  forts". There was some doubt whether the words in the Bill would really include that particular provision, and in order to make it quite clear he moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 10, after the word 'assistance,' to insert the words 'including food or comforts.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.'
  LORD R. CECILasked if it was quite clear that these words covered medical or surgical assistance to any member of the applicant's family.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid he had looked at the words very carefully, as the promise had been made to him, and he thought they would cover the case as arranged.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  SIR P. BANBURYasked what was intended to be covered by the word "comforts" It was rather a wide term and it might include all sorts of things, coals, bedding or tobacco.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasid that the word "comforts" was the most comprehensive term they could suggest, and it was very well known what it meant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to insert after "hospital" in Clause 3 "or the payment of any expenses of the burial of a dependent."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'hospital,' to insert the words 'or of the funeral expenses of any such dependent.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the word "dependent" was a curious sort of word. He saw the Attorney-General was in his place, and he would like him to give the Committee a definition of the word, stating what it covered and what it did not cover.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that "dependents" was a word very well known in statutes. It meant a person whom the pensioner would be under a legal obligation to maintain. The word was frequently used in the Workmen's Compensation Act and in the Poor Law, and there was no difficulty in giving it the ordinary construction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule:
  MR. HOLTmoved the following Amendment, "In line 25 of the schedule to leave out all the words after 'exceeding' to the end and to substitute the following schedule: 'Where the means of the person does not exceed per annum £22 10s. pension 5s. per week; £25, pension, 4s. 6d.; £27 10s., pension 4s.;, £30 pension 3s. 6d.; £32 10s., pension 3s. £35, pension 2s. 6d.; £37 10s., pension 2s.; above £37 10s., no pension.'" The object of this Amendment was to secure that a man who had saved 10s. or 12s. a week should be in a better position than the man who had saved only 8s. The man who had saved 9s., for instance, would receive 4s. 6d., or 13s. 6d. in all, against the 13s. received by the man who had saved 8s. The objection to the Amendment was, of course, that it would cost more money. Would it be more expensive than the schedule of the Government? He had been inquiring into the pensions paid by a certain public authority to its workmen, and he found that there were 206 pensions, the lowest being 7s. 6d. and the highest 15s. a week. Under the Government schedule it would have to pay 372 shillings a week, and under his schedule it would pay 610. His scale was graduated by falls of 6d. from 5s. to 2s. No pension was payable below that amount, the income limit which excluded a person from getting a pension being an amount exceeding £37 10s., At first sight his scale appeared to be more costly than that of the Government, but his impression was that the private pensions would be reduced almost at once to 8s,, as people did not like to pay out of their pockets for the benefit of the taxpayer, and a similar line of argument would influence friendly and benefit societies, who would recast their rules so as to get as much out of the Exchequer as possible, and to have more to distribute among other people. If there was any doubt as to which scale would cost most to the Exchequer there could not be any doubt as to which one was going to be of the greatest benefit to the pensioners.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 25, to leave out from the word 'exceed' to the end of the schedule, and to insert—

  s.

  d.

  "£2210s.

  5

  0

  Exceed £22 10s., but do not exceed £25

  4

  6

  Exceed £25, but do not exceed £ 27 10s.

  4

  0

  Exceed £27 10s., but do not exceed £30

  3

  6

  Exceed £30, but do not exceed £32 10s.

  3

  0

  Exceed £32 10s., but do not exceed £35

  2

  6

  Exceed £35, but do not exceed £37 10s.

  2

  0

  Exceed £37 10s.

  No pension."

  —(Mr. Holt.)

  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to '4s, 0d.,' in line 26, stand part of the schedule."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Government could not accept the scale suggested, which would cost over £800,000 a year more than the Government scale. The scheme was ingenious, but it was rather complicated and complex, and subtle schemes generally came to grief when an attempt was made to put them in operation. The plan of the Government was a plan which had already worked well in New Zealand, New South Wales, and one or two other colonies. His hon. friend seemed to assume that under the Government scheme there would be a real danger of the reduction of pensions paid by authorities like dock authorities to 8s. a week. But the scale of such pensions could surely be adapted not merely to the Government scheme, but to any scale introduced into the Bill, So long as it was graded according to income. That was why he would avoid the complicated and difficult scale suggested by his hon. friend. It was far better to stick to the scale which in the experience of the colonies had worked very well.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they were discussing the schedule under circumstances of great difficulty, approaching it for the first time after the hour at which ordinary sittings of the House had closed. He thought the proposal made by the hon. Member worthy of more consideration than the
  1384
  Chancellor of the Exchequer had vouchsafed. They knew that in these matters the first aspect of the case was often misleading, and the resolution at which the Government first arrived in the matter was not that which they reached when they had heard the subject discussed. If the Committee had had to debate the question of adopting a fixed limit or a sliding scale under conditions similar to those under which they were compelled now to discuss the nature of the sliding scale, the fixed limit would have been still embodied in the Bill, for it was not until half a day had been spent in debate upon the point and one or two supporters of the Government had spoken against the sliding scale that Ministers decided to alter their plan.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the opportunity of discussing the sliding scale and that of discussing whether a sliding scale or a fixed limit of income should be adopted were exactly the same. The discussion on the latter point began at eight o'clock, and the Government offered to begin the discussion that evening at eight o'clock.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he declined to be drawn into a controversy at that hour as to the reasonableness of the time allowed for debate on other parts of the Bill not discussed at all. They were endeavouring to find out what would be the effect of the Bill on such questions as were raised by his hon. friend a few minutes ago. For instance, whether a man who had been convicted wrongfully and had received a free pardon, would not be excluded from any right to a pension for ten years afterwards. If they did so they would not get home till morning, or till they ought to be meeting again. He was pointing out when the Chancellor of the Exchequer interposed, that the Prime Minister spoke against the sliding scale, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke against it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer wobbled. It was not the unaided intelligence of the

  1385
  Government which brought them to the conclusion embodied in the sliding scale which they submitted. It was prolonged discussion which had induced them to modify the Bill profoundly, and if opportunity for debate were afforded they might be induced to modify the schedule. He was one of those who from the first desired the sliding scale rather than the fixed limit, and now that they had got the sliding scale accepted he joined with the hon. Gentleman opposite in appealing to the Government to reconsider the terms of the sliding scale they had put into the Bill. Of course, private Members had no real means of making calculations worth the paper they were made on as to what would be the cost of any particular change. They could only argue the general principle, and leave the Government to apply the general principle to the money which was available, and to the circumstances in which they were placed. The right hon. Gentleman had told them he could not accept the Amendment because it would add £900,000 to the expense already laid on the country by this Bill. That was a very substantial reason, but would the right hon. Gentleman tell them how he had arrived at that estimate? Had he assumed that everyone who now paid a pension, under whatever name, to an old person would continue to pay it, even though that old person would be no better off than if that pension was less than it was? He was not going to pay two or five shillings a week for the purpose not of benefiting the person to whom he paid it, but of saving the Exchequer which was to pay the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the directors were trying to get the wages paid out of the Exchequer. But that was impossible under a sliding scale. It seemed rather an offensive suggestion to make that his hon. friend or his clients wished to push off an obligation of their own on to the Exchequer.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to say that. He had simply been replying to the argument which the hon. Gentleman himself had advanced that it would be possible to shuffle off the responsibility on to the Exchequer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that that was not the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to impute it to him or to anyone on that side of the House. The suggestion was, not that directors might wish to pay their wages out of the Exchequer, but that, if a man did not benefit by saving, the incentive to continue to save was destroyed. If he did not benefit by any pension or gratuity which he received from his late or present employers, the Government destroyed their incentive to continue the payments. It was accordingly urged that, in any sliding scale inserted in the Bill, they should give a clear advantage to the man at each stage of the sliding scale that would prevent those who were now assisting him in his old age from withdrawing their assistance when the Bill passed. It was a reasonable proposition that there might be some old person in whom a man might be interested, who was known to him and whom he would assist to obtain an old-age pension. The first question asked would be what his resources were, and who contributed towards them, and those who contributed would withdraw their contribution if they found he did not benefit. He had no means of checking the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that people would continue to pay what they now gave voluntarily after the greater comfort of the recipient had ceased to act as a reason. He believed this to be an unfounded assumption, and wholly illusory.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he supported the Amendment, because if it were carried he hoped they would be able to persuade the House to leave out all after the word "exceed" in the schedule, and his hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle might be able to move out the words "£22 10s.," and insert the words "£26," so as to insure with the minimum pension 15s. a week. It would be a great pity, he thought, to spoil an otherwise excellent measure for the sake of £100,000, or whatever it might cost. People whose income was 10s. a week would naturally feel agrieved if they were to be penalised to the advantage of people whose income was more than 10s.

  1387
  a week. He hoped the Government even now would realise that if the scheme they were supporting created this injustice it would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent. The right hon. Gentleman must remember when he quoted New Zealand that the pension there was 10s., and if a small young Colony could afford to give that the Mother Country at least could afford to give 5s. a week to those whose incomes did not exceed 10s. a week. He appealed to the Government, therefore, not to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. LEIF JONESsupported the Amendment because he desired to see it incorporated in the Bill, and he was sorry it had been met with so uncompromising a refusal from the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, however, that even now the last word had not been spoken upon it. The only alteration it was proposed to make in the schedule was in the amount of pension to be granted. Upon what ground could it be said by the pension officer or the Government that it would complicate matters to grant 4s. 6d. any more than to grant 4s., which was the Government proposal? It seemed to him in the matter of complication there was nothing to be said against the proposed amended schedule that did not already prevail against the scale of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman's second objection to the proposed amended scale was that it would be much more costly than the scale of the Government. They had not the means of arriving at exact figures and they could not tell how much it was going to cost more than the Government scheme, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had under-estimated the cost of the existing scale if he was taking it on the basis of the present payment of friendly societies, trade unions, and benevolent employers. It was quite obvious that under the Government scale there would be no incentive to an any employer, trade union, or friendly society to grant any sum of money between 8s. and 13s. per week to any employee or subscriber, and sooner or later there would be a reduction in all these grants to the 8s., which entitled the recipients
  1388
  to the full Government pension. He should have imagined that the Government in their calculations would have taken the effect of that tendency into account, and he was surprised to hear that the scale proposed by his hon. friend was really going to cost £900,000 more than the Government scale. Even assuming that the scale proposed by his hon. friend would cost this extra money, they could instead of removing altogether the incentive to save between 8s. and 13s., cut off the pension when they reached the higher stages and say a man who had 8s. per week should have 5s., a man who had 9s. should have 4s. 6d., and a man who had 10s. should have 4s., and that there should be no more pensions until such time as they had more money to grant them. In that case they would not be spending more money than the Government at the present provided, and the scale would not be open to the objection that they were putting a burden on the taxpayer, whilst they would be granting pensions without depriving a man of the incentive to be thrifty. He could not see, therefore, why the Government should not give fair consideration to the proposal, even if they could not go the whole length proposed. At any rate their proposal, within the limits of their money, would then be a good one. They would be granting pensions where they were most needed, and granting those who had been careful and had saved more than 8s., something more than those who had not saved so much. It was of infinite importance that the people should understand that the more they saved the better off they would be. It was really a great blot on the Government scheme, valuable as that scheme was, that it was legitimately open to the charge that it gave no encouragement to saving between 8s. and 13s. It was all the more regrettable because the blot was not inevitable. It could be remedied by the proposal before the House without costing the country any more money, and without in the least adding to the complication of the Bill. He believed hon. Members wanted the schedule to be as good as they could possibly make it; and he was convinced, if it were left to their unfettered decision to say which

  1389
  was the best schedule, some such schedule as that now proposed which would secure that the man who had saved most should have the largest income would commend itself to the House.
  MR. BOWLESthought the speeches to which they had listened would convince the House that there was a very great deal to be said for the Amendment. There was no question that this schedule, whatever its defects, was founded upon the only right principle—that the pension scheme ought to have some regard to the thrift of the recipient and that the pension ought to bear some proportion to the provision which a man had made for himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused the Amendments on two grounds. He was bound to say he really once again showed that he had not seriously considered the Amendment which he disposed of in a few airy phrases to which they had become accustomed. He had said that the scale could not be adopted, because it was too subtle and complicated, and would not be effective in practice. That contention had been blown to pieces by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It was a novel objection to say that proposals on this Bill were subtle, because, if ever there was a Bill which was subtle and complicated, through and through, from beginning to end, it was this Bill. If any fortunate old person ever managed to get through all the enormous entanglements which the Bill set up between him and his pension there would probably be a public subscription got up for him. The only real objection the right hon. Gentleman made was that it would cost too much and that he had not got the money. He had told them it would cost £900,000 more than the Government schedule. He thought they were entitled upon a matter of this vital importance to something more than that mere statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not doubt it was so, but the details of the calculation could have nothing confidential about them, and if they knew them they would be able to see what the real character of the calculation was. The right hon. Gentleman had given them
  1390
  no details, but only said it would cost £900,000 more. There was no objection in principle to the schedule, which could perfectly well be adapted to any sum which the Government had at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that it could be made less expensive by cutting off the last two lines, the 12s. 6d. and 13s. 6d. a week. He thought that would be a wrong way because it would knock out a relatively small number of persons who were in relatively small need of and got relatively small pensions. It would be better in addition to knocking off the last two lines to begin the whole schedule lower down—to begin with a man earning 6s. 6d. instead of 7s. 6d. But that, after all, was a matter for the Government to consider. His point was that the principle of the schedule, it was not denied by the Government, was the right principle and the objection which they made to it, that they could not afford it, fell to the ground and could easily be removed by adjusting the schedule itself in order to meet any sum which the Government had at their disposal. Having at the invitation of the Government embarked upon the discussion of the schedule, upon the justice of which the whole future of the scheme really depended, it seemed to him that the answer which had been given was a very jejune and small one not altogether worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. He would be unable to vote for the schedule as it stood in view of the additional cost, but he would be able to support the hon. Member in moving the Government schedule out in order to insert another. He objected to the Bill altogether, but if they were to have an old-age pension scheme they should take every means to see that it was just and sound.
  MR. SIMONsaid he was entirely unconvinced by the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were really two questions here quite separate in importance and in the extent to which the ordinary private Member could judge of them. One was the actual question, how much one schedule would cost the Treasury more than another. It was profoundly important, but not a matter on which

