Sitting of 26 April 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords],
South Lincolnshire Water Bill [Lords],
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill [By Order],
Read a second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Territorial Force (Ammunition Supply).
  Mr. H. C. LEAasked the Secretary of State for War, whether the National Rifle Association supply 303 Service ammunition to rifle clubs at the rate of £3 10s. per thousand, and return 10s. for every thousand cases sent back to them, whereas the War Office charge the Territorial Army £4 per thousand for an amount equal to 10 rounds per man, and £4 10s. per thousand after that; whether the War
  2
  Office have kept ammunition in stock so long that it has to be destroyed; and, if so, will he state the number of rounds that will be destroyed in consequence of having been stored so long that they are useless?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): As regards the first part of the question information to this effect has been given to the War Office by the National Rifle Association. The prices charged by the War Office are as stated at a rate of £4 per 1,000 up to 10 rounds per man, and £4 9s. per 1,000 after that. The question of reducing the price of Government ammunition is under consideration. As regards the last part of the question no ammunition has been destroyed because of the time it has been kept in stock, but ammunition, which has developed certain defects in the metal has had to be destroyed.
  Mr. LEA: Am I to understand that the figures of £3 10s. per thousand is what the Rifle Association will get?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes. There is no analogy between the two cases. In the second case the higher charge made is for ammunition that has to be very much more carefully prepared.

  British Flying Machines.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether,

  3
  in view of the success of flying machines of foreign Powers, he can state what progress has been made in the British Army in the attempts at aerial flights?
  Mr. HALDANE: On the introduction of Army Estimates on 4th March I fully explained what action was being taken in regard to aerial navigation, and that it was hoped that substantial progress would be made in the near future. I have nothing at present to add to the information which I gave the House on that occasion, except that progress is being made.

  Cavalry Horses (Cast for Age).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the advisability of extending the number of cavalry horses to be cast for age, which has been by a recent order limited to 4 per cent. for the financial year of 1909–10, having in view the importance of keeping up the normal supply of young horses, the curtailment of which would be detrimental to cavalry efficiency in case of war?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be referring to a circular letter which merely laid down the percentage of horses which might be cast by Divisional and Brigade Commanders without previous reference to the War Office. As a matter of fact the normal percentage of replacements has for many years past been 10 per cent of the establishment, and provision is made in this year's estimates for replacements on this scale.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: The House may take it that 10 per cent. is the average, and not 4 per cent.?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes, that is what we have taken the money for this year.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Then there is no change?
  Mr. HALDANE: No change.

  Territorial Force (Honorary Rank).
  Mr. GEORGE GIBBSasked the Secretary for War whether the granting of honorary rank to officers of the Territorial Force is to be discontinued; and if so, since the granting of this honorary rank costs the country nothing, whether he will state the reasons for this step?
  Mr. HALDANE: The abolition of honorary rank in the Territorial Force was one of the measures adopted in conformity with the principle of assimilating pro-the Regular Forces. In place of honorary cedure in that Force more closely with rank brevet rank will be given under paragraph 28 of the Territorial Force Regulations for distinguished service in the field or for meritorious or distinguished service of an exceptional nature other than in the field. This is in strict conformity with the practice in the Regular Army. In consideration of the fact that many officers of the Volunteer Force were on the point of qualifying for a step of honorary rank on 31st March, 1908, after which it ceased to be given, a concession of a year's service has been made to meet such cases, so that any officer who would have obtained a step of honorary rank by 31st March, 1909, will be given it as if the Volunteer Force had continued to that date.
  Mr. GIBBS: In view of the fact that a great many of these officers have served a number of years, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to retain them for at least another five years?
  Mr. HALDANE: It is much more important that the Regular Army and the Territoral Force should be under one set of regulations. Very many of these sham distinctions which used to exist are just the very things we wish to eliminate.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Will this new honorary rank, to be substituted for the one abolished, be optional on the part of the commanding officer, or will the officer have it as a right?
  Mr. HALDANE: It is not optional at all. It is going to be given for meritorious, services only, and it is not going to be given to officers as a mere honorary distinction.
  Mr. GIBBS: Is it the fact that the brevet rank is given for meritorious services in the field, and in the case of actual warfare?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member apparently did not catch what I read: "In place of honorary rank brevet rank will be given under paragraph 28 of the Territorial Force Regulations for distinguished service in the field or for meritorious or distinguished service of an exceptional nature other than in the field."

  Gibraltar Garrison (Mobilisation).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary for War whether, in the recent mobilisation of the garrison at Gibraltar the Army Service Corps assisted the infantry in defending the fortress; and, if so, whether this was done in consequence of the inadequacy of the garrison or whether it is proposed in future to utilise the Army Service Corps in this manner?
  Mr. HALDANE: Presumably the hon. Member is alluding to the 1908 mobilisation and not to the 1909 mobilisation which is now taking place? The report of the 1908 mobilisation does not mention that any assistance was given by the Army Service Corps to the infantry defence.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it the view of the War Office that the Army Service Corps should perform infantry duties?
  Mr. HALDANE: That is another question which does not really arise out of the answer which I have given. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

  Army Boots and Shoes.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary for War, if he would state the names of the contractors and their places of business who have been successful during 1909 in obtaining contracts for Army boots and shoes, with the number of pairs to be supplied by each during the present year?
  Mr. HALDANE: As it has been decided that the names of successful competitors for Government contracts shall be published, subject to certain reservations, I can give the names of those who have obtained Army boot contracts during the current year, but, as they are too long to read out to the House, I will have them printed in the Votes and Proceedings. Particulars as to quantities and prices cannot, however, be given. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Are these boots machine-made or hand-made?
  Mr. HALDANE: It really does not matter; they are the best we can get.

  Royal Ordnance Factories (Discharges).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Secretary for War why, during the last few days, well-trained lads of good character, about the age of 21, who have worked for six years and upwards in the Arsenal, are being discharged from the Royal Ordnance Factories?
  Mr. HALDANE: When a boy reaches the age of 21 he becomes a man, and can only be employed if there is a vacancy for a man. At the present moment, owing to slackness of work, men are being employed on short time, and only in special circumstances can a boy be retained for work on which no men on short time could in any way be employed. In reply to a question put by the Noble Viscount the Member for Thirsk and Malton Division of Yorkshire on 25th October last I gave a full explanation of the circumstances under which boys were employed at the Arsenal.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will these discharges continue indefinitely?
  Mr. HALDANE: They are not discharges at all. The employment is for boys up to the age of 21, and they enter into the contract on that footing. After the age of 21 they become men.
  Mr. W. CROOKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some arrangement can be made whereby the lads may continue the session of education for which they have already paid, so that when they are dismissed they may not lose the education and the money which they have paid?
  Mr. HALDANE: That is a different matter, and I would ask the hon. Member to put down a question.
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Secretary of War if he will undertake that discharges under O.F. Form 55 should be suspended, in view of the distress still existing in Woolwich and the neighbourhood?
  Mr. HALDANE: As I have already informed the House, no discharges from the establishment are taking place at Woolwich Arsenal, except in the case of the Building Works Department, in which, owing to the nature of the work, the strength necessarily varies, and for which no minimum establishment was adopted.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases of misery and absolute starvation of which I have the facts in my hand, and which have arisen, I will not say from discharges, but from dismissals recently?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are no dismissals in connection with the work I am speaking of. That work varies from time to time, as in the case of a private firm. There is

  7
  no establishment and no minimum, and we always take on the hands as they are wanted.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is there no hope for these people at all?
  Mr. RICHARDS: Is there any limit to the term of suspension? Is it for six months, twelve months, or two years?
  Mr. HALDANE: We take the hands on as they are wanted. There is no establishment in connection with this work.
  Lord BALCARRES: Does he mean to say that no discharges are taking place from the Ordnance factories although these boys have received notices saying that their services will not be required after such and such a date?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Noble Lord has really mixed the matter up. The contract is that the boys are employed up to the time they are twenty-one. They are notified when they are twenty-one. There is no dismissal or discharge, but the contract is adhered to.
  Mr. HUGH LEA: Will he say whether the treatment given to these boys, which is similar to that given to boy telegraphists in the post-office, is one of the most fruitful sources recruiting the unemployed?

  Gold Coast (Judicial Procedure).
  Mr. BROOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the reduction of the sentence passed upon Herbert Vivian Denton for maltreatment of a native of the Gold Coast he can inquire whether the Governor of the Gold Coast would extend the same clemency to Albert Watson, who is now serving as a prisoner in Portland on the same charge?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Any representations made on behalf of the convict Albert Watson will be forwarded to the officer administering the Government of the Gold Coast.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the judicial procedure in the Gold Coast Colony permits a white man to be tried by a black jury without the power by a white prisoner or his counsel to demand a mixed jury or a white jury; and whether a black man may demand to be tried by a
  8
  black jury, by a white jury, or by a mixed jury in the Gold Coast Colony?
  Colonel SEELY: The person charged with a criminal offence has a right to demand trial by assessors instead of trial by a jury, but in the case of certain offences which are considered more appropriate for trial by a jury he must elect to be tried by assessors at the time when he is committed for trial, and he will thereupon so be tried unless the judge, for reasons stated, directs otherwise. The offence committed by Watson and Denton was an offence of this character. Further, if a person accused is not a native of the Colony the Court may direct that a number of the jurors, not exceeding one-half of the jury, shall be jurors who are not natives of the Colony. Subject to this, I understand that the composition of the jury in any case depends on the names of the jurors summoned as drawn from the ballot box, and that no discrimination is made on grounds of colour. I may add that elaborate provision is made by law for the exercise of the right of challenge of individual jurors by the prisoner as well as by the Crown.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do I understand that while the judge may direct that a white prisoner may be tried by a black and white jury, that it does not lie in the power of the prisoner or prisoner's counsel to demand that he should be tried by a black and white jury?
  Colonel SEELY: It lies with the counsel for the prisoner, as I understand the procedure, and I have been investigating it, to ask for a mixed jury, and the Court may decide whether they will grant it or not as it thinks fit.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it the fact that in East Africa the white man can demand trial by a mixed jury?
  Colonel SEELY: The circumstances surrounding trial by jury in the different African Colonies constitute a very complicated legal question. Although I have some knowledge of it from the investigations which I have made, I would sooner not give a decisive reply now, but if the hon. Gentleman would put down a question on the precise point I shall consider it.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand that the whole question of the procedure of Courts in relation to black and white men in British West Africa and elsewhere is being considered?
  Colonel SEELY: Before making any change of this kind in West Africa it would be necessary not only to consult the Governors, but also the judges who administer justice there. I have requested the adviser of the Colonial Office on legal matters to consider the whole question and report to the Secretary of State.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was aware that V. W. Denton and Albert W. Watson were tried by a negro jury in the Gold Coast Colony and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for an alleged assault on a negro convict; whether the sentence on V. W. Denton had since been reduced by the Governor to six months' imprisonment; if he had been released from confinement; if so, what was the reason for reducing the sentence on V. W. Denton and for setting him free; whether the sentence is to be reduced for A. W. Watson; and if he would also be immediately released, and on what grounds?
  Colonel SEELY: The persons named were tried before a native jury and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour for intentionally and unlawfully causing grievous harm to a native who was accused of theft. The sentence upon Denton was reduced to one of six months, and he has been released. I am unable to say whether the sentence of A. W. Watson will be reduced. This is a question to be decided by the officer administering the Government of the Colony. It would be contrary to all precedent to state the reason for reducing or for proposing to reduce the sentence on any convict.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the Government has considesed those cases and the weight of the sentences upon those prisoners in relation to the nature of prison life in the Colonies of West Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes. I am glad to say that none of those men served any appreciable portion of their sentences in the Gold Coast. The question as to how far white prisoners should be removed to a temperate country is a wider question and one which I do not think I could elucidate by a reply now.

  West India Steamer Service.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether a steamer of the Elder, Dempster, and Company's line will call at Bermuda on
  10
  both the outward and homeward voyages, and how often; whether Bermuda pays any subsidy to the company for this service; and what is the amount of subsidy paid by the British Government to Elder, Dempster, and Company for the West India service?
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad to say that the Legislative Council of Jamaica has agreed to arrangements being made for the "Port Kingston" to call at Bermuda on the homeward, as well as on the outward, voyage, every six weeks. Bermuda has provided a sum not exceeding £900 a year to enable £100 to be paid for each call on the outward voyage. The conditions of the call on the homeward voyage are not yet known, but it is understood that they are not likely to involve any payment by Bermuda. The contract of the 12th April, 1900, with Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Company provides for the payment, of a subsidy of £40,000 a year, of which £20,000 is paid by the United Kingdom and £20,000 by Jamaica.

  African (Eastern and Central) Mails.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether this Government pays all the cost of carriage of British mails, parcel post, etc., between England and our Eastern and Central African possessions, or whether any contribution is made by these territories; and by what line of steamships this postal service is conducted?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The mails for British East Africa, Uganda, and Zanzibar are generally conveyed to Aden by the P. and O. packets, and thence by British India packet or by German packet. The mails for Nyassaland are conveyed viâ Aden or by the Union Castle Line viâ Cape Town. In the case of the British lines payment is made by the British Post Office, which receives from the Protectorate Post Offices the transit rates on homeward correspondence. In cases where foreign services are used transit rates are paid under Postal Union rules by the Post Office which despatches the mails.

  Major Capell's Position.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked what is the position held by Major Capell, lately retrenched from the post of head of the South African Constabulary in the Orange River Colony, in British East Africa; what is the salary he receives; what did he receive as head of the South African Constabulary; and what

  11
  prospects are there of Major Capell receiving an appointment in the Colonial service more in keeping with his important and responsible services under Lord Kitchener, under Lieutenant-General Baden-Powell, and as head of the South African Constabulary in the Orange River Colony?
  Colonel SEELY: Major Capell was never actually the head of the South African Constabulary in the Orange River Colony, though he was acting in that position when he was retrenched. He is at present acting as an Assistant District Commissioner in the East Africa Protectorate, and presumably is drawing the usual salary of that office—namely, £250 a year. As second in command of the South African Constabulary in the Orange River Colony he received £900 a year. It is very unlikely that the Secretary of State will be in a position to offer Major Capell a substantive appointment at present; though he would be glad to do so if it were possible. It must be remembered that there are many candidates from other parts of the Empire who have claims to senior appointments such as the hon. Gentleman indicates.

  Canton-Hankow Railway.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked what reply has been received to the protest addressed to the Chinese Government against the acceptance of the German loan for the building of the Canton-Hankow Railway?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): An answer was received from the Chinese Government on 14th April, generally defending their action, but the contention of His Majesty's Government that the conclusion of a loan upon terms which contained no guarantee as to the proper expenditure of the funds is a breach of the spirit of the 1905 agreement was not touched upon. This has been pointed out to the Chinese Government.
  Mr. LONSDALE: What was the nature of the defence of the Chinese Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think I have answered that question.

  British Missions in the Congo.
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet succeeded in obtaining any redress or satisfaction from the Belgian Government
  12
  in regard to the withholding of sites in the Congo to the British missions; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in regard to the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The point on which the hon. Member seeks information is dealt with in the latest Memorandum from the Belgian Government, and it will, I think, be more convenient to discuss it when that communication and the reply of His Majesty's Government are laid upon the Table of the House. As I have already stated the reply is still under consideration, but I hope it will be ready shortly.

  Congo Natives and Land Tenure.
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked if any steps, and, if so, what steps, have been taken by the Belgian Government to bring about that immediate amelioration in the lot of the natives of the Congo in respect to the recognition of native tenure in land and freedom to dispose of the fruits of the soil, asked for in the British despatch of 4th November last?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is the same as that given to the hon. Member's preceding question.

  Persia (Foreign Intervention).
  Mr. REESasked whether an armistice was granted to Tabriz in consequence of the intervention of the representatives at the Court of the Shah of Great Britain and Russia; and whether, seeing that such armistice gave an advantage to the Parliamentary forces, he would explain the reason for this intervention in the domestic politics of Persia?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The reason for this step was to facilitate the provision of food for the foreign subjects at Tabriz, who were in imminent peril of starvation, and to avert an attack upon the foreign Consulates which had been threatened.
  Mr. REES: Was an effort made to obtain a safe conduct for these Europeans, which would have been equally or more efficacious?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Every effort was made to supply food to Tabriz without the intervention of foreign troops.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Who was it that made the attack on the Consulates was it the Nationalist or the Royalist troops?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: An attack was threatened from the starving population.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether an effort was made to obtain a safe conduct out of Tabriz for the European population, and whether on the refusal of that these steps were taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Member be good enough to put down a question on the point?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Was there any arrangement as to the terms or limit of the occupation?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not sure that there will be an occupation; possibly the introduction of food will do away with the necessity.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has food been supplied to Tabriz?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not yet, I believe.
  Mr. REESasked whether any British subjects in Tabriz were actively aiding the Parliamentary as against the Royalist forces, and, if so, whether such British subjects would be duly arraigned under the Foreign Enlistment Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is reported that one British subject was taking an active part on the side of the Nationalists. I am not aware of any provision of the Foreign Enlistment Act which, in present circumstances, would apply to such a case.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Enlistment Act applies only to British subjects who enlist in the military service of a foreign State at war with a State friendly to this country, and that it does not apply, and cannot apply, to a population struggling for freedom against a tyrannical monarch?
  Mr. REES: Is a British subject blameless in taking part in a domestic quarrel of this sort, in which the Government of his country is pledged not to interfere?

  Liberia Frontier Force.
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the frontier force raised and commanded by British officers in the Republic of Liberia for policing the frontier bad been recently disbanded; if so, could he make any statement as to the circumstances which led up to its disband-
  14
  ment; and was it intended to re-establish the force?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The disbandment of the force was necessitated by the inability of the Liberian Government to keep it in regular pay, and the consequent discontent of the men composing it. It is stated that the Liberian Government are enrolling a small frontier police force under Liberian officers, but I am not otherwise aware of their intentions as regards the re-establishment of the force.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is that force sufficiently strong to police the country?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable to say.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Was this force supplied or controlled by this Government, or was it a force of volunteers controlled entirely by the Liberian Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was not supplied by this Government, but there were British and European officers.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Was it under the control of this Government in any way?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Oh no.

  Deer Forests, Loch Fyne.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland had yet obtained information in regard to the declared intention of the proprietor of the estate of Ardkinglas, Loch Fyne, to convert into deer forest four farms on his estate, employing 48 men; and would he state whether the Government proposed to take such steps as might be necessary to arrest the continued extension of the deer forest area in the crofting counties, especially bearing in mind the repeated pledges given by the late Prime Minister and other leaders of the Liberal party in regard to sporting areas?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am informed that there is not and has not been any intention as suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Congestion in Lewis (Migration Scheme).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the cottar population in the island of Lewis, with their families, represented a population of 7,500, and that the landward committee of the Stornoway Parish Council had sub-

  15
  mitted to the Congested Districts Board a list of cottars willing to migrate to the mainland, if he would state whether the Board had yet examined the list, and, if so, with what result; and, seeing that it was now upwards of three years since the Board were pressed to give effect to a scheme of migration, and were supplied by the Member for Ross-shire with a list of cottars willing to migrate from the island to the mainland, would he state what efforts had been made to secure the requisite land and the cause of the delay?
  Mr. URE: The particulars obtained and submitted by the landward committee have now been carefully examined by the Congested Districts Board, with the result that the Board are not satisfied that migration on these lines offers the prospect of any practicable mitigation of the cottar problem of the Lewis. The information obtained will be borne in mind; but it is not intended to take any further steps at the present time. The list sent by my hon. Friend was received in March, 1908, not three years ago.

  Certification of Deaths (Scotland).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that during the years 1903–7 there were 2,915 uncertified deaths in Ross-shire and Inverness-shire, would he state what action the Local Government Board for Scotland propose to take to secure certification of deaths in the Highlands and Islands?
  Mr. URE: No action can be taken without legislation, which is not at present in contemplation by the Government.

  Island of Lewis (Assessments).
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate whether he could state the arrears of assessments in the island of Lewis which were levied up to and including the financial year 1907–8; what was the amount of these assessments for the current year, and how much of this was still uncollected, and what remained unexpended of the bank advance granted, on the guarantee of the Treasury, in November last to meet the pressing necessities of local government?
  Mr. URE: As the information required by the hon. Member contains a long statement of figures it will be circulated with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that under the recent decision of the Stornaway Sheriff Court and subsequent appeal, the proprietor of the island of Lewis had been relieved of nearly 50 per cent. of the rates for which he was formerly held to be liable, would he state how the shortage thus created in the rates for the parishes of Lochs, Barvas, and Uig was to be made up, especially bearing in mind that the crofters and other ratepayers in these parishes already found difficulty in paying the rates at present levied on them?
  Mr. URE: The decision of the sheriff is now under consideration, and I am not at present prepared to interpret its effect upon the other ratepayers.
  Mr. WEIR: Is it not the fact that a decision has been given on appeal by the Sheriff Principal?
  Mr. URE: The Sheriff Principal has given a decision and I am at present considering what its effect will be on the liabilities of the ratepayers.

  Crofters' Grievances (Inverness-shire).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that quite recently the Congested Districts Board had expended the sum of £86,250 for the purpose of acquiring 48,500 acres of land in Inverness-shire for the settlement of the people, whereas there had been no expenditure for a like purpose in the other crofting counties, would he state whether there was no prospect of the law-abiding crofters and cottars in those counties haying their grievances dealt with until they, too, took forcible possession of the land in the manner adopted by the people of Barra, Vatersay, and other districts in Inverness-shire?
  Mr. URE: As my hon. Friend is aware, the present Government is not responsible for the expenditure of £80,000 out of the £86,250 referred to. I must, on behalf of the Government, repudiate the suggestion contained in the concluding part of the question, the responsibility for which must rest with my hon. Friend.

  Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he was aware that practically all the Scottish Members supported the proposal to put Scottish Poor Law medical officers in the same position as regards right of appeal as their brethren in England and Ireland; and if the Government would afford facilities for the second

  17
  reading to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in order that the case might be duly considered in Committee?
  Mr. URE: I am aware that the Bill referred to receives considerable support. Parish Councils, however, are by no means unanimous in the matter, and without evidence of more general concurrence on their part the Government are not prepared to adopt the course which my hon. Friend proposes.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary for Scotland, in reply to a deputation a year and a half ago, promised that this matter should receive consideration when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was before the House?
  Mr. URE: He has given it consideration and found that the local authorities are not by any means in universal agreement on the subject.

  Austrian Fleet ("Dreadnoughts").
  Mr. REESasked whether any information would be obtained regarding the intention of Austria to add four or more "Dreadnoughts" to her fleet?
  The FIRST LORD Of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply to my hon Friend's question is in the affirmative.

  Devonport Dockyard (Castings).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could inform the House what was the average amount of tonnage in brass and metal castings supplied by contractors for the dockyard at Devonport during each of the three years 1903 to 1905 and 1906 to 1908, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: The quantities of brass and metal castings supplied by contractors during the periods mentioned are as follows:—

  1903

  3

  cwt.

  1904

  8

  cwt

  1905

  397

  cwt.

  Average per year, 6 tons 16 cwt.

  1906

  141

  cwt.

  1907

  665

  cwt.

  1908

  563

  cwt.

  Average per year, 22 tons 13 cwt.

  Devonport Dockyard (Moulders).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would
  18
  inform the House what was the average number of moulders employed in producing brass and metal castings in the foundries at Devonport Dockyard during each of the three years 1903 to 1905 and 1906 to 1908 respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: The average number of moulders employed in the foundries at Devonport Dockyard producing brass and metal castings, including iron castings, were as follows:—

  During the three years 1903–05

  72

  During the three years 1906–08

  39

  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: How is it that the number of moulders has fallen off to such an extent, seeing that the quantity of castings required from outside so largely increased?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only assume that the number of moulders employed in the dockyard was the number required for the work to be done in the dockyard itself. The work done by outside contractors would not be included in this.

  "Dreadnoughts" (Dry Docks).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state how many dry docks there were on the east coast of Great Britain into which a damaged "Dreadnought" could enter if she was drawing more water than ordinarily through having some of her watertight compartments flooded; and how many dry docks capable of taking a battleship of the "Dreadnought" type in similar circumstances were possessed by Germany?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are none on the east coast of England. There are understood to be five in Germany.
  Mr. LONSDALE: How many docks of this capacity are in course of construction in Germany?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the Admiralty taking any steps to provide these most important docks?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I believe it is common knowledge that a dock is being built at Rosyth.
  Mr. LONSDALE: How long will it be before the dock at Rosyth is completed?
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Have the Admiralty any intention of availing them

  19
  selves of the opportunity of completing a dry dock suitable for "Dreadnoughts" at Immingham on the Humber?
  Mr. McKENNA: We are discussing that question at this moment.