  1391
  the ordinary private Member could form an independent opinion. But, apart from that altogether, there was involved in this Amendment a difference in principle, and he desired, with great respect, to ask the Government whether he was not right in thinking that their scheme was one which put no inducement whatever upon a man who had once got as much as 8s. a week to get any more, unless he got at least 13s. a week. In the second place, he desired to ask them whether this proposed system did not provide some stimulus for thrift which the Government system failed to do. If he was right in thinking these two things, was he really to be told that it passed the wit of man and the Treasury to devise a scheme which embraced the better principle? He entirely declined to believe it, and if the eminent gentlemen who advised the Chancellor, of the Exchequer were able to tell him that this scheme was going to cost £900,000 more than the other he had no doubt they could tell him what modifications of the scheme were necessary in order that they might not commit themselves to too great extra expenditure. It was said there was many and many a man who came to the end of his life, and had saved only 8s. a week, who was a much better man and worthier citizen than a man who had saved 12s. But they must proceed on some general rule, and unless it was going to be said that the encouragement of thrift between these limits of weekly saving was utterly unimportant and that, speaking generally, a man was a better citizen, because he had saved less rather than more, he really did not see the force and the relevance of the observation. Then it was said that the proposal was complicated, but it was not complicated a bit. It was quite as easy to follow as the Government scheme. In both cases it was necessary to know that there were fifty-two weeks in the year and to be able to do a long division sum. If they could not do it in their heads they had to do it on a piece of paper. He did not think he would be doing his duty if he silently supported a scheme which contained, as he thought, seed of real vice, in that it did not offer an actual inducement to saving. At the same time he agreed with the hon. Member opposite in seeing the impossi-
  1392
  bility of voting in the dark for some further expenditure, and he therefore appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell him, since he had assistance at his command which private Members had not, what were the modifications necessary to be made in the scheme in order that they might be able to spend that sum of money which the Government said they could find.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the main objection of the Government was that the scheme of the hon. Gentleman opposite involved an extra expenditure of £900,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had an opportunity of considering the schedule which in the Committee stage stood in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone and which carried out every one of the suggestions just advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. It gave a distinct advantage as between the different grades of those who had saved, and therefore encouraged thrift. It started by giving more to the poorer man and less to the man who was better off, while it involved exactly the same expenditure. It started with an income of £13 a year, and ended with an income of £26 5s. It gave the man with an income of £13 a year 6s. a week, and the man with £26 5s. a year 2s. a week, and the pensions were graded between so that the annual income was slightly increased with the increase of personal savings. That being the case he thought it answered every suggestion which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had just made. The Opposition were in exactly the same position as the hon. and learned Gentleman. They would like to have the existing schedule left out in the first instance in order that the Government might put in a fresh one—either one of those which appeared on the Paper, or else alter their own. He begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he was justified in closing the door altogether to the suggestion that had been made, namely, that, whatever the schedule was, it should do something distinctly to encourage thrift. That was not the description of the Government schedule. The difference was only one of sixpence, he believed. It sounded ridiculous to ask a man to indulge in self-denial for years for the sake of 6d.,

  1393
  but if the pension were based on the schedule of his noble friend there was a distinct advantage to be gained by the pensioner, and although he would be glad to see it greater, it was an improvement on the Government's schedule. If the Government would be willing to leave out their schedule, and then consider the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, amending it to meet their case or else bring forward a fresh one, it would be a satisfactory proceeding. The schedule to which he had referred involved not one penny more expenditure than the Government were prepared to meet. It took the original limit of the Government, namely 10s. 5d. a week as the maximum, it started with a lower sum than was taken by the Government, it gave more to the poor man and less to the better-off man, and the increase of income grew with the amount saved by the recipient. Therefore, it had every advantage to recommend it and he could not help regretting that the Government were not willing to accept the proposal.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had asked him to express an opinion upon the schedule suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone. It was a cheaper schedule than the Government schedule by £450,000. It was not for him as Chancellor of the Exchequer to object to that, but he doubted whether he could persuade the Committee to accept it.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the schedule had been very carefully prepared. He had not the figures with him, but he had seen them. He could not believe a saving of £400,000 was involved. According to the figures he had seen the expenditure worked out almost identically the same as the expenditure under the Government proposals, besides which greater advantages were provided.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But it runs up from 5s. to 10s.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was informed that the scheme worked out at something like £400,000 less than the
  1394
  Government scheme, and though he did not think the House of Commons would accept it at that stage, if there was a general feeling to save the Exchequer £400,000 it would not be very difficult to persuade him at any rate to give it very careful consideration. He could not help thinking, however, that his hon. friends had been exercising their well-known ingenuity to very little purpose. What did it mean? The Amendment was represented as a scale which was a great inducement to thrift. What was the great inducement to thrift? It was that the individual might be able to make 6d. out of it. The suggestion was that a man would not merely go on saving, but would so ingeniously adapt his savings that he would not save 8s. but 9s. in order to be able to make 6d. out of it when seventy years of age. It was too fantastic. Of course any man by the exercise of his ingenuity could invent all sorts of conditions and possible contingencies of that kind, but they were not practical. A man when thirty or forty years of age did not sit down to plan how to save every penny he could so as to save exactly the sum that would enable him at the age of seventy years to get an extra 6d. out of the revenue. That was not the way a man acted. A man began to save without any particular consideration of the actual amount he would have when seventy years of age. The inducement to thrift would largely remain, and he could not believe that any man would so adapt, as it were, the whole savings of his life in order to make the difference between 8s. or 9s. according to the very ingenious scale suggested by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Appleby had said that if the Government could not accept the scale of the hon. Member for Hexham, would they not accept the improvised scale which he had proposed in the course of the debate? Was his hon. friend quite sure where it stopped?
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid the Amendment, was not improvised. It was put down in the Committee stage and was now on the Paper. The suggestion he made in the course of the debate was that if there were not enough money

  1395
  to meet the whole scale it should stop at the point where it affected the higher incomes.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if his hon. friend knew that the scale he proposed would cost an extra £815,000 a year to the Exchequer?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how these estimates were arrived at?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would state quite frankly to the Committee that he had to depend on the actuaries of the Department. That was the only answer he could give. The only instructions he gave were that the actuaries were to ascertain on a proper actuarial basis what the proposals in the Amendment would cost. He was anxious to find out exactly what they came to, and the figures he had quoted were given to him by actuaries who arrived at them in the usual way. He thought that was the only possible business way of arriving at a proper estimate. If his hon. friend was referring to his Amendment on the Paper, he was sorry he suggested it was improvised. That, as he had said, would cost £815,000 more to the Exchequer, and really what he had to say about all these schemes was what he had said before, that he would rather the money should be spent in extending the benefits to the very poor, but if they took away £800,000 or £900,000 in order to give it to the comparatively well-off they could not spend it on the very poor. He believed it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite who asked if the Government had tried any alternative of their own upon the principle contained in these suggestions. Well, the Government had, and the very nearest approach they could get to the cost of their present scheme was £330,000 more. They did not think that this mere sixpence thrift was worth £330,000 a year, when they wanted money saved for the purpose of dealing with the paupers, as he hoped they would be able to next year. Under these circumstances he trusted the Committee would not think he was giving a perfunctory answer. These things had
  1396
  been gone into most carefully. He confessed he was rather attracted by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hexham. He thought that there was an idea to be worked upon, because he was just as anxious as hon. Members that the scheme should be a real encouragement to thrift. He thought it was a very ingenious idea, and started with that view to ascertain what it would really cost. They tried all kinds of alternatives but could not find one which would cost less than £330,000, and under those circumstances they had to abandon the idea. After all, it was not a plan for which any other country had set a precedent. The plan of the Government was the only one which had been pursued up to the present in any other country.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he did not wish to labour the point at that time of night, and he wished to state he was not one of those who asked for 1d. more on the sliding scale than that which was involved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. He had not got actuarial figures, but he could not help feeling that, if instead of 5s. with those who had 10s. they stopped at 5s. with 8s., and then raised the scale to 4s. 6d. with 9s., and 4s. with 10s., it gave a margin for over 10s. because anyone could see that there was a saving of 6d. on the second class and 1s. on the third class. He was not concerned to go up to 13s. or even 12s. 6d., but he was concerned about keeping away from the dead level between 8s. and 13s., which was no advantage, and he was sure would create a tendency to unload. He was managing director of a works which gave 1,200 to 1,300 pensions of 12s. to 13s. a week, and the very first thing his colleagues said was that they should reduce the pension below 8s., because they would be able to give pensions to more men. If the Government only went up to 10s. or 10s 6d., and graded the pensions in the way suggested it would appeal to the country, as a man would not have his pension docked off to the extent of the equivalent he had saved. By the permission of the Government they had been allowed to discuss the sliding scale that night not, he took it, with a view to pressing the

  1397
  Chancellor of the Exchequer to give more money, because he agreed they ought to spend it on the poorer people, but in order to deal with arithmetical calculations. He was not asking for anything extra or he would not be standing there, but he only wanted to repeat with emphasis the wish of himself and his hon. friends that this scale should not be open to objections.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been moved by the series of appeals which had been made to him from his own side of the House, but he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had altogether failed to grasp first of all the objections to his present proposal which came from his own side, and, secondly, the effect of the Amendment which had been pressed on the right hon. Gentleman's attention by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. What was the root of all the objections which came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own side of the House? It was that the Bill of the Government and their present proposal gave no encouragement whatever to thrift. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee half a dozen times in the course of his speeches that he was most anxious to do something in the Bill to promote and encourage thrift, but from the commencement of the Bill in its original form, when a hard and fast line had been drawn at an income of 10s. a week, it had been nothing but the greatest possible discouragement to thrift.
  MR. H. C. LEA: On a point of order, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to lecture the Government on its alleged lack of encouragement of thrift amongst the working classes when it is notorious that he has himself so little displayed this quality in the course of his life that he has had to make a declaration of insufficiency of means in order to qualify for an allowance from the taxpayers of this country to the extent of £1,200 a year—? [Cries of "Oh," and "Order."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely in order.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the interruption only showed how extremely little attention was paid by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the discussion which was going on. He had been humbly endeavouring to support and enforce the views which had been submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his own side without any effect at all up to the present. Some improvement, he admitted, had been made by the Amendment that had been moved by the Government themselves with regard to a sliding scale, but unfortunately the sliding scale that they had moved was extremely deficient. His right hon. friend had called attention to an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone. There was another Amendment almost precisely of the same character moved by his hon. friend the Member for Worcester. Either of these Amendments would have had the effect of encouraging thrift, though he agreed with his right hon. friend that the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone would have encouraged thrift rather more than the other. That was why he desired in a very few words to press it upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not appear to have considered the Amendment in the Committee stage or to have paid much attention to what fell from his right hon. friend; but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer differed entirely from that of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone, in the very respect which had been enforced upon him, or tried to be enforced upon him, by Members on his own side. It began at a lower scale than the Amendment which was put on the Paper by the Government. Might he endeavour to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman what was the effect of this Amendment? Instead of beginning as the right hon. Gentleman did at £21 a year, it began at £13, which was equal to 5s. per week. Where that was the case it gave as a pension 6s. per week, bringing the pensioner's income up to 11s. altogether. The next stage was where

  1399
  the income was 6s. 1¾d. a week, in which case 5s. a week pension was given, making the income just over 11s. a week. The third scale was that where the income was 7s. 4½d. the pensioner got 4s. a week pension, or slightly over 11s. altogether. The fourth stage was where the income was 8s. 8¾d., when the pension was 3s., which brought the total again just over 11s. The last stage was where the income was 10s. a week, when the pension was 2s. a week. The great advantage of this in his opinion—and he believed it was the opinion of the large majority of the Committee—was that, even at the last stage there was a distinct inducement still to practice thrift, because the individual would get a pension of 2s. a week. That differed entirely from the scheme of the Government, because according to that scheme, the last stage was reached when the income exceeded 12s. a week when there was no pension at all. Was it not perfectly plain that a man had absolutely no encouragement to thrift whatever after his income had reached that stage? On the contrary, it was a positive disadvantage to him to save after that amount because there was no pension at all. Any Government which did anything to discourage thrift was committing something worse than a blunder; it was a positive crime. The appeals which he had endeavoured to submit had been enforced over and over again by resolutions of all the great friendly societies in this country, and it had been a matter of deep regret to him to see the way in which the representation of their views had been received by a Government which, while it did exactly the contrary, professed time after time that there were no people in the world more anxious to encourage thrift than they were themselves.
  MR. W. R. REAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be under the impression that those who had put forward the scheme suggested were engaged upon a raid on the Treasury. Nothing was further from their minds than that they should increase to any appreciable extent the burden already thrown upon the Exchequer by the Bill. They felt, however, that they were not legislating for a single year, but that they were sitting upon a
  1400
  general principle. It was only wise that they should look forward beyond the demand of the coming year, and, if possible, lay down some scheme which would be consistent with the encouragement of thrift. He wished to demur to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said the question was a mere paltry one of 6d. per week of saving on the part of the pensioner. It was nothing of the sort; it was a question of how an employer who had a certain amount of money to spend in charity could best spend that money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there would be nobody so thriftless as to dispose of his income. He had his doubts on that point; but he would urge that it was the duty of the custodians of public money and even of money belonging to public companies not to spend it in indiscriminate charity which would not be to the benefit of the recipients, but could only benefit the Treasury, but they were bound to distribute that money over a larger number of pensions. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer in distributing his £900,000 thoroughly taken that fact into account, and would he not find that the cost of his present scheme would be considerably heavier than the actuarial calculations would justify him in supposing, owing to the ethical considerations as regarded deductions which would be made by the employers? The Committee recognised, of course, that it was impossible to add to the cost of the scheme during the present year, but he would ask the Government whether they had not had some scheme worked out on the basis of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Appleby; and whether the right hon. Gentleman could not undertake not to put a new schedule in at the tail end of the Bill at the present moment, but to consider if he could not put the Bill in such a form that when he had money to spend—perhaps not next year, but the year afterwards—and when the Bill was enlarged, as enlarged it must be, that enlargement would not be such as to put a premium on thriftlessness.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid he wanted to put one question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon.

  1401
  Gentleman had given the Committee some very interesting figures; he had told them that one of the alternative proposals would cost £830,000 more, and the other £900,000 more, and that these figures had been based upon very careful actuarial calculations by the Treasury. What he wanted to ask was whether, in making those calculations, any estimate was made of those who were at present enjoying pensions from outside sources and who would, under the Government scheme, have those pensions reduced; and, secondly, would the cost be greater than it would be if those pensions were continued? He would give one case which bore on this question. He had a man working in his garden at the present time, whom he paid 12s. a week, and he would get 1s. from the Government. If he reduced the man's pension to 8s. a week he would get 5s. from the Government and still get 13s. a week. There was nothing to prevent him reducing that man's pension to 8s. a week. He did not say he would do it, but he imagined a great many others would, and what he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer was whether in the figures of £800,000 or £900,000 due allowance had been made for a probable number who would have their present pensions reduced.
  MR. BRODIEsaid that however excellent the proposal of the hon. Member for Hexham might be in itself, there was one insuperable objection to it, and that was the cost it must involve. They were told on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was going to cost the country £900,000 a year more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire had informed the House that only a Member of the Government advised by the Government officials could really obtain a correct actuarial calculation in matters of this sort, and he would like to impress upon the House that if they were to spend more money on old-age pensions, the first claim surely was that of the old people who were in receipt of outdoor relief at the present time. During the whole course of the debates in connection with this Bill, he had been attempting to say something of the unfortunate position of those
  1402
  people of seventy-five and eighty years of age, who had received outdoor relief for the first time this year, and he thought if they were to spend any more money, it should be spent on those persons. For that reason he trusted the Committee would reject this Amendment and any other Amendment which necessitated extra expenditure, and would keep in view the fact that every extra penny which was spent for the present be spent on these old people. There would never be a perfect scheme until they found enough money to give everybody an old-age pension, without any qualification whatever.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he wanted to put before the Committee a view which had not been touched so far in the discussion. It had been assumed throughout that the main object of the Bill should be to promote what was commonly called thrift. The term, he considered, was a misnomer. Thrift was merely wise expenditure, but in this discussion it had been taken only to mean non-expenditure. A man might wisely expend on certain things, and by saving on those things have something to spend on something else. If he did that always, he was practising thrift in the strictest sense of the term. It had been constantly assumed that the object of the Bill was to encourage saving for investment, but that could go too far, for it was plain there were limits to the possibility of investments. The field for investment was necessarily limited. If the democracy next year were to save £100,000,000 more than they saved this year, it would be, according to the argument that had been used, an excellent thing to do. But the effect of saving that amount—that was of withholding the sum from expenditure—would be a lessening of consumption. The working-classes, indeed, would save themselves into unemployment. That was strictly a paradox. The proper meaning of the word "paradox" was not "fallacy," but a proposition which seemed to be false but was in fact true. The fallacy of most critics of this measure was the assumption that saving for investment was in the nature of things unlimited. To think that saving could go on to an indefinite

  1403
  extent, and that the savings could be successfully invested was a very gross empirical fallacy. The limit of successful saving for investment was the point at which the investment yielded that for which there was a demand.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the economic argument of the hon. Member seemed to be a little remote from the question.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid that his proposition was that the object of this Bill should not be first and foremost to encourage further saving for investment, because blind and unlimited encouragement of saving for investment was merely an inducement to what must prove to be loss. That was an economic fact. There was annually a vast amount of saving which was doomed to loss because there did not exist sufficient means for investment beyond a certain sum, and the House was empirically urging upon everyone unlimited saving for investment, when in the nature of the case such unlimited saving for investment must involve loss of a large amount of the saved money. He was trying to repel an argument which had been reiterated a hundred times in the discussion and which was apparently taken for granted without the slightest analysis.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that thrift as he understood it was putting by for a rainy day, and the reason he was supporting the Amendment was that for the first time it embodied in the Bill a word in favour of thrift. The only argument really used against the Amendment was that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would cost an extra £900,000. That had nothing to do with the Opposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could look after his own hen roosts. He should have realised before he brought in the Bill that there would be a demand from all sides of the House to make it a more reasonable measure. Amendment after Amendment had been suggested from the Opposition side of the House, and also from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said
  1404
  he was going to raise a further Amendment increasing the limit of income which permitted a pension from 8s. to 10s., for which he would certainly vote, because sooner or later, probably within the next twelve months, all these painful wire entanglements would be bound to be swept away, The whole scheme would have to be simplified and would cost more money, and it was just as well that the Government which had initiated this scheme should have the responsibility of bringing in a proper one and the burden of finding the money.
  MR. MADDISONdid not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had addressed himself to the one proposition before the Committee, which was not a question of increasing the amount from the Treasury but of utilising to the best advantage the money he had at his disposal. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman gave that consideration to the question which it deserved, when he merely talked about the scheme of the hon. Member for Hexham being fantastic. The moment the right hon. Gentleman left the fixed income with the small amount of money at his disposal he was sure to get into some fantastic proposals. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not fantastic in a scheme that a man who had 12s. a week got no more than the man who had 8s.? The hon. Member for Tyneside had offered a very learned disquisition about thrift, which he could not attempt to follow, but he would like to say that for the purpose of this Bill they had to assume thrift when it existed in a concrete form, because they could not very well tell when the expenditure had been wise. He quite agreed there was thrift in wise expenditure, but for the purpose of the Bill how could they say over a long course of years if the expenditure had been wise? Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take the principle of the scheme of the hon. Member for Hexham and confine it within the limits of the money he possessed. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would at any rate get away from the anomaly that a man with 8s. a week got just as much as a man with 9s., or, rather, that the man with 9s. got no more than the

  1405
  man with 8s. So far from helping the poor—and he was entirely with the right hon. Gentleman there—he ventured to say that under his sliding scale it did not do that at all, because in order to give the pension to a man who had 11s. or 12s. he had reduced the pension of the man who had got 9s. or 10s. a week. He thought there was something more in the proposal than the right hon. Gentleman had yet indicated.
  LORD R. CECILhoped the Government would reconsider the point. He really could not understand their attitude. Surely the request put forward by the hon. Member for Burnley and others was reasonable, namely, that the Government should take the money they had got and apply it to a reasonable, rational, and logical scheme. The only answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was that they had tried all the schemes, and they could not find one that would cost less than £300,000 more than their present scheme. It was really incredible. It was impossible to believe that by an arrangement of the scale they could not bring out the sum substantially the same as that of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He urged this on the Government, not only on the ground of thrift, but on the ground of justice. There would be a grave sense of injustice unless some such proposal were adopted. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was wrong in putting aside the claim of justice as he had so often done on this subject. The pensioner who having 9s. or 10s. a week got no more than the pensioner with 8s. would feel unjustly treated because he would be receiving a less pension from the State, and he would say "Why
  1406
  should I not have some advantage over the person who has only 8s. a week?" It would leave a rankling sense of injustice in the minds of some people. No one in the course of the debate had said that the scheme of the Government was as just as that of the hon. Member for Hexham, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the principle of the scheme.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he should like, before a division was taken, to say two or three words on this subject, particularly in reply to some of his hon. friends. The question was whether the schedule which now appeared in the Bill, should be left out in order that there might be substituted for it one or another of the proposals submitted by various Members of the Committee. The schedule which appeared in the Bill was the schedule adopted by the Government at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester. It followed precisely the principle which had been adopted in all other countries, including our Colony of New Zealand, which had dealt with this matter of old-age pensions, and he believed it was the experience of those countries and Colonies that the effect was not prejudicial. That was a prima facie justification for the Government when they departed from the fixed scale, and adopted the sliding scale, although he had never concealed his own opinion that in the long run there was a good deal to be said against the adoption of any sliding scale; but the overwhelming opinion of the House was in its favour, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very wisely adopted it. What were the alternatives to the Government's proposal? When they

  1407
  came to examine them, as they had been in the most unprejudiced way, by gentlemen more competent than any of them could be at a moment's notice, it was found that there was not one which in practice could be found to involve other than a substantially larger sum than the Government scheme. He made an exception of the scheme of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone, which would give a substantially smaller sum. All the others would necessarily involve a substantially greater expenditure, and under those circumstances he must really appeal to the House to stand by the Government's proposal. He did so with
  the assurance that the Government would watch most carefully the practical operation of the scheme, when it became part of the law of the land, and if they found that it was productive of the grave practical inconveniences which some of his hon. friends forecasted, no one would be more ready than they to profit by the lessons of experience, and ask Parliament to remedy the inconveniences.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 171.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Agnew, George William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Alden, Percy

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hogan, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bennett, E. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lambert, George

  Brace, William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Rt Hn. Sydney Charles

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Menzies, Walter

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Robinson, S.

  Thompson, J W H (S'merset, E.)

  Nicholls, George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Russell, T. W.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Waring, Walter

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seely, Colonel

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Radford, G. H.

  Sores, Ernest J.

  Williamson, A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Winfrey, R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Maddison, Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gill, A. H.

  Moore, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Glover, Thomas

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Gordon, J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haddock, George B.

  O'Grady, J.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renton, Leslie

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A. (Wore.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Shackleton, David James

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cooper, G. J.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Snowden, P.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Crooks, William

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Starkey, John R.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Summerbell, T.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  1410

  1411

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, d) Mi

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Younger, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holt and Mr. Leif Jones.

  Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid before the Question was put to the Vote he desired to say a word or two against the schedule. That was the only method he had left by which to raise the question that he had placed upon the notice paper. In objecting to the schedule being added to the Bill he thought they were acting in a perfectly consistent way, for every Member on those benches he believed voted against the deletion of the 5s. which the Government proposed in order to insert a schedule. But having decided that a schedule was to go into the Bill they thought a great injustice would be done to a large number of people who had had hopes raised by the Government that their pension would be 5s. a week, whereas now it was to be something less, according to the schedule. They felt that even though it might involve the Government in the task of finding more money, there was not sufficient justification for accepting any schedule that placed a number of the pensioners in a worse position than they would have been placed in had the Bill in its original form been carried into law. Therefore, they on those benches not only protested against the acceptance of a schedule that had that effect, but they were also prepared to carry their protest into the division lobby. The question would be
  1412
  put to him as it had been put to others who had attempted to amend the schedule in the direction of increased cost, namely, what was the actual cost it would involve. He did not know that any of them who took the responsibility of putting Amendments down had been in a position really to ascertain the exact amount involved in the proposals, but he had estimated that it would mean an increased cost of something like £2,000,000. That might seem a very large amount to add to the Government's estimate of a little over £7,000,000 for their scheme; but having regard to the immense possibilities for providing money that the country enjoyed, the increase would not impose an impossible task upon the Government. And seeing, as the hon. Member for North West Manchester had told the Committee, this would have to be done, and probably in a very short time, they felt that the Government in dealing with the question should deal with it on lines that would give greater satisfaction to a greater number of pensioners. They were very disappointed that the Government had accepted a schedule that would place such a large number of those in whom the Government had created hopes in a position much more disadvantageous to themselves than they would have been under the original Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 172.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Arthur (Eninburgh, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Agnew, George William

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lambert, George

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis John Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  McCallum, John M.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  McCrae, Sir George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Black, Arthur W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gordon, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Rt Hn L. (Rossendale

  Menzies, Walter

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Canston, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Clough, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  1414

  1415

  Renton, Leslie

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waring, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Stanier, Beville

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robinson, S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thos. P.

  Rowlands, J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Russell, T. W.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williamson, A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Winfrey, R.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Younger, George

  Seely, Colonel

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Toulmin, George

  Joseph Pease and Master

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  of Elibank.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hogan, Michael

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Richardson, A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Jenkins, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Brace, William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Snowden, P.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Summerbell, T.

  Crean, Eugene

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moore, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Gill, A. H.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glover, Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Haddock, George B.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hall, Frederick

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, J.

  George Roberts and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Charles Duncan.

  Hills, J. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day (Tuesday), and to be printed. [Bill 295.]

  NAVIGATION WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged;
  Bill withdrawn.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes after One o'clock.

VISCOUNT BOYNE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Gustavus William, Viscount Boyne in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—London County Council (Money).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—South-West Suburban Water.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Blackburn Corporation Bill; Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill.—Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to.
Bills read 2a accordingly.
Finchley Urban District Council Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Motherwell Burgh Extension, etc., Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill.—Committed.
Widnes Corporation Bill.—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The Orders made on Monday and Wednesday last discharged and Bill committed.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered and agreed to.
Upton Town Hall Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blaydon and Ryton Water (Transfer) Bill; Bromley and Crays Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.].—King's Consent and Consent of the Prince of Wales, signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 130.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional. Order (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a according to order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.—Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill; River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.]—(Swansea Orders, No. 1 and No. 2), and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill, the Blackburn Corporation Bill, and the River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 19. (1908).
  Notes exchanged between the United Kingdom and Sweden and Norway, relative to the Agreement of 12th July, 1881, for the mutual relief of distressed seamen, November, 1907—May, 1908.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
  Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners
  1148
  during the quarter ended 31st March, 1908.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of October, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1907; together with statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1907, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Thirteenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the registrars under the Building Societies Acts, with an abstract of the annual accounts and statements of societies for the year 1907: Part I. Report.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES AND TRADE UNIONS.
  Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year ended 31st December, 1907. Part A.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.] POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.] STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room A., upon Wednesday next, at Two o'clock, as proposed by this House.
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 122).
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL (No. 123).
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
INCEST BILL (No. 124.) POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL (No. 125). POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL (No. 126). SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL (No. 127). POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 128).
Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 14th instant. [No. 129]

MISSING BRITISH SHIPS.
LORD MUSKEERY LORD MUSKEERY rose "To call attention to the fact that the Board of Trade have not ordered formal investigations into the circumstances attending the losses of the missing steamers "Neptune" and "Grindon Hall"; to ask the reason, or reasons, for this; whether a preliminary inquiry has been held in regard to the "Neptune," and, if so, by whom; and why, in the case of the "Grindon Hall," a preliminary inquiry was conducted in private by the Cardiff Stipendiary, assisted by a nautical assessor, instead of, as usual, by the Collector of Customs: also, to move 'That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, a public investigation should, when practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade in order, if possible, to elicit any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matter to which my Notice refers is one of serious moment, and well worthy of your Lordships' careful consideration. The tragedy of a missing
1150
ship and the unknown fate of her crew is, unfortunately, not uncommon, and it is an occurrence which we all deplore when we hear of it. In justice to the men who have gone to their doom in such a way, and, even more so, in justice to the widows, orphans, or other dependants they may have left behind, it is our bounden duty to cause public investigation into such disasters. We should probe matters to the bottom in order that we may assure ourselves that every possible safeguard was adopted on the sailing of the vessel, and that she was in a thoroughly seaworthy condition previous to her departure on her ill-fated voyage.
The Merchant Shipping Act provides us with all the necessary machinery for this, and a very large amount of public money is expended annually in investigating casualties to British merchant ships. A disaster to a merchant ship is a matter of public interest. Safety of life at sea is a question which should concern us all. If it is necessary that a formal public investigation—commonly known as a Board of Trade inquiry—should be held into a case of stranding or of collision, how much more is it necessary that a similar investigation should be held openly and publicly when a British ship is missing with all her crew? A public inquiry is necessary in such a case, if only for the purpose of establishing public confidence and allaying what might be most unjustifiable suspicions and misapprehensions certain to arise in the case of missing ships.
Yet I am astonished so find that the Board of Trade look at matters from quite a different standpoint. If a ship runs ashore, and there is a chance that an unfortunate captain or an officer may be implicated and punished, a formal investigation is speedily ordered and proceeded with. But evidently missing ships receive by no means the same zealous attention at the hands of the Board of Trade. In their case all that seems to be necessary is a preliminary inquiry conducted in private by somebody nominated for the purpose by the Board of Trade. Usually it is the Collector of Customs, who can hardly be deemed a competent judge of nautical affairs. We are denied an investigation in open Court,

1151
where all the witnesses obtainable who can give material evidence can be called and can be subjected to that searching cross-examination which is likely to lead to elucidating doubtful circumstance and eliciting material facts, which would enable the Court to arrive at something approaching a definite conclusion as to the probable course of the disaster. It is only by cross-examination that the veracity of a witness and the worth his evidence is to be properly tested, and preliminary inquiries, where ex parte statements only are to be obtained, are absolutely worthless.
The first case which I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice is that of the steamer "Neptune," which left port on 1st January last, and has never since been heard of. No public inquiry has been held into this disaster, even though I understand that the Imperial Merchant Service Guild have informed the Board of Trade that they feel that the matter is one which demands thorough inquiry, and so far as I can gather, the Marine Engineer's Association representing the certificated engineers of this country, are of the same opinion. The Board of Trade, in reply to the Guild, state that, from the information before them concerning the "Neptune," they do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a formal inquiry, but that they would be prepared to reconsider their decision should any fresh facts of importance be brought to their notice. But it is the clear business of the Board of Trade itself to elicit as many facts as possible in connection with shipping casualties, and my contention is that they cannot do so without a public investigation and without cross-examination of the various witnesses who are able to give any evidence bearing on the case.
The information supplied to the Board of Trade as a result of the private preliminary inquiry is, I presume, carefully pigeon-holed, and the public are absolutely in the dark as to any details connected with the "Neptune" at the time she sailed on what proved to be her last voyage. Her captain did not, I believe, hold a Board of Trade certificate, though I do not mention this as having anything to do with the
1152
casualty. I have, however, seen letters from a near relation of one of the leading members of the crew of the "Neptune," who refers to different matters which seem to warrant thorough investigation, if only, as I have said before, for the purpose of quieting what may be unnecessary and unjust suspicion.
The next case referred to in my notice is the loss of the "Grindon Hall," a large steamer of the turret type, carrying over 5,000 tons of cargo, her crew consisting of twenty-six hands all told. She left the port of Sulina for Glasgow on 4th December last, and has not since been heard of. One would have thought that a public investigation into this disaster would be ordered as a matter of course. But this was not so. Whether the pressure which had been brought to bear upon the Board of Trade in connection with the absence of a public inquiry into the loss of the "Neptune" accounts for it, I cannot say, but it seems somewhat curious that in the case of the "Grindon Hall," which came on at a later date, the Board of Trade adopted a very unusual course. The general practice is for the preliminary inquiry to be held before the Collector of Customs, but in this case of the "Grindon Hall" the Board of Trade specially nominated the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff, assisted by Captain W. B. Bigley as a nautical assessor, to conduct the preliminary inquiry.
The solicitor for the Board of Trade attended this preliminary inquiry, and so did the solicitor for the owners of the steamer. Various witnesses also attended for the purpose of giving evidence. But, it the outset of the proceedings, the stipendiary cleared the Court, stating that it was only a preliminary inquiry, and the shorthand writer was alone allowed to remain in his official capacity as shorthand writer to the Board of Trade. On the solicitor for the owners of the steamer inquiring whether he was to leave the Court too, the stipendiary remarked: "Certainly." The proceedings were then conducted in private.
Another circumstance that is also most unusual is that the Board of Trade have now issued a full Report of the conclusions of this preliminary inquiry for the information of the public, and I should