  Distribution of British Fleet.
  Mr. FELLasked what was the strength of the British fleet in the Pacific Ocean, and how many ships there were on the China and Australian Stations respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: In addition to torpedo craft, gunboats, etc., there are on the
  CHINA STATION:—

  4 Armoured Cruisers,

  2 2nd Class Cruisers,

  2 Sloops,

  and on the
  AUSTRALIAN STATION:—

  1 Protected Cruiser, 1st Class,

  3 2nd Class Cruisers,

  5 3rd Class Cruisers,

  1 Sloop in reserve.

  Two sloops are employed on the West Coast of America. A cruiser from the China Station and another from the Australian Station are at present cruising in the Pacific.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do I understand that there is not a single first-class battleship in the China or Australian seas?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that would be inferred from the reply.

  Fleets in Mediterranean.
  Mr. FELLasked what was the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet at the present time; and what was the strength of the fleets in the Mediterranean of France, Italy, and Austria, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will circulate the answer with the printed papers. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Torpedo Destroyers (Speed).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the speed of the destroyers of this year's programme would be 33 knots, according to Lord Tweedmouth's unfulfilled announcement as to the destroyers of last year's programme; if their speed was not to be 33 knots, what would it be; and would he state their displacement and armament?
  Mr. McKENNA: The design of the destroyers of this year's programme is under consideration.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: How long is it going to be under consideration? The matter is very urgent.

  Dry and Floating Docks for "Dreadnoughts.'
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many dry docks capable of docking "Dreadnoughts" shall we have in the North Sea in 1916 to balance the seven which Germany will have at that date?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not in a position to answer that question, as graving docks can be constructed in less than seven years, and floating docks in less than two years.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Yes, but, Sir—[Cries of "Order, order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be in an argumentative mood. He can only ask a question now. He must found his argument upon it hereafter.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I beg your pardon, Sir; I was only in a catechetical mood. But I want to know whether or not we will be inferior to the Germans on the date mentioned?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible to say what number of docks we shall have in the year 1916, as we do not know how many will be built between 1909 and 1916.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: How many docks shall we have on the East Coast in 1912 when we will have 17 or 21 "Dreadnoughts"?
  Mr. McKENNA: The East Coast, 1912? It will depend upon the number of floating docks we shall have then.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: May I ask whether the Government intend to do anything on the East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two floating docks provided for in the Navy Estimates for 1909–10 will be capable of accommodating ships of the "Dreadnought" type?
  Mr. McKENNA: The designs are under consideration.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will they accommodate "Dreadnoughts"—that is the point?

  Bakeries (Hours of Labour).
  Mr. B. S. STRAUSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can take steps, through his inspectors, to prevent master-bakers forcing their employés to work seven days a week?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): There are no provisions regulating the duration of the employment of workers in bakehouses other than women and young persons, and I have no power, therefore, to take action in the direction suggested. The observance of the provisions in the Bread Acts as to baking on Sundays which my hon. Friend perhaps has in mind is not a matter for which my Department is responsible, and it would not, in my opinion, be desirable for the factory inspectors to intervene. It is open to any person aggrieved, or any member of the public, to take action.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it the intention of the Home Office to introduce legislation to regulate the hours of labour in bakehouses?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: There is a Bill that deals with the subject before the House now, and we have informed the promoters that if a second reading is given we shall not offer any opposition to it going to a Select Committee.

  Barrow-in-Furness Gangway Disaster.
  Mr CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any Report of the inquiry on 20th April into the gangway disaster at Barrow-in-Furness; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay such Report upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have received a Report of the proceedings at the inquest from the inspector who was present on behalf of the Home Office, but the inquiries of the Department are not yet completed, and I have nothing which I can usefully communicate to the House at present on the subject of the accident.

  Atlantic Postal Facilities (Queenstown).
  Mr. WILLIAMSONasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a memorial from the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Liverpool, and also signed by the chairmen of the shipowners' associations and those of the principal merchants' associations, requesting the Government in the public interest to allow the two
  22
  fast steamers "Mauretania" and "Lusitania" to proceed direct to New York, avoiding the delay at Queenstown, in order that the mails leaving Liverpool on Saturday may be delivered in New York on the Thursday following; and whether he will give favourable consideration to the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have received the memorial to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have answered it in the sense of my reply to the question addressed to me on this subject on the 21st instant by the hon. Member for East Northants.
  Mr. WILLIAMSON: Is it not the case that if the loss of time at Queenstown were avoided the mails would be delivered in New York at the latest by the first delivery on Friday instead of during the day on Friday as at present; and would not the mails for other parts of the United States, by the omission of the delay at Queenstown, be delivered 12 hours sooner than under the present arrangement?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: That I cannot answer at present. If the hon. Member will refresh his memory with the answer he will see that the real difficulty is this: that if we adopt the suggestion in the question it will involve an entire loss on this side except at Liverpool, and one or two places near.
  Mr. WILLIAMSON: Is it not the case that the City of London is almost half closed on Saturdays for business, and that the sending of the mails on Friday—
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: On a point of order, may I ask if such questions are allowed whether we will be allowed to answer them by other argumentative questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER:I think the Postmaster-General will give a sufficient answer.

  Fair Wages Clause (North Woolwich).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Government contractors for electric apparatus at North Woolwich are not complying with the fair wages clause; and whether he will call upon them to supply him with a list of the rates of pay and hours of labour worked by the employés?
  Mr. BUXTON: An allegation to the effect stated by my hon. Friend has been made, and I am making inquiry.

  British Museum (Administration of Natural History Collections).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to representations made by four professors of zoology with respect to the administration of the natural history collections of the British Museum; whether he will consider as to the desirableness of appointing a Committee to inquire into the relations that should exist between the officer appointed to take charge of these collections and the Trustees of the Museum; and, further, whether, having regard to the scientific and technical qualifications essential to the officer in charge, the natural history branch of the Museum would be more efficiently administered if placed under separate direction and control?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am in communication with the Trustees of the British Museum upon the subjects raised by the hon. Member's question.

  Budget Statement.
  Mr. BELLOCasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the publication in "The Times" newspaper upon Wednesday, the 21st, of certain Cabinet decisions relative to the Budget; whether the details so published were authorised to be published by the Government; and, if not, whether any steps have been taken to discover through what channel the information was conveyed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the paragraph in question. These conjectural divinations of alleged Cabinet decisions should be received with caution—especially at this time of the year. The Government, of course, had nothing to do with this particular publication.
  Mr. BELLOC: May I ask for an answer to the last thing in my question, in view of the fact that it has never happened before in the whole history of English journalism—no, never?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that the Government had nothing to do with it.
  Mr. BELLOC: Have any steps been taken to ascertain how Lord Northcliffe got the information?
  The PRIME MINISTER: What information?
  Mr. BELLOC: The information he printed as coming from the Cabinet?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said that it was a pure matter of conjecture.
  Mr. BELLOC: It was not printed so.

  House of Commons (Admission of Strangers).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House any opportunity of discussing the Report of the Select Committee on the Admission of Strangers; and what course he proposes to take with regard to the Houses of Parliament Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am in communication with Mr. Speaker on the subject of the hon. Member's question, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a question to Mr. Speaker on this day week.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I will give notice.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Mr. TALBOTasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance to the House that the second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill will not be proceeded with until the House has had an opportunity of considering the evidence laid before the Royal Commission on the progress of the Church in Wales?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to give the assurance asked for.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Prime Minister if he will state what diocese the parishes now belonging to the See of St. Asaph in Shropshire will be transferred to, or will they constitute the Diocese of St. Asaph if the Welsh Disestablishment Bill becomes law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Under the provisions of the Bill it would be the duty of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to attach the parishes referred to in the question to the appropriate English diocese to be determined by them.

  New Post Office (Market Drayton).
  Mr. STANIERasked the Postmaster-General if he has acquired the land necessary to build a new post office at Market Drayton, or does he propose to lease a building; and, in either case, when will the new premises be begun?
  Mr. BUXTON: A proposal is now in hand for taking a suitable office on lease. It is not yet possible to say when the building operations can be begun.

  Royal Scottish Museum.
  Mr. GULLANDasked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Royal Scottish Museum, in which the danger to the museum by the proximity of spirit stores is again stated; and whether he is taking any action to prevent the possible risk of fire?
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the grave danger involved to the Royal Scottish Museum by the inflammable nature of the spirit stores, which approach within six feet of this great collection, he intends to take steps to remove those dangerous buildings?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lewis Harcourt): As this question (No. 51) and the succeeding one are practically identical, my hon. Friends will perhaps allow me to answer them together. I have long been aware of the danger to the Royal Scottish Museum from the neighbouring spirit stores, and I am glad to say that, after prolonged negotiations, I have within the last few weeks succeeded in purchasing the site. I cannot, however, obtain complete possession until Whit-Sunday, 1910, but as soon as possible after that date the site will be cleared.

  County Councils (Education).
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the names of, and the amount estimated by, the five county councils who have already made a statement as to the cost of carrying out the instructions contained in Circular 709?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Walter Runciman): The counties which have submitted estimates of the cost of carrying out the staffing improvements required by Circular 709 are:—

  Gloucester

  £6,932

  Herts

  £2,000

  Devon

  £4,350

  Bucks

  £966

  Cheshire

  £1,000

  With the exception of Devonshire, none of these county councils have submitted detailed estimates showing the effect of the Circular on particular schools, and I cannot therefore say whether, in forecasting the financial effect of the Circular, these councils have shown that regard for economy which they will no doubt do
  26
  when the Circular comes into operation, or whether advantage has been taken of the greater freedom of classification permitted by the Circular as compared with the existing code. A detailed estimate was received from Devonshire on Saturday last, and is now being analysed.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for more detailed information before the Circular is put into operation considering the enormous call on the rates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There will be no delay in the matter.
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether, as the cost to the rates of the change contemplated by Circular 709 of the Board of Education is being over-estimated, he has taken steps to obtain from all such authorities without delay a detailed estimate of such cost; and, if not, will he do so?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am taking every opportunity which presents itself of obtaining detailed estimates of the cost to the rates which local education authorities anticipate will result from the changes announced in Circular 709, and I will certainly examine any such estimates as are sent to me. I doubt, however, whether all authorities are in a position at present to submit well-considered estimates, and I am reluctant to press them in the matter.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Does the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the Treasury are prepared to find the necessary funds for this?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any questions on that subject must, of course, be addressed to the Treasury.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: The right hon. Gentleman says he is not desirous of pressing the local education authorities. Considering the importance of the circumstances, would it not be desirable to press them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as my experience goes, I believe the local authorities are very careful of their own interests. The effects foreshadowed in Circular 709 will not come into operation suddenly, but gradually.
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give the names of those local education authorities who have made very wild estimates as to the cost

  27
  that would be entailed on the rates by carrying out the instructions issued in Board of Education Circular 709?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My information on this point is not always direct, and is derived in some cases from reports in the Press of statements made by members and officials of local authorities. I think some of them would prefer that I should not mention their names till they have had an opportunity of reconsidering their estimates. I shall, however, in due course, be quite ready to substantiate my statement.

  Small Holdings Act.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the inspectors appointed under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, who were formerly inspectors under the Diseases of Animals Acts, had any practical experience of agriculture, estate management, or land valuation; and, if not, whether the Board will take steps to ensure that inspectors appointed in the future shall possess such experience?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD: (Sir E. Strachey): All the inspectors in question have had practical training.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Member state what steps the Board have taken to ascertain what qualifications these gentlemen have? May I press for an answer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member must put the question down.
  Mr. GEORGE HARDYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a sub-commissioner for Suffolk to assist in the developing of the Small Holdings Act, as, up to the present, only 569 acres have been allotted for the whole county, only 54 acres being through the West Suffolk County Council?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir, we shall at once appoint a Special Commissioner for Suffolk so soon as it is apparent that the provision of small holdings in that county would be expedited thereby. The county council have recently submitted schemes to the Board for the further acquisition of 295 acres.

  Hop Substitutes.
  Sir JOHN BARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer is there any efficient
  28
  check upon the correctness of the amount of hop substitutes entered in the brewing books as being used in the manufacture and preservation of beer; is there any penalty to which brewers are liable if they neglect to enter the quantity of hop substitutes used in the brewing or preservation of beer in the column provided for this purpose in the brewing books or for incorrectly entering the same; if so, what is the penalty, and has it ever been enforced; and are all chemical preservatives used in beer entered in the column provided for hop substitutes?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The brewer is not required by law to make entry in his brewing book of hop substitutes, which do not fall within the category of brewing materials in the Beer Duty Act. The entries are voluntarily made, but the Excise Authorities have no reason to doubt their accuracy. The answer on each of the other points is in the negative.

  Sports (Gate Money).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the revenue that might be secured to the country by the Government taking for national purposes one-half of the gate-money taken at all cricket, hockey, football, and horse and dog racing meetings; and if he will take the necessary steps to consider the same?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has doubtless taken the necessary steps to consider the hon. Member's proposal.

  Indian Councils Bill.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, before the Report stage of the Indian Councils Bill is taken, he will furnish the House with particulars of the rearrangement of that portion of the First Schedule to the Government of India's Despatch of 1st October, 1908, as set out in Cd. 4426, in order that the House may be made acquainted with the manner in which effect is to be given to the proposal for the establishment of a non-official majority in the provincial legislative councils?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (replying in the absence of Mr. Buchanan): The details of the scheme are under the consideration of the Government of India, and the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to give the particulars asked for.

  Gold Reserve (India).
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the actual gold reserve at present at disposal of the Indian Government; how much of this gold is deposited in London, and how much in India; and whether the whole of the profits on coinage of rupees is being devoted to maintaining and increasing this gold reserve, in accordance with the recommendation of the Fowler Commission of 1898?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that my hon. Friend's question relates to the gold standard reserve. This reserve is now held in British and Colonial Government securities, and in rupees to the following amounts:—
  Securities: Nominal amount, £8,383,000.
  Cost price, £7,946,000.
  Rupees: 1,588 lakhs (£10,587,000).
  It is hoped that a portion of the rupees may be remitted to England to be invested in sterling securities in 1909–10. As the Secretary of State informed the hon. Member for Hythe, in reply to his question on 9th July, 1907, it has been decided to apply half the future profits on coinage to supplement the funds available for capital expenditure on Indian railways.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Edward Law expressed a very strong opinion that the gold standard reserve should remain intact and should not be invested in securities?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. I believe some such opinion as that was expressed at the time; however, the Government of India deemed fit to depart from the recommendations then made.
  Mr. SMEATON: Does not that seem singular, having regard to the fluctuations of the exchange?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (was understood to say): That is a matter of opinion.

  Indian Councils Bill (Mahomedan Electorate).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will communicate to the House, before the Report stage of the Indian Councils Bill is taken, the text of the telegram from the Government of India regarding the Mahomedan electorate, which was read by the Secretary to the Treasury on the occasion of the Committee stage of the Indian Councils Bill [Lords]?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend will find the text of the telegram accurately reproduced in the report given in "The Times" newspaper.
  Mr. REES: Is that the last word upon the subject?

  Attack on British Levies in Zhob Valley
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can furnish any information as to an attack on British levies in the Zhob Valley?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Government of India have reported that a detachment of thirteen of the Zhob Levy Corps, escorting rations, was attacked on the morning of 20th April at close quarters in a narrow defile by a large number of armed men, who killed eleven of the levies and escaped across the Afghan border, taking carbines and ammunition. The identity of the attacking party is not yet established, but they are believed to have been a gang of outlaws.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What action are the Government going to take?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are endeavouring to obtain the identity of the outlaws first. Until that is established no definite action can be taken.

  Old Age Pensions (Roscommon Appeal).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in considering the appeal in the case of Patrick Cunlish, Corskeagh, Strokestown, county Roscommon, the Local Government Board held claimant's income to exceed £31 10s. because he enjoyed it during most of the 12 months preceding the date of decision; or whether they hold that the claimant deprived himself of his means in order to qualify for pension?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Local Government Board inform me that Patrick Cunlish held a farm of 42 acres, in respect of which he paid a purchase annuity of £18 11s. In October last he assigned all his land, stock, and goods to his son, and applied in November for a pension. The pension officer having appealed against the decision of the local pension committee to allow a pension, the Board determined that Cunlish was not entitled to any pension, having regard to the terms of section 2, sub-section 3 and section 4, sub-section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act.

  Armagh Orangemen (Procession Interrupted).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Easter Monday a party of Armagh Orangemen, who were proceeding in orderly procession along the public road, were stopped by the police at Killymaddy, and compelled to go by a circuitous route to their destination, so that they arrived late for their meeting; and whether he will state on what grounds the police authorities took this action, having regard to the facts that there were no indications that the procession would be opposed, that there have been no disturbances in the district hitherto, and the utmost good feeling has prevailed among all sections of the people.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police heard on Good Friday that two Orange bands intended going to the opening of an Orange Hall, at Derrycreevy, on Easter Monday, by way of Battleford Bridge, a route which lies through a Nationalist locality, and has not been used by Orange Bands for 60 years. It is about two miles longer than the direct route. The bands, though warned by the police that they would not be allowed to adopt this proposed route, attempted to do so, and it was only with much difficulty that they were made to take the direct road. Any delay which occurred was due to the action of the bands in defying the police.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the route chosen was the county road, and was the shortest route between the two places; and is he aware that the district is not a Nationalist district, although on some portion of the road there are some Nationalists living?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not exactly know how that is, but I am very anxious that matters should remain as they were. This route has not been used by Orange bands for the past 60 years, and my conservative instincts lead me to preserve that state of things.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there was no suggestion of an attack, and that no disturbance occurred in the district before?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are all liable to provocation.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Why on this occasion should there be provocation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is now arguing.

  Untenanted Farms, Queen's County.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the 11 months' grazier named Mole is endeavouring to create a tenancy with the object of purchasing the untenanted farms of Park and Lyrogue, on the Hopkins' estate, Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's Country; whether the Estates Commissioners have been requested to purchase those farms for division amongst the small holders in the locality; and can he say what steps, if any, they have taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet arrived at any decision on their inspector's report in reference to this estate.
  Mr. DELANY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this untenanted land is very much required by the people?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are well aware of the facts.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Has the landlord or the land agent of the Hopkin's estate returned Mole as a tenant in occupation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that.

  PRESENTATION OF BILL.
  Mr. MACLEAN—Leaseholds (Enfranchisement).—Bill to provide for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholds, (To be read a second time 10th May.)
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (RETURN ORDERED).
  Address for "Return of all Sentences of Corporal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic, c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences under Section 43 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales from 21st December, 1907, to 31st December, 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 147, of Session 1908)."—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered:—
Clause 1 (Amendment of Constitution of Legislative Councils).—(1) The additional members of the councils for the purpose of making laws and regulations (hereinafter referred to as legislative councils) of the Governor-General and of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the members of the legislative coun-

33
cils already constituted, or which may hereafter be constituted, of the several Lieutenant-Governors of Provinces, instead of being all nominated by the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor in manner provided by the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, shall include members so nominated and also members elected in accordance with regulations made under this Act, and references in those Acts to the members so nominated and their nomination shall be construed as including references to the members so elected and their election.
(2) The number of additional members or members so nominated and elected, the number of such members required to constitute a quorum, the term of office of such members and the manner of filling up casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, or resignation duly accepted, or otherwise, shall, in the case of each such council, be such as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act.
Provided that the aggregate number of members so nominated and elected shall not, in the case of any legislative council mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, exceed the number specified in the second column of that schedule.
The EARL of RONALDSHAYmoved, in sub-section (1), after the words "with regulations made under this Act," to insert the words "provided that the ratio of Mussulman and Hindu representation on all representative bodies, from the rural boards upwards to the Viceregal Council, be fixed by executive authority, and that in every case in which any seat on a representative body thus assigned to the Mahomedan community is to be filled by election, the necessary electorate be composed exclusively of Mahomedans."
The object of moving this Amendment, as hon. Members will see from the Paper, is to ensure the carrying out of a promise which was given to the Mahomedan community two and a-half years ago by the Viceroy, a promise which was subsequently reiterated and emphasised by the Secretary of State on the second reading of the Bill. The promise was to the effect that in the event of political privileges being extended to the peoples of India the Mahomedan community would be secured a share in those privileges commensurate not only with their numbers but with their historical and political import-
34
ance. As to the methods by which it is proposed, or was proposed, to secure those ends, I shall have something to say in a moment, but I should like first of all to associate myself entirely with the Viceroy and the Government of India in their decision to grant to the Mahomedan community a share in those new privileges in excess of their actual numerical strength. The claim based upon historical reasons I do not think can be ignored. Hon. Members will recollect that it was from a Mahomedan sovereign that the East India Company acquired their rights in three of the richest provinces in India. It was a Mahomedan sovereign whose paramount influence was recognised by the East India Company, and many of the Hindu Chiefs are very proud of the titles presented to them by Mahomedan kings. The political importance of all this cannot be gainsaid, and in attempting to form a just estimate of the political importance of the Mahomedans we must cast our eyes far beyond the confines of the Indian Empire. We must remember that countries with whose destiny the destinies of our own country as an Eastern Power are indissolubly woven—Afghanistan, Persia, and Turkey—are countries peopled by Mahomedans, and are centres of Mahomedan power. But the influence of Mahomedans does not stop there, for we find that this race spreads itself over Africa, Central Asia, and some parts of China. Therefore, upon historical and political grounds alone, Mahomedans have a just claim to a substantial share in any political privileges which may be granted to the peoples of India.
But there is a further reason why the Mahomedans should be granted representation in excess of their actual number, and I think it is one which will appeal to hon. Members as having greater practical validity than those reasons which I have already mentioned. The reason I allude to is that there are millions of people included for statistical purposes among the Hindus, who, as a matter of fact, are not Hindus at all. If hon. Members can bring themselves to delve into the monstrous Blue Book presented by the India Office not very long ago—which, so far as arrangement is concerned, may be justly claimed to be the triumph of chaos over order—they will find the following memorial from the Dravidians to the Government of Madras:—
"The differences between the Hindu and the community of the memorialists are so great that it is a

35
deplorable mistake to regard them as forming a part of the Hindus. There has been existing for centuries enmity and hatred between their community and that of the Hindus."
That is only a single example, but I think it shows that it would be absurd to class these men, who number something like one-sixth of the total population of Madras, among the Hindus for representation purposes, though I have no doubt they are classed amongst them by the statistician. I quite agree that it is a very difficult thing to arrive at any accurate conclusion as to what the number of this class may be. One authority estimates them at 50,000,000, while the statisticians of the India Office estimate them at 88,000,000. That is sufficient to show that it would be grievously unjust to the Mahomedans to base their amount of representation upon a purely numerical basis. That being so, and the Government having come to the conclusion that the Mahomedans ought to be granted representation in excess of their actual numbers, it remains to be decided how this change is to be brought about. Upon that point the Mahomedans themselves had, and still have, very distinct and definite ideas. They maintain, and I think they very justly maintain, that this need cannot be supplied unless the Government accept two main principles, which are as follows: In the first place, the Mahomedans should be assigned a number of seats on the representative bodies in excess of their numerical strength, that number in all cases to be fixed by Executive authority. The second principle is that whenever one of these seats assigned to the Mahomedans by Executive authority is to be filled by election the electorate should be composed exclusively of Mahomedans. I understand that the Government of India and the Government at home have accepted those two principles. I think the speech of the Viceroy and the speech made on the second reading by the Secretary of State for India puts that matter absolutely beyond dispute. May I remind the House of the words used by the Viceroy two and a half years ago in replying to the Mahomedan deputation which waited upon him? He said:—
"The pith of your address, as I understand it, is a claim that in any system of representation whether it affects a municipality, a district board, or a legislative council, in which it is proposed to introduce or increase an electoral organisation, the Mahomedan community should be represented as a community, and you justly claim that your position should be estimated not merely
36
on your numerical strength, but in respect to the political importance of your community, and the service it has rendered to the Empire. I am entirely in accord with you."
That is a pretty definite expression of the Viceroy's opinion, and he was entirely in accord with the Mahomedan deputation when they demanded from him these two principles. The words of the Secretary of State were no less definite, indeed, I think, they were more definite, and I will therefore venture to read to the House the words used by the Secretary of State for India upon the second reading of this Bill in another place. He said:—
"The Mahomedans demand three things. I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation from them, and I know very well what is in their minds. They demand the election of their own representatives to these councils in all the stages just as in Cyprus, where, I think, the Mahomedans vote by themselves… Secondly they want a number of seats in excess of their numerical strength. Those two demands we are quite ready and intend to meet in full."
I do not think even such a master of lucid explanation as the Prime Minister could have improved upon the lucidity of that pledge which was given by the Secretary of State for India in another place. It may be asked why, after those definite pledges, I should have thought it necessary to move my amendment. It is because something like consternation has been created in the minds of Mahomedans here and in India by the speech made in this House last week on the Committee stage of the Bill by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He read a telegram as to the methods by which it was proposed to secure elections to these various bodies, and the telegram read as follows: "The method proposed is simply that in general electorates, such as municipalities, district boards, and members of provincial councils, all sects and classes, including Mahomedans, will vote together." I ask the particular attention of hon. Members to these words: "All sects and classes, including Mahomedans, will vote together." The words appear to me to constitute a direct reversal of the pledge given by the Viceroy. How the Government propose to reconcile their action with their promises passes my comprehension; but that is not all. The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "By this means some, but not sufficient, representation will be obtained for Mahomedans, and in addition a certain number of seats will be reserved for the Mahomedans, and nobody but the Mahomedans." That is in force at the present time. What does the Government of India say as to