1153
like to know why they have done so in this case and not in the case of the "Neptune." Why should one disaster be dealt with differently from another, when information of public interest is published by the Board of Trade? Furthermore, it is a most unjust, and a highly improper course, that a private investigation should be held where responsible parties are not allowed the right of legal representation, when the results of this inquiry are to be issued by the Board of Trade, and when quite possibly they may contain opinions and allegations which might have been proved to have been without foundation had there been proper representation of the different interests at the inquiry itself.
To show your Lordships how unfairly the practice operates, I find in the Report of this inquiry that, on the testimony of certain witnesses, important statements as to the loading of the ship said to have been made by the unfortunate captain of the "Grindon Hall" are stated to have been apparently inaccurate. In fact, the captain to all intents and purposes is branded as a perjurer and held responsible for the loss of his own life and the lives of his crew in sailing from Sulina with his cargo not stowed in accordance with the declaration he made before the British Consul: "That it had been stowed in accordance with Section 454 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894." I say that it is an outrage that secret investigations may be held into terrible disasters of this kind, where representation is denied the parties concerned, and where, as a result of the inquiry, the Board of Trade may issue a Report of its opinions which drag in the mire the good names of men who have lost their lives in an honourable calling.
I make no charges or insinuations whatever against anybody connected with the ship—whether builders, owners, stevedores, or crew; but I do earnestly contend that as this is a matter which concerns the public it is a public inquiry only which will satisfy us in like matters. I have seen letters from shipmasters who have taken great interest in this "Grindon Hall" case, knowing a good deal about it. I do not think it right to bring their views forward, as under the circumstances it would be
1154
improper to do so. But there is one very important fact with which all seamen are familiar, and that is the extreme difficulty of launching boats from turret-built vessels in times of emergency when heavy weather prevails. This is a point which was well worthy of the attention of the gentlemen who conducted the preliminary inquiry, but, so far as I can judge from their Report, it seems to have been entirely neglected by them. It is well-known amongst seamen that in heavy weather a life-boat when launched, is apt to get dashed on to what is sometimes called the "boat-deck" or turtle back, thereby, perhaps, causing irretrievable damage to the boat. It seemes that a life-boat of the "Grindon Hall" was picked up at sea, and from its condition as described in the Report it is not improbable that the damage was caused in the manner to which I have referred. I may call this speculation founded on what is an undoubted fact in launching boats in heavy weather from turret-built ships. However, this is a side issue upon which I need no dwell further.
What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that catastrophes such as those of the "Neptune" and the "Grindon Hall" are allowed to be passed by without any public investigation, and that in the case of the "Grindon Hall" the procedure followed by the Board of Trade was of a very unfortunate character. Why there should be any need for secrecy in connection with these inquiries I cannot understand. Surely it is not the desire of the Board of Trade to conceal anything, or to rely upon preliminary inquiries, which, obviously, are thoroughly unsatisfactory from a public point of view. The merchant mariners of this country—and I have given your Lordships the names of two of their great representative associations—are wholly justified in their contention that the loss of a missing ship is of serious import to all seafarers, and a matter which demands public investigation. To avoid this is to court hostile criticism and suspicion, for which, possibly, there is no foundation whatever. The opinion expressed by an eminent authority, Judge Backhouse, President of the New South Wales Court of Marine

1155
Inquiry, was that a full public inquiry should be held in all cases of marine disasters, however trivial.
I earnestly hope that your Lordships will favour me with your support in this matter, and agree to my Motion that in every case where it is at all practicable the loss of a missing ship should be matter for a formal investigation to be held in open Court, and conducted in accordance with the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which fully provide for it. We cannot be too solicitous about our sailors or about their safety. They undertake risks and perils of quite an exceptional character, and they are performing a national service in bringing our food supplies to this country. When, as in the case of the "Grindon Hall," they lose their lives in this vitally important work, or in ships engaged in other branches of our commerce, it is for His Majesty's Government to avail themselves of their powers, and to endeavour to find out in some satisfactory and open way whether every human precaution had been taken to ensure the safety of the men whose lives had been lost in such a sad and tragic manner. I beg to submit the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, a public investigation should, when practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade in order, if possible, to elicit any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster."—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the Board of Trade are fully sensible of the great responsibility which rests upon them to investigate most thoroughly any such disasters as the two which form the subject of the noble Lord's question. I think I had, perhaps, better explain to the House the course which is adopted in these cases.
By the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 the Board of Trade are empowered to hold an inquiry in the case of the loss of any British ship, and a preliminary investigation may be held by an inspecting
1156
officer of the Coastguard, a chief officer of Customs, or by any persons appointed for the purpose by the Board of Trade. The practice is that this preliminary inquiry is held, and if there is any suspicion that anything could be brought home to any one as being the cause of the loss of the vessel, or if the result of the inquiry is to show that there is a tittle of evidence to be put before a Court of law, a further public inquiry before a Court of summary jurisdiction invariably takes place.
In these two cases preliminary inquiries were held. In the case of the "Neptune," it was held by the chief Customs officers of Dundee and Liverpool, and the purport of their report was that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before a judicial inquiry. In the case of the "Grindon Hall," a similar inquiry was held by Mr. Lewis, the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff, with Captain Bigley as an assessor; and the result of that inquiry, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is contained in the Report which has been published by the Board of Trade. This Report was published in accordance with the usual practice, and I think a perusal of the Report will show that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before a Court of Law. At one time it was the practice to hold a judcial inquiry in every case; but on many occasions it was found that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before the Court, and much money, time, and trouble were absolutely wasted. I can assure the House again that these preliminary inquiries are held most carefully, and that if there is a tittle of evidence to bring before a Court the further inquiry is invariably held. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Motion, and that this matter will be left, as it has been in the past, to be dealt with at the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, whenever the humblest landsman belonging to this country loses his life by an unfortunate sudden death he is entitled to a public coroner's inquest, and the matter is carefully gone into. Here is a case in which twenty-six seamen have disappeared, yet no public inquiry is to be held at all concerning the disaster. I will, with the permission of your Lordships,

1157
read a short summary of the investigation concerning the "Grindon Hall" as it appeared n the July number of the Nautical Magazine, which reached me this afternoon. It is said that—
"The Court, after taking evidence, are of opinion that the vessel must have foundered through having insufficient stability as laden. In all other respects she was proved to have been in good and seaworthy condition, but she was not loaded in accordance with the plan of loading approved by the Board of Trade on the 25th November, 1905, or in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 18 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of Section 53 of the said Act."
The law has been broken, 26 lives have been lost, and yet there is to be no public inquiry! I do not at all know what the result of a public inquiry might be, but I do not believe that masters and officers of ships are in the habit either of overloading their ships or of going to sea with their cargo improperly stoued unless pressure is put upon them by the owners, either to carry more cargo or to hurry their ship along to save time. For these reasons I think that the circumstances should be threshed out in some way in public. A private inquiry is no answer to loss of life, and I hope the Board of Trade will reconsider their intention not to hold any further inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that so far as the conversation has gone I do not think your Lordships can be quite satisfied with the answer which has been given to the question of my noble friend. I entirely share the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down that these secret inquiries are of very doubtful expediency. If the thing is fit for an inquiry at all it is far better that the inquiry should be public in its character, and the analogy which he has drawn between an accident resulting in loss of life at sea and one resulting in loss of life on land seems to me a perfectly fair and true analogy. If life is lost by an accident on land in this country there is, and must always be, a public inquiry; no exception whatever is permitted by the law. However lacking the evidence may turn out to be, there must be a coroner's inquest; and I do not see why in a serious loss of life
1158
at sea there should not be a similar public inquiry.
The special case of the "Grindon Hall" is that the inquiry which was held was a secret inquiry. If it had remained secret there might have been something to be said for it; but, although the inquiry was conducted in private, although the interested parties were not allowed to be represented, the solicitor for the owners having been excluded from the room, the Board of Trade afterwards published the result of the inquiry. I do not wish to pronounce a definite and final opinion, but, on the face of it, that appears to me a very unfair proceeding. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Board of Trade said that the result of the inquiry was to show that there was no evidence against anybody, but I think he is inaccurate in that respect, because I hold the report of the inquiry in my hand, and this is what is stated—
"In the notice delivered by the master to the Consular officer at Sulina on the day he sailed, he stated that he had 200 tons of cargo in bags in the hold. In the same notice he also stated that the vessel had been loaded in accordance with the Board of Trade letter dated 25th November. According, however to the affidavits of the stevedore, and the testimony of Captain Beck and another, the master's statements, both as to bagging and as to loading in accordance with the Board of Trade instructions, appear to have been inaccurate."
I am not quite sure whether the Court found that the statement was proved—I do not think they did—but, at any rate, a statement was made that the master, whose life was lost in the accident, was responsible for an action contrary to law and which presumably may be taken to have been partly the cause of what happened.
I do not think it is right or proper that, having held an inquiry from which the representatives of the parties were excluded, the Board of Trade should publish a Report gravely incriminating one of the parties. If, as Lord Hamilton says, in cases where a preliminary inquiry reveals something wrong a public inquiry always follows, then I want to know why a public inquiry did not follow in this case. I am almost certain that the noble Earl who leads the House will express his sympathy with the view put forward by Lord Muskerry, and, if he does

1159
I hope my noble friend will not persist in his Motion. But if the noble Earl does not, then I think my noble friend's Motion will be justified.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I do not profess to be competent to enter into the details concerning the loss of these two ships, but as a humble Member of your Lordship's House, and one of the general public, I think I am as qualified as any man in the street might be to express an opinion with, regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, that it is desirable, in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, that a public investigation should, where practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade, in order to elicit, if possible, any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster.
The seafaring population of this country is the backbone of our protection. We have to rely solely upon the sailors of the country, not only for naval protection, but for our very food. Therefore, their well-being is a matter of the most vital importance to this country. We have to consider how to make these men contented, feeling that they are protected by Parliament, and that they can go upon these ships without the knowledge that their lives might be sacrificed through the negligence, if not through the wickedness, of the owners of these vessels. That is the point, and what I wish to know is, are the Board of Trade taking that view of the question or not? If they realise that the sailors of this country must be protected, and that the British public will insist upon it if once they know that they are not protected, then I say they are doing right. But if they are for one moment allowing the owners, or money, or wealth, or influence to have anything to say to the lives of the sailors, they are on the wrong line, and they will know it soon enough; for if there comes forward a man with the power of speech, able to address large audiences and to tell them that the Board of Trade are considering the interests of rich men and not the interests of poor men, then those at present in office will not sit long on the benches of power.
1160
I do not say one thing or the other; but I do say this with emphasis, that to the ordinary man in the street the answer that has been given by the noble Lord who represents the Government shows quite clearly that the Board of Trade are thinking much more about the expense of investigations than of the lives of the men. If that idea once gets possession of the public, woe betide any Government that permits it. A very true analogy was given by Lord Ellenborough—that of an accidental death on land. That is only the case of one individual, but is it not much more important that we should insist upon an open inquiry in the case of the loss of vessels with many hands? It appears to me that the Board of Trade have not taken the question of the well-being of our seafaring population sufficiently seriously.
Before sitting down I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, who has, by his able and persistent conduct in this House on behalf of the sailors of the mercantile marine, given rise to the feeling throughout the country that it is your Lordships' House which, has especially the interests of the sailor at heart. I thank him for it. I am proud that this House should take the sailor under its care, and I hope that the noble Lord's Motion will be passed. Money, my Lords, ought not to come into consideration at all. It is a question of the lives of our seamen; it is a question of the food of this country; it is a question of our very existence from day to day; and I, therefore, hope your Lordships will support the Motion of my noble friend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid that I am not acquainted with the special circumstances of the two cases which have been brought before the House by the noble Lord. I shall have a word to say in a moment about the noble Earl who has just sat down; but, in the meantime, I am in agreement with him as to the service which the noble Lord opposite does, and has for so long done, in bringing cases affecting the comfort and lives of the sailors of the mercantile marine before your Lordships' House, backed by a knowledge in which in this respect he has no equal in this Assembly.

1161
The noble Earl who has just sat down had rather detracted attention from the facts of the case by an outburst of rhetoric. I have no objection to the noble Earl assuming an exceedingly high standard, both of conduct and morality. We all greatly respect the noble Earl. But I do not think that that entitles him to bring against those who represent a public department vague, reckless, and, as I believe, absolutely unfounded charges of indifference to the lives of our seamen. I protest very strongly against such language as that. It does not help the noble Earl's case. The case is one, I admit, well worthy of consideration. It was set before us in a very moderate manner by Lord Muskerry, by the noble Lord who followed him, and by the noble Marquess on the front bench opposite, who, having been himself at the Board of Trade, speaks on this subject with authority. I shall, therefore, say no more with regard to the noble Earl on the cross benches.
I quite admit that the views which have been expressed by the noble Lords opposite are worthy of close examination. It may be, I think, that either one of two courses ought to be taken. If a private inquiry is held in such cases as this it should, as the noble Marquess has said, remain private. I think there is much to be said for that view, and I have no doubt my noble friend behind me will represent it to the Board of Trade. On the other hand, I can conceive that there would be very great difficulty, in cases where an accident had occurred from which unhappily nobody had survived, in carrying out a public judicial inquiry. For such an inquiry you must have real evidence, and I take it that the analogy upon which it is possible to go is that in the case, for instance, of a railway accident. An inquest may be held, and is held, of course, upon the victims of the accident; but at the same time it may be desirable in some cases to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident, not always of a public character, at which language can be used which could not be used by those who have to give evidence on oath.
I take it that if a public inquiry had been held in this case nobody would have been there to give what would
1162
be considered evidence in a Court of law, and I am given to understand that in past times these inquiries have been instituted and have been found to be absolutely nugatory from that fact. The inquiry has been open, but nothing in the nature of real evidence has been forthcoming, and it has had to be closed with an expression of regret. On the other point, as to private inquiries at which statements are made which are necessarily of a purely conjectural character, but, at the same time, may cause pain to the relatives of those who lost their lives in the unhappy accident—it is matter for close consideration whether those charges, if charges they be, should in any sense be made public, and my noble friend behind me will no doubt see that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade is informed of the strong opinions on this point which have been expressed by noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I only intervene as a result of what the noble Lord has just said. I confess I am a little disturbed at finding that the report of such an inquiry as this, which ended in the conviction in the minds of those conducting the inquiry that some great irregularity, if not illegality, had been committed, and which prima facie will reflect upon the owners or charterers of the vessel as the case may be, is published, notwithstanding the fact that the solicitor representing the owner of the vessel had been excluded from the inquiry. I rather think the noble Earl himself feels that, too; and therefore I do not wish to enforce it further. I presume they had some evidence. At all events, if there is enough evidence to justify the examining officers coming to a particular conclusion, it ought to be made known what was the nature of the evidence adduced, because it may involve a very grave reflection upon the owners, the charterers, or the merchants, whoever it may be, at whose instance the vessel was sent to sea.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I shall, of course, be guided by my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench as to whether or not I shall divide on

1163
my Motion. But I should like to call attention to the fact that nothing whatever has been said as to the case of the "Neptune." We do not know how many lives were lost in that vessel. There was a preliminary inquiry, but that is all we have heard. It often happens that coroners' inquests have no evidence placed before them, but they are always held. Why should there not be a public inquiry also in every case where a vessel is lost? [The noble Lord here consulted Lord SALISBURY.] In the circumstances, my Lords, I will not press my Motion to a division.
Motion, by leave, withrdawn.

HORSES FOR THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Horse-breeding and to the question of the provision of horses for military purposes, and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length this afternoon in introducing the subject of which I have given notice. It is really a corollary of a debate which took place in your Lordships' House two years ago, when several noble Lords had the opportunity of placing their views at some length before the House. The debate on that occasion, I think it is not exaggerating to say, displayed a serious state of affairs, and a state of affairs of which there has been no active amelioration since that date, though I am the first to admit that something has been done in the field of inquiry.
Shortly after the debate to which I refer, the noble Earl opposite, the President of the Board of Agriculture, was good enough to summon a number of those of us who are interested in this subject to a conference at the Board of Agriculture—a conference which, I think, was of very great educational value. A number of other conferences have also taken place. There was one at the United Service Institution, there have been some, I think, at the military headquarters, and there was one about ten days ago following upon a banquet of a club interested in military matters and to which many of your Lordships belong. The
1164
views, therefore, of very many people have been placed before the Government, and I do not intend to repeat those views at any great length. My purpose this afternoon is to ask His Majesty's Government whether, with the expert knowledge now at their command, they intend to take any definite action in the immediate future. One cannot help feeling that during the last two years the position of affairs has become much more serious. Two breeding seasons have been lost, but I sincerely hope that we are not going to lose a third.
At one of the conferences to which I have referred a distinguished officer from the War Office was good enough to attend and to tell us the latest mobilisation requirements of the Army in the matter of horses. This officer told us that in order to mobilise all our troops we required 173,000 horses. Of this number 59,000 are required for the cavalry, and 17,000 for the Reserve. The wastage of war will probably cause a rehorsing in six months, and at the end of the year, therefore, there will have been taken 180,000 horses for the cavalry alone. The resouces of the United Kingdom are roughly 1,500,000 horses; but only 150,000 of these are fit for cavalry use. Therefore in this country at present we have 30,000 fewer horses than we should require in the first year of a war. That is serious enough, but the position is getting worse, for the birth-rate is decreasing.
In England, according to the latest figures which I have been able to obtain, there were 10,000 fewer foals in 1906 than in 1905. In Ireland there were 1,450 fewer brood mares and 1,250 fewer recreation horses, as a result of a comparison of those two years; and I was surprised and horrified to hear a distinguished ex-Governor of an Australian Colony state at one of the conferences to which I have referred, that the same tale of decrease is to be told in respect of Australia and Canada; so that we are becoming more and more dependent on the foreigner and less and less on ourselves. But at the same time our export of horses shows an increase. In 1904, we exported only 32,955 horses, but in 1906 we exported 60,400; and your Lordships will, of course, realise that foreign buyers do not come to

1165
England to buy our worst horses or our average horses, but our best. Whereas in 1904 we had in this country 208,000 horses under a year old, in 1907 there were but 184,000, and in Ireland there has been a decrease of 11,500 horses in three years.
Your Lordships will remember the difficulties which this country experienced in obtaining horses for the South African war. If I remember rightly, we required for that war, roughly, half a million horses, and we had the markets of the world open to us. We cannot lay down as a fact that in any future war in which we may be engaged we shall find similar facilities for the supply of the horses we require; but, even apart from that, it is not exaggerating to say that if a war were upon us now our difficulty in getting horses would be infinitely greater than it was ten years ago. In almost every direction you find an increase of difficulty. Every one of your Lordships who read the Report of Lord Elgin's Commission will remember that far and away the most satisfactory thing in connection with the horsing of the Army in South Africa was the successful result of the employment of the London 'bus horse as an Artillery horse. Everybody spoke well of them; but at one of the recent conferences a director of one of the London omnibus companies said that at this moment 80 per cent. of the London omnibus horses were foreign born. I only mention this in passing to show that it is not a satisfactory feature, and that even the horses which proved the most satisfactory that we had to deal with in South Africa cannot be produced in England to a greater extent than 20 per cent. Obviously, therefore, something must be done.
Activity is called for on the part of the Government, and by activity one means extension of organisation, and extension of organisation, of course, means money. We do not want quack remedies. I was surprised to see, in an account of a speech made the other day by a distinguished soldier who is interested in this matter, a proposal, put forward, I hope, not seriously, that the motor car deluxe should be discouraged by heavy taxation, the money to go,
1166
not to the improvement of the roads, as has been suggested by my noble friend behind me, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, but to go to horse-breeding. I do not think that my noble friend who represents the War Office would himself adopt that as a practical remedy, but it is interesting as showing what extraordinary schemes are put forward. We do not, as I say, want quack remedies. It is only Government action that can help us to deal properly with the competition we are suffering from at this moment on the part of foreign Governments. The question resolves itself under two very simple heads—firstly, what is to be done; and, secondly, who is to do it?
In answer to the question what is to be done, there are, to my mind, two essentials that must be considered. In the first place, there must be a large extension of what is now done for stallions. At present the Royal Commission are able to offer twenty-eight King's premiums for stallions, and these I believe to be wholly insufficient to ensure breeding solely from good stallions, or to ensure that all our best stallions are not taken out of the country by foreign Governments. This action must be extended and increased. I do not wish to suggest that we should extend it to the extent that foreign Governments have gone. I believe the French Government owns 2,500 stallions. I do not suggest that we should try to emulate that example, but I mention the figure as showing that whatever we do now is totally inadequate when compared with these figures. I believe the Irish plan is a good one. In Ireland facilities are given by the Government to enable private individuals to purchase good stallions, but that does not go far enough. Personally I should not hesitate to support a Government which proposed to make it absolutely illegal to charge a serving fee for any stallion unless it was already passed and certified as sound by a Government inspector.
I hope the Government will do something also as regards mares. Many of our best mares are now leaving the country, having been purchased by foreign Governments and individuals abroad. They are thus lost to us for

1167
breeding purposes. It is a regrettable fact that a mare bought for the Army is equally lost. I believe it is a most exceptional thing that a mare once bought for the Army is ever used for the purpose of breeding. The Army system is that once they have got a horse they work it until it drops, and by the time it drops it is not a very good subject for breeding purposes. I do not intend to go into detail on the subject of what is required for mares. The details are before your Lordships in the Report of the Royal Commission now lying on the Table. Suffice it to say that something must be done to re-stock districts with suitable mares, and at the same time to ensure that their progeny is not entirely lost for the purposes of further breeding. We require, in fact, to build up our stock in the districts from top to bottom for breeding purposes.
Something has been done without cost to the public, but not enough to cause amelioration to the extent required. But I think enough has been done to show that from small beginnings and small expenditure satisfactory results do follow, and results such as would justify the most timid of Governments—I am not now referring to the present Government—to take a plunge. I am informed that in one district eleven mares were placed out under observation at a cost of £15. I do not pretend that the noble Earl opposite will be able to organise any districts at a cost of 25s. per mare, but I mention the figure as showing that with very little initial expenditure something can be done, and that a moderate expenditure may really be expected to have a great result.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): They were not bought for £15.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, they were presents, but the distributing organisation only cost £15. I now come to the second question: Who is to do this? The Royal Commission has hitherto been the only authority interesting itself in this question in a practical manner and although there have been certain attacks lately made on the Royal Commisssion, I certainly do not desire to associate myself with them, and,
1168
above all, I do not wish to rush in between the two assailants. I think everybody will admit that the Royal Commission has for twenty-one years done excellent work with almost starvation resources, and the public owes them a most sincere debt of gratitude for the good work that has been gratuitously done by the individual members. The Reports they make from time to time, the twelfth of which is now before your Lordships, contain almost invariably information and advice to anyone interested in horse-breeding. They have always known their own minds, they have advocated certain measures of amelioration ever since they were formed, and it has only been want of funds that has prevented them carrying out their original policy. A policy of premiums is not, I believe, what they would consider their first and their principal remedy. They were forced back upon their second line of policy for want of funds, but I think everybody will admit that their second line of policy has been a very successful one. I am informed that the success of the premium system as regards the main object with which it was instituted—that is to say, the promotion of soundness—is shown by the fact that with an annual production of 783 foals from premium horses their descendants won 498 prizes in 1907.
But if the work of the Royal Commission is to be extended, or, to put it boldly, if the Treasury is to provide more money for this kind of work, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that they are more likely to provide it if it is to be spent under the supervision of a Government Department. Therefore, if the necessities of the case make some sort of reorganisation necessary—I believe they do—I would content myself by saying that I hope the benefit which the public has received from the advice of this body of experts for the past twenty-one years will not be lost, and that we shall continue to enjoy the advantage of the assistance in some form or other of the individual members of the Royal Commission. What is it, therefore, that the Government have to hand? They have the fruits of twenty-one years of experience; they have the reports of conferences innumerable, in the course of which everybody

1169
interested in the subject has been able to put his view forward; and they have in the Papers before your Lordships certain schemes which I claim have acted successfully, though only on small lines. I hope, therefore, that before this debate concludes, the noble Earl opposite will be able to tell us that he means to push forward vigorously, both as regards organisation and expenditure, towards an object, upon the advisability of reaching which I take it we are all agreed.
Moved, "For Papers relating to the question of the provision of horses for military purposes."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Earl for the flattering tribute he paid to the modest, if painstaking, operations of the Royal Commission. The noble Earl said, at the conclusion of his remarks, that if a grant was likely to be given to supplement more substantially what has been done by the Royal Commission, it would be more willingly given by Parliament if vested in a Government Department rather than in the present Royal Commission. Although as a Commissioner I might have liked to have had notice of that proposition, speaking off-hand I find myself in agreement with him. The noble Earl also said that this is a subject which invariably lends itself to repetition. I have noticed that anything to do with horses always does. I will, however, try not to repeat what I have previously said and what the noble Earl has said, arid there is no necessity, I think, for me to give again the figures with which he has already dealt in the best possible way to bring the present state of things home to the House. I was very glad that the noble Earl who moved this Motion did not adduce an argument which I have constantly heard brought forward, namely, why does the richest country in the world only give £5,000 a year to horse-breeding, while France gives £200,000, and Austria £220,000? I was glad that argument was not used, because the cases are not comparable, we having no extended land frontiers to protect.
I do not like bounty-fed industries. I dislike extremely any restriction on the
1170
free current of supply and demand, and I think the sombre picture of our horse possibilities is often overdrawn and the jeremiads about it are very often overdone. Yet at the same time I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl in that, with all these reservations in my mind, we are at present face to face with a combination of various circumstances which, if it becomes normal, will be certainly insecure, and in the emergency of a sudden outbreak of war would at once become extremely hazardous. I rest myself for this on the words of Lord Carrington a few months ago when he told a company of his countrymen that horse-breeding occupies a thoroughly unsafe and unsatisfactory position. No one will accuse the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture of being a pessimist about any of the duties that are committed to his charge. When he says that, I think we may believe that he is citing what is the actual state of things, and we may credit him with a sincere determination to get this position into a more agreeable prospective in view of occurrences which might arise.
As the noble Earl who has just spoken said, we are considering especially the provision of public service horses—artillery, cavalry, and transport. The noble Earl said a good many things about 'bus horses which I will not go into, but I say "ditto" to him on those points. While we may look upon it from the Army point of view, we have also got the consumer and the taxpayer's point of view inextricably involved. We are all taxpayers, many of us are interested directly or indirectly in agriculture, we are all concerned with an efficient cavalry, and as a House we have always been particularly connected by the public with a knowedge of and liking for anything to do with horseflesh. I remember the late Lord Pembroke used to say that there was only one subject which did interest the House of Lords, namely, anything to do with horses. So that such seed as is sown to-night seems to me to have the benefit of being sown on more or less prepared ground.
In my opinion what we have to consider is whether the taxpayer can be honestly recommended to give a little more, either directly or indirectly, for public service

1171
horses, and whether agriculture by some practical covenant of this kind can be induced to breed more horses of the type and quality required, from which Army purchasers can select their requirements and anticipate the foreign purchaser, whose operations are represented by some people as being almost piratical, though as a producer of horses I cannot take quite that view myself. I am told that only the other day the powers that be at the War Office, acting in harmony with the powers that be at the Board of Agriculture, came to the conclusion that a good thing would be for the Government to buy three year-olds. That I believe to be a matter of cardinal importance, and it would be the most important step taken since this question has been prominently before the public. It would give an especial stimulus in England. I believe that the great majority—certainly over 70 per cent.—of the horses for the Army are bought in Ireland. They are purchased when four years old. The Irishman has an aptitude for horses which the Englishman does not possess. He has a country which is practically unfenced, and he naturally wishes to keep his horse till it is four years old. If he does not like the animal then, he is willing to sell it at remount price, but he is not willing to sell a three-year-old. But there are lots of people in England with small fenced holdings, and the very last thing they want is a wild and well-bred three-year-old knocking about the place with no one to look after him. That man is willing to sell a three-year-old, and I, as a taxpayer, would run the risk of buying a three-year-old. The foreigners are quite good enough judges to come here and buy our three-year-olds.
I rather agree with the noble Earl that if something is going to be done, it need not be a very large sum. The Government have already a good deal of experience, and active machinery is at hand which has been more or less perfected by the Brood Mare Society, the Hunters' Improvement Society, the farmers' clubs, and the district committees which do a great deal of useful work for the Royal Commission. The noble Earl referred to quack remedies. Speaking as a taxpayer I am not fond of very heroic remedies, represented
1172
by the figures which I see constantly advocated in the Press and by enthusiasts on this subject. Having had twenty-one years experience in this matter, and having agitated on the question in a more or less quiet way—without robbing myself of a night's rest or getting locked up for storming the House of Commons—I say that the present Minister for War is the only Minister in my experience who has given any real direct attention to the solution of this difficulty. He is, I believe, acting in the most harmonious relation with the President of the Board of Agriculture. No doubt both Ministers are in the usual difficulty in which I believe Ministers invariably find themselves when they want to do anything which costs money, the difficulty lying in the taxpayers' pocket and the ever-increasing accounts of our national housekeeping books. I am certain that the man we have got to convince is not my noble friend below me or my right hon. friend the Minister for War—the man we have got to convince is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who very properly keeps a jealous care of his key and is responsible to the taxpayer for the money he finds. What I think all who are interested in this particular question have to do is to make out a sufficiently good case on its merits and of not too heroic dimensions, which will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a grant such as that recommended by Lord Donoughmore, not of a very large amount, but of a considerably larger amount than that which is at present at the disposal of the Royal Commission.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the noble Earl who has brought this subject before the House, because I think it is quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of it both from a national and from an Army point of view. I think the fact that we have admittedly lost the predominant position we used to occupy as a horse-breeding country and the fact that the Royal Commission has told us that the country has been swept of stallions, mares, and three-year-olds render it imperative that the Government should do something to try and arrest