37
this system? In a circular of August 24th, 1907, paragraph 16, the Government of India said: "Under the system of election hitherto in force, Hindus largely predominate in all, or almost all, the electorates, with the result that comparatively few Mahomedan members have been elected. These have been supplemented by nomination made by the Government." But even so, "the total representation thus effected has not been commensurate with the weight to which the Mahomedan community is entitled." I should like to ask the Government how, by this mixed electorate, the Mahomedans will secure representation? How do they know? They do not know. They cannot know. If you take the united provinces, in which there is a large and important Mahomedan community approximating to 7,000,000 in number, you will find that under the system hitherto in force no single Mahomedan representative under a mixed electorate has ever found his way to a provincial council. May I take the case of the proposed reconstituted council of the Viceroy as an example? As I understand it from the information at our disposal, there are to be 28 elected members to the reconstituted council. Five of the memberships are to be reserved for Mahomedans. The remaining 23 seats are to be filled under a mixed electorate. The Government of India tell us that under a mixed electorate Mahomedans will secure 12 per cent. of the seats on the legislative council. If the system works as the Government think it will work, the Mahomedans may possibly get seven elected members out of the 28 elected members. No one would regard that number as an adequate representation for the Mahomedans, still less as an adequate representation if they are promised to have a representation in excess of their numbers. May I add that the leaders of Mahomedan thought would not recognise a representative who is elected by others than Mahomedans. Every Mahomedan would say that every elected person of an electorate not exclusively Mahomedan will not be in the least the sort of man to represent real Mahomedan interests. I have one other thing to say. What Mahomedans say is that as far as every elected Mahomedan is concerned they require an exclusively Mahomedan electorate, as promised by the Viceroy. If they receive that they are quite willing, and are even anxious, to forego the privilege of voting for the election of every other electoral body. They would be quite content to
38
have their own members and elect their own members to the councils. If an hon. Member thinks that I have put an exaggerated case, or that I have said more than is really in the minds of the Mahomedan leaders, I ask his careful attention to this cable from India, which was received during the past week in reply to a speech of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. "The Times" Correspondent at Lucknow cables as follows:—
"The Mahomedans are indignant at what they conceive to be the violation of the pledges given by Lord Minto and Lord Morley guaranteeing separate electorates. They consider Mr. Hobhouse's statement in the House to mean that the Government accepts Mr. Gokhale's proposals, which would virtually place the Mahomedans absolutely in Hindu hands. Under mixed general electorates Congress Mahomedans will be freely elected to count as genuine Mahomedan representatives. Mahomedans protest against the surrender of their rights at the dictation of political agitators and are demanding separate electorates throughout."
I commend these words also to the attention of hon. Members:—
"Meetings of protest have been arranged everywhere."
This telegram was dated April 21st.
The second telegram to which I will call attention is from a Mahomedan of great influence amongst his co-religionists in India, a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council and one of the leading Talukdars of Oudh (Rajah of Mahmudabad), and this telegram is as follows:—
"Protest against supplementary election. Demand separate electorate, otherwise reforms useless."
And the third telegram is also from a Mahomedan of influence (Nawab of Dacca), and his telegram reads as follows:—
"A mass meeting of 6,000 Mahomedans held here under my presidentship, three resolutions passed—the first opposing nomination, the second insisting upon separate election, and the third upon representation in excess of numerical proportion."
I think anybody who reads these telegrams, which are the result of the speech of the hon. Gentleman last week, must realise that the Mahomedans throughout India are at present suffering under a sense of grevious wrong and of grievous injustice. They consider that the pledges which were given to them in the most explicit language by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State are being broken. And may I say this, in conclusion, that I personally have no desire whatsoever to identify myself with one of the great communities of India rather than with another. I have no reasons for espousing the cause of the Mahomedans except this, that I believe, in the first place, that their demands are not only just, but that they are expedient under the present circumstances; I believe, in the

39
second place, that the Government have told them that they intend to meet the two demands to the full; and, thirdly, I espouse their cause on this occasion because I foresee that if the Government of this country follow on a course which is in any way calculated to shake the faith of any great community in India in the inviolability of their pledged word they are going far to undermine the whole fabric of British supremacy in India. I beg to move.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I rise to second the Amendment. I rather feel, after the speech of my Noble Friend, that it is for the Government to say why there is this disparity between the telegram read by the Secretary of the Treasury and the words of the Secretary of State in another place. My objection to this Bill throughout has been the risk of raising difficulties in our great Dependency of India, and I cannot but feel that if the Bill goes forward on the lines proposed the want of compliance with the legitimate and just demands of a great people will leave a rankling sense of injustice, and that sense of injustice must remain unless some explanation is given by the Secretary to the Treasury. There will, I say, be a rankling sense of injustice among the whole of the Mahomedan community. That is not a small community, but a very large proportion of the whole of the people of India, and I am bound to say that I regard it as a portion which has in the past been very loyal, and perhaps to-day is more loyal than the bulk of these people who have been agitating for these reforms. It would be a very serious matter if we were to arouse hostility in the minds of these people who have been so very loyal to us. The Bill, I know, is practically passed; only a few questions remain, and our duty is to arrange the representation in such a way as to create the least sense of injustice in a portion of the community. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury how he can reconcile the speech of the Secretary of State for India in the House of Lords with the telegram he read the other day? The telegram in no way carries out the pledge of the Secretary of State for India that there should be separate electorates and representation in excess of the numerical proportion. The question is how you can best carry out the provisions of this Bill; how you can make all classes of the community in India happy and contented under the provisions of the Bill, and how to make the Act a real
40
success. I do ask the Secretary of the Treasury to give us some assurance and some explanation that the pledge of the Noble Lord will be carried out in its entirety, and that the two demands will be met in full.
Question proposed: "That the proposed words be there inserted."
Earl PERCY: When I raised this Question on the Committee stage of the Bill I said I should not move an Amendment on the subject, because it had been generally agreed that questions of this kind settling the relative numbers of different populations in India on the council should be left to be settled by regulations, and not dealt with in the Bill. I am not sure either that the Amendment of the Noble Lord, although it has been very skilfully drawn and supported in a most excellent speech, will exactly meet our case. In the first place, I am rather doubtful whether it is competent to insert in a Bill dealing with the Viceregal Council a question of election to the municipal and district boards, and, furthermore, although the Noble Lord proposes that the ratio of representation of Mussulmans and Hindus should be fixed by Executive authority, he has not put into his Amendment what is perhaps equally important, that that ratio should be in excess of the representation to which they would be entitled on a strictly numerical basis. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend is bringing this Amendment forward with a view to a Division, so much as with a view to eliciting some information from the Secretary to the Treasury, and from that point of view I support what he has said. If I was not sure I understood the telegram as read on the last occasion, I am quite sure that, on reading it again, it is absolute nonsense. The version of the telegram as given in the Official report of the Parliamentary Report is as follows:—
"The method proposed is simply that in general electorates such as municipalities, district boards, and members of provincial councils, all sects and classes, including Mahomedans will vote together. By this means some, but not sufficient, representation will be obtained for Mahomedans, and none but Mahomedans will have a voice in filling these. They may be filled in many ways, by election pure and simple, by election by associations, by electoral college, or by nomination, as the circumstances of each province require. Methods will vary in different provinces, and will be subject to alterations from time to time in individual provinces as experience may dictate."
That telegram seems to me on the face of it to be somewhat contradictory. My Noble Friend took it to mean on the last occasion that the Government had already receded from the position of separate

41
Mahomedan election. The view he takes to-day is that there are to be a certain number of seats on these councils which are to be specially reserved for the Mahomedans or filled by the Viceroy or a separate Mahomedan electorate, and that there are to be a certain number of other seats that will not be specially reserved for Mahomedans, but for which Mahomedans will be eligible, and for which there will be mixed electorate. If that is so, I think my noble Friend is really justified in saying that it does not meet our case or the demands put forward by the Mahomedans. It means that instead of increasing the proportion of these seats to be set apart for the Mahomedans they are to be put on the off chance of being out voted by Hindus at the mixed election. We may think that the Mahomedans are wrong in supposing that that is an entirely derisory offer. I instanced in Committee the case of Eastern Bengal, where, under the Bill, the Mahomedan portion number three-fifths of the inhabitants, and to that province are only to be definitely allotted on the council two seats—one-thirteenth of the whole council. That is obviously inadequate. The hon. Gentleman may say that in a province where Mahomedans constitute three-fifths of the electorate surely they will be able to secure representation on the mixed electorate; but it has been pointed out that they have never been able to secure adequate representation on the provincial council for the United Provinces, and in one district, at all events, in the Punjab, where they are in an enormous preponderance of population, they have not been able to obtain more than one seat on the district council. The hon. Gentleman may say that granting their chance of securing additional representation on the mixed electorates may fail, they can always be made good by extra nominations by the Viceroy. To my mind, there is always something ridiculous in holding back these nominations until you see the result of the election of the electorates. Virtually you say you will do your best to neutralise the choice of the Hindus by nominating a Mahomedan, or the other way about. That is clearly not a satisfactory arrangement, and, at all events, whether there be Mahomedans or not, nobody can help saying from the announcements published in the Press that the telegram read on the last occasion has created widespread unrest. One hon. Member—I think for Montgomery Boroughs—said on the last occasion that there was no good in rais-
42
ing this question unless we had a substantive proposal to submit. As a matter of fact, it seems to me there is a more simple way of carrying out the pledge which the Secretary of State gave, namely, to accept the proposal which, I understand, the Mahomedans have made to renounce the right of voting in joint electorates, and to increase the number of seats specially reserved for them in order to secure that their representation shall be in excess of that to which they are numerically entitled.
I cannot myself see any other basis upon which the pledge of the Secretary of State can be redeemed. I have no doubt whatever that he intends to redeem the spirit and the letter of it, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement this afternoon which will allay the serious apprehensions which threaten the success of the Bill.
Mr. J. D. REES: I confess to a considerable sympathy with the case put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey, and, if I may say so, the broad spirit and wide method in which he proved his case, and if there are any who do not sympathise with his estimate of the Mahomedans in this matter they certainly will not be found amongst those who, like myself, found it their duty and pleasure to study the language of the Mahomedans and to associate with them. I sympathise most deeply with their position at this present juncture, and, like my Noble Friend opposite, I am disappointed with the telegram read out. For that reason I put down a question to-day to know if it was correctly reported, and also asked the Secretary to the Treasury a supplementary question, whether or not that was the last word on the subject, and I assume from his not having answered that in fact it was. I think in very many speeches in this House the influence, the power, and the position of the Mahomedans have been unduly depreciated. If there was any doubt about it, surely recent events in the Turkish Empire show that the old school of Conservative Mahomedans are not dead there yet. Neither is that school dead in India. I confess that I think that this matter has been dealt with in the wrong spirit in this House in many quarters. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham said, I see, that the Mahomedans, numbering tens of millions, represent the lowest classes of the people. It is quite natural that my hon. Friend, who represents the intellectual aristocracy of the

43
Babus, should make that remark, but I take it that the Imperial Parliament has to deal with this Question from the point of view of large interests, and that on no account are the lowest class to be ruled out of account. On the contrary, it is for those classes we are bound to speak, for they have not newspapers at their command and are not subsidised by lawyers and landlords; and, in point of fact, they are very likely to be left out, and but for a Member here and there who is acquainted with them they are very likely to be left unrepresented in this House. We must not forget, too, that the Mahomedan is a democratic religion, and that ought to appeal to some of my hon. Friends, who are not very forward in presenting their case. It is the most democratic religion in the world, and it is a proselytising religion, and its numbers therefore increase, while Hinduism is a conservative corporation, and they make up their vast numbers by assuming, much in the same way as the Church assumes in Wales, that anyone who does not call himself a Mahomedan is a Hindu, whereas in Wales anybody who does not call himself a Free Churchman, considered to be a member of the Church. Therefore the disparity between the Hindus and the Mahomedans in India is by no means so great as is habitually represented, and I claim that, on historical, racial, physical, political, and every other possible ground, they are entitled to the utmost sympathy from this House. I do not say that they have not received it from the India Office. On the contrary I think the Noble Viscount met Mahomedans in the most friendly spirit, and gave them the most satisfactory assurances. I will not refer to the meetings which I have noted have taken place and the feelings which have been evoked in India, because my Noble Friend has sufficiently dealt with them, and it is desirable that two Members should not speak on one subject, but I take it that when the case of a great community, which represents no small proportion of the subjects of the British Crown, is misrepresented in this House, or when a Member surmises that it is misrepresented, it is the duty of that Member, on an Amendment like this, to call attention to the matter.
I find, again, my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham said that Bengal was after all the critical province, and that anything which might be called a Mahomedan question was a Bengal ques-
44
tion. I do not think that is accurate. I cannot imagine anything further from the facts, and I should say Bengal was for the very reason he gave, that they are recent converts, not to be regarded as a Mahomedan province in the sense in which we refer to Mahomedanism as a great separate religion. He then said that the majority of the Mahomedans in India were practically one and the same people as the Hindus, and the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington could never have spoken of them in the way he had referred to them, as a body, if he had the slightest knowledge of, or the least acquaintance with, the facts of the case. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington was far nearer the fact than the hon. Member for East Nottingham, and I would ask the hon. Member whether he has ever heard of the zeal of the convert? Does he imagine that because people are recent converts, they are not zealous upholders of the religion to which they have gone over? The exact contrary is the case. Find a recent convert to Roman Catholicism in England and you will find one that never misses mass in the early morning and preserves every feast of the Church with the utmost scrupulosity. It is very much the same in India. Take those very Mahomedans of whom my hon. Friend spoke. Those who are the descendants of the converted Hindus or of mixed blood who live on the Malabar coast. They are such fanatical Mahomedans that special laws have had to be passed to suppress assassinations and outrages and their activity in sectarian efforts of every sort. Nothing more contrary to the facts could be laid before the House than the statement which has been made, that it is impossible to tell the difference between a Mahomedan and a Hindu by language, conversation, and manner of life. And all this Mahomedan agitation, of which so much is heard in England (says the hon. Member for East Nottingham) is not so much a representative agitation, but one of certain sects of Mahomedans. If you substitute for Mahomedans, Babus, you have the hon. Member's case. But we want to give the people of India freedom, and freedom should consist in doing what the people concerned themselves want, and not what a section of this House wants them to want. I submit that the case is proved, and that Mahomedans have very clearly made out their case for the most favourable treatment. But for what has been stated, however, I should not have dwelt upon that, because I think the Noble Viscount has in the most clear and free

45
manner admitted it. To revert to the telegram which was read, I confess that I was disappointed in it, because of the first sentence, to the effect that the method proposed is simply that in general elections, such as municipal, district boards, and provincial councils, all sects and classes, including Mahomedans, should vote together. That is the mixed election to which, rightly or wrongly, these people object. I think I can understand their objection. Having lived a great deal amongst them, I can sympathise with their objections; but at any rate they are their objections, and, as such, if we are considering the germs of representation in India, of which I am not in favour, surely the feelings of the people concerned are the chief matters we have to consider.
On the other hand, I do not at all object to the proposal and suggestion that any failure which occurs to the Mahomedan to get proper representation through elections should be made up by nominations. On the contrary, I think that is a very excellent proposal, and I think that those Mahomedans who are not stirred up by the neighbouring agitation of the Hindus against them will be satisfied with nomination for the majority of their seats. They do not care for representation; the only thing they are afraid of is that a man who is not a representative Mahomedan, but a man who rows in with the Hindus, should, through Hindu intrigue, or machinations, be appointed to represent them. That is all that they object to, and there, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey a little overstated his case. If the Secretary of State and the Indian Government can arrange to give the Mahomedans more than proportionate representation, which they want, I myself do not think that they would press too hard with regard to the matter of election. It seems to me that this matter is capable of arrangement, but if the Noble Lord presses his Amendment, and if the hands of the authorities in India are tied, by a provision of the law, I think it may be more difficult to effect a satisfactory settlement than it will be under the very elastic system proposed by this telegram taken as a whole, though the first part of it, I freely admit, is to me extremely disappointing. I think that is the portion of it on which the Mahomedans have fastened, and to which they have taken very great exception. The Hindus, of course, have taken objection to communal election—
46
they would. There is an effort on the part of what is called by the Blue Books the professional middleclass, it is commonly called by the name of the Babus—I do not use that term as anything but a term of the utmost respect; it is a term of respect, which the educated classes in Bengal apply to themselves, and if it connotes any other meaning or signification I do not use it in that sense, and it can only be due to the characteristics of the Babus—I use it in a proper respectful manner, and I say there is an effort being made by the Babus to get the greater part of the power given by these reforms into their own hands. Everybody knows that, and there is no harm in it. It is as clear as crystal, but on the other hand, it becomes those concerned to see that a great community, far more powerful, if once you get from writing to fighting, and from faction to action, are not overlooked in this matter and kept from their fair share of this representation. I confess that I do credit to the utmost the assurances given by the Noble Viscount, and nobody can deny that this is a most difficult matter to settle. It may be said to leave so much under this Act to the Government of India is to adopt by the way a kind of personal rule. Well, Sir, I accept that. I think that personal rule if you get the right person is the best rule for India. The more there is of it and the less Parliamentary provision there is for the government of India, the better it will be for that country and for the people of India, except for the small class I have described as Babus. They want to govern the country instead of us, and we have to say that we shall continue to govern it, instead of them, and while I urge the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to rise and make the first part of this telegram more palatable, or to get something from the Government of India more satisfactory to the Mahomedans, who I think, not without reason, are disappointed in the first sentence, I would urge upon my noble Friend opposite that he will not really be serving the cause which he has at heart and has so well espoused, if he proposes further legislative provisions, tying the hands of the Government of India and the Secretary of State.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Before the Under-Secretary replies, may I say that I have some difficulty in following the line of reasoning by which this Amendment is supported. We have always been advised to trust the Government of India, the Viceroy and his council, to know what is

47
best or what is good for the interests of India. The Bill proposes to do that, and the Amendment now before the House proposes to lay down a hard and fast rule and to instruct the Government of India how it is to set about its task. The Noble Lord the Member for Kensington instanced two cases, Eastern Bengal and the Punjab, where, despite the fact that the Mahomedans are in a considerable majority, they have not succeeded in returning representatives to the provincial councils. May I point out the absurdity in which the Noble Lord's own proposal would land us if assented to. By his own admission and by universal knowledge the Mahomedans have the electoral power and the numbers to return their own people to represent them. They refuse to do so. They do not use that power, and what is being asked is that the Viceroy and his council shall impose upon these people representatives whom, by their own choice, they say they do not want to have. Surely the thing is absurd upon the face of it.
The evidence adduced by the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment as to the burning indignation that exists among Mahomedans at the speech of the Secretary for the Treasury is somewhat scant. He quoted three telegrams, one from the editor of a Mahomedan newspaper, a most excellent man, and very fair-minded, but who cannot be accepted as an unbiassed witness; another from the Nawab of Dacca, and I do not think anyone who knows even a little about Eastern Bengal will say that the Nawab of Dacca is authorised or entitled to speak for Mahomedan opinion in that province, and the other from a member of the Viceroy's Council. The Mahomedans have representative institutions which are capable of voicing their opinions when occasion requires, but we have no evidence whatever that these have taken any exception to the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury. There seems to be a desire on the part of those supporting the Amendment to avoid inflicting a sense of annoyance or injustice upon Mahomedans. With that we all concur. But why not the same susceptibility in regard to the sense of injustice on the part of Hindus? Why distinguish this one section of the Indian people for this special favouritism and this special treatment? In the past they have not taken advantage of the educational facilities offered by the Government or of the opportunities for taking a share in the Government of the country. I want to see
48
the Mahomedans represented in proportion to their strength and their numbers, and I hope the idea of a mixed electorate will be adhered to. Allocate the number of Mahomedans who are to be elected and leave them to be elected by a mixed electorate, as I understand is now suggested should be the case, and leave to the Government the nomination of the extra representation proposed to be given, which it may be taken will represent the interests of that sort of sectarian Mahomedan, because there is a sectarian Mahomedan and a Nationalist Mahomedan—in, for example, the province of Madras, which the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey quoted a memorial from to the effect that there had been the most bitter enmity existing in that province for centuries between Hindus and Mahomedans.
Lord RONALDSHAY: It was not between Hindus and Mahomedans, but between different classes of Hindus. He has classed them together as Hindus, and I quoted it to show how absurd it was to class all these people as Hindus.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I had misunderstood the Noble Lord. The point I was about to make is that the present representative of Madras, elected by a Hindu population, is himself a Mahomedan, but he is a Mahomedan who is an Indian first and a sectarian religious Mahomedan afterwards, and the great advantage of the mixed electorate is that it trains the peoples of India, both Hindu and Mahomedan, to vote, not because of religious differences, but to vote as citizens having a common interest in the good government and well being of the nation. I hope therefore that the Government will not accept the Amendment now before the House, and what whatever regulations are to be framed for giving effect to the provisions of this Bill, whilst doing justice to the Mahomedans, will not secure it at the expense of injustice to their Hindu fellow-subjects.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am certain the Government have no reason to complain either of the tone or the substance of anything which has fallen from Members of the House during the Debate this afternoon. The subject which has been raised by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey is, as everyone must be aware who knows anything of India, a subject of which it is impossible to overrate the importance. The Indian population unquestionably is divided into

49
two great classes, the Hindus and the Mahomedans, and it is quite as important, in propounding reforms of the character of those put forward by my noble Friend in another place, that the Mahomedan community should be satisfied that those reforms are in their interest, and devised to meet their difficulties, as in the case of the Hindus that they should be satisfied from their point of view. The Noble Lord the Member for Kensington has pointed out very justly that the Amendment which is moved from the other side of the House is one which the Government cannot possibly accept, but it is due to the House that I should make perfectly clear what the intentions of the Secretary of State are in this matter, which is of no slight importance. The intention of the Amendment is that some Executive Authority should fix a ratio between the Mahomedan and the Hindu in legislative councils, in municipalities, and in the district and rural boards which constitute the local Government of India, and it would also lay down that all Mahomedan, and therefore I presume all non-Mahomedan voters should be classified and registered upon separate lists. I think there has been a very considerable amount of misunderstanding as to the intention and meaning of a telegram which I read in this House just a week ago from the Viceroy on this point. One or two hon. Gentlemen this afternoon have said there was some mistake as to the words which fell from myself, but I think those words were very definite upon this point. Speaking just after the Noble Lord upon the Amendment which raised this question I said:—
"My Noble Friend the Secretary of State has authorised me to make the statement that he stands by his declaration and that he does not abate it in any way whatever."
Nothing, I think, could be more clear as to the intention and meaning of my Noble Friend, but there has been undoubtedly some misunderstanding of the telegram from India, and it appears to be thought both by hon. Members in the House and by a certain section, I am not sure how many of Mahomedans in India, that there is some intention on the part of the Government of India and of the Government of this country to depart from pledges which were explicitly given by the Viceroy in October, 1906, and by the Secretary of State the other day in the House of Lords. I think it is just as well that we should see exactly what these pledges were.
50
The Viceroy said that the Mahomedan community claimed that in any system of representation, whether affecting legislative councils, municipalities or district boards, they should be represented as a community, and he expressed his entire accord with their views. There was no departure from the view and the policy thus expressed by the Viveroy and the policy declared by my Noble Friend in another place when he spoke last month there. He said that he had received a deputation from the All India Moslem League, but the Mahomedans demanded the election of their representatives to these councils in all stages, and that demand he was ready and willing to fulfil. There can be no ambiguity about either of these statements, but anyone who is acquainted with either the Government of India or the work in the India Office here at home is perfectly aware that the absolute strict fulfilment not only of the spirit but of the letter of any undertaking of this sort—it refers to the case of elections not only to the legislative council but to these other bodies—means a separate register for Mahomedans and for those who are non-Mahomedans. The necessity for this arises from the fact that these bodies form the constituencies from which, eventually, will be elected the members of the legislative assembly, whenever the election takes place. It is necessary, therefore, that in framing any rules and regulations which shall provide for election to any of these bodies, the Government of India must necessarily consult the provincial authorities, and that the provincial authorities must, in turn, consult a number of local bodies under their control, and that looking to the size of India, not only to the division of two great classes of inhabitants but to the different customs, traditions, and social habits of the various peoples who inhabit that great continent, these provincial authorities find in the course of their inquiries that it is perfectly impossible to apply a uniform system under which the principle can be carried out. The Noble Lord thinks that he has detected some divergence between the views expressed by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State and the views expressed in the telegram from the Government of India. I confess I think that that divergence, if divergence there be, is due to the difficulties which are experienced by the Government of India in making the inquiries to which I have just referred. The