1173
a further denuding of the country of horses suitable for military purposes.
To my mind it is impossible to disguise the fact that it is altogether beyond the power of private enterprise to cope with this question. It can only be dealt with by State aid and under scientific direction, and, in spite of what Lord Ribblesdale has said, on a scale which has never before been contemplated in this country. The public have never realised how great the danger from a military point of view is. Otherwise they never would have acquiesced in the miserable sum of £5,000, which is all that has been allowed to the Royal Commission for the encouragement of horse-breeding. In foreign countries all this is very differently managed, and every encouragement is given to the breeder to produce good cavalry horses. The amount spent in France is, I believe, £300,000 a year, and not £200,000 as has been stated; in Germany, £190,000; in Austria-Hungary £370,000; in Russia, £500,000 per annum; and Italy, £54,000. It is small wonder that our cavalry should not be so well mounted as foreign cavalry, and that our horses should be of a decidedly inferior character to the horses of France, Germany, and Austria. I have this on the very best authority, and I do not think it is a matter of which this country can be proud. As far as the question of land frontiers goes I can hardly agree with Lord Ribblesdale, because we have almost the largest land frontiers in the world in India and in Canada.
In discussing this question it is quite impossible to separate the two problems, the civil and the military. Unless we can get the farmer to produce the horse, the Army, of course, cannot get it, and, conversely, if the breeder cannot get a market other than the normal market of the Army it will not pay him to breed. The normal number of horses we want annually is 2,700, but on mobilisation that number would rush up to 170,000. It is between these two figures that the great difficulty exists, and I hope the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture will be able, to give us some idea of how this is to be remedied. The other day Lord Newton asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how soon the Territorial
1174
Army would be able to mobilise, and Lord Lucas replied, "Instantly." I ventured at the time to ask whether arrangements had been made for the horses for the Territorial Army on mobilisation, in addition to those which would be required for the Regular Army. The noble Lord replied that the horses were in the country, and that the question was receiving due consideration. I have very grave doubts as to whether horses for the Territorial Force on mobilisation exist in the country.
It has been admitted that if we were to mobilise the Regulars at once we should be 54,000 horses short. I understand that the Artillery alone require 18,000 horses; only about 5,000 are available for the purpose, and since what I may call the passing of the 'bus horse the balance is very much more difficult to get. The figures which the War Office have supplied are largely conjectural, and I think it is of the greatest importance that there should be a census of the horses in this country, and that they should be properly classified. There is no doubt that what are called general utility horses are getting fewer year by year, because it does not pay farmers to breed them. What they breed are cart horses and show horses, but these are of no use for military purposes. The public do not realise that of the 21,000 Yeomanry less than one-half have their own horses, some 11,000 being hired, and, what is more, these are hired over and over again, with the result that it would be impossible for all the Yeomanry regiments to go into training at the same time. In the case of some of the London regiments they are entirely horsed, I believe, by Mr. Tilling, who stipulates that they should not train simultaneously, as three men cannot ride one horse. I think that is a serious matter. Every Yeoman in the country ought to have a horse registered which could be immediately claimed on mobilisation.
Reference has been made to a discussion which took place the other night at a meeting of the National Defence Association, at which Lord Ribblesdale read a paper. There were present at that meeting, besides the Minister for Agriculture, a great many officers, some now serving in the Remount Department and some who served in the Remount

1175
Department at an earlier date, most of them with war service. Officers of the Artillery, Cavalry, and Yeomanry were also present. Mr. Tilling, who is, I believe, one of the largest jobmasters in London, was there, and an agent, who told us that during the last forty years he had supplied 37,000 horses to the French Government. Mr. Eagan told us that in some years he had supplied them with as many as 2,500 horses. Last year he had only sent 300 horses over; he might have had a contract for 800 but could not find them. Mr. Tilling also stated that during the last fifteen years the price of a bus horse had gone up from £10 to £15, and that he had the greatest difficulty in finding them. The general opinion of those present at this very representative meeting seemed to be that the general utility horse was getting more and more difficult to find. They also thought that the numbers would not be forthcoming in an emergency. They suggested the importance of the retention of mares in this country, because they said that as long as we had racing here there would be no difficulty in getting the stallions. They also represented that it would be better if we could buy our horses at three years old instead of four years old, so as to prevent them being taken abroad.
I know I shall be told that instead of spending a great deal of money now the best thing for us to do will be to buy horses in the event of emergency, but I very much doubt whether we shall be able to do this, as in the case of a European war foreign Governments and staffs would see to it that the Continental markets were closed. Luckily the Boers overlooked this question; otherwise it can hardly be doubted that they would have done something to close the markets in Europe, while, with the large amount of treasure they then possessed, they might very easily have bought up all the horses in the Argentine. They meant to beat us all the time by their horses, but, unfortunately for them and luckily for us, they underrated our power of buying. It is very unpleasant to think of what would have happened to us supposing our supply of horses at that moment had failed. The waste of horses at the beginning of the South African War
1176
was very great. Going up to the relief of Kimberley the Cavalry Division was practically wrecked. I find no fault with that, because I think the game was quite worth the candle. In my opinion the relief of Kimberley and the surrender at Paardeberg perfectly justified the sacrifice of horses, but it is very painful to think what would have happened to us if that Cavalry Division could not have been remounted owing to the closing of the European markets, and if we could not have got horses for the very large number of mounted men required towards the end of the War.
We shall, of course, be able to get a certain number of horses from our colonies, but the number will be limited, and it must be remembered that every transport will have to be protected. I have pointed out these matters because I think they are worthy of consideration by the man in the street, who does not really appreciate the gravity of the situation. Lord Carrington told us, at the end of our discussion the other night, that the present state of the horse question in this country was a national disgrace. I hope the noble Earl will tell us to-night how he is going to remedy that disgrace. In conclusion, I would say that I do not see any use in encouraging breeding for the benefit of the foreigner; what we want is some scheme by which the horses we have can be retained in this country.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. Does any one know, within half a million, the number of horses in Great Britain and Ireland at the present moment?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): All the horses in the United Kingdom? Two million and eighty-seven thousand.
LORD LOVAT: If the noble Earl will turn to Page 86 of the Agricultural Statistics, 1907, he will see that this total refers to horses for agricultural purposes, including mares kept for breeding and unbroken horses. That is the very point I want to bring out,

1177
because, so far as I can learn, nobody has the least idea—apparently not even the President of the Board of Agriculture—as to how many horses are in the streets of London, and the other great cities and elsewhere in the country. I believe that only one gentleman has attempted to solve this, and he was a Cambridge professor, whose book is, I believe, in the possession of the Board of Agriculture, and he gives a very different return. The first move before we can begin to discuss the question is to have a census of all the horses in the country. That will have to be done by law, and the horses should be classified as to their suitability for military purposes, and the annual veterinary certificates as to their fitness should be returned. The horse question is studied in every country but our own. In France and Germany every officer has a sealed envelope containing directions as to where his horses are, and where he is to send them in case of mobilisation. We have no sort of mobilisation orders in this matter. The War Office the other day issued an an Order that no horses should be recruited for the Territorial Army until the whole of the horses required for the Regular Army had been procured. That throws back the mobilisation of the Territorial Army to an unknown date. It is absolutely the fact that only on one occasion has there been a real census, and that was when the late General Gatacre, who was a very hard-working officer, had every horse in Wiltshire properly marked down. Before we can possibly get much further in the discussion of this subject we ought certainly to inform ourselves of the number of horses we have in this country, and the only method of doing that is to have a census enforced by law in order to get it thoroughly done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not propose to intervene for more than a brief moment between your Lordships and the reply of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. By his public utterances the noble Earl has given rise to very high hopes in this matter. He has told us very plainly indeed that he is impressed with the arguments which have been uttered not for the first time to-night by my noble
1178
friend behind me who was Under-Secretary for War in the last Government. He has told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great duty to perform. He did not tell us quite what that duty was, but I think we can fairly guess—it is to keep his pocket buttoned-up as closely as he can. But the noble Earl went on to say that he had great hopes that he would be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something to overcome the difficulties referred to to-night. I wish to associate myself entirely with all that fell from my noble friend with regard to the work of the Royal Commission. The work of that Commission has occasionally been subjected to criticism, but I am quite certain that in all its Reports, and perhaps in this twelfth Report more than any, we have the most valuable contributions to the question of horse-breeding that any country could possibly desire to have. It is equally true that, if my noble friend succeeds in softening the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be very difficult to do so to the extent of inviting him to increase the funds at the disposal of the Royal Commission. But I hope that there will not be any feeling between the members of that Commission and the President or the staff at the Board of Agriculture. I cannot myself, from some knowledge of the inner working of that office, see any reason why the Royal Commission might not very well work as the handmaid of the Board of Agriculture. I know there are extremely capable officials in that Department, but I am not prepared, to say that they are equipped with special knowledge of the question of horse-breeding, and I think that special knowledge might easily be provided by the members of the Royal Commission. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell your Lordships to-night that it is the determination of the Government to deal seriously with this question. Every year it becomes more apparent that the horses available in this country in case of war are becoming fewer and fewer, and I can assure the noble Earl opposite that if he wants any support in the operation of unbuttoning the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will get that support from those who sit on this side of the House.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Report of the Royal Commission, which has been introduced to your Lordships' notice in an excellent speech by the noble Earl opposite, is a double-barrelled Report. It deals first with the question of horse-breeding and the supply of military horses, which is very interesting and important; and, in the second place, it deals with a speech of my own made about sixteen months ago, which I am afraid is neither one nor the other. I can assure the House that, so far as the Board of Agriculture is concerned, the best possible feeling exists towards the Royal Commission. I am afraid I got rather into a scrape by making the speech which is noticed at length in the Report. Perhaps I may read my exact words. I said—
"Almost the whole time of this conference was taken up by speeches of the members of the Commission, who enlarged on the need of more money but proposed no plan for dealing with the question."
I made a mistake. The best of us do that sometimes, and I apologise to the members of the Royal Commission for having used the plural for the singular. One member of the Commission made a somewhat lengthy speech which took up one-fifth of the time of the conference. The other members made excellent and pithy speeches, all to the point and many of them embodying excellent suggestions; but each of them said he was speaking for himself individually, and not for the Commission at all. I was right, therefore, when I said that no scheme was put forward by the Commission as a whole.
But the Commission's first Report contains a scheme which is practically complete, in which the policy of the Brood Mare Society is said to be probably the best means of dealing with the question. That is a great compliment to Mr. Algernon Turner and the noble Earl opposite who have taken a great interest in that society. The other proposal is that the Government should purchase the very pick of the most desirable stallions in addition to the premium stallions. On the face of it, that seems to me rather a tall order when the income-tax stands at 1s in the £ The Commissioners is their Report (page iv.) refer to the formation of a haras and state that the
1180
formation of a haras ought to be accompanied, they think, by a scheme for providing liberal premiums for competition by stallions; and in Paragraph II. they say—
"From these views the Commissioners have never departed."
On the other hand, the idea of a haras has been condemned by Lord Donoughmore, by the Director-General of Remounts, by Sir Walter Gilbey, by Mr. Algernon Turnor, and others, and when such experts disagree it is not for me to decide the point. I do not, therefore, propose to take up your Lordships' time further in regard to that matter.
The last proposal of the Royal Commission is that, to encourage breeders, a large and liberal addition should be made to the prizes offered at agricultural shows; and for these three recommendations it is proposed that a grant of £25,000 should be given to the Royal Commission, in addition to the £5,000 already granted, making a total of £30,000 a year. Of course, it is not for me to say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer of either Party would be willing to meet that demand. I think all will agree that the Report of the Royal Commission as it stands is extremely valuable and full of useful information. It contains many valuable suggestions from both individuals and societies, and, although the Report may not have given satisfaction to everybody—that, I think, is an impossibility—I heartily agree with the noble Lords who have preceded me that the country ought to be very grateful to the members who have attended the meetings of the Commission so regularly, and who have given so much of their time and done so much on so small a subsidy; and I think the thanks of the country are especially due to my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, and to the Duke of Portland, who, I believe, were the original parents and promoters of the movement.
Before I leave the Report altogether there is one clause—Clause 45—to which I take exception. It is a damnatory clause, and, in condemning the present Government it says that seventeen months have elapsed and the country

1181
is still left without the aid and encouragement of the horsebreeding industry which is so greatly needed and is of so vital importance. That is perfectly true, but what struck me immediately on reading that clause was that if we are so much to blame for having done nothing in the matter for seventeen months, are not other people still more blameworthy for having done nothing for seventeen years? Still I know the tu quoque argument carries no weight in the country, and I will not pursue it; but I think the charge is a little unfair. When the present Government came into office two and-a-half years ago a great many agricultural matters required attention. We have been able to pass eight agricultural measures. It was not until the session of 1907 that we were able to take up this particular matter in earnest. As soon as I was able to deal with it I approached the War Office, which was very sympathetic and helpful, and we tried to frame a practical scheme which would meet the difficulties.
I will state, as clearly and briefly as I can, the proposals which eventually we mean to bring forward. We are face to face with two things. We have to encourage horse-breeding generally and to secure a reserve supply of horses of a class from which remounts for the Army can be obtained. We have heard this afternoon that the Army buys 2,500 horses annually at five years old; they pay £40 apiece, making a total of £100,000 a year; so that the War Office are a very fair customer of the tenant farmers of England and Ireland. Then we are told that 70,000 horses would be required on mobilisation of the expeditionary force, and the total number required to bring the units up to war estalishment is 174,000, of which 59,000 would be cavalry horses, a certain number would be artillery horses, and the others would be heavy draught horses necessary for the Army Service Corps and the wagons. This total of 174,000 includes the horses for the Territorial Force, but I do not propose to touch on that question now. The object is to get a scheme for the expeditionary force first, and then, afterwards, in concert with the lords-lieutenant and the County Associations,
1182
we will endeavour to find a scheme for the Territorial Force. The chief reason for having separate schemes is to avoid overlapping. Your Lordships will learn with satisfaction, on the authority of the Director-General of Remounts, that the present supply of horses in the country would probably nearly meet the requirements of that Department. The known number of horses in the country is 2,089,000. Those are agricultural and young horses, but that number does not include the horses in the towns.
LORD LOVAT: How many horses are there in the towns?
EARL CARRINGTON: I was coming to that. The noble Lord's proposal that a census of the town horses should be taken is a very good one. That is a proposal we have under consideration. We wish to know what horses there are in private and public stables, in the omnibus and cab stables in the big towns in England. It is no use being an alarmist, and I think my noble friend Lord Lucas will bear me out that there is no immediate cause for alarm. If the horses are wanted at once they are there. We have that on the authority of the Director-General of Remounts; and, of course, we should be able to take these horses in case of invasion.
EARL FORTESCUE: Does the noble Earl know approximately how many horses there are other than agricultural horses in the country?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is what I was endeavouring to explain. There is no census at the present moment—
LORD LOVAT: In fact, you have not the least idea how many there are?
EARL CARRINGTON: Of course, there have been guesses, but I would prefer to stick to the statistics we have, if noble Lords would not mind.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: The noble Earl spoke of getting at the number of active horses in the towns. Is he under the impression that there is a census of the active horses in the country, including

1183
those which are the property of private owners? I do not remember any one asking me how many I had in my stables.
EARL CARRINGTON: We have a Return of the number of horses in each part of the United Kingdom up to 1907. The total is 2,089,000. In addition, there are all the town horses of which it is suggested we should also have a census. We should then know, to within two or three hundred, practically how many horses we have in the towns and in the country.
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the noble Earl has answered Lord Ribblesdale's question. Unless Lord Ribblesdale's hunters are taken out to draw the garden mower, or are used for some agricultural purpose, they would not come under this Return.
EARL CARRINGTON: We shall have to have an inquisition of my noble friend's horses as well. I believe the number of hunting horses in the stables is known.
LORD LOVAT: By whom is it known?
LORD HENEAGE: Is it not the fact that nothing is known of any horses whatever except agricultural horses?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so, but we are considering the best way in which a census of the town horses can be obtained as well.
LORD HENEAGE: And all the country horses?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I suggest that what is required to be known is the number of horses which would be useful in an emergency, and if you do not get that the census would be no good at all.
EARL CARRINGTON: I quite agree. I think this is wholly a question of machinery and detail. We have, under our scheme, to get an advisory committee, and we shall be glad to have the advantage of the advice of my noble friend and of any one who will be good enough to help us so that we may get the total
1184
number of horses in town and country in England and Ireland.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask—
THE EARL OF CREWE: Really, my Lords, this is becoming so very irregular that I must protest.
EARL CARRINGTON: As I have said, this is wholly a question of machinery and detail. Though there is no alarm for the present, the future does cause the War Office no little anxiety. As the noble Earl opposite has said, there were 10,000 fewer foals in 1906 than in 1905, and, therefore, it is the duty of the Government, in the agricultural interest as well as in that of the Army, to take the whole matter in hand. The scheme is practically the registration of a large number of suitable stallions, say 500, and of a large number of suitable mares—we ought, eventually, to have no less than 25,000 brood mares. The registration of their stock would be approved by the military authorities, but no brood animal would be accepted unless, first, it was passed by a civil veterinary surgeon for breeding purposes, and, secondly, by a remount officer certifying it as suitable for the Army. All registered animals would thus be officially certified as sound. That is, I think, a most important matter, because it would discredit, if it did not altogether knock out, the unsound animals that are now travelling about the country. The ultimate object, and it would not take many years, would be to secure the breeding annually of 15,000 foals of the various classes registered, so that we might be able at a moment's notice to put our hands on the 70,000 horses required in the case of sudden mobilisation. That relates entirely to the First Line, and does not bring in the Territorials at all.
Then we propose to give a special fee to the stallion owner, in addition to the covering fee, for every registered mare which is found to be in foal to the registered stallion at the end of the covering season. I know a good many people would sooner see the money go to the mares, but I am not certain that this plan would be the better of the two. If you gave a certain amount

1185
to each travelling stallion at the end of the covering season it would amount to a very considerable sum, and it would make the owners of these stallions missionaries in the movement. When a mare was brought to the horse the owner of the stallion would ask: Is she registered? If she were not registered he would not get the additional fee, and, therefore, he would urge the owner of the mare to get her registered and procure the certificate of soundness. In that way we think we should have 500 travelling missionaries in the country desirous in their own interests of getting the mares registered. It is also proposed to assist the owners of mares in some cases by the payment of the whole or part of the covering fee. This is intended to assist the small farmer, but the payment of such fees on a large scale could not be undertaken.
Then there is the proposal, which originated and was very much insisted upon two years ago in the speech which the Duke of Portland made on horse breeding in your Lordships' House, of the purchase of three-year-olds, instead of five-year-old horses. Your Lordships will see that there is a supplementary report advocating that by Sir Walter Gilbey in the Report of the Royal Commission. The difficulty up to the present time on the side of the War Office has been in looking after these three-year-old horses when they have been obtained. The cavalry commanding officers do not want them in their stables; they want animals in a hard condition that they can depend on. Then there is the great expense involved if you have harases or depots where the horses are looked after during the two years which are the most dangerous in their existence. The French plan is to buy three-year-olds in the autumn. The mares are purchased in March or April, and are left with the owner, who feeds and keeps them under inspection and in good condition at light work. But each year a Government stallion is brought into requisition. The foals remain the property of the breeder, and then the mare is taken over by the military authorities in her sixth year, when her second foal is weaned.
1186
Then comes the question of expense. The establishment expenses are necessarily very heavy. The cost for the five or six-year-old horses that pass into the ranks of the French Army is £70 or £80, as compared with £40 here. Some means must be found, if possible, to carry out this idea in a cheaper way. The idea is that all the young horses should be left with their sellers until such time as they were required, a monthly payment being made for their keep for not more than two years. Then it would have to be discussed as to what should be done with the mares and the horses, but the foal would be the property of the farmer who sold the horse at three years old. The Army Council would agree to inspect the produce of all breeding stock at three years. This would mean an inspection of, we hope, from 12,000 to 15,000 young horses annually, so as to keep a lien on the three-year-old horses. Then a report would be made to the Board of Agriculture on the remainder of the 12,000 to 15,000 young horses, which would be placed on the register of young horses. Then we should know pretty well what position we were in.
It is next proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be assisted in carrying out the scheme by a consultative committee, on which we hope to induce the representatives of the leading societies who have done so much good in the past to give their aid—such societies as the Brood Mare Society and the Hunters Improvement Society—as well as noble Lords and other persons whose disinterested activity in the cause is a household word.
There is only one matter I have not dealt with and that is the question of cost. The noble Earl opposite joined organisation and expenditure together. We can be responsible for the organisation, and, with the help of the advisory committee, we hope we may be able to do something practical. But expenditure comes under an entirely different head. We have worked out satisfactory figures among the departments concerned, and I am glad to say that we have the entire co-operation of my right hon. friend the Secretary of

1187
State for War, and of the Army Council. The question of expenditure is now being examined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I need hardly remind your Lordships that the commitments of the Government at present are very large. It would be, however, to the best interests of the nation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have all his liabilities and all the requests submitted before he gave any definite pledge, even on such an important subject as this. The scheme will depend entirely for its success on the support given to it by horse-owners and persons interested in horse-breeding. I hope that, though the scheme may not please everyone, it will receive support, for it is by some such method as this that the country can alone hope to deal with the question which has in days gone by been a practical danger, and which is considered to be, in present circumstances, a national disgrace.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is anything in the Government scheme to prevent the foreigner from entering into competition with the Government in either buying mares or their produce; or are they earmarked for the Government in case of war?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am glad that the noble Lord has taken up that question. There is nothing whatever in the scheme to stop the ready sale of horses abroad. I venture to think that that would be a very dangerous thing to do. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent a man from breeding the best kind of barouche horse, or a high-class hunting horse, and exporting it; but we are trying to get enough of the "misfits" and to make them into a better class of horse than they are at present, so as to enable a ready sale to the War Office of horses which are not wanted for other purposes. But there is nothing to hamper the great horse-breeding industry, which brings a great deal of money into this country.
LORD HENEAGE: Do I understand that we are now to have a return of all horses in town and country under a proper classification? I think it is
1188
clearly admitted that we have no return whatever except as regards what are called shire horses. Does the noble Earl now intend to have a full return?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I have not been able to make myself understood. My great desire is to get a census of all the horses in the country, and I hope my noble friend will give me the benefit of his advice and assistance.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lord, I do not desire to press my Motion. I would thank the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken in putting, his scheme before us this evening. It would be ungracious on my part to criticise it at such short notice, but I hope the noble Earl will continue pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the sooner something is done the better. I am sure he will have the unanimous support of your Lordships in pressing him. I may say that I am a little alarmed at the use of the word "misfit" as applied to the horsing of the Army. We have heard of a great many kinds of horses this evening, but I should be sorry to think that the noble Earl's scheme would have such a small result as perhaps would be suggested by his last remark. I hope it will be kept in mind that we want to retain our best horses for ourselves. I am confident that something in the direction of placing difficulties in the way of the foreigner coming in and purchasing our best horses is necessary, and I am not at all certain at the moment that what is now suggested is enough.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSES REGISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, in view of the considerable tax which has already been placed upon your Lordships' attention I will endeavour to abbreviate as far as possible what I have to say. I trust your Lordships will allow me to begin by explaining how I come to be in charge of this Bill. Some few weeks ago when I took it upon myself to move the

1189
rejection of the Official Directory of Nurses Bill, the Bill which was designed in opposition to this Bill, I explained to the House that I did so of my own motion, and not as the spokesman of any league or body of persons outside this House. The Society for the State Registration of Nurses, however, encouraged by your Lordships' vote on that occasion, and recognising that in view of the state of business in the other House of Parliament their chances of obtaining a hearing for their Bill in that House were becoming less and less, asked me to introduce it in your Lordships' House.
It is, therefore—and I explain this in order that I may not be thought to be sailing under false colours—as the spokesman of that Society that I am here to-day. Diffident though I was about the matter, I could not refuse a request made to me in that way, and I am proud to be the spokesman of a body of women who are engaged in that noble calling which more than any other, I think, brings out the best qualities of the gentler sex. In any circumstances, whether it had been late or not, I should have been very much divided in mind as to whether I should say all those things which the advocates of State Registration would wish me to say on behalf of their cause, or whether I should avoid trespassing unduly upon your Lordships' attention and patience. I hope that I am safe in yielding to the latter consideration, relying on the very great practical knowledge and experience which most of your Lordships have of those conditions of our social life which are affected by the proposed legislation.
The question is one of very great importance. It has been agitated for twenty years past; it has formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry on the part of a Committee of the House of Commons which sat during two sessions; and where-ever it has arisen elsewhere, whether it be in foreign countries or in our own Colonies, owing to the organisation of nurses it has led to legislation very similar to that which is now proposed. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, speaking with all the responsibility of his position as Lord President of the Council, the Department which is particularly concerned, said, on March 8, 1905, that the subject was one of national importance,
1190
and that it could not be long before it engaged the serious attention of Parliament; and the noble Earl added that it was also apparent that there was a strong preponderance of opinion in favour of the scheme of State registration. But I hope it will not be considered presumption on my part if I venture to quote-an even more important utterance. His Majesty the King, speaking on Saturday at the opening of the buildings for the Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses, spoke as follows:—
"It has now, happily, long been recognised that in the alleviation of pain and sickness, good nursing is of supreme importance, and that it is in the interests of the community that measures should be taken to obtain ski ed and efficient nurses in increased numbers and to procure for them such advantages and prospects as will retain them in their profession."
Of course, I do not presume for one moment to guess what was in His Majesty's mind, but this I do know, that there is no measure which, in the opinion of the great majority of the nursing and medical professions, would be better calculated to secure that end than a measure of the kind now before your Lordships. Registration is, indeed, an essential preliminary to any further steps for increasing the efficiency and improving the prospects of the nursing profession.
Again, I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that in these days of the feminist movement Parliament would do well to pay careful attention to a demand which is put forward with steady persistence but with perfect propriety by a body of women whose services to the community are both unquestioned and indispensable. Whether we be advocates of woman suffrage or whether we be opposed to that policy, we are equally concerned, I think, as politicians, to see that such a demand is treated with due respect.
So much for the general importance of the question. It behoves me to explain—and I will do so as briefly as possible—the objects, reasons, and nature of the demand for the legislation proposed in this Bill. In other words, I have to show the House what is demanded, why it is demanded, and by whom it is demanded. In the first place, then, what the nurses—and with them are

1191
associated many who do not belong to the profession—ask for is this. I will give it to your Lordships in their own words. They ask that—
"The term 'trained nurse' shall have a definite meaning; that anyone using it shall submit to a definite examination and satisfy an authority appointed by the State that he or she possesses the qualifications necessary to render him or her a safe attendant on the sick, and that the names of those who attain the prescribed standard shall be entered on a nursing register so that the public may be enabled easily to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses."
That is the whole extent of the demand. What is asked for, in fact, is that nurses should be treated by the State in the same way as solicitors, physicians, surgeons, dentists, and even midwives are already treated; that, in view of the increased demands for efficiency which have been made, and which the nurses themselves have done so much to meet, there should be extended to them the legislation which has developed on uniform and well-established principles in respect to kindred professions, not only in this country but also in the British Colonies.
Next, what are the reasons for this demand? Speaking in general terms, it is for the protection of the public just as much as for the protection of the nurses themselves; but it is necessary, I think, that I should explain this point a little further. In the first place, then, there exist at the present moment no standards of nursing education, and the consequence is that the value of training and of the consequent certificates which are given by the different institutions regarded as nursing schools vary considerably. Indeed, there are as many opinions as to what constitutes a sufficient training and as to what amount of training entitles a nurse to a certificate as there are nursing schools and similar institutions. In a great many of these institutions there is no doubt that a very inefficient training is given to the nurses. This is unfair to the nurses, who pay for the training by a very great sacrifice of time, if not of money, and it is unfair to the public, who are unable to judge of the relative value of these certificates. What is wanted, then, is an educational authority
1192
which would be able to lay down what the standard of training entitling a nurse to a certificate should be. The lay governors of hospitals, admirable though their work is, and greatly experienced though many of them are, are not exactly in the position to lay down standards of this kind, and certainly they have no means of all agreeing together what the standards should be and of enforcing them. Again, owing to the lack of a governing body for the nursing profession, the certificate of a nurse cannot be withdrawn even where she has been convicted of crime, and this, as I shall show your Lordships, is a very serious matter indeed. I might go on to refer to the absence of any standard for matrons and of any regulation that those who fill the highly important and responsible position of matron of a hospital or nursing home should be required to go through further tests, but I hardly think that is necessary for my present purpose.
I hope I have said enough to show that, in the absence of the safeguards which belong to other professions, the public suffer so far as the nursing profession is concerned, and, at the same time, the nurses suffer when discredit is thrown on their profession on occasions when unqualified persons use the name of nurse for improper and dishonest purposes. I could give your Lordships a great many instances. I have, in fact, a very large supply of them here, but I hardly think it is necessary to give them in view of the fact that most of your Lordships must, in the course of your ordinary everyday experience, have come across cases of the kind which I have in my mind. It is a matter of common knowledge that the nursing homes for the care of private patients are under no supervision. There is no guarantee whatever that the patients receive the skilled nursing for which they pay. In some cases—in a good few cases, I believe—these nursing homes are commercial speculations on the part of unprofessional persons who make their profit by enabling those who do not care to go through the long grind of a thorough hospital training to take away a certificate of nurse and to trade upon it. Some of these homes are even worse, and are simply places where abortion is practiced