51
first sentence of the telegram is this: "The method proposed is simply that in general electorates" and so forth. That is only a proposed method, and that is where, I think, a great deal of the misunderstanding has arisen. The Government of India have made inquiries, and in the course of making inquiries they discovered the difficulties in carrying out what they want and we want, and which they say we have given most distinct and definite pledges to propose. That does not mean that the telegram necessarily closes discussion. It does not mean that they have done more than propose to the Secretary of State certain things. It does not follow that because there are difficulties experienced in the government of India that those difficulties are either permanent or fundamental, and I can assure the Noble Lord opposite that every endeavour will be made by the Government of India and by the Government at home to remove any sort or kind of obstacle which may be found to lie within our power to the carrying out of the pledges which have been given before this House. I would beg the House to understand that it is quite impossible, looking to the diverse conditions to be found in every province, to set up a set of rules for elections which shall be uniform and identical, and that is the whole difficulty which, as anybody who knows India, knows must lie with the Government in trying to carry out the pledges we have given to the House.
Mr. REES: The first sentence of the telegram was of universal application, and I asked at question time if that was the last word.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid my hon. Friend misunderstood the answer I gave to the question. This is not the last word on the subject at all. This is information given by the Government of India to the Secretary of State as to the progress of the policy which is being carried out in confirmation of the pledges given on the part of the Government to this House. Before I sit down I would add one sentence, and it is that wherever elections are found possible they shall be conducted on the basis of separate representation of the Mahomedan community.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with great interest and satisfaction to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I think he was in some difficulty with regard to the telegram from the Government of India, and I confess
52
that from re-reading that telegram I cannot help thinking that there has been some error in transmission, or that there is some other flaw in it which has not yet been explained. In the first place, it was pointed out by my noble Friend the Member for Kensington that it is really nonsense as reported in the "Official Report." It is, unfortunately, all I have got. The way the telegram reads is: "That the method proposed is simply that in the general electorates, such as municipalities, district boards and members of provincial councils, all sects and classes, including Mahomedans, will vote together." That clearly is the only meaning. It means that the system of mixed representation, as the system has been called in these Debates, the ordinary representation, as we should call it in this country, where every individual unit is not differentiated from the other units, and where in each separate constituency the electorate vote, and the member returned is not returned as the representative of a minority, but simply of the majority of all these various units taken together. That is what the first sentence means, and it is the only meaning it can possibly have. But that is not the policy of the Government. Nothing can be clearer than the original statement of the Viceroy, and the subsequent statement of the Secretary of State for India, and nothing can be clearer than the repitition and endorsement of those statements by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. But, of course, they are absolutely inconsistent with the only possible interpretation that can be put on the first sentence of the telegram from the Government of India, which is all we have to go upon, and we must take it. If there is any difference of opinion between the Government at home and the Government of India, I do not wish to emphasise it. If it can be explained that the telegram has suffered corruption in the course of transmission, I shall be glad to hear it, but in any case we understand that the first sentence of the telegram from the Government of India, read in its ordinary grammatical and rational sense, does not represent the policy either of the Government at home or the Government of India. In other words, the representation of the Mahomedan communities in all classes of institutions, whether local, provincial, or central, is not to follow the rule laid down by the Government of India in the first sentence of this telegram; it is to follow the entirely different rule originally stated by the Viceroy, then by the Secretary of

53
State, and now stated for the third time by the Secretary to the Treasury, namely, that so far from all sects and classes, including Mahomedans, voting together, the Mahomedans are to vote on a separate register, and with a separate representation from all other classes. I hope I have made that quite clear. I hope it is quite clear that the Government of India have either imperfectly expressed their own opinion, or that their opinion has been recognised by the Government as in contradiction of their declared policy, and that this telegram, which was read a week ago by the Secretary to the Treasury, does not represent the policy now either of the Government at home or of the Government of India. If I am right there—I wish to be corrected if I am wrong—that is so far satisfactory.
May I venture to point out to the House why I regret that some embodiment of this principle—the principle which now animates the Government—cannot be introduced into the Bill. I quite recognise the difficulties, but I wish to point out why I think those difficulties are difficulties to be regretted. This measure has been represented in popular discourse, if not in the discourse of its framers in the other House, and by others in this House, as a Bill which confers something in the nature of representative institutions in India. If that is the fundamental and underlying principle of the Bill, then future Governments, in interpretating the measure, will undoubtedly think this separate register for Mahomedans, and the undue numerical preponderance given to Mahomedans, is to be regarded as a temporary violation of the fundamental and general principles underlying the measure. If the Bill is a measure giving representative institutions to India on the general principle universally accepted in countries like this, then, of course, it is absurd to have separate registers for separate portions of the community, and it is still more absurd to give them exceptional numerical representation on account of their historic position in India. I think myself that that is an absolutely justifiable, and even a necessary policy, but I think if so great a violation of commonly accepted principles of representative government are really to be the outcome of this Bill, it is a pity that we do not put words in the Bill which shall make it clear not to the present Government, or to their immediate successors, but to future Governments of India that that is not the principle which the Government had in
54
view when they asked Parliament for and obtained from Parliament assent to that proposal. That is not their view. Their view is, and I believe it is the right view, that you cannot regard India as a homogeneous community, that you cannot simply count heads, and that you cannot regard them as a community in any sense, however remote, comparable to, say, the inhabitants of these islands, or the United States of America, or our self-governing Colonies, or those countries on the Continent which have adopted representative institutions. There is no analogy between the two, and from the beginning down to the very root of these proposals they are introducing differences which show that they recognise that you cannot say so, and that it is impossible to extend to India principles which are commonly accepted, and rightly accepted, in Western Europe. I think it would be of great advantage if we could make that fact patent on the face of the Bill. The Government declare in the most explicit language that they are going to give to Mahomedans a larger share of representation on these councils than the number of Mahomedans would justify. I understand that the House generally, with the exception of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and perhaps some other Members, endorse the view of the Government. Then I think some words not binding the Government of India as to details, but some words showing on the very face of the statute what are the views which Parliament has had in making this great experiment in India, would be in the highest degree expedient, and although I admit that the words of my Noble Friend's Amendment cannot be embodied in the Bill, I think it is very desirable that some words of a general character should be embodied in the measure. It is impossible, I think, for hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in this subject not to feel that there is a certain absurdity in the form of legislation which we are asked to pass in this matter. This Bill is a blank cheque, and nothing but a blank cheque, to the Government of India as it exists to-day, and as it will exist in five, ten or fifteen years' time. The Government have elaborately and carefully taken precautions that there shall be nothing in this measure, nothing in the words of the statute, which shall prevent any future Government of India doing exactly what they like with the representation. This Government have pledged themselves to give undue representation to Mahomedans. Nothing in the

55
world would prevent some other Government from giving undue representation to some other community.
The Mahomedans have put in a plea for a separate register, because they say that without a separate register they will not get even their fair numerical representation, and still less will they get the extra representation which the Government wishes to give. I cannot for the life of me see, if a similar claim be put in by other sects—the sects improperly described as Hindu—how you could resist such a claim if made on their parts. If that be the general principle of the Bill which we are discussing now, I think that words should be introduced somewhere to make it quite clear that we trust the Government of India, and that we intend to trust them, not to assimilate the system in India to the system here, but to see that full weight, not necessarily based upon a numerical appraisement of the different elements in the community, should be given to every section of opinion in that country. I confess that I think it is objectionable to discuss as we have been discussing the really vital points of the Bill with nothing to help us as to the manner in which the Bill should be carried out but statements on the part of the Executive Government, which it must be admitted are—if we include the Government of India in that general phrase—very difficult to reconcile one with the other; and if we are going to send this back to India to be dealt with slowly and I hope satisfactorily, but undoubtedly slowly, on principles not in the least embodied in our legislation, then there are difficulties, and there will be difficulties in the future when this system gradually gets developed, of which I think the framers of the measure have very little notion.
I was much struck with one observation made this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr. He observed that in his opinion the Mahomedans not only have no right to any representation other than their numerical proportion would seem on grounds of principle to justify, but that it was absurd for us to take precautions to see that the representation rises to the level which their numbers would justify. It was pointed out by my noble Friend the Member for Kensington that in certain parts of India the Mahomedans had not fair representation on the Council which they could obtain if they had organised their
56
voting powers properly and adequately. I presume the Mahomedans have not done so. Why have they not done so? We say frequently of a section of the community here, "If you do not choose to vote you suffer for not voting." But what chance on earth have the Mahomedan population in India when pitted against all the electoral dexterity and electoral methods of other sections of the community? They have no more chance in that kind of electoral contest than some of the other sections of the community would have if it came to blows. Here you have two sections of the community with electoral knowledge and general habits bred in them by the constant practice of free institutions; but it is quite different in India, and to expect of large sections of your Eastern population that they should learn our methods when their whole method of looking at things is on entirely different lines from ours, seems to me to be utterly absurd. It is quite clear that the very able and highly educated Hindus would beat the Mahomedans at that game, whatever their numbers are; and it really is quite absurd to apply to the millions of India those current practices, perhaps in themselves justifiable from pure reason, in a country like our own or a country inhabited by a population to which we are akin, but which the whole history of the religious, political, and military causes which have made India what it is have made utterly inapplicable to that country. I am sorry that on the face of this Bill there is not one word to make clear what was contained in the speeches of the Government. Nobody could ask for more than has been said by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State in another place, and nobody can ask for a clearer utterance than that of the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I confess, especially in face of this obscure missive from the Government of India, that I do greatly regret that some words cannot be introduced, if not my Noble Friend's words, into the Bill, indicating that we, in this Parliament, recognise that the circumstances of India are so different from our own that we must leave the Executive in that country to do its best in each province and each district in regard to its religion and population in the general interests of justice and humanity.
Sir HENRY COTTON: I have listened with great attention to the extremely impressive speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will allow me to say how much we on this side of the House ad-

57
mire the lucidity and the ability which he has introduced into the discussion. I have risen primarily to speak with regard to the observations made by the Noble Lord opposite in reference to the Mahomedan position in India. I am sorry to be obliged to say that the Noble Lord conveyed a very erroneous impression of the actual state of things in regard to the relations between the Hindus and the Mahomedans. Nothing could be more regrettable than an opinion should go from this House to India that it is believed that the two great communities are in an attitude of permanent and normal antagonism to one another. That is why I so very much regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman in speaking as he did as a champion of Mahomedan representation. It is deplorable, I think, that Members of this House should pose as champions of Hindu or of Mahomedan, instead of remembering that the interests of both are nearly identical. That this is so is recognised by Hindus and Mahomedans themselves. We hear very much of differences, but we hear far too little of the bonds of unity which bind them together.
I will give you an illustration from the United Province. The United Province is the part of all others in India where there is a distinct, substantial and essential difference between the Hindu and the Mahomedan community. The Mahomedans of the United Province are the descendants of the Moguls. They are the descendants of the proud invaders who came from across the North-West Frontier. Their position is essentially and fundamentally different from that of the Mahomedans in most other parts of India, but it is a fact that the relations between the Hindus and the Mahomedans are so cordial and so united that in those provinces when the recent election occurred in the city of Lucknow, which hon. Members know is the capital of Oudh, out of 20 Mahomedan voters no fewer than 14 voted for a Hindu gentleman, and naturally the Hindu gentleman was returned. They did not vote for the Mahomedan; they voted for the Hindu. And such things are common in Bengal. Over and over again Hindus have voted for Mahomedans, and repeatedly returned them to the Council. At the present moment, at the present day, it is done in Madras, where the Hindus form an extraordinary majority of the population. There are far more Hindus in comparison with the population in the Province of Madras than in any other province, and yet year after year the
58
Hindus have returned a Mahomedan to the Viceroy's Council, and he is sitting on that Council at the present moment.
The object of my addressing the House was to record this protest against the impression which must be created by the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey that the relations between these two great communities are at present antagonistic. I protest against any such inference being drawn from his remarks or from the remarks of any other hon. Member in this House.
Mr. REES: What about Tittaghur?
Sir HENRY COTTON: That is an unfortunate interruption. There have been riots and quarrels between the Hindus and Mahomedans in different places, and no wonder; but when you look at the magnitude of the country and the millions and millions of the Mahomedans and Hindus who live together side by side on the most friendly and amiable relations, and who are most cordial and most intimate in their relations, and when you regard a solitary outbreak such as that which has been referred to, the House should not infer that such an outbreak is typical of the normal state of things between Hindus and Mahomedans. That is a false impression which the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to create. The unification of India has been growing ever since the British had relations with that country, and among the important movements in the history and progress of India not the least remarkable of the features which have marked that history during the last 200 years is the tendency towards unification of the community in that great country.
Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: I feel it my duty, with my large experience of India, to support the statement of my hon. Friend about the friendly and kindly relations which exist between the Madomedans and Hindus. In the Rajshahi division where I served, and which consisted of six or seven districts, certainly the large majority of the populations consisted of Mussulmans, and my experience was that the relation between them and the Hindus was of the most friendly character, not only there, but in other parts of India. So far did that friendly relation between them go, that they welcomed one another at their religious festivals—as in the case of one of their most remarkable festivals, known as the Car Festival, in which there is carried on a car the figure of the Hindu Deity, the Mussulmans following. I have risen because I feel it my duty

59
to protest as strongly as I can against what this Bill does, namely, making statutory for the first time in the history of this Empire this discrimination between different religious bodies—I refer to the Empire outside the British Isles. In the Punjab this peculiar discrimination will be particularly unfortunate. A most important section of the population there is the Sikh section, who are the minority. Has the Government done anything to secure for the Sikh minority some special representation? There are two kinds of Mussulmans in India, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham said. There is the cultured Mussulman, the descendant of the old Moguls, and there is the vast population converts, mostly from the humbler ranks of the population, and my opinion is that if this power given in the Bill is put in the hands of that great population you will see results similar to those which we are now seeing in Asia Minor. One of the arguments used is that they are loyal. There is actually no evidence that the Mussulmans are more loyal than the Hindus. I believe that there is an immense amount of loyalty in the Hindus, and that if we balance the one against the other, the balance of loyalty is greatly on the side of the Hindus. We know that the Mutiny was principally a Mussulman rebellion. Very recently we had the great Wahabi conspiracy of the camp at Sittana on the frontier of the Punjab which was kept up by the Mussulman population, which is now by this Bill to be put in a position of special favour. The proposal is of an extraordinary character. The Government deliberately suggest that after the ordinary elections, if a sufficient number of Mussulmans have not been returned, a special election is to be held for their benefit, in order that a larger number may be elected. Imagine applying that principle in any civilised country—imagine applying it in this country. Imagine if a sufficient number of Catholics were not returned at an election in this country, a provision existed by which they were to have a special election in order to return a larger number. The Protestant's in the South of Ireland are an important and distinguished body of men, but I am very much afraid that the result of this movement, which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so anxious to see carried out, would be to introduce into India that hostility which exists between Catholic and Pro-
60
testant in Ireland. On the second reading I said that I hesitated to make this charge, and I hesitate in making it now. I do not say that hon. Members opposite are connected with it, but there are men on the Press, and men working telegrams from India, who are certainly doing their utmost to set the two religious sects one against the other. The Bill will now leave this House, and it is my duty, with my great experience, of the Mussulman populations of India, to make this final protest against the introduction into India of a system hostile to all civilisation, and, I believe, hostile to religious peace in India.
The EARL of RONALDSHAY: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 (Power to Constitute Provincial Executive Councils).—(l) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, by proclamation, to create a council in any province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province, and by such proclamation—

(a) to make provision for determining, what shall be the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of the members of the council; and

(b) to make provision for the appointment of temporary or acting members of the council during the absence of any member from illness or otherwise, and for the procedure to be adopted in case of a difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his council, and in the case of equality of votes, and in the case of a Lieutenant-Governor being obliged to absent himself from his council from indisposition or any other cause.

(2) Where any such proclamation has been made with respect to any province the Lieutenant-Governor may, with the consent of the Governor-General in Council, from time to time make rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in his council, and any order made or act done in accordance with the rules and orders so made shall be deemed to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
(3) Every member of any such council shall be appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and

61
shall, as such, be a member of the Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor in addition to the members nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor, and elected under the provisions of this Act.
Earl PERCYmoved in sub-section (1) to leave cut the words "in any province," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the province of the Bengal Presidency of Fort William." The effect of the Amendment will be to confine the operation of clause 3 to the Province of Bengal. In this, I may point out, we are going some way to meet the Government proposal. We are not, perhaps, as we might have done, following the precedent set by the Secretary of State for India in another place, that is, asking the House to delete, the clause and to reverse the decision previously arrived at. Were we to take that course I have no doubt a more accurate representation would be secured of the real balance of opinion in this House on the subject than we are obtaining. But I quite recognise that were we to propose to delete the clause the result of the division would remain what it was before; but what I think we all desire is a solution which may form the basis of a settlement which will be satisfactory to all parties. When I say "satisfactory to all parties," I do not use the word "parties" in the political sense of the word. Throughout this Bill we have never dealt with the question from the party point of view, and I do not know that we could have given a better proof of our desire to keep this question outside the range of party controversy than the fact that in all the Divisions that have taken place in Committee, while the Government on their side have appealed to the political allegiance of their supporters by putting on the Government tellers, we, on our side have carefully refrained from taking that course by putting on the official tellers of the Opposition. The result has been that the Government have had the advantage of their normal majority, but I think that, if you take Parliament as a whole, the general weight of official Indian experience is on the side of the view which we put forward. In this case we are to assume that the creation of an Executive Council is desirable in the Province of Bengal. I do not say for a moment that we are satisfied that is the case, but at all events we go so far to meet the Government as to say, as we have been able to show, that both the Government of India and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of
62
Bengal are in favour of this change; at all events a case has been made out for the creation of a separate province with a council. What is the real point of difference between the two sides of the House? The Financial Secretary told us, as the result of his own observation and experience in India, that he was convinced the great increase and accumulation of business had made the continuance of the one-man system of government for any province impossible. That may be the perfectly right or it may be the wrong view, but at all events that is not the view held by the Government of India, nor is it the view held by the Secretary of State himself. The Secretary of State in another place held the view that the one-man system of Government was the best for some of these provinces, and the Government of India, in their latest telegram supporting the demand for this clause, have expressly told us that they do not mean to create Executive Councils except in the Province of Bengal. Therefore, on the general question of policy, has any adequate justification been made out for a proposal of this kind? The Government of India told us themselves they did not mean to use this power if they got it. I am glad to say, in regard to Bengal, that the hon. Gentleman may possibly repeat the observations that he made in Committee on the subject of that proposal that in creating an Executive Council for Bengal, we are really making no concession at all, because it is possible to create a council of the kind under the existing law. But having regard to the alteration in the limits of the frontier of Bengal, it would probably be impossible to create the council under the existing law; but even if that were not the case, the power under existing legislation is very different from that which the Government is now asking us to give under this Bill. There is no reason, as I said before, for giving the Government of India power to create Executive Councils in provinces other than Bengal, which the Government of India tell us they do not mean to use. So far as I am concerned, only two arguments have been brought forward in favour of taking that course. One of those arguments is that in matters of this sort the Government of India is a far better judge than we are ourselves. But it seems to me that is an argument which may have a certain amount of justification when you are dealing with questions of administrative detail, but which is entirely out of place when

63
you are discussing an important question of policy in regard to which men of administrative experience have undoubtedly expressed sympathy, but who warn you that you may be taking a wrong step, which, if it is a wrong one, will imperil the security of British rule on the frontier provinces, and hamper the power of Executive officers to deal properly and successfully with emergencies. Apart altogether from that aspect of the question, instead of giving a freer hand to the Government of India, as a matter of fact you will be doing the very reverse. The whole question of the desirability of creating Executive Councils in this province has been seriously affected by the fact that you are proposing to change the character of these councils, the policy in regard to some of the members of these councils as to the necessity of a qualification of administrative experience under the Crown, and when you have suggested that the creation of these councils is to be made the opportunity of appointing a number of Indians. It is the prospect that natives will be appointed to this council which has really altered the clause. What will be the result of giving those wide powers to the Government of India? You will be exposing them to constant agitation and pressure. It will always be open to the agitator to say so long as the Government of India do not use their power that their motive is not the mere consideration of the interests of the province, but some policy with the idea of giving appointments to natives.
As I pointed out in Committee, it is not only the pressure which may be brought to bear on the Government of India through native communities, but it is also the pressure which may be brought to bear on them from home. We know that three months ago the Government of India themselves were very strongly, apparently, against the proposal of creating an Executive Council in the Province of Bengal itself. They have changed that opinion in the last three months. Everybody believes, and I think rightly, they have changed under pressure from the Secretary of State for India. If that is so in regard to Bengal, surely we have no security whatever that the same kind of pressure would not be brought to bear on the Government of India in the future to change their opinions similarly with regard to the other provinces. I think the House, looking at the matter candidly and impartially, must feel, if they
64
were in the position of the Government of India, they would really be in a far freer position to consider the question of setting up an Executive Council if the responsibility was not thrown on their shoulders but retained by this House.
The only other argument in favour of passing the clause as it stands is that by giving the Government of India this general administrative executive power we shall be avoiding the necessity of incurring a fresh waste of time and friction and having to come to this House for fresh legislation. I cannot conceive circumstances under which the creation of an Executive Council in the frontier provinces, would be a matter of urgency, and I do not see much force in the argument. I am not one of those who think it is desirable Indian affairs should come more often before this House than necessary in the shape of legislation. If that is all the objection of the Government of India on this point, then I say, provided Parliament retains effective control and responsibility in regard to the creation of these new councils, I do not attach too much importance to the precise method by which that method is secured, but the important thing is that before you introduce a system of executive councils into those provinces, which existing circumstances render it undesirable to introduce, Parliament should have the effective power of challenging the Secretary of State to explain in what respect the circumstances have changed, and, if necessary, to refuse permission for them. That does not seem to me to be a very extravagant proposal or suggestion to make and I cannot help hoping that the Government will be able to see their way to suggest some form of Amendment which may form the basis of an amicable settlement.
Mr. SMEATON: I regret that the Noble Lord has omitted the Bengal Province from his restrictive Amendment. The Noble Lord, when he spoke of the Government of India not having desired those councils apparently forgot the fact that during the time the Bill was being discussed in another place, the Indian Government sent a telegram expressing the hope that the Secretary of State would lose no time in passing the clause to give power to institute those councils. I can see perfectly well from the whole circumstances surrounding these that they do not desire delay in this clause. The Noble Lord took a certain line as to parts of clause 3. I take a some-