1193
and which are centres of immorality and crime.
Perhaps I might just give your Lordships three very brief instances of what I mean. Sir Victor Horsley told the Select Committee of the House of Commons that in a nursing home to which he himself frequently sent patients, he recognised a scrubber dressed up as a nurse and attending to one of his patients. That is an instance of the kind of fraud which can be perpetrated even in a perfectly well-known and respectable nursing institution under such distinguished supervision as that of Sir Victor Horsley. A graver case is that of the two women who were hanged at Holloway in consequence of abominable crimes in 1903. The newspapers at the time were filled with sensational headlines, and the placards in the streets contained such announcements as "Nurses charged with murder." I need hardly explain how painfully the nursing profession suffer from episodes of this kind, and thus having the name of their profession associated with criminals. The third instance is quite a recent one. It is that of the woman who went by the alias of Princess Soltikoff, whose case was notorious a couple of years ago, and who was sentenced at the Old Bailey to fifteen months' hard labour for fraud in 1906. She had previously been sentenced for a similar crime in 1903, but between these two convictions she had four or five situations as a nurse and had been in several hospitals. That, my Lords, is an instance of the possibilities for criminally-disposed persons in the present absence of safeguards. I trust I have said enough to show your Lordships how essential it is that the public should have means of distinguishing efficient nurses from criminals who pose as members of a profession to which they do not belong and on which they bring great discredit and shame.
Next, my Lords, I have to tell you who make this demand for legislation. It is, in the first place, practically the whole of the organised body of the nursing profession; secondly, practically the whole of the medical profession; and, thirdly, a number of important bodies concerned with women's work. I am quite prepared to substantiate this statement, but in
1194
view of my undertaking not to occupy very much of your Lordships' time I trust it will be taken for granted. The position is this. The number of nurses in this country has been variously estimated, and there is no certain information, just as in the case of the horses we have been discussing. But what is quite certain is that, of the total number of nurses, nearly all those who are organised in leagues and associations have expressed themselves in favour of State registration. The number who have so declared in favour of this policy is about 10,000. I have the whole of the details here, but as I trust that the assertion which was made on the former occasion that the movement was really got up on the principle of a stage army—a most unfair and unjustifiable statement—will not be made again, I will not use my figures unless I am obliged to do so. Then there are a great many nurses who do not belong to leagues and associations, and who have individually expressed themselves in favour of legislation. Scottish nurses are not organised, but it is well known that they have complete confidence in a very representative body called the Scottish Registration Committee. Lastly, I should like to point out that a great many nurses are not free to give an unbiassed opinion on this subject, and have therefore remained silent.
I said that practically the whole of the medical profession are in favour of it. The General Medical Council pronounced in favour of the principle of State registration so far back as 1889, and the British Medical Association, which is composed of 21,000 medical practitioners—about two-thirds of the whole profession—has passed formal resolutions in favour of State registration on three occasions—in 1895, in 1904, and in 1906. The most important of those votes was that which took place in 1906, when ninety out of ninety-three Members present voted for the resolution in favour of State registration, and that was after two years consideration of the subject in the constituencies which were represented at the meeting. I think that fact fully justifies me in saying that practically the whole of the medical profession are in favour of the State registration of nurses. Then I mentioned that there

1195
were a number of important bodies engaged in women's work who supported this Bill. I refer to the Asylum Workers Association, the National Union of Women Workers, and the Women's Industrial Council. The Committee of the House of Commons took exhaustive evidence, and on the question of principle expressed themselves as follows—
"Your Committee are agreed that it is desirable that a register of nurses should be kept by a central body appointed by the State."
That opinion, I understand, was endorsed by the Lord-President of the Council, speaking with all the responsibility of head of the Department particularly concerned. There is yet one more reason which I should like to urge before I go on actually to the Bill, and that is that midwives, whose training is infinitely less than that which is required of a skilled nurse—a matter of two months as against three years—are already registered on precisely the same principles as those advocated in this Bill. What is the opposition? I do not think I need go over that ground, as the opposition was, I think, fully disposed of by your Lordships' vote—a vote of three to one, I think it was—on the Official Directory of Nurses Bill.
I will, therefore, go on to explain, in a very few words, what the Bill actually does. I may say that the Bill has been five times before the House of Commons, and it has been backed by Members of every Party, but owing to ill-luck it has never gained a place in the ballot and has therefore never come up for Second Reading. The actual scope of the Bill, as to which I find there is a certain amount of doubt, is very well defined in the preamble—
"Whereas it is expedient that persons requiring nursing assistance should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses."
The Bill really does not go beyond that. It enables the public to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses, and that is no less an advantage to the public than it is to the nurses themselves. Then you will see that there are certain temporary provisions in Sections 3, 4 and 5; they provide for a temporary or provisional council to register persons already in practice as trained nurses in order that a constituency may be formed
1196
which would elect representatives of the nursing profession on the regular council. The most important of the permanent provisions is Section 6 which proposes that a council should be incorporated by the name of the general Council of Nursing Education and Registration of the United Kingdom.
I hope it that is not necessary to go any further into detail. I have heard it suggested that the actual composition of the council which is proposed might be the subject of criticism, but I venture to think that that is a matter of detail which really does not affect the principle of the Bill, with which alone we are concerned at the present moment. But I might say, parenthetically, first of all that the number of representatives has been reduced from thirty-one, as it appeared in the original Bill before the House of Commons, to nineteen. This was done in deference to the views of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Secondly, it has to be borne in mind that three classes have to be represented—the nurses, the medical practitioners, and the public. At the same time it is necessary to provide representation for England and Wales, for Scotland, and for Ireland. I think, however, that the exact proportion of representatives of each class, and the adaptation of that representation to the three countries, is a matter which can be discussed in Committee if your Lordships are good enough to allow the Bill to proceed so far.
I will only reiterate that the question which is before us is simply this, whether the State shall do for nurses what it has done for kindred professions, and enable the public to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified. I should like to explain, in view of another possible misapprehension, that there is no desire—and I am advised there is no possibility as the Bill is drafted—to interfere with the liberty of contract between the sick and any person attending them for hire. All that the Bill would do, or could do, as it is at present drafted, is to protect the title "registered nurse" for the use of those who have attained a minimum standard as defined by the authority. I trust I have said enough to induce your Lordships to give a Second Reading to

1197
this Bill, and thus, I venture to think, to give encouragement to that noble profession in which women display from day to day skill, courage, devotion to duty, and self-sacrifice well comparable with those of sailors and soldiers in times of danger and warfare, and in which they set an example to our race of the highest qualities of Christian humanity.
Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has any figures with regard to the total number of nurses that exist and the number whom it is anticipated will become registered under this Bill. It is very desirable that the idea should not get about that anyone is good enough to nurse the poor, and that we only want to register a small class of nurses for the hospitals and the upper classes. That is one of the dangers of the provisions in this Bill, and it is one of the points which will have to be carefully guarded against.
LORD AMPTHILL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting him. I thought I had answered his objection in almost my last sentence, when I said that the Bill was so drawn that it could not interfere with liberty of contract between the sick and those whom they engage to attend upon them. Therefore, district nurses and Poor Law nurses would not be affected at all. It would be a case of registering nurses with a certain standard of qualification and not of interfering with others.
LORD KINNAIRD: Many of those interested in district nursing feel strongly that in the case of that class of nurses, who, for all practical purposes, are fully qualified nurses and do their work thoroughly well, it would be very hard for them to be described as "unqualified." The difficulty will be increased of raising funds for district nursing if the district nurses are, under this Bill, to be "unqualified"; and, if they receive the necessary training to become registered, they will be less qualified than they are at present to do a great deal of the district nursing work. Many of those
1198
who have obtained the higher class of training are not equally as qualified as they were before for doing this kind of work and for looking after the poor in their homes. I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think that when we come to details there will be many matters to be considered. It would be very hard upon the class to whom I have referred, and who do very valuable work, if they were described as unqualified, and I hope before the Bill leaves your Lordship's House steps will be taken to prevent these disadvantages and disqualifications being put upon a very deserving class of women.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that a subject of this considerable importance should have come before us in such a thin House, because I do not think that the numbers here present correctly indicate the interest which is taken in the subject. But the fact does, I think, add greatly to our difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to what course we ought to take with regard to this Bill. This question of registration has, as we all know, been before the country for some considerable time. The principle was approved by an important Select Committee which was held on the subject, and in considering the whole question we ought to bear the fact in mind that the Report of the Committee did undoubtedly approve of the principle of the registration of nurses.
When the matter came before me two years ago when I was Lord President. I said, in reply to a deputation, that I did not think it would be much use attempting to proceed with the matter until there was some practical unanimity among nurses themselves, and also—which was of equal importance—the medical profession as to the manner in which the thing could be done, because it is one thing to approve of the idea of registration and another thing to attempt to put it into practice. I do not know, and I have no reason to suppose, that that requisite degree of agreement has been arrived at. The noble Lord who proposed the Second Reading of the

1199
Bill spoke of the practical unanimity of nurses. I have no doubt that a very considerable majority of nurses are in favour of registration, and would undoubtedly be in favour of the kind of registration in this particular Bill, because it gives nurses practically the entire control of the council with a small sprinkling of the medical element. But when we come to the medical profession, I take it the case is very different.
The noble Lord said that the medical profession were practically unanimous in favour of the registration of nurses. When this matter was before the Select Committee a protest was made by a number of people, including several hundred doctors, against the principle of registration, among them being Lord Lister, Dr. Allchin, Sir James Reid, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir William Bennett, Dr. Watson Cheyne, Dr. Ferrier, and a great many more, and there was a second list including a great many other extremely well-known doctors. Therefore to talk of the practical unanimity of the medical profession on the subject seems to me to be going considerably beyond the mark.
I do not think that this matter ought to be by any means dismissed, because I believe that a very considerable majority of the nursing profession do desire to see some form of registration, and I quite agree with everything the noble Lord said as to the deference we ought to pay to the members of so honourable and respected a profession. What exactly the nurses are going to get out of this particular form of registration is another matter. The noble Lord on the cross benches drew attention to the fact that a considerable number of nurses who really cannot be called untrained or incompetent would have something like a stigma put upon them by this Bill, and the Local Government Board no doubt would have something to say also on that subject with regard to the nurses whom they employ. Then the noble Lord spoke of a case where two women were charged with murder and were afterwards hanged, and in connection with which placards were displayed, in the street announcing: "Nurses charged with murder." No amount of registration will prevent that.
1200
You will not be able to confine the title of nurse to these particular registered ladies. There is no penalty in the Bill for any woman calling herself a nurse or wearing the uniform of a nurse, and therefore, I am afraid the profession will not escape that unfortunate possibility, to say nothing of the fact that if a person was going to commit murder the fact that she had been trained for three years in a hospital would not prevent her doing so.
But there is another side to this question, and that is the interest of the public in it. The other day, as your Lordships remember, a Bill for establishing a Directory of Nurses was thrown out on Second Reading by a very considerable majority. Looking at this matter, as I think I do, impartially, I am bound to say that, so far as the public is concerned, this registration will not be of much more, if of any more, value than the lists of names in a Directory. Unless you can devise some means for ensuring a continual guarantee of the efficiency and character of a nurse, the mere fact that she passed certain examinations a certain number of years ago is not much use to the patient who is going to engage her. So far as it is of any use, that bare knowledge would be equally well supplied by the Directory. That is a very important, and, I think, a very crucial point in connection with this Bill. No attempt is made, so far as I can see, in this Bill for anything to be done beyond a statement of the fact that a nurse has at some time or other been efficiently trained, and she is asked to pay £5 for that statement. It is also true that if she is convicted, or appears in the Divorce Court, or does something which brings her name prominently before public notice, she will be struck off the Register, but there is no guarantee that she has not gone downhill in other ways, that she has not lost her efficiency or even her character, and therefore the public must realise that if anything of this kind be done there is no more guarantee of the conduct or even of the capacity of the nurse at the moment at which she is engaged than the fact that she passed certain examinations, five, ten or fifteen years ago. Therefore, from the public point of view, the Bill does not seem

1201
to me to do very much, more than the Directory Bill did which your Lordships refused to consider.
Under these circumstances, my Lords, I confess I rather question whether at this period of the session it is worth while to read the Bill a second time. I have no kind of hostility to its principle, as I have often said, and I should like to see it carried into effect; but I have a certain abhorrence of the practice of reading Bills a second time in this House when there is no prospect of continuing them, more especially in such a very thin House as there is here to-night. I think we ought to demand a little more evidence of the interest of the House in the subject before we can pledge the House of Lords to a certain extent, because it must not be forgotten that a Second Reading, after all, does mean something, to the principle of the Bill. In that matter I am very much in your Lordships' hands. I certainly should not desire to move the rejection of the Bill; far from it; but under the circumstances I confess I question whether your Lordships would do wisely to read the Bill a second time to-night.
THB MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the condition of our Benches this evening is not favourable to the final discussion of so important a question as that with which this Bill deals, but I think I should use that rather as an argument against the summary rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, I think if your Lordships decide to give a Second Reading to the Bill we are entitled to claim that in doing so we are by no means committed to an acceptance of the full scheme which is embodied in it.
Speaking for myself, and for myself only, I may say that I am upon the whole in sympathy with the main object of my noble friend behind me. The principle of his Bill amounts, as I understand it, to no more than this, that he desires to afford to the public some means of ascertaining whether a woman who calls herself a nurse has or has not obtained at any rate a minimum of experience and training in her profession. That seems to me to be reasonable, both from the point of view of the nurses,
1202
and from the point of view of the public who employ them. What are the alternatives before us? We may leave things exactly as they are at the present time. I must say that a strong case has been made for the view that the present condition of things, under which the public has no guarantee whatever as to the fitness of a person who calls herself a nurse, is very unsatisfactory. Then we have the alternative embodied in the Directory of Nurses Bill, which your Lordships rejected for reasons which were fully stated at the time. There remains the third course, that of registration, and that has certainly received a good deal of official encouragement from the medical profession and from the nursing profession itself.
The noble Earl said with some force: "What is the value of the kind of registration which this Bill contemplates?" I certainly should not over-rate its value, but I think it is worth something. It is not a complete guarantee of the nurse's qualifications, but it is a guarantee of something. It proves that she has, at any rate, during her life acquired the ground-work of a knowledge of the most important elements of her profession, those elements which are really most indispensable to the proper performance of her duties. It is perfectly true that registration affords no guarantee that the nurse possesses those other qualities for which we look, and so often look not in vain, in members of the nursing profession; but, then, surely it will be just as possible for people after this Bill has passed, supposing it to pass, to satisfy themselves as to those other points—as to the nurse's character, demeanour, and so forth—as it is at the present moment for them when they employ a nurse who has no certificate and has never been registered. I think moreover it may be fairly argued that those technical attainments without which a nurse would be unable to obtain a certificate are, in fact, those which are most indispensable for her efficiency.
The noble Earl says that the nurse's certificate would not be a guarantee of her continuing fitness. This is perfectly true, but it does not profess to be a guarantee of her continuing fitness. What it professes to show is that she has

1203
at one time acquired that groundwork of knowledge upon which my noble friends insists. What, then, are we to do with this Bill? I should, I confess, be very sorry if we were to reject it. The idea of taking a division upon so important a subject in so thin a House as this seems to me almost out of the question. I cannot help thinking that the proper course, in the circumstances, is to give the Bill a Second Reading, upon the assumption that by doing so we are committed to no more than what I would call the bare principle of the measure. There will be other opportunities of discussing points of detail in Committee, and there will be another opportunity, of which we in this House very often take advantage, for a further discussion upon the Motion to go into Committee. If, therefore, your Lordships are good enough to desire to know my opinion, I would venture to suggest that my noble friend's Motion should not be opposed and that we should reserve to ourselves the right to continue this discussion under more favourable circumstances.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not rise to discuss this Bill. There is much to be said in its favour, and much to criticise; but I would suggest to your Lordships, in view of the time and the state of the House, that the debate should be adjourned. If a division were challenged the number of Peers present is too small to allow of a division being taken, and what would happen would amount to what in the House of Commons would be called a count out. I should have been glad myself to have said a little on the motion for the Second Reading, and I would urge that the debate should be adjourned. I will formally move that, but if the feeling of the House is against me, I will not press the motion.
Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, on that motion I should like to say that it would seem to me a pity to adjourn the debate. I cannot see what the object
1204
of that course can be. I have not heard of anybody else who was desirous of speaking on the Second Reading, but, as the noble Marquess the Leader' of the Opposition said, there will be further opportunities of discussing the Bill, both on principle and in detail. If there were any appreciable number of Peers who wished to speak I should be entirely for an adjournment, but I think in all the circumstances, the best course would be to allow the Bill to be read a second time to-day.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I think we might get over the difficulty by adopting the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. As we are allowed, I understand, by the rules of the House, to make Second Reading Speeches on the Motion to go into Committee, I think that covers the ground, and that we might very well accept the bare principle of the Bill to-day. I should like to speak upon the Bill myself, as it will affect the district nurses in Ireland.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I withdraw my Motion.
Motion for the adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read and discharged.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.