65
what different line. I rise to tender most respectfully and most earnestly my advice to the Secretary of State to walk warily, and to proceed most gradually and most tentatively in what I consider to be a most momentous departure, a departure which I cannot call other than of a revolutionary character in the Government of India.
It has been said that this proposal, the meaning of clause 3, proceeds pari passu with the proposals of reform of the legislative councils following from the Acts of 1861 and 1892. I fully admit that the reform of the legislative councils, the extension of their powers, is a direct sequel from these two Acts, and as such I welcome them as likely to produce an immense improvement in the Government of India. It will be a great advantage to the Government of India, but I deny that the proposal contained in clause 3 in any way whatever derives itself from the previous legislation. It is an innovation which, in my opinion, is at the present time in view of its potential effects a dangerous innovation. As one who has spent the best part of his life in various provinces in India and in close touch with Indians of every class, as one who has always been a reformer, I venture to ask the Secretary of State to pause—that is all I ask, it may be for a very short time—before he makes a change of this kind, which in my opinion is not unlikely to have as its effect an alteration with the foundation of our rule in India.
After all, what is the desperate hurry to enact this clause at all. Why deal in this sudden and rapid way with what nobody can deny is a real revolutionary movement, a revolutionary idea, the appointment, that is the development, of Indians to those Executive Councils, which are the real practical governing bodies in India. It seems to me that in its ultimate development that will tend to undermine instead of support and strengthen British supremacy in India. I really earnestly ask the Noble Viscount to pause and weigh carefully the potential effects of such a change before he proceeds to make it. This clause 3 is really in advance of public opinion. The reformers themselves in India have never asked, so far as I know, for the appointment of Indians to those Executive Councils. Why, then, should we rush in where the reformers themselves have feared to tread? Those reformers, high-minded, level-headed reformers in India have got all they want.
66
They have got association with the people of India through their elected representatives, through those legislative councils, which councils, although not empowered to override the Government, are enabled to put such pressure as make inevitably and irresistibly to modify and influence the Government. What more can they want?
The councils themselves are to be of such a number as to contain every variety of individual opinion. It is reasonable to assume that those bodies, if they are unanimous in favour of any particular measure, expresed in the form of a vote or resolution, the Government of India or no local Government could possibly resist them. I ask what more can they demand. Surely that itself is sufficiently revolutionary to satisfy the most ardent reformer. I protest against an extension in the form of those Executive Councils, which, in my opinion, and I give an opinion with some knowledge, will tend undoubtedly to undermine the Executive authority of the Government in India. Here I would like to point out a misconception which appears to underlie remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester in accusing me of inconsistency in supporting the reformers of the legislative councils, while denounced the institution of Executive Councils. Surely the hon. Gentleman must have failed to understand the very essential difference toto cœlo between the two. The legislative council is purely a deliberative assembly, no doubt enabled to influence the Government by resolution, but having no authority to act or to enforce those resolutions. The executive councils it is proposed to institute—or executive councillor, I should rather say—is empowered specially to act upon his own initiative. I maintain that difference is essential, and it is a difference which I can hardly think the hon. Member can have noticed in his criticism of the opinion which I gave. The legislative Assembly resembles this House of Commons. It can affect or influence the Government by resolution, but it cannot itself take independent action. whereas the Executive Council is a little Cabinet, each member of which has control over the Department over which he presides, and can take independent action on any matter concerning it. This brings me to the second reason I have for imploring the Secretary of State to be cautious and to proceed gradually and tentatively in this most momentous matter. I beg the House to notice that if an Indian

67
member is appointed to an Executive Council he thereby acquires almost absolute control over the policy and personnel of the Department over which he presides—over the appointment, dismissal, promotion, punishment, and transfer of officers. In these departments over which these Indian members will preside there are Englishmen—in which term I include Scotsmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen—and these Englishmen are members of what we know as the British Civil Service in India. I am no bureaucrat, and I have no brief whatever for the Indian or any other Civil Service; but I say without fear of contradiction that the British Indian civilian has been ever since his official infancy brought up in the knowledge that, subject to the supreme control of the head of the Government, in whose probity, integrity, and capacity he has absolute faith, he himself is solely responsible for the charge committed to him. Under these circumstances, I beg the House to remember what may be the result in this regard. I am putting forward what may be called extreme views, but in connection with a revolutionary clause of this kind, which is being made the law of the land, it is only right that before it is finally sanctioned potential as well as actual and immediate results should be brought clearly to the knowledge of the House. What may be the result—I do not say what always will be—of appointing Indians to any of the Executive Councils (not excluding Bengal)? Rightly or wrongly, the Englishmen to whom I have alluded has not the same faith in the straightforwardness, probity, or integrity of his Indian fellow subjects as he has in his own countrymen. It is a sad and melancholy fact, but that it is a fact I assert without fear of contradiction.
Sir HENRY COTTONdissented.
Mr. SMEATON: I can only say that I have experience as long as that of the hon. Gentleman; moreover, my experience extends over provinces of which he has no official experience whatever, and I have good substantial foundation for the assertion I have made. The Englishman has not the same absolute faith in his Indian fellow-subjects that he has in his own countrymen. One of the roots of that absence of faith is in the social system of India. Here I want to guard myself against any imputation of disparaging the honesty and honour of many of my Indian friends, or of in any way derogating from
68
the very excellent work which some of them have done. Nevertheless, it is an ingrained conviction, born of experience in the Englishmen who are at present the guardians of British supremacy in India, that their Indian fellow-subjects are not to be trusted as being as straightforward in the performance of public duty as their own countrymen.
This brings me to a delicate subject, to which I would rather not have alluded at all; but we must not blink facts in discussing such a momentous matter as this clause involves. Our Government in India has steadily abstained from any interference with the privacy of the Indian family circle. No Government of which I have any knowledge has ever endeavoured to penetrate the mystery of the India family circle. The Government is in the dark altogether about its internal economy. We have undoubtedly tried, but with very poor success indeed, to educate the women of India. I do not for a moment forget or minimise the great efforts and the noble work done by the Zenana Missions of India, in respect of enlightening, helping forward, civilising, and brightening the lives of Indian women; but when all that has been said, I confidently assert that, except in some of the larger cities, chiefly in Bengal, but also in Madras and Bombay, the women of India are practically illiterate and are no more free from superstition, prejudice, and I must add intrigue, than they were 1,000 years ago. Let the House consider the facts, for they are facts. I speak from personal knowledge and from the admission of Indian friends themselves. It is an unpleasant subject to touch upon, but this is the only opportunity we have for laying unpleasant facts before the Secretary of State. When an Indian officer has done his day's work, he retires to the privacy of his own home and family, and there he is subjected to influences not of a very harmless kind. He is very often led into devious and tortuous ways, which not infrequently end in disaster. With that condition before him, can it be wondered at that an Englishman has some distrust of the manner in which his Indian colleague performs his public duties? The Englishman understands perfectly well that a man who during the day may have been animated by a genuine desire to do his duty honestly, straightforwardly, and honourably may have the whole effect of that official atmosphere of probity and integrity undone by influences working upon him when he retires to the privacy of his

69
family. My fear is that if clause 3 is fully developed, and if pressure is put—as I have no doubt it will be—upon the Government of India to appoint Indians, the British civilian will find himself more and more reluctant to continue serving under an Indian Member of the Executive Council, and that that British service, which, as I have said before, is the civil garrison of India, the intelligence department of India, the eyes of India, the sentinels and the outposts for the supremacy of the British Crown, will, in the course of time, dwindle, and may eventually disappear from the mere force of circumstances. What then? Should that catastrophe occur—I do not predict that it will, but I am pointing out what may happen in an extreme case—the Government of India will then inevitably lose control, and lose touch with the people of the country. It will be in the dark as to what is happening, and should any emergency or crisis or unrest of the kind we have lately witnessed arise, it will be in grave peril.
One other contingency I must point out. Here again I would emphasise the fact that I am pointing out possible results, because this is our only chance of influencing the Secretary of State in the direction of caution. That is all I want to do. What about our vast commercial interests in India? At present there are hundreds of millions of British capital invested in India. Capital, of all things in the world, is peculiarly sensitive to anything in the shape of revolutionary change. What would be the result if British capital in India, or any large part of it, took fright and disappeared from the country? That would be a catastrophe the result of which it would be very difficult to measure. Then there is one other point which close personal experience prompts me to put. What would be the result in Burma if clause 3 were fully developed, and Burmans were appointed to the Executive Council there? The House knows very well that in Burma the woman is completely master of the situation. She manages and controls the whole of the affairs of her mankind. I have seen the man and the wife come up, and the man halting and looking stupid, and would make a stammering statement of the case. The wife standing by was apparently suffering very greatly in her patience. At last, unable to bear it any longer, she would push her husband out of the way, and informing me that he knew, nothing whatever about the matter, would make a full statement of the case. When she had finished this was fully en-
70
dorsed by her abashed husband. That I have seen with my own eyes over and over again. The Burmese women are completely masters of the situation, and I venture to predict that if you appoint their men to the Executive Councils of Burma the Departments over which they ostensibly preside will be run by their wives. I am not sure that petticoat government of that kind can be contemplated with equanimity by those in charge of this Bill. But it may be asked at this stage, if I have no positive suggestion to make, and whether all my remarks are confined solely to destructive criticism? Well, I have. We know perfectly well that usually before you advance a person you place him in a subordinate position where his powers of statesmanship are tested. Now, in India the course generally pursued is to appoint a likely man of that sort to be secretary of one of the Departments of one of the Governors. As secretary he has to apprise the Government of all matters of importance to the Administration. If he is the man they wish him to be he will exhibit statesmanlike qualities. So I suggest, instead of pursuing this clause 2 to its ultimate at once, and plumping men into these appointments, let the likely men be placed in the smaller positions of local government, and so prove their ability to go higher. Let them be tested, and if they prove successful, then by all means advance them to executive powers. That, I venture to submit, is the solution of this phase of the Question if the hon. Gentleman desires to proceed, as I hope he will, tentatively. If the hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance that some such probationary period will be given to test the men who are thought likely to be made members of the Executive Councils, I shall be glad. If this is a lengthened probationary period, I for one will not oppose the retention of the clause, but if he is not able to give that assurance then I shall be compelled to follow the Noble Lord into the Lobby.
Dr. V. H. RUTHERFORD: I have heard very many unfortunate and mischievous speeches in this House, but never one equal to that delivered by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is quite unworthy of any man in this House, and particularly of any man on this side of the House. If I remember, the hon. Member indicted Lord Curzon, and arraigned him for high treason. One of his reasons for doing so was that Lord

71
Curzon, in the University of Calcutta, had been guilty of making a similar speech to the one he has just made. His lordship indicted the Indian people, the Indian nation, so far as their honesty and integrity was concerned. I should like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to say whether he feels entitled, or, indeed, whether anyone in this House is justified, in indicting any nation whatsoever, and suggesting that their character was not as good as ours. Surely morality is not at a higher pitch in this country than it is in most other countries in the world, India included? How would we like to be measured so far as our conduct is concerned by the South African war? How would we like our national character to be judged by our action in China when we went to war there because of the opium traffic? I think that it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman could not resist the opportunity of saying that which is wholly unworthy, and wholly unjustifiable, on the part of any Member in this House. The hon. Gentleman speaks about innovation. Surely he knows that there have been Executive Councils in Madras and Bombay?
Mr. SMEATONmade an observation, inaudible to the official reporters.
Dr. RUTHERFORD: He says no native, no Indian, is upon them, but there have been Executive Councils there since 1861. Surely we are entitled in this House, the Government are justified, in giving equality of treatment to other provinces in India? I say to those who take exception to Indians being appointed upon these councils, how are Indians ever to show their ability for government unless you have a reasonable trust in them, and give them the opportunity to show that they are worthy of it and capable of it.
Mr. SMEATON: I suggested a probationary period before doing so; that is all.
Dr. RUTHERFORD: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has qualified his observations. I understood that he was not carrying his approval to the extent that many of us desire. Hon. Members have said that Indian reformers have never asked for Executive Councils, but Indian reformers asked for very much more. They have asked for Parliamentary institutions, and for self-government in local matters. Surely the greater includes the less, so that I consider the Indian reformers certainly have asked for this over and over
72
again. Now, what I feel is that this Amendment is unreasonable, and that it is a resurrection of the unfortunate action taken in another place. It is not quite on the large scale that the Lords desire to smash this clause, but it is on the minor scale. It is to make an exception to Bengal, as the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment said. It is practically unnecessary to do so, because by the Act of 1861 the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India can appoint an Executive Governor and an Executive Council in Bengal. All that this clause 3 gives is the opportunity at some future time for the Government of India to give to the various provinces the same equality, the same rights, and the same treatment that Madras and Bombay enjoy to-day. There are other reasons, of course, which have been given by the Secretary of State or indicated here, other reasons for this clause 3 going through in its entirety. Firstly, there is the reason of efficiency. It is absolutely impossible for any single man, let him be Heaven-sent or otherwise-sent, to govern rightly and well great provinces such as we have in India, so that for efficiency it is essential that the Governments should have Executive Councils to advise, to guide, to direct and to help the representatives of the Government. Further, it is to give India this opportunity to show her own metal. It will allow Indians to be appointed on these Executive Councils, and they will be able to show that they are just as capable as Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen to govern their own country. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. If these men were in this country, no doubt many would be elected to this House, and they would show their ability, and many of them would occupy the Front Benches on both sides of the House. I rejoice that Lord Morley and the Government have given us clause 3. I sincerely trust that they will have nothing to do with this Amendment; that they will be firm, strong, and deliberate, and resist not only the Tory party in this House, which I regret to say have made this Question a party question by their resistance to this Bill—that they will not only resist this Amendment, but will insist upon the House of Lords accepting clause 3 in its entirety.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: The House will form its own judgment on the two speeches to which we have just listened. Reference was made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to Bombay.

73
I do not think it is possible to take Bombay as a standard for the whole of the provincial Governments of India, as there are elements in Bombay which you get nowhere else. Whether any system in Bombay may or may not be a success, you cannot take success in Bombay to be a criterion of what is likely to follow in the provincial governments of India. Already the hon. Member for Stirlingshire has given the Government reason to seriously reconsider the Amendment which has been moved. It is difficult for those who know nothing of India, and perhaps more difficult for those who know a little about India and Indian administration, to form an opinion of any value as to the momentous character of the changes introduced by Lord Morley's policy, and not of all which policy is covered by the Bill. Theoretically, the policy may be admirable. But when dealing with India perhaps the only safe line in the case of divergent opinion is to rely upon those whose personal experience of Indian administration constitutes them authorities upon the subject. We have a few of them in this House. There are others elsewhere whose experience bears perhaps more directly upon the Question before us, and we have, as regards some parts of the Bill, full information from men on the spot. On the clause under discussion we have very little, save the opinion of the Viceroy and the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and one or two others. Therefore the view of ex-administrators at home who are available becomes of unusual importance, and if the opinions of ex-administrators at home is divided, the weight of it as a whole is against this clause. What are the facts? Lord Minto, at the end of his lengthy despatch, in a short paragraph, alludes casually to giving Executive Councils to the provincial governorships, indicating that the matter required careful consideration, and that it might, perhaps, be carried out after full consideration with the local authorities in India. Apparently, without the slightest consultation with the provincial governments in India, the clause was incorporated in the Bill. I think that all the authorities representing Anglo-Indian opinion in the House of Lords were against this clause. Some of them were against it on its merits; others because of the impression that it was being forced, so that before dealing with the lieutenant-governorships it would be well to test the new reforms in the two governorships, and that the clause should not be passed without the opinion of the provincial govern-
74
ments being obtained. Later on Lord Minto sent a telegram urging that the clause should be passed, but nothing has yet been heard from the authorities mostly concerned—the lieutenant-governorships of the central provinces and of Burma and the Punjab. Perhaps Lord Morley may now have papers which he could lay before Parliament giving a direct opinion from those governors. Otherwise, the Amendment seems to be reasonable,for it would seem to be giving Sir Norman Baker what he wants in Bengal, and it would enable us to get the views of the lieutenant-governors of the other provinces before we go further.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire that this clause constitutes a new phase of the Government of India. It places natives of India in the position to exercise a great amount of patronage in Indian administration, and Indian administration therefore would be exposed to wholly new influence. We welcome every occasion of redeeming the pledges in the Proclamation of the King by associating native Indians with ourselves and the Government of India. That must remain our ideal if our rule is not to fail. We welcome Lord Morley's policy. At any rate, the advance of the natives of India, in fact, the appointment, promotion, or dismissal must be very difficult amongst mixed races, for where men of our race may fail from aloofness or ignorance, the native is even more liable to fail from undue bias or pressure in the conduct of these executive functions. I, of course, quite recognise the reassuring character of the Prime Minister's speech on this point as to the intention of the Government in applying the clause and bringing it into effect. It does not point to any immediate necessity to go beyond the Amendment brought forward by the Noble Lord, whilst in view of the actual facts, and in view of the advantage of securing Parliamentary unanimity in introducing this great extension of the representative element into the Indian constitution, I shall support the Amendment.
Captain A. C. MURRAY: I have listened, if I may say so, to many unfortunate and mischievous speeches since I have been in this House, but to none more unfortunate or more mischievous than that which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Brentford, and it is that speech which primarily moves me, and which is at least one of my reasons for supporting the original clause as it stands,

75
and of opposing the Amendment. If hon. Members in this House were to study in the vernacular some of the papers published in India they would probably find, as I personally have found, that speeches from the reports of the proceedings of this House such as the hon. Member has just delivered will be given a place of great prominence, while speeches of other Members of this House reflecting, as I think, more accurately, not only the opinion held in this House, but the opinion held by people throughout the country, will be assigned a place in these vernacular papers down away in the corners of the sheets in very short paragraphs. One of the main objections to this clause as it originally stood, and one of the main objections to the Noble Lord's Amendment, was the enabling power in the clause which provides that the Government of India should, if they thought necessary, be enabled to set up Executive Councils in the provinces other than Bengal. The Noble Lord said, I think on the second reading and again in the Committee stage, and again to-day he emphasised the point, that the result of giving these powers would be to subject the Government of India to constant agitation and pressure on the part of the whole Congress party in India. I think there is another side to the picture. Are we to imagine that if this Amendment be accepted the clause as it would then stand will be received with unanimity by all the peoples of India who are interested in these reforms? I think that not only the Congress party, but the Indian Mussulmans are both agreed in this particular respect, and are both in favour of the clause as it stands. We have heard a great deal this afternoon on the Amendment that preceded the one now under discussion—in the first place, as to the point of difference, and, secondly, as to the points of agreement between the Hindu and the Mussulman communities in India—but I think at any rate there is one point upon which they at the present moment are fully agreed, and that is that whether rightly or wrongly, as some think rightly, as others think wrongly, they are agreed that this Amendment should not be permitted to have a place in this Bill, and I think that if the Amendment were accepted by the Government so far from allaying any of their fears in this particular respect it would lead to constant agitation and consequent pressure throughout all the Mahomedan and Hindu communities in India, which would seriously re-
76
tard the peaceful development of these reforms. I think the situation simply amounts to this: that that power which t is now proposed to exercise in the case of Bengal may be at some future date found necessary to be exercised for administrative purposes in provinces in India other than Bengal. I am bound to say that in my humble opinion I have not yet heard in the course of this Debate any valid reason advanced why this opportunity should not be taken to assume the enabling power proposed in the clause.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was in vain hopes that the Government would give some slight relief as to the size of this blank cheque, which they are proposing to give to the Government of India. The Leader of the Opposition told us we were asked to give a blank cheque to the Government of India. My object in supporting this Amendment is to write as it were across the blank cheque "not beyond so much." I want it to be used for a certain amount, but not more. I quite agree it is desirable to create Lieutenant-Governors' Councils in Bengal. I am prepared to admit it may be possible to create such councils there, but why it should be desirable to create one in the Punjab in the Frontier Provinces or in the United Provinces or in Burma I cannot conceive. I also realise that the addition to the councils attending the lieutenant-governors implied by the declaration of the Secretary of State and the appointment of at least one native member to each of these councils. We have given by this Bill a very great measure of representation and elective government to the people of India, and we have given enormously large scope to the people of India in the administration of their own affairs—an administration which the enormous mass of the people of India do not in the least care about or want. We have heard a great deal about different peoples in India, but nobody seems to have spoken with regard to the position of the people of Great Britain there. We have heard a great deal of the Hindu class, and we have heard a great deal of the Mahomedans, but there are numbers of people from Great Britain carrying on business in India and engaged in the administration of the Indian Empire. We are making no provision in this Bill for the British in India and for the experienced Indian officers, but we are electing to the council Indian members who are to sit at the elbow of the Lieutenant-Governor and to advise him, and

77
who have to know the numerous secrets of the administration of these provinces and to have great control over India. By the action of the Secretary of State we have been forced to appoint Mr. Sinha to the Viceroy's Executive Council. Hitherto the rule has been personal, and no one has made out a case that I have heard from the benches opposite in favour of Executive Councils in India other than the two in Bombay and Bengal. Not one word was used to show that the executive Government as it existed has not sufficed. We are told it may be in the future desirable to extend the position to council Government; in other words, to extend this blank cheque which we are going to give to the Government of India. Lord Lawrence's opinion in favour of personal Government, personal administration by a single head without a council, was very rightly referred to in the Debate of last week as the best form of Government for many parts of India. I am only dealing with those parts of India which are by common consent not included in the older provinces of Madras and Bombay. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury qualified that by telling us that the position of the Secretary of State for India is that of a single head without a council is the best form of Government. That is all up to the present the hon. Gentleman has been able to base his claim upon—namely, that in many parts of India a single head without a council is the best form of Government. I think it is for the Members of the Government to show the House why they propose to extend that principle. We hear that it is desirable to extend it to Bengal. May I point out that this Amendment allows that extension, and admits of an Executive Council there on the ground that it may be one of those portions where it is desirable to have a Governor? The argument has been put forward that in our Crown Colonies such as Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Jamaica the Governors are provided with Executive Councils. That is perfectly true; but the Governors of Ceylon, Hong Kong, and Jamaica are experienced Civil servants who have lived there all their Governmental lives, and have been trained amongst the people, and they are revered by the people. They are not sent out from this House knowing nothing of the government of those Crown Colonies. I can conceive the certainty that a Member of this House who was a clever administrator when sent out as Governor would need an Executive
78
Council if sent out to Madras, Bombay, or Hong Kong; but those are not the kind of Governors we desire to see increased or which the hon. Gentleman opposite or the Secretary of State for India would desire to see increased in the other Provinces of India. India needs Governors who know the Provinces.
I was very pleased to hear the speech made by the hon. Member representing Stirlingshire, who spoke of the reverence held in India for the English members of the Indian Civil Service as against the Indian members. It is absolutely known throughout India that natives of all classes, Hindu and Mahomedan alike, prefer that their affairs should be administered and their disputes settled by an Englishman rather than by a native judge or a native administrator, however clever. Ask any Indian native you like whether he prefers to have his affairs administered by an English or an Indian member of the Civil Service, and I am perfectly certain he will reply, "Give me an Englishman to decide my individual case, because I can always rely on justice being done by an English member of the Civil Service." They prefer this because Englishmen are not subject to these false ideas and to pressure which must take place from a man's family or a man's surroundings when he is a native member of the Indian Civil Service. Natives look upon Englishmen as the very fountain of justice and the basis of impartiality, and now you are going to put on these councils Indian gentlemen not from the Indian Civil Service, not men who have been trained for years in the administration of public affairs, but men who have probably not been members of the Indian Civil Service, and who have not been brought up and trained in the administration of affairs, but lawyers, pleaders, and probably agitators.
Do you not think that pressure will be brought to bear upon them? Pressure will be brought to bear upon such men in any possible way to ascertain what is going to be done in the Lieutenant-Governor's Executive Council, and efforts will be made to mould in some way the views of that council. Pressure will be brought to get the Government of India to carry out the provisions of this blank cheque. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that it is not proposed to grant these Executive Councils at the present moment in India. I know what will happen. You will have resolution after resolution from

79
the Congress in India praying for the creation of Executive Councils in the various provinces, and you have no answer to that demand. They will say to you, "There is the Bill passed by the English House of Commons authorising the Secretary of State and the Government of India to create Executive Councils for a particular purpose. What did the English House of Commons and the English Parliament mean by giving these powers to the Government of India if they were not to be exercised?" You will have your legislative councils, in a constant state of agitation in the various provinces. In the very next year after the passing of this Bill resolutions will be brought forward pressing the Government of India to exercise the powers this House has given to it, if, perchance, the House should pass this measure. I suggest we should relieve the Government of India from the pressure which will certainly be put upon them under this clause by the people who desire to see a larger number of appointments thrown open to the natives of India. Do not think for one moment that by passing this Bill you are going to stop agitation. The hon. Member for the Brentford Division has delivered speech after speech in this House upon this Question. I do not agree that the speech the hon. Member has just delivered was one of the most mischievous he has delivered in this House, because it is not the first he has delivered. The hon. Member has delivered possibly more mischievous speeches on this subject of India than any other hon. Member. Some hon. Members below the Gangway did not like my suggestion the other day that they were the representatives in this House of those who had been deported in India for sedition. I do not want to put the case too high, but I think I may say the hon. Member for Brentford represents the extreme National view in India.
Dr. RUTHERFORD: I do not represent the extreme National view. The extreme National view is complete independence, and I do not represent that.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite possible that the hon. Member does not go quite so far as complete independence, but he has described this Bill as a very tiny and modest step. I do not know how much further he would go, and stop short of complete independence. The point I wish to make is that the concessions which are being made to-day are not in the least likely to stay the hands of the agitating portion
80
of India, and the Nationalists' section from striving to secure even larger concessions until they arrive at what they undoubtedly claim, namely absolute freedom, not merely colonial freedom, but a free nation. The Government could not assume that the proposals they are now making are going to stop agitation. On the contrary, this Bill is going to foster and enlarge agitation, and it will give the agitators year after year, and day by day, more opportunities of expressing themselves. I ask the Financial Secretary to at least give us the slight concession asked for in this Amendment, instead of asking us to give a blank cheque which will be seized upon to demand Executive Councils in provinces where the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Secretary of State himself know perfectly well that the people are not fitted to receive them.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The view which is embodied in the Amendment on the Paper is in conformity with the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord during the Committee stage of this Bill. Although it is a prudent advance upon the action taken in another place, at all events on this side of the House we have to remember that the clause as it stands on the Paper to-day was rejected in its entirety by the House of Lords. Nevertheless, there were saving clauses and saving expressions to be found in the speeches both of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Curzon, which are not wholly in disaccord with the proposal which we have placed on the Paper to-day. It was stated in the discussion upon the rejection of this clause in another place that if it could be shown that official opinion in India and the non-official opinion of Europeans was in favour of the proposals contained in this clause, the attitude of those who supported the rejection of this clause might have been very considerably modified. The Noble Lord who moved the Amendment said in the Committee Stage, and he repeated his argument this afternoon, that there were special circumstances connected with Bengal which rendered it possible and even desirable to provide for that Province an Executive Council.
Earl PERCY: I did not say that. I said that there might be special circumstances which might render it possible or even desirable.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not want to attribute statements to the Noble Lord which he did not express, but at all events he agreed that there might be circum-

81
stances which would render an Executive Council desirable in this particular province. I am not, therefore, this afternoon going to argue the question of Bengal, but I think the real reason why both the Government of India and the Noble Lord opposite are in accord with us in this proposal is that the considerable population and area of Bengal, and its particular organisation, and the education of the people, are factors in the Government of that province, which, to a certain extent, dissimilates it from other provinces in India. The real question is whether, in the view of the responsible advisers, circumstances justify the application of this proposal to this or that province. That is a point on which we differ from right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. It is perfectly fair to say that even local and non-official opinion in India is against the proposal to extend government of this sort by the provinces, and that the immediate creation of such councils should not be proceeded with. That is perfectly fair, but you must also accept this argument: That where you find official and non-official authorities in favour of doing a particular thing in regard to the general policy of the country, you are bound to accept that as a justifiable argument. It seems to me that the Opposition are content to accept one situation, but they are not content to allow us to accept the other for doing so. The Opposition are quite content, when official opinion is against us, to accept it as a final argument in favour of their position, but they are not content when official and non-official opinion is with us to accept that as an argument in favour of our position. In this matter, so far as the general position is concerned, official and non-official opinion in India goes with us to this point. It is with us in our view that it is desirable to give to the Government of India a discretionary power—I will not go any further than that—to create when the Government of India thinks fit Executive Councils in the various provinces. I do not think there is any possibility of doubting it. In the course of the Debate in the other place, that was the question, and I think a very legitimate and proper question. What was our answer? We showed that the Government of India were of opinion that it is desirable that they as a council should be the power to create an Executive Council for a province when a case demanded it. I ventured to get the most widely read and highly-respected newspapers on that point.
82
An hon. Gentleman mentioned "The Pioneer." I have had the opportunity of seeing the back numbers of that paper, and the opinion expressed amply carries out this view. Other great organs of public opinion in India are distinctly of opinion that the time has arrived when it would be proper to entrust the Government of India with this discretionary power. Everybody who knows the general independence of the Press and the opportunities which it has to reproduce current opinion of the people who live within the reign of its circulation knows that the great Indian papers express the general trend of the opinions of the people. They are distinctly of opinion that the time has arrived when it is proper to introduce into the government of India this discretionary power. I will deal with a point which was raised by the Noble Lord, viz., the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor. I cannot quote the opinion of any single lieutenant-governor in favour of the creation of an Executive Council except in Bengal. On the other hand, I do not know of a single instance of any single lieutenant-governor venturing to say that Executive Councils are not in the future desirable, and ultimately and absolutely necessary. There is no one in this House, there is nobody in another place, not the Secretary of State, not the Governor-General of India, who desires to create an Executive Council outside Bengal, but that it is desirable to give power to them to create these councils as and when the Government of India think fit and desirable. I do not like the attempt that is made to override the view of the Government of India by reference to the lieutenant-governors. The Lieutenant-Governor properly has great weight and great knowledge and experience within the confines of the limits of his own province, but to attempt to give him authority and the responsibility of the Government of India is a province which he does not possess, and, as far as I know, he does not want and ought not to possess. He is responsible for the application of a general policy for a particular province, but not responsible for the general policy with regard to Indian affairs. The Leader of the Opposition feels that it is undesirable to give this discretionary power to create Executive Councils, but he will remember that discretionary power was given to the Governors to create legislative councils. I do not say the Legislative and Executive Councils are the same. The idea of a

83
Legislative Council for a province was certainly as unfamiliar to the people in 1861 as an executive power was familiar to them in 1909. The right hon. Gentleman opposite agreed with us to give a power to create an Executive Council in Bengal. Precisely the same thing happened under the Act of 1861, but it was not exercised in 1897, so that 36 years passed between the original grant and its exercise. Why are hon. Gentlemen so very anxious to have continued discussions either here or elsewhere on this particular proposal? My attention was called to some particular words which fell from the Noble Lord in the course of the brief speech he made. He threw out the suggestion that the subject of the precise method of determining the Parliamentary control over proposals for creating Executive Councils in provinces beyond Bengal might be the subject of a compromise between the views at present entertained on those benches and which we hold on these benches. I should gladly welcome any arrangement which might be come to upon the lines he indicated between right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on that bench and His Majesty's Government. It seems to me most undesirable that every time it is found necessary to create an Executive Council in an Indian province that it should become the subject of fresh discussion in this House and elsewhere. It is impossible that misunderstanding should from time to time occur as to the object to be attained and as to the methods by which the object may be realised. I cannot help thinking that some compromise on the lines which the Noble Lord has suggested and which I have indicated might be found by which this delicate and difficult point might be withdrawn from continued and protracted debate, and while we cannot accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper in another place, I hope some proposal acceptable to us will be adopted.
Mr. BALFOUR: I gladly welcome the spirit of compromise which reigned over the concluding portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech. There is certainly a change on this side of the House in one's views as to the gravity of appointing additional Executive Councils in the frontier provinces of India or in provinces other than Bengal. Certainly nothing has fallen from the hon. Gentleman which is likely to alter our views. I can see no analogy between the Acts of 1861 and the present pro-
84
posals of the Government. After all what the Act of 1861 did was to give power to the Government of India to have legislative councils of the old type, legislative councils, in other words, which would in no way interfere with the Executive, which were nominated, and on which there was to be an official majority. It will be admitted that power to create such councils as that did not raise any great constitutional question, and it was a matter which this House and Parliament generally might well leave to the Viceroy and his Council and the Secretary of State. But at the present time we have to deal with a problem of very much greater gravity. One hon. Gentleman likened the council of the Governor to the Cabinet; but it might not be nearly so effective a method of governing as the Cabinet. In this case you do not even insist that two out of four members shall have any official status whatever. They are totally without qualification. They are appointed, as I understand, for a term of years, and you are going to put in immediate control of some essential part of the executive machinery of the country gentlemen from whom you cannot have the same information as we have in this House, and who may have it in their power to clog the wheels of the Government at any moment, and you may have to establish in the frontier provinces of India this new machinery in place of the one-man Government which now exists. I think it is a great risk. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong. I am saying that it is a great risk, and a change in the Indian Constitution which Parliament ought not to lightly pass. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as I understand, although he does not quite like the suggestion that Parliament should retain control, is prepared to favourably consider it, not strictly on the merits of the question, but in order that peace may be attained and a settlement of the controversy arrived at. He is quite prepared to say that over the initiative of these great changes in provinces other than Bengal Parliamentary control is to be maintained. If that is the intention of the Government, I think we are bound to meet him half way; and, for my own part, I should be glad to do so. I understand from him that the Government are prepared favourably to consider the method by which Parliamentary control shall be maintained. They object to the necessity for bringing in a new Bill to be read the first, second, and third time in

85
both Houses whenever they want to establish a new council, and I sympathise with that objection; but it must be possible to devise a method by which full Parliamentary control shall be maintained without the necessity for passing a fresh Bill. I am afraid it would be quite impossible for us to do anything on the fourth stage of the Bill, and I do not suggest that it should be done; but, as I understand from the hon. Gentleman, there is a distinct undertaking on the part of the Government that they intend with a good will to do what they can in another place to deal with this situation. I shall be very glad to facilitate any such arrangement, as far as it is in my power. I suppose the other House have only power to rediscuss what we have done. I suppose the mere fact that we have put back clause 3 will give the licence they require to carry out the arrangement which the hon. Gentleman has indicated his willingness to accept. That being so, there is no technical difficulty in the way.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "accept." I think the right hon. Gentleman clearly understands what is in my mind. Of course, there must be a consideration of a proposal before its acceptance. We do not know what form the proposal will take, but we desire very strongly to come to some arrangement, and I only wish to put in a caveat as to the word "accept."
Mr. BALFOUR: I am perfectly sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman as to his meaning. Of course, the thing must be discussed before it is accepted, and I do not in the least wish to pledge the Government further than they are prepared to pledge themselves. But I do understand that every attempt will be made on the part of the representatives of the Government in the other place to introduce words which will give effective Parliamentary control to any extension of the system of Executive Councils in the provinces of India other than in the province of Bengal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has stated his desire for peace and general agreement, and in that sense I think the House will be well advised in accepting the undertaking.
Mr. J. D. REES: When the Leader of the Opposition said that these councils would not, in effect, resemble the Cabinet, I venture, with very great respect, to express some difference. He said that the council could not be regarded as a Cabinet when gentlemen without any official experience would be put upon it.
86
It is a fact that at the time when this argument is put forward, it is actually stated in the Indian Press that the fact that the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were put into the Cabinet here without having had official experience is a ground for doing the same thing in India. It seems to me a very pertinent answer to the right hon. Gentleman, little as I accept the position of those who argue thus.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it is an answer. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the right hon. Gentlemen to whom the hon. Member refers, they have had very great experience of public life.
Mr. REES: One thing has been forgotten which has now arisen, and that is the practice of political agitation, which is common now to both India and England. I will not take my views from the hon. Member for Merthyr, but I am bound to say that the parallel which he drew the other day, but which I am very far from accepting, does not seem to apply here. It struck me that he did make a point there when he said that it is very difficult to say that you shall not appoint Indian gentlemen, because they have no official experience, when in England you have a President of the Board of Trade and a Chancellor of the Exchequer put into the Cabinet without previous official experience. But I will not dwell upon the point. There is another point which the hon. Member made which, for the sake of the reputation for sanity of the Government of India, I venture to revert to. He said—"Imagine a constitution with a council being introduced on the north-west frontier;" but I think when the Government propose to do that it will be time to despair of the Government of India. I see no reason, however, to believe that they are likely to make such use of the enabling powers, which it is proposed to grant them. But I do agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing his approval of the proposal that something of a limiting character should be put into the Bill in another place; I sincerely hope that it will, though I am a little astonished to see any desire from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially for the increase of Parliamentary control over India, remembering how fortunate I was to find myself in the Lobby with them all, when it was proposed to bring the salary of the Secretary of State on the Estimates. I make no secret

87
of the fact that I think the less detailed Parliamentary control there is over India the better for the administration of that Empire. I wish to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, regarding the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford, who is one of a small group of statesmen who are at a moment's notice prepared to put the world to school and govern continents by rule. He is prepared at a moment's notice to put everything right in the countries and dominions of the Kaiser and the Czar, the Sultan and the Shah, the Khedive of Egypt, the Gaekwar of Baroda, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Jam of Jamnager, the Negus of Abyssinia, the Alakej of Abeokuta—he is prepared to find every one of these a first-class democratic constitution of the sealed Parliamentary pattern at the shortest possible notice. There are some people of whom it is said that in moments of frenzied excitement they always see red, but it may be said of the hon. Member and those of a like way of thinking, that they see brown or black, bamboo or yellow, but never in their lives can they see white.
Let us, they say, put these natives of India on their mettle, and see what they will do, but if the natives follow their advice they will teach the elephant to throw the rider out of the howdah. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardineshire alluded to the mischief which is done by reports in the Indian press of such speeches as those of the hon. Member. Of course, they have no effect in this House. I am aware of that, but the point is, as my hon. Friend has said, that they are translated into the vernacular and published in leaflets, while the speeches of the saner Members of this House are not so published. I cannot but envy the organisation of the Congress party, which possesses a well conducted newspaper edited by Mr. Cotton, and it is the fortunate position of a certain Member that political principle, filial piety, and a sufficient subscription list, combine to produce a result eminently satisfactory to all concerned. I come to the question of the Amendment of the Noble Lord, the Member for Kensington, and I say that the fatal objection to his Amendment, if he will allow me to say so, is that if you pass this clause and confine it to Bengal you do give an object lesson on the reward of agitation. The whole of India knows that the agitation was begun in Bengal, it had its adolesence in Bengal, it flourished up to bomb throwing in Bengal, and
88
Bengal is to have a council of which two members will probably be high caste Babus, and certainly the Bengalis will appreciate the object lesson of the reward of agitation. Would it not be a wise thing to avoid giving such an example. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire, who not only knows the truth, but has the courage to speak it, as the subject is too serious for make believe—and I will frankly say that is the difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford—my hon. Friend expressed grave doubts as to the propriety of creating such a situation as this. I said so the other night in other words. I said in fact that the good Hindu cannot be impartial. It is his business if he is a caste man to prefer his caste. It is the rule of Hindu life, and the code of conduct, that he must give the preference to his own high caste. Even if this is not so, it is at any rate believed by the lower and middle classes of the community in India.
Then objection is taken to the rule of the Lieutenant-Governor on the ground that he is a tyrant, but there are different classes of tyrants, and the Lieutenant-Governors have carried on one of the best forms of government and the one most suitable to Asiatic rule that it is possible to devise. I do put it that they are officers of the highest capacity, and they have not asked for councils, and probably do not need them, but if these councils are to be given let them be given by an enabling power, and not as the reward of sedition to the province of Bengal. There is only one point I wish to take exception to in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. He said it may be desirable to give Bengal preference, as it was the most advanced province. I deny that that is so, and neither the educational statistics nor the census show it, and I would ask why sedition should be given advantages in Bengal greater than those given in any other part of India. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire also referred to a subject which I have on commission, and I will deal with it briefly. I was asked to bring it before the House and to say that the planters and chambers of commerce throughout India, view with great apprehension the appointment of native gentlemen on the Executive of the Government. The trade associations join with them in that view, and I must also say that they all unite in complaining of certain irresponsible Members of Parliament, who aid and

89
abet a small section of the people in hatred of the Western settlers in India. I will not take up the time of the House, but will simply read the names of the various bodies: The Trades Associations of Rangoon, Bombay and Madras, the Chambers of Commerce of Narayangunge, Karachi, Madras and Burma; the Indian Tea Association, Surma Valley Branch and Assam Branch, and the Behar, Darjeeling, Dehra, Doon Tea and Duars Planters' Associations. Those are bodies of men pursuing their own occupations in India with great benefit to that country, and their views at least should, I think, be mentioned in this House. An opportunity rarely happens, and I wish I was able to state more fully the view which they put forward. But they not only speak for themselves, but they urge that to put native gentlemen into the councils of the provinces will result in disaster, because if the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor leaves, and the senior member of the council being a native naturally becomes for the time being head of the administrative system, they say that the ruling princes of India will never consent to be ruled over by a central Government consisting of Ghoses and Bhoses. I am not adopting these expressions, but I do associate myself heartily with the views they express, and I believe that whenever any subject of this sort comes before the House of Commons the views of these men who have been spending their capital in India and paying wages in India and carrying on their trade there are entitled to the fullest and most respectful consideration.
Another body has been referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr, but I think he rather misunderstood their position. The non-caste communities of Southern India point out that they are 16 per cent. of the population. They do not pretend to be Hindus, and they do not like the Hindus, and they say that the class which will come into power under these reforms are their natural enemies, and I am bound to say, associating myself with the hon. Member for Stirling, that there is a practical antagonism between the upper and lower classes in India. The upper classes style the lower as hewers of wood, and drawers of water, they regard the world as created for them to rule over with the lower caste as their servants. It sometimes astonishes me that certain hon. Gentlemen who pretend to some knowledge of India do not learn that they are
90
in fact made a cat's-paw of by the landlords, the lawyers, the Brahmins, and the castes who brief them. I say nothing against these castes. I have many friends amongst them, and I respect them. But they were born in the view that it is their business to rule and to use other people as their footstool, and that will never be eradicated by these reforms nor by the reforms of 20 generations. It must not be forgotten that the professional middle classes profit by these reforms, and that the other people do not profit by them and do not want them.
It was said that no Lieutenant-Governor had approved of this proposal to create these Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors. There may be none except the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. I believe that is so; but the Home Member of the Government of India is an authority of equal, and while he holds that office even of greater, weight, and I am profoundly impressed not only with the support given by the Anglo-Indian Press to this proposal, which rather surprises me, but also by the opinion given by the Home Member of the Viceroy's Government on this point. But he says:—
"As regards the elimination by the House of Lords of the provision for the creation of provincial Executive Councils, I may say that for my part I should like to see it replaced, on the ground that the increasing burden of personal responsibility thrown on some of our lieut-governors is becoming heavier than can be borne; the quickening of the political spirit in India during the last four years has largely increased the personal volume of work of heads of Provinces, and the work will be still further vastly increased when the reforms come into operation."
That is a very strong expression of opinion coming from the most authoritative quarter possible. That and the Viceroy's opinion I own go a good way with me. It may be said a Member of this House is to vote exactly on every question as his own individual feelings guide him. I suppose that is so, but it seems to me that where a proposal is part of a great scheme, and where that scheme is not only supported by this side of the House, but also practically by that side because they have not divided against it, it is rather a serious responsibility to cut out a provision which the Secretary of State himself says is an absolutely necessary part of his scheme. I cannot see it myself, but I think one must take some things from others who, for the moment, are in the best possible position to judge. I do not like this constitution. I believe it is a very bad one, and the Governor in Council Constitution is an extremely

91
bad one. It works well simply because the Englishmen who are sent out to govern our Presidencies are so good, and are filled with such public spirit, and find such good advisers among the Civil Service that they govern Madras and Bombay well, and thoroughly well, but that is not because of the constitution. I believe a far better constitution than to send out a man who admittedly knows nothing about it and have him dry-nursed by two able civilians, is to have the best civilian you can find in India, make him Lieutenant-Governor, and instead of having two civilians to differ from him and robably hamper him, let them be the secretaries, which practically they are when there are lieutenant-governors, and which they are not when there are governors.
Lord Ampthill, who has been a Governor, took up the opposite view very spiritedly, and declared that the Governor in Council Constitution was everything that was good. That was a very proper view for him to take, but with longer experience of it I must differ from him altogether, and believe it works well because the men are good and not because the system is good, because I believe it to be a thoroughly bad one, and since the fourth member is lost by the abolition of the Provincial Commander-in-Chief, a positively ridiculous constitution. At present you have two colleagues of one Governor, and the Governor has a casting vote, with which he exactly equals the council, and he may be from the day he lands in India to the day he leaves absolutely deprived of the slightest authority of any sort or kind. That is a ridiculous constitution, and it is necessary to make some change in it, but that it is necessary to introduce a pale reflection of that constitution into the Lieutenant-Governorships I do not believe. I have given my reason for coming to the views of the Viceroy, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, the Home Member, and that portion of the Press which represents to the utmost degree the Anglo-Indian views and the views of the Civil Service. I say it is very difficult for an individual, whatever may be his personal view, to stand up and decline to support such a proposal in this House, and I do not feel equal to refusing to support the clause. I cannot, therefore, vote for this Amendment, and I believe the Government of India will not introduce Councils elsewhere than in Bengal. If it is introduced there, I am sure it will be a premium upon agitation, but under the circum-
92
stances, and for the reasons I have given, I should be unable to vote with the Noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 (Power to Extend Business of legislative Councils).—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Councils Act, 1861, the Governor-General in Council, the Governors in Council of Fort Saint George and Bombay respectively, and the Lieutenant-Governor of every province, shall make rules authorising at any meeting of their respective legislative councils the discussion of the annual financial statement of the Governor-General in Council or of their respective local governments, as the case may be, and of any matter of general public interest, and the asking of questions, under such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in the rules applicable to the several councils.
(2) Such rules as aforesaid may provide for the appointment of a member of any such council to preside at any such discussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be.
(3) Rules under this section, where made by a Governor in Council or by a Lieutenant-Governor, shall be subject to the sanction of the Governor-General in Council, and where made by the Governor-General in Council shall be subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, and shall not be subject to alteration or amendment by the legislative council of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor.
Amendments agreed to, sub-section (1), after the words "and the Lieutenant-Governor," to insert the words" or Lieutenant-Governor in Council." At the end of sub-section (2), after the words "may be," to insert "and of any Vice-President." In sub-section (3), after the words "or by a Lieutenant-Governor," to insert the words "or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council."
Clause 7 (Laying of Regulations, etc., before Parliament.)—All regulations and rules made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.
Amendments agreed to, after the word "All" to insert the word "proclamations." After the word "Act" to insert the words "other than rules made by a Lieutenant-Governor for the more convenient transaction of business in his; Council."
Order for third reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be read the third time."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Earl PERCY: I do not propose to take this opportunity of making another general survey of the policy of this Bill or of expressing once again our doubts and misgivings with regard to its probable effect. The Government have expressed their intention of meeting us fully in the future arrangements with regard to proportional Mahomedan representation. They have also told us they are prepared to make a great attempt to meet us upon clause 3. The only point which has really not been raised, and which it is impossible to raise by Amendment, is that part of the Bill which I still regard as by far its most disagreeable and gratuitously dangerous feature, and that is the decision of the Government to abolish the official majority upon the Legislative Council. It is true that the concession of an unofficial majority cannot lead to a deadlock, but it may very seriously increase the practical difficulties of administration. It is absolutely contrary to the principles which we have hitherto recognised in every part of the Empire so far as I know, that we only give an unofficial majority where we are prepared at the same time to concede to that majority the power if need be of forming a responsible administration for themselves, and I am quite unable to see what practical purpose it serves. It is not necessary in order to inform the Government of India or the local Government of native opinion, and we have seen quite clearly in the course of these Debates that the Government never would have agreed to allow an unofficial majority at all were it not for the fact that they count upon the probability that the nominated members will very often vote with the Government against the elected members, and that even supposing the nominated and elected members combined against the Government they will always in the last resort be able to exercise their veto or the superior and overriding legislative powers of the Government of India. Therefore we are perfectly justified in saying that this unofficial majority is in reality nothing but a sham, and not only a sham but a dangerous sham, because its practical effect must be to encourage the very belief which on every occasion you say you are anxious to discourage, that you are making a first step by this Bill towards setting up a Parliamentary constitution in India.
94
However, I quite recognise that, for good or ill, the House is determined to make this experiment, and if we cannot entirely share the sanguine anticipations as to its operation of the Secretary of State for India, we can at all events join with him in hoping that his anticipations rather than ours will be realised by the event.
I rise rather for the purpose partly of congratulating the hon. Gentleman opposite on the courtesy and dexterity with which he has conducted the debates on this measure, on which I think he is all the more entitled to be congratulated in that he was called upon to undertake the task at very short notice. There is one point which our debate in Committee has left obscure. We moved an Amendment on clause 2, the practical effect of which would have been that the additional members on the Executive Councils would have been confined to one instead of two, as the Government recommend. There can only be one additional member appointed, and only in his case could you have dispensed with the qualification that he must have been 10 years in the service of the Crown. But although we have not carried our point in that respect, yet according to the declaration of the Secretary of State for India he does not intend himself to appoint more than three members altogether to these Executive Councils, and therefore only one, so long as he remains Secretary of State, will be a person who has had administrative experience. But the Secretary of State also gave two further pieces of information in another place. He said his intention was to appoint an Anglo-Indian who had not been a member of the Civil Service, and he also said shortly afterwards that it was his intention and desire to appoint a native of India. I draw attention to that statement because it is obvious that whenever you do appoint an Anglo-Indian who has not been in the service of the Crown on that council you will not be able to appoint a native unless that native has been in the service of the Crown. That point is, perhaps, worth noticing, because it shows that under the system proposed by Lord Morley the opening of Executive appointments for natives will not be nearly as large as perhaps is supposed in some quarters of India. The point on which I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us some further information if he can is with regard to the attitude of the Government towards those persons who have been deported under the Regulation of 1818, and to what extent those persons are or are not to be eligible

95
as candidates for election to legislative councils. At the present moment those who listened to the Debate on the Committee stage of the Bill will agree that the House was left somewhat uninformed as to the true intentions of the Government. The position, as I understand it, is this. For the first time the Government are dispensing with the power of the Viceroy to nominate, or, as I prefer to call it, to elect the representatives. Would the fact that you are abolishing that, power to nomination or confirmation render it necessary to draw certain categories of persons who will not be eligible for election? I understand that those categories have not been finally decided upon, but the Government at home has been in communication with the Government in India as to the principles which are to regulate the drawing up of these categories. They have decided that women are not to be eligible, that lunatics are not to be eligible, and that persons who have been convicted and imprisoned for sedition are not to be eligible. Therefore, the question arises are persons who have been deported on a charge of suspicion of sedition to come under a separate category of disqualification? All that we could get from the spokesman of the Government on the last occasion was the statement that deportation in itself, and for all time, was not to be regarded as a disqualification. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in what sense those deported persons are to be regarded as differing from persons who will be disqualified, for instance, on the ground of sedition. I understand that the Government of India is in any case to have a general power of dispensation in regard to all those categories. I suppose that women will remain disqualified for all time because she cannot change her sex, and I suppose that lunatics will remain disqualified until they recover their senses. But I understand in regard to persons convicted of sedition, and also in regard to those included in another category, namely, people who have been in the service of the Government, and dismissed from that service, the Government, after the lapse of a certain time, when those periods are supposed to have purged their offence, will be qualified and enabled to exercise the general power of dispensation. I should like to know if that is all the hon. Gentleman meant when he said on the Committee stage that deported persons were not to be regarded ipso facto as disqualified. Did he
96
mean by that, as I took him to mean, that deportation was not to be regarded as affecting a person who had been deported, that it was not to raise presumptive evidence of ineligibility, or did he mean, as he might have meant, and as I hope he does, that the kind of action which would justify the Government of India in deporting anybody is a kind of action that would disqualify those persons from election? If he meant that, the point is really one of comparative unimportance, although I confess personally I think it is a great pity that the Government have preferred to draw up these detailed categories of exclusion, and to do away with the general power of disqualification by refusing to allow nomination. The Secretary of State for India said he regarded this power of confirming elected representatives as in some way incompatible with abstract democratic principles; but so far as I know this right of the Viceroy to nominate or confirm has never been made the subject of protest on the part of any section of opinion in India, and so far from the elected representatives regarding it as undesirable, I believe they regard it as an additional honour conferred by the ruling power. I believe the hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement which will relieve any misapprehensions to which his language gave rise on the previous occasion.
Sir HENRY COTTON: I rise with pleasure to accord my sincere and hearty congratulations to the Secretary of State on having at last brought his Bill safely into port. If I may respectfully say so, he has shown the greatest ability, and he has presented the measure with consummate skill. I for one am not surprised at the fact that he has been able so to modify the original scheme of the Government of India into the shape it now assumes, and as was indicated in the despatch of November last, I can recall no such successful measure of administration by any of his predecessors If I may do so, I join with the Noble Lord opposite in congratulating the Secretary to the Treasury on the skill and ability with which he has conducted the proceedings on the Bill in this House. I am sure he joins with me in sincerely regretting the absence of the Under-Secretary for India, whose illness we all deplore. I am sure also it must be a great disappointment to the Under-Secretary, not to have been able to conduct the proceedings on this Bill in this

97
House, but in his absence I say they could not have been managed better, more successfully, or more clearly than they have been by the Secretary to the Treasury. I wish to add one word in regard to the probable effect which this Bill will produce in India. It is accompanied by the remarkable despatch of 25th November, which has resulted in a great improvement in the troubled condition of affairs in that country. The Bill has been accepted with gratitude by all sections of the community. There has been a little grumbling here and there, but taken altogether it has been an olive branch offered to the community in India. The troubles of the last two or three years, which have caused so much anxiety in India, have been pacified by the production and the successful passing of this Bill. In order to ensure the continuance of that result further legislation will be required. This Bill, though it goes far, does not go far enough. We find that the people of India are still troubled by the unfortunate Regulation of 1818.
Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be in order to discuss a matter of that kind on the third reading of this Bill. You must confine yourself to the contents of the Bill.
Sir HENRY COTTON: I will not discuss that matter, but I may be allowed to say that the people of India are troubled by other matters at this moment. This Bill, which has done so much good by itself, is not sufficient to secure that feeling of contentment, prosperity and gratitude which were the principal objects of our Government in India to secure by the measure, and only by supplementary measure which now I am not allowed—
Mr. SPEAKER: You are not discussing the contents of this measure. The hon. Member must confine himself to this Bill. We are not now discussing the state of India.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord opposite has asked me a very proper question with regard to the exact attitude and intention of the Government here and in India towards persons who have been deported. I made what I thought a very clear and exact statement of the position of His Majesty's Government at the time the Bill was in Committee. I said that the Government do not intend the fact that a man has been deported to be of itself, after his release, a disqualification for election to a legislative council. I have to repeat that from that position the Government do not in any way recede. It was meant by that that the Government could
98
not sanction the necessary disqualification of all persons who had been deported as a class, and they could not allow any regulation by the Government of India having an effect of that sort. I think that to enact any regulation, however much its severity might be mitigated by the power of waiver on the part of the Executive Government of India, would be to introduce a false principle in the constitution of the Government of India. If we proposed any measure of that sort of general and universal disqualification in the case of deportees, you would give a new legal recognition and status to a class of citizen who does not at the present moment exist. You would create a class of deported citizens, who certainly have never been contemplated by the previous Act, the creation of which the Government cannot for a moment contemplate to-day. The Executive Government is authorised by the Regulation of 1818 to deport certain individuals, and to detain them for an indefinite time without trial or charge—these are really important words—when it is considered necessary to do so in order to preserve the country either from external danger or internal commotion. The fact that a man has been detained under the provisions of this Regulation is no good ground for the creation of this new class of deported citizens which would be created were such a Regulation to be permitted exactly as if he had been really tried and convicted by a judicial tribunal of some offence cognisable by the ordinary courts. I think there were some arguments put forward in the Committee stage which rather looked as though hon. Members opposite thought there had been a judicial trial and a judicial condemnation of some person brought before a court. Of course, there is nothing of this sort here. Power is given to the State for reasons of State, and it is not a necessary logical sequence or consequence that the power so conferred, which justified temporary detention, should also justify permanent exclusion from the register of voters. The offence—I will not call it a crime—and the occasion, is not an abnormal but an exceptional occasion, and the treatment accorded is therefore preventive and not punitive. When the man has purged his offence by detention and returns to his ordinary avocation, he cannot, therefore, because he has been deported, be held to be a criminal, or to be a person necessarily disqualified from legislation—that is as regards the class. On the other hand, it is quite clear that of

99
five or six people deported one person may be still necessarily under the surveillance of the Government of India, while no such care need be exercised in the case of the other five; and, therefore, we cannot possibly overlook the fact that an individual case may have to be taken cognisance of by the Executive Government when it is not in the least necessary, and certainly it is not desirable, to exclude as a class all persons who have been deported. The view which I have expressed undoubtedly connotes some power to be exercised by the Government of India in exceptional cases of the character that I have indicated, and if the Government of India, in their discretion, think fit to recommend that some such power should be given to them, then his Majesty's Government will not refuse such power, subject to such provision, as discussion between the Government of India and the Secretary of State may bring into view for the purpose of settling under what condition that power may be exercised.
Mr. BALFOUR: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman rejects, on the ground of what he calls principle, of some abstract principle not very clearly specified, this suggestion that because the man is deported he should therefore for all time be excluded from a seat on the council? If I rightly understand the position taken up by the Government in that respect, and if I rightly understand the addition which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I have no quarrel with the general attitude they have taken up. As I understand, they will not allow a universal category of exclusion to attach to a man because he has been deported, which is, I think, right, because after all years may elapse and the whole views and policy of the man may change, and he may have become an excellent and useful citizen; and then I think it would be a very great outrage that perhaps for the error of an enthusiastic youth you should entirely exclude a man from a very useful career in later life. I understand while the hon. Gentleman takes up that position immovably he is quite ready to admit there may be circumstances in which the inclusion of a man who had been deported, who was just not kept in deportation, would really make the whole system of these councils unworkable, and would do more harm than good, and he proposes on behalf of the Government that the Governor-General in India and the Secretary of
100
State at home should consider how they may frame rules by which any such notorious miscarriage of propriety, if I may use the phrase, would be prevented. If that is the Government's view, I have no quarrel with it.
Mr. F. C. MACKARNESS: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a rather considerable qualification in the position which I understood him to take up on behalf of the Government the other day; but I would like to know whether in the case of a deported person who is excluded to his own disadvantage from the ordinary privileges of being admitted to these councils will he, before he is excluded from the right of being elected, be given by the Government of India an opportunity of knowing why he is excluded, and informed of the grounds which are alleged against him? I may point out that where a similar power has been given to the Executive—for instance, in Ireland—there must be expressly stated in the warrant on which a person is charged the charges which are made against him, and a copy of the warrant must be furnished to him; and I want to know if in India, in the case of a person who has been deported, and who is held by the Governor of India to be therefore excluded from the right of being elected on the legislative council—
Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Bill at all. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get information which he has asked for over and over again in a different way, but it does not arise now, and I cannot allow it.
Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask with great respect whether I am entitled to ask what the hon. Gentleman means by what he has just said?
Mr. SPEAKER: You are entitled to ask that, but as the hon. Member has exhausted his right of speech, he cannot give an answer.
Mr. MACKARNESS: May I respectfully address my question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether he would tell us whether under the circumstances to which I have alluded the gentleman who is excluded on the ground of deportation from being elected will be given an opportunity by the Government of India—
Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Bill.
Mr. BURKE: I would wish to say a word in favour of the views which have been

101
expressed by certain hon. Members below the Gangway. I will not disobey a ruling, and I will not argue if you rule me out of order, but I would say that to discuss an Indian Councils Bill without reference to the power of deportation of British subjects in India without trial and without knowledge by them of the charges brought against them is a farce.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled twice that that point is not allowed.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has made, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, some kind of concession upon the question of voting power to be given under this Bill to those people who have been deported, but the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his statement that anybody on our side of the House was not perfectly well aware of the circumstances under which these people were deported. Indeed, it was for that reason, because we were well aware of them, that we objected to any opportunity being given to these people to record their votes. The hon. Gentleman says that it is an offence and not a crime. That is an opinion held on this side of the House, and I think it an extremely dangerous opinion to have been advanced by an hon. Gentleman representing the Government in this House. What we always reiterated was that no voting power should be accorded to these people, and that there should be a scheme drawn up in the Bill—powers are given in the Bill to do that—which would prevent these people merely because of their offence having the right of voting. At the same time we said that in exceptional circumstances we should have no objection to a change being made in the voting list, but only under exceptional circumstances. Now I understand that the hon. Gentleman has given way somewhat—he does not seem to me to have given way altogether—upon that subject. I have listened to all the discussions which have taken place upon this Bill in every stage. I listened to the discussions which took place upon the second reading, upon the Committee stage—indeed, I think I took part in it myself—and I listened to-day to the discussion on the report stage. Though I do not pretend for a moment to have had any intimate acquaintance with India I think my acquaintance with India probably amounts to almost as much as the acquaintance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex, who has
102
made a considerable number of speeches upon this subject. Every one of these speeches was, I think, considerably more mischievous than the extremely able speech of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, to which I listened with very great pleasure—a speech made by an hon. Member who has had real experience on the question of which he was talking.
I have before me the conclusion that in many ways this Bill is being brought forward and passed as a sop to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex, and it seems to me when we had the measured opinion of hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Stirling and like the Noble Lords in another place who had a long acquaintance with the conditions of India, we are really taking a very serious step in passing the third reading of this Bill and especially upon the question with regard to the inclusion of Executive Councils in the provinces other than Bombay or Madras. There may have been, and I think there were, very good reasons that anyone can understand for Executive Councils being constituted in the provinces of Bombay and Madras. There the Governor, who was generally an Englishman sent out from England, probably did not know or had not very much experience of the inner working of the Government of the province which he was sent to govern, and therefore it was necessary, or at any rate it was advisable, that he should be assisted by an Executive Council. But in the other provinces it is absolutely different, as the other provinces were all governed by legal men, members of the Civil Service, which has been the wonder of the world, and which has certainly served India in the most marvellous manner during the last 120 years. The hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex says that it is impossible for a single individual to govern a mighty Empire. Why is it impossible? Is it not a fact that a single individual has governed 90 provinces for the last 120 years, and has governed them successfully? This has gone on for 120 years and everything was well done, and I say having got a good thing, why change it? I would ask the hon. Member to say and to show why, having got a system which has worked well for long, and has been the admiration of the world, we should change it now? Why has not the great party of which the hon. Member opposite is so distinguished an ornament made the change before?
Dr. RUTHERFORD: We have not been in power for 10 years.
Sir F. BANBURY: I was coming to that when the hon. Gentleman interrupted me. I was perfectly aware that, fortunately for the good of the country, the Liberal party was excluded from office for 10 years, but then they were in power before that time. We are not dealing with the last 10 years, but with 100 years, and for a considerable part of that period the Liberal party were in power, and they could have brought forward a measure if they had liked to do so. It is only necessary to look at the Debate which took place in another place to show that all those who really know something about India are practically against the whole of this Bill. Take Lord MacDonnell, who is a person of a Liberal frame of mind, and what does he say:—
"In this matter the persistent opinion of Indian administration from 1868 to the present time was that it was very much better, having regard to the necessity of close touch with native populations, to retain the system of lieutenant-governors in preference to the system of government by council."
And he went on to say:—
"He might mention a case, known to Lord Curzon, where he had seen the entire structure of British rule disappear in a night, and when he reached the city next morning found a city full of sullen people out one side and the entire British garrison under arms on the other."
There is an illustration given by a man who thoroughly knows what he is talking about. He has had great experience of India, and that is a very apt illustration which he gave, and one which cannot be answered. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that the opinion of the Government of India had changed, and was in favour at any rate of that part of this Bill which is contained in clause 3. I cannot accept that as being absolutely correct, because I find that in 1905, when this question was discussed, there was a unanimous pronouncement against the change now proposed. Sir John Lawrence said:—
"Personal administration by a single head without a council is the best form of government for many parts of India, Bengal included."
I know it is true that during the Debate in another place it was stated that it could be shown the Government of India had altered the opinion which they expressed in 1905, and on other occasions, and that Noble Lords might reconsider their opinion. The Financial Secretary drew the attention of this House to the fact that the Government of India had sent a telegram in which they had modified their opinion. But have they modified their opinion? The telegram finished, as re-
104
ported in Hansard, to the effect that they saw no present necessity for a change of this character, and it should be made only after the fullest consideration. I do not suggest that any pressure has been put upon the Government of India, but I cannot help thinking as to the telegram which they sent, which is so different from the deliberate opinion expressed in 1905, and which is so altered by the concluding words, that possibly some pressure may have been put upon the Government of India which caused them to send this particular telegram.
Mr. REES: There is a later telegram.
Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman that the later telegram altered the telegram which I have just read?
Mr. REES: Practically, yes. It was read in the other place.
Sir F. BANBURY: That only shows the great reason there is for the deliberation which this House ought to show before it passes this Bill. I quite recognise that in questions concerning India it would not be wise in any kind of way to treat them as party questions, to be bandied about from one side of the House to the other, and in the remarks I make I do not in any way wish them to be influenced by party feelings. But I do recognise that in this Bill they are taking a very great step in altering the Government of India. We have never taken a step of this sort before. Whether it is advisable that there should be a legislative council or not I do not know. These legislative councils proposed by this Bill have never been created before, and I should have thought that even if it were advisable to extend the principle of self-government in India it has not been confined to legislative councils, but has been extended so as to include an increase of popular power. I am not at all sure that we have had any very great argument to show that even these legislative councils will be productive of a good effect. There has been no general argument on the part of hon. Members to show the creation of these councils to be beneficial. I do not know whether that would be so or not. I should not for a moment like to say that my opposition to this Bill is in any way founded upon the fact that Indian gentlemen may take part or become members of the legislative councils. I think it is not wise that Indian gentlemen should be present on those councils, but there should be no reason

105
against their being on those councils because they happen to be natives of India. What I do say is that you cannot draw a parallel between a Western country and an Eastern country.
We have governed India in a way that has made us, as far as regards that portion of our history, the admiration of the world. I believe it is only within the last few years, when we rather have departed from the old forms of governing India, that agitation has set up. Are we acting wisely in departing from those old forms and bringing forward those new measures? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean probably thinks we are, because I believe he is very strongly enamoured of anything which savours of government by the people or representative government. I am not sure that on this side of the House that view is always held, and I am not at all sure that, even in England, the lowering of the franchise has been very successful. However, as that would be out of order, I will not discuss it. But what I really want the House to consider is this: that by this Bill we are beginning to introduce in a small way—but for the first time—the electoral principle into Indian Government. The history of the world shows that when you once begin to give way, it is very difficult to stop. I presume that the Government and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill are under the impression that this is going to be a final measure, and that if this Bill becomes law there will be no further alteration in Indian Government, and that this Bill will probably settle the question for a long number of years. If that is his opinion, I am afraid he will be doomed to disappointment, because the moment you begin to make a change you satisfy nobody. The people who object to the change are disappointed, and the people in favour of it think it has not been large enough. All they will do will be to endeavour to increase that change. We have seen that from the attitude of the hon. Gentlemen who represent the forward policy on India in this House. They have practically told the Government that they are not satisfied with this proposal. They take it as an instalment, and I think the hon. Member for Brentford described it as a tiny effort, or words to that effect. The result will be that they and all their friends will agitate for a great extension of the Bill. Many believe it would have been wiser for the Government to have put their foot down in the first instance and refused to make any change.
106
I have read the Debates in the other place most carefully, and though I admit the great difficulty of bringing forward arguments for and against, since you may be saying too much or too little, I see no argument brought forward in favour of the change, and I really do not know why the change was made. It is because I believe that India is one of the most precious jewels in the English Crown that I have endeavoured to point out to the House the very serious nature of the step which they are now taking. I only hope that my prognostications will not be justified, and that the evils that I fear from the present Bill will not ensue. I do not think it is a very happy augury that the Government of a country like India should be so lightly subjected to Bills of this sort. I should have thought when we were discussing a measure likely to a great extent to change the principle of government of India that at any rate Parliament would have been told how far that change might go. Under this present Bill we are practically giving the Government of India the power to alter the Constitution of India without coming near the House of Commons or the Houses of Parliament. It may be a good thing to put great power into the hands of the Government of India. I think it is, but I do not think we ought to put such enormous power into the hands of the Government of India as this Bill does. The illustration made by an hon. Friend of mine that we were giving the Indian Government a blank cheque without limiting the amount of the cheque that might be drawn appears to be a very apt simile.
I am rather sorry if it was necessary that we should have this Bill, which I do not believe, that the House of Commons have not been acquainted with some of the provisions of the machinery by which the Bill is to be carried out. We really know nothing whatever about it. I hope that the Government of India will always consist of gentlemen like the Member for Montgomery Boroughs and Stirlingshire. It does not always follow that will be so, and I do not like parting with control which should rest on the supreme authority, namely, the House of Commons. If I thought there was any possibility of dividing against this Bill as a whole and rejecting it I should certainly do so. As I am afraid there is not, I think our only solution is to make the best of a bad job. While I regret the Bill has been brought in, I shall not take any further steps to oppose it.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: There is one matter which I should like cleared up, and perhaps the Prime Minister will give me his attention. There is a fear and there is a suggestion in some of the semi-official newspapers in India that a possible limitation of the powers of debate in the councils might be brought about by rules under this Bill. There is in the despatch in page 39 from India a list of the subjects which it is suggested should be excluded. What I am afraid is, that it is possible, and it is a doubt which I think my right hon. Friend will agree ought to be removed before the Bill finally passes or in another place, that it is possible those powers might be used to limit the existing opportunities of debate. At the present moment questions are asked in the Viceroy's Council—I am alluding only to the Viceroy's Council of Calcutta—questions with regard to military expenditure, and a recent question raised the new scheme of Lord Kitchener, and was replied to by Lord Kitchener at great length. There is a proposal to "exclude from Debate"—those were the words used—military questions and all connected with them, and all the most important questions at present and in future. These matters are subject to Questions now and to a certain measure of Debate, and when I put the point tentatively to the Secretary of the Treasury the other day he no doubt stated correctly what the intentions of the Government were when he said it was not intended to limit existing facilities, and that exclusion from Debate referred to Debate on Resolutions. That reply absolutely satisfies me, if it is understood in India, but the point seems a little doubtful. I am quite sure, and I am certain the Government will agree in thinking, that the new facilities ought not to be made use of to limit the old ones. I think on that point we ought to have some assurance before the Bill finally passes.
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. There is no intention in any way to limit existing facilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

BOARD OF TRADE BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (20th April), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed; Debate resumed.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I regret that when this matter was before the House last week I had not time to complete my speech, and I should be sorry if anybody on the Front Bench thought that I spoke then merely for the sake of opposing the Bill. I had nothing of that sort in my mind; I simply wished to discuss the Bill on the ground of economy. We understood that before this matter was dealt with there should be some Return granted showing what the proposed changes were, and what their cost would be. I have been told that this is only a question of repealing a clause in an old Act of Parliament; but it goes further than that. That clause was put in by our predecessors, who had some idea of economy, to prevent the salary of the particular office exceeding £2,000. It might be as much less as Parliament liked, but it could be no more, and that I think was an exceedingly wise provision. I suppose that something of the same sort was in the late Mr. Gladstone's mind when he said in 1891, or thereabouts, that nobody thought of economy nowadays. That is more true today than it was even in 1891. Unfortunately expenses continually increase, but we do not think of economy. We have been told that the real effect of these proposals will come up by-and-bye in the Estimates. In addition to the danger of the guillotine, it is almost impossible on the Estimates to move the reduction of anybody's salary without making it to some extent a personal matter. You may move a reduction in order to discuss some matter connected with the Government, but if you move simply in order to decrease a salary it cannot help but be personal, and I should be sorry to do anything of that sort at any time, especially if my own party were in office. Can the right hon. Gentleman before the Bill gets much farther give the House a Return showing the proposed changes, with an estimate of the probable cost per annum? If he would do that, we should at any rate know better what is intended to be done, and the cost it will involve, than we do at present. As far as I am concerned, I do not think the present is a very opportune moment for increasing salaries at all, and I am afraid that that will be thought outside. Moreover, I am very suspicious when the two Front Benches agree upon any matter. But the Opposition Front Bench was prepared to go back even farther than the Government, and to let the prospective increase apply to the present occupant of the office. There seemed to be a suggestion that we

109
were really working for the Tory party, who some day, I suppose, expect to be in office. I am not at all anxious to sit here and vote public money just to benefit the party opposite, who probably want money less than the rest of us. Why we should be called upon to advocate an increase of salary which will apply only to our opponents I cannot quite understand. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe that as far as I am concerned I wished to discuss this matter purely from the point of view of economy. That is the main reason why we are sent to this House. I do not at all consider that this should be in any way made a party measure. I am willing to do the best I can to help the present Government in regard to their salaries and everything else, but, at the same time, I do not wish the question of economy to be forgotten when we are dealing with other people's money, especially at a time when money is so exceedingly scarce for the Government and everybody else. I do not propose to oppose the Bill, but I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us the Return for which I have asked.
The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the question which my hon. Friend has just put to me, and in pursuance of a pledge which I have given, I can now quote figures, as far as we can work them out, which show the estimated increase of cost which this Bill will entail. I may give at the same time, for the general convenience, the corresponding figures in regard to the Local Government Board if a similar change in status takes place in that Department. In regard to the Board of Trade, the total additional cost, exclusive of the addition to the salary of the head of the Department will be £2,800 a year, or with that addition £5,800 a year. In the case of the Local Government Board the corresponding figures are £1,775 and £4,775.
Mr. GEORGE BARNES: I beg to offer a few observations in opposition to this Bill. The figures which have been given by the Prime Minister are of a somewhat more reassuring character than we have been led to believe would be the case in the matter of the additional cost of carrying out this Bill. We thought it would have been a great deal more than the figures which have been given to us. But my opposition to this Bill is not by any means appeased because the figures are only about £10,000 in the two Departments instead of the higher figure many of us feared would be the case. As the
110
right hon. Gentleman across the floor has just said, even £10,000 is worth consideration in these times of hardship. There are a great many in the country who would be glad of rise in screw proposed in this Bill, and who do not get it so easily. There are a great many who have to work very hard, and who would be glad if they had money to finance schemes that they are interested in. Generally speaking, however, these are times for retrenchment. But many who know all the facts do not set much store by them.
What we want to do is to avoid expenditure, and I think we have a right to complain of certain pledges which we understand are not to be carried out and that certain reforms which we have been advocating for so long a time have not been given to us. Instead we have simply an increase in expenditure in these two Departments by way of salary, for which we are to get, so far as I can see, nothing at all. I remember that on 6th February last year this matter was under discussion. A great deal was said about the overlapping of these Departments. I remember the Prime Minister himself saying that while he was in the Home Office it had often been forcibly brought to his mind that he was dealing with matters which were also being dealt with by another Government Department down the street. Since that time we have had occasion to know that the Board of Trade in dealing with railway matters, for instance, were not dealing with them so efficiently as we should have liked. We have had reason to complain that the Government Departments, possibly because they had so much to do, possibly because the matter was of a specialised character, could not give the attention necessary to them. We have always contended for the gathering up of these labour problems, and things, of that character, and putting them under the control of one Department, so that we can get them attended to a great deal more efficiently than they have been attended to.
On 6th February there was a proposal practically in identical terms to that of the present Bill. That was that the President of the Board of Trade should be raised to the status of a Secretary of State. So far as I remember, the Government undertook deliberately to institute an inquiry as to the possibility of gathering up these things which I have mentioned, and putting them in charge of one Department and reorganising the Department, as far as my memory serves me, with a view of

111
getting these matters brought under one Department, and therefore getting them not only more efficiently discharged but also giving this House a little more control and supervision over the whole of the Departments than they have at present. At all events, that is what I had in mind, and that is what, I venture to say, many of the hon. Members had in their minds when it was stated by the Prime Minister on that occasion that a Departmental Committee would sit and consider the whole matter. I have been told that in the debate of last Wednesday, that instead of the Departmental Committee having been set up and reporting to this House, instead of this House having full information, we simply have this Bill put before us, the top, bottom and sides of which is that certain Gentlemen in these Departments are going to have their salary raised. Apart from that, everything remains just exactly as it was before. That is not treating the House quite fairly. We are told that there has been, instead of a Departmental Committee, a Cabinet Committee; and it is fair to assume that that Committee has had evidence submitted to it as to the possibility of re-arranging these duties so as to get them more efficiently discharged. It is fair to assume that there has been a good deal of information submitted to the Cabinet. I venture to say that the House ought to be put in possession of that information before this Bill is passed. At all events, so far as I can see we are simply asked by this Bill to buy "a pig in a poke." We are asked to give £10,000 of the public money for the purpose of increasing the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and also that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
The PATRONAGE SECRETARY (Mr. Joseph Pease): That does not come into this Bill at all.
Mr. BARNES: We were told just a few minutes ago that the whole thing hinges upon this Bill.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: This Bill deals entirely with the Board of Trade. It has nothing whatever to do with the Local Government Board.
Mr. BARNES: So far as I understand, the Prime Minister in his speech explained explicitly—and his speeches generally are explicit—that the other Department depends on this Bill. He had even ascertained the figures.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: He gave the figures in the event of the status of the President of the Local Government Board being raised in the same way that this Bill enables the status to be raised of the Board of Trade. I am perfectly accurate in saying that the Local Government Board question, as a question, is not raised by this Bill.
Mr. BARNES: I do not think there is so very much between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. As a matter of fact, to raise the salary of the President of the Local Government Board it requires no Bill. We were told that last week—simply an Order of the Treasury, To raise the status of the President of the Local Government Board does depend on the passing of this Bill, because no one would seek to pass that Order of the Treasury unless first of all the barrier that is in the way of raising the position of the President of the Board of Trade had been removed. Therefore it seems to me that after all the raising of the two Departments stand together. I am not going to say—we are not going to say a single word as to the President of one Board or the other. No doubt the President of the Local Government Board believes he deserves a rise in his salary. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade also is thoroughly of opinion that his position ought to be equal to anybody else's position in the Cabinet. But that is not the question. We want some rearrangement of the duties whereby, under a Ministry of Labour or something of that sort, all these things which are now being done partly by one and partly by the other, partly by the Home Secretary, and some of them by other Departments—whereby in a Ministry of Labour all these can be gathered up and put in charge of one man, responsible, in the first place, I should say, to a Committee of this House, and in the second place to the House as a whole.
I say again that although we were led to believe in February that something of that sort was to be done before any increased money was to be spent, there is absolutely nothing in this Bill of this character, but we are simply asked to sanction the spending of about £10,000 of public money in the increase of salaries for certain gentlemen, and absolutely for nothing at all, so far as we can see. It is for that reason I oppose the Bill, not in the apologetic manner of my hon. Friend across the floor; I oppose it because it does not do anything to put upon a more satisfactory

113
footing those things which we insisted on on behalf of those whom we represent in this House. I oppose it also for the minor reason that it adds to the expenditure nearly £10,000, and gives absolutely nothing for it.
Mr. J. S. HIGHAM: I am very sorry that the Government has decided to bring this Bill before the House in the manner in which it is brought. Following on the declaration of the Prime Minister and the declaration of previous Governments, we find that a Bill has been introduced which deals only with the lesser and the minor points. Last week when this Bill was before the House quotations were read from the speeches made by the Prime Minister last year, but in February, 1904, there was a discussion upon this same subject, and on that occasion the Prime Minister stated that the present administrative system was seriously defective, first in the duplication of its functions, and next in the conflict of jurisdiction. He referred especially to the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Trade. Well, now five years have gone by since then. Everyone who studied the Estimates and watched the business of this House cannot but come to the conclusion that those evils have been intensified in these five years. Yet this Bill does not deal with a single one of them. Most of us agree that it is not the representation of these Boards in the House of Commons that requires amendment; the amendment is entirely necessary in the officers. The Ministers representing these Departments are in this House mostly at question-time, and I do not think any Member will find fault at the way in which they represent their Departments here. I have referred to the observations of the Prime Minister who in the year 1904 referred to this matter. I will go back to the previous year, 1903. In that year Mr. Ritchie spoke upon the same subject, using practically the same language as the present Prime Minister. He said he doubted very much if any beneficial result would come from the demand for an additional representative in this House. Too many expectations were based upon it. He agreed there should be an inquiry as to the status of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade with regard to the distribution of the work, and he added:—
"I give my undertaking that this shall be done."
I think, in the face of the undertaking given in 1903 of the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister in 1904, and the under-
114
taking given again last year, it is really too bad that this House should be asked to deal with the minor part of the work and leave the real evils practically untouched. I have a good deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my hon. Friend to the effect that we need more investigation by Committees of this House in regard to this work. It is not possible for a man to have sat upon a large corporation without coming to the conclusion that the financial work of corporations are better managed than the financial work of this House, and, the greater the corporation—in the vast majority of cases—the better the work is done. I do lean to the opinion that Committees of this House should have more dealing with the Departmental work, and then it would be better done than it is at the present time. Coming to the Board of Trade, I find that that there has been an enormous increase of the costs—I am quite prepared to admit that there has been an increase of work—but it really needs a Committee of this House to watch and to see that good value is given for the increased cost. In the year 1896 the whole cost of the Department under the Board of Trade came to £250,000. The Estimates in the current year are only £1,000 under £500,000. That is an increase of £250,000 in these dozen years. Members of this House cannot be considered unreasonable when they ask that they should be allowed a more careful examination of the work of these Departments than they are at the present time. I should not be in order in referring to the other Departments in which increases like this take place. I put it to the House, and to my hon. Friends, that these Departments are not managed in such a way as they ought to be. I think no objection can be raised to the salary of the head of the Department; but it means a great deal more than that. My hon. Friend anticipated that the cost would be £10,000 extra. The direct salaries of the officers of the Board of Trade come to nearly £60,000 and an increase of status of the Board would mean longer holidays, higher salaries and shorter hours. Big salaries always mean these things and £10,000 will not go far in a Department like the Board of Trade. I hate being asked to support this when I feel we can get no information after all these repeated promises of the last five years. For these reasons I feel sorry the Bill has been brought forward and that very much more information is not given to the House.
Mr. F. W. JOWETT: I am opposed, like my hon. Friend, to the passage of the second reading of this Bill, and I am opposed to it because I feel that far more minute inquiry should have been made into the business of the Department if such a change as is contained in the Bill should be brought into effect. The Board of Trade is a very ancient institution, and, as we all know, it is hardly possible for an institution to be so old as the Board of Trade without requiring some very important changes to bring it up to date and to make it efficient. I understand that in theory the Board of Trade is a Committee of the Privy Council, but that Council itself is a somewhat nebulous institution, which would be all the better for a little examination. It consists of some 300 members residing in different parts of the world, and they never meet together. Like the Privy Council, of which it is supposed to be the Sub-Committee, the Board of Trade never meets, and its members are not likely to be of any service if it were called together. When I mention the fact that one of the most prominent members of the Board of Trade—a most ornamental member—is the Archbishop of Canterbury it will at once be realised that not much service to the trade of the country is done by including the Archbishop amongst its members. The First Lord of the Treasury, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Chief Secretaries of State are also members, and I doubt whether the Board of Trade has ever met together, and it is in every sense of the word a phantom Board. It is all very well to say that the President of the Board of Trade represents the business of that Department and is responsible to this House, but, as a matter of fact, this House has very little control over the business of a Department like the Board of Trade. I have been present when questions have been put to various heads of Departments, including the present President of the Board of Trade. I am not sure whether the case I have in my mind occurred after he took up his present position or before, but I remember on at least one occasion he referred a rather persistent questioner in search of information to the Estimates, saying his time would come when the Estimates came up for discussion, and he could raise the question and seek the information whilst the Estimates were under consideration. We all know how slight chances are for any hon. Member of the House to get these particular bits of information during the time the discussion
116
of the Estimates is going on. It is only likely that among 670 Members there will be scores of hon. Members each with their separate point which they wish to discuss. Many of them are very important points, and every hon. Member naturally feels that he would like to have his own point elucidated, but he finds that he has been vainly seeking information by firing off questions which have been parried by the officials of the Board of Trade, who are behind the President, and who have done this for years.
When an hon. Member has been vainly seeking information throughout the year in this way naturally he would like to get that information during the time the Estimates are under discussion, but the opportunities for getting that information are extremely small. Moreover, it has become practically impossible for the House of Commons to distinctly challenge by vote the action of any Department of State. Centuries ago, when the business of State Departments was much smaller this theory may have been all very well, because then the Members of the House of Commons could exercise control and challenge the administration of Departments when the Estimates were under consideration, but that is not the case now. Amongst the Departments which last year passed its accounts through this House in such a way that it was not possible for any Member to challenge the action of such Department was the Board of Trade itself, although the business it transacts ought to demand the most careful attention of the House of Commons. Very important business is continually being done by the Board of Trade which, as Members of Parliament, we cannot exercise any control over.
During the year 1906 a change was made in the load line of ships, and practically the Plimsoll mark was allowed to be painted out. I understand that the change made was equivalent to the addition of one ship to every ten possessed by the shipowners of this country—that is to say, that they could carry on the newly-arranged Plimsoll loadline as much in ten ships as they previously carried in eleven. That was a very great change indeed, and it was made entirely by the Board of Trade itself. This House never exercised any discretion whatever in the matter, and it goes almost without saying that if it had been put to the House of Commons such a change would never have been made. We have it on the confession of the ex-President of the Board of Trade, who is now Chancellor

117
of the Exchequer, who stated, when a deputation met him from the shipowners asking for concessions to be made in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which was going through Parliament in 1906:—
"He would ask them to bear in mind that in this year they had also benefited the shipowners in another respect by improving the loadline regulations; therefore they were not altogether harassing the shipowners, and they were bearing in mind the difficulties they had to meet in competition, difficulties which were increasing from year to year."
That is a matter which ought not to have rested with the President of the Board of Trade at all, and it should not have been carried out without the full assent of this House.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not quite understand the relevance of the observations the hon. Member is making, and I do not see how they bear upon this Bill. This measure is merely to remove a certain restriction on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. JOWETT: The Bill is to raise the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and I understood that the general question of the efficient organisation of the Board of Trade could be raised on a question affecting the salary of its President, and that is exactly what I am discussing at the present moment. I am endeavouring to show that the present constitution of the Board of Trade is not acting efficiently. We should have instead of the change proposed a full inquiry into the Department, and that is my reason for opposing this Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman is using that as an argument against any change being made until some other change which he desires is made he will be in order but I do not think that he is in order in going into all the details in these matters.
Mr. JOWETT: That is what I desire to do, Sir. I was going to illustrate the present ineffectiveness of the Board of Trade, and to make some remarks for the purpose of showing why this Bill should not pass. I think, Sir, that I can conform to your ruling. I will not go into all the details, seeing that you do not wish me to do so at great length, but I am entitled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give examples of the way in which the present Board of Trade works in order to show that a change must be made. In the Department of the Board of Trade there are some barnacles that have grown up. They ought to be looked after, and that is why I support the remarks of my hon. Friend
118
the Member for Sowerby. There is, for instance, the Trinity House, which has the expenditure of a very large sum of money every year. The public have no control over Trinity House. All these are questions that should be gone into. There is the Railway Commission, each member of which I believe receives £3,000 a year. The number of meetings which they attended in 1905 was 21, and nobody knows very clearly how much good they do or whether they do any good at all. These are questions that should be inquired into, and I think we have reason to have this Bill rejected or to get these inquiries made. I believe that the Board of Trade could do much good if it cared to do it in the way of reducing railway rates. I am not alone in that opinion. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was very strong on that point. On 16th June, 1904, he said that the Board of Trade could do a great deal if it told the railway companies that obstacles would be put in their way in the House of Commons unless they acted in a reasonable manner. We believe that much good in that direction could be done now by the Board of Trade. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was two years and over President of the Board of Trade, but during those two years he did not effect that beneficent work, for the absence of which he had criticised Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the present successor of the right hon. Gentleman has shown no desire for doing the same work. If I read the position rightly what is going on behind the screens where that Board meets or ought to meet is that the combinations of railway companies will result in a very probable increase in the burdens of trade, and of all kinds of inflictions on trade. We want to know what has happened and is happening. I notice that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who is connected with the Great Northern Railway, and other Members of this House seem to be on good terms with the Board of Trade. There is a feeling amongst a section of this House that we do not know everything we ought to know about Public Departments, and that the Board of Trade is one of those Departments. To choose this particular time, when so many people are dissatisfied with the work of the Board of Trade, to introduce a Bill for increasing the salary of the President of the Board of Trade is a thing which I for one cannot imagine. After criticising in the way I have done, whether effectively or ineffec-

119
tively, the Board of Trade let me suggest that we might follow the advice that has been mentioned by an hon. Friend of mine, and associate the work of the Department with this House, so that we may come in contact with its work. Frankly, to put it—bluntly to put it—I would remark that Committees of this House ought to be in touch with the business of the Departments of State. The time has come when that step should be taken. In making such a proposal we have got very good precedents behind us. There is Lord Esher who has spoken in regard to the War Department and the Admiralty. He is distinctly in favour of the association of Committees of this House with the working of those two Departments. If it be a permissible thing to suggest that a Committee of the House of Commons should be in close touch and association with the work of the Army and Navy then surely it should be reasonable to suggest that the Committees of the House should be in touch with other Departments where there is not so much necessity for secrecy as in the two great Departments which I have mentioned. But we have even a better precedent than that. We have the opinion of the Government itself officially in favour of associating Committees with the work of Departments of State. By the Irish Councils Bill, which the present Government themselves produced in this House, they proposed to disestablish or to abolish eight similar boards and establish in place of each one of them representative committees. And if it be a right principle to associate such work in Ireland with committees—to allow the representatives properly elected to have control, to have touch at first hand with public affairs of the same description, then I want to know why it is wrong to do the same here. These issues should be discussed, examined and weighed before we take the step of passing this Bill, the second reading of which is now moved, and which I most heartily and thoroughly oppose, hoping that the Bill will be rejected.
Mr. W. P. BYLES: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in the detailed criticism which he has made of the work of the Department of the Board of Trade, not because I think that they are not useful—on the other hand, I think they are very useful—but I have risen to associate myself with the advocates of economy in this House. And may I say that I rejoice to find that, the House is not bereft of that
120
race of economists who have always adorned this House, and I hope it will be long before the House is without such men as my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. A. C. Morton), who has always kept his eye on the expenditure on public services. I find in one clause of the Bill that it is said that the 1826 Act limits the salary which is to be paid to the President of the Board of Trade. The Bill now before the House proposes that that salary should be unlimited, or, in other words, the words of the Bill: "There shall be paid out of the moneys of Parliament such annual salary as the Treasury shall determine." I do not like these blank cheques—these unlimited powers given to the Treasury. It is quite true we often hear about parsimony or the strict manner in which the Treasury looks after the purse-strings, but, at the same time, I do not think that they should spend what they like on the Board of Trade or on any other Department. In spite of what the Patronage Secretary has said, the House knows very well that this Bill also actually involves an increase in the salary of the President of the Local Government Board and many other increases. I understand there is to be a proposal presently that we should have a deputy Postmaster-General. All these new officers of State require a staff of clerks, of salaried men with a pension at the end of their service, and this all puts burdens upon the State. The salaries may be well spent or ill spent, but they come largely out of the pocket of the very poor, and I think it is the business of those who represent the poor in this House to watch carefully the increase in the outflow of public money. It has been estimated that all the increases in the Ministerial salaries and in the consequential increases in the staff of permanent officials and others may perhaps cost the country a matter of £30,000 a year before they are finished. The Prime Minister was good enough to give us some figures in regard to the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board. But I do not think they quite exhausted the expenditure in which we may be involved. I think it is unnecessary for me to assure the House that I have no desire to underpay, and certainly no desire to show feeling of criticism or unfriendliness towards the present incumbents of the offices of the President of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. It is purely on public grounds that I offer these remarks. I think, indeed, that the status of the Presidents of these two great De-

121
partments ought to be raised. One question which I would like to see put to the House is this: Should we not rather look at the total expenditure of the Government of this expenditure, the total salaries which we pay to the office holders? It was estimated the other night by my hon. Friend that the salaries paid to the Front Bench amounted to £180,000 a year. What I would like to ask the House to consider is whether we ought not to look at that expenditure as a whole and not in detail? Do we pay enough altogether for the salaries of Ministers or do we not? I am inclined to think that £180,000 is adequate, and even a handsome reward for the services of these Gentlemen. One of the duties, as I understand it, is for hon. Gentlemen or right hon. Gentlemen who get the honour of sitting on that Bench and a great many other consequential honours, to be present in the event of a Governmental division. The other night we had a long Debate, a Debate of very great importance concerning the defences of the country. A great many of us are absolutely unpaid. We do not get a penny for our services. We make great sacrifices. [Hear, hear.] I do not know whether those cheers are ironical or not, but some of us do make great sacrifices, and we are animated solely by a sense of public duty. Some of us are old men. When I presented myself at the door of the House at 12.30 at night in the hope that I might get my last train the Government Whip told me that I must stay. Why? Because, he said, we must keep 100 men here in order to enforce the closure. But there are nearly 100 men in receipt of pay from the Government. Where were they?
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Bill instead of dealing with the general conduct of the Government.
Mr. BYLES: I am properly reproved. I do feel a little warmly that these high-salaried gentlemen should go quietly home to bed and let us do their work. We pay these salaries, not in the sense in which great railway companies pay their managers, offering the place to the best men they can get at a competitive price. We pay these salaries in order to give a reasonable and proper livelihood to gentlemen whom we desire to honour. Money is not their motive in entering the Government any more than it is our motive in serving our country here below the Gangway for nothing. The spirit of
122
public service is such that we have a succession of men who are willing to undertake this great responsibility and honourable office not for pay at all, but for honour. I would venture respectfully to suggest to the House that if some of these salaries paid are too small, as I daresay they are, others are too large in proportion to the duties which attach to them, and my suggestion would be that the House should decide not upon an individual salary like that of the President of the Board of Trade, but in the aggregate how much that bench is worth to the country. Then I would say that the House having fixed the gross sum, £180,000 or £200,000, let these gentlemen pool it, and let them divide the money themselves. They know best what is the real value of A, B, and C. They know better than we do, and I suggest that they pool their money and pay one another what they think fit. It is very easy for this House to vote public money, but hon. Members should remember out of whose pockets the money comes. I have many poor people in my Constituency, and it is my business jealously to watch the outgo of their money. I do not propose to vote against this Bill, but I think these criticisms are fair and properly offered. I think some observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford, and my hon. Friend for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, are such as to suggest to the Government that the whole Question, not of the Board of Trade salary only, but of the duties of the Local Government Board and the Home Office, should be all carefully elaborated and collated, and a complete scheme should be prepared and put before us rather than having these single and individual proposals for the increase of the salary of one of the public officers.
Mr. WALTER REA: I am in entire sympathy with the remarks which have fallen from my hon. Friends below the Gangway on the other side of the House, but I am satisfied that they are not taking the right steps to secure the end at which they and we on this side of the House aim. We are anxious that both the Departments of Labour and of Commerce should be more efficiently organised than they are at present, and we look forward to the time when there shall be a Minister of Labour and of Commerce. But we are not satisfied to fold our arms and say nothing shall be done until this House can find time to reorganise the whole of these two great Departments. I trust my right hon.

123
Friends the political heads of those Departments will forgive me when I say that so far as they are concerned I regard this Question as one of minor importance, but the real difficulty, to my mind, is that, so long as the political heads of these Departments are paid a comparatively small or less salary than the heads of other Departments, their permanent officials are paid less than others, and, therefore, in these two supreme Departments of the State we do not permanently get the services of the best men. We have had a very striking illustration of this in the last few years. I will not mention names of individuals, but it must be within the recollection of this House that one of the most brilliant men that this country has ever had in its service was transferred to another Department, where he was not equally required, merely because it was not possible for the Department from which he rose to pay him an adequate salary, and there was a better opportunity of paying him in another Department. Therefore this Department lost the services of an able man. That is a blot upon the system of this country, and I would put it to my hon. Friends on the other side of the House whether they are altogether forwarding what they desire if they encourage able men to leave the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade to go to other Departments? That will be stopped if this Bill is passed, and if the political heads are put on a level with the heads of other Departments the permanent heads will also be put upon a level. It is, therefore, for that that I am heartily in favour of this change, and I am glad that something should be done to equalise the salaries of the Government. I am not prepared to sacrifice the efficiency of the Government in these supremely important Departments for a matter, as the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, of £10,000. I claim to be as zealous a guardian of the public money as the hon. Member for Salford, but, after all, in the administration of this country £10,000 a year is not a great matter for having the right men in the right places. Of this I can see some prospect in the next few months when there is a reorganisation of these Departments. I, at any rate, am glad to welcome this Bill as an effort to level up a Department which deals with commerce and labour to something like an equality with those great Imperial and spending Depart-
124
ments, which, to my mind, occupy far too much of the attention of this House.
Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: While I agree with every word that is to be said from the standpoint of economy as a question of principle, I do not feel that the economical question is the great one which should influence us in the discussion of this question. So far as that I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. But there is cropping up in the mind of everyone who has listened to this discussion that the House is not being treated with entire candour in this matter. We are asked to consider one Bill, and my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill said we are really only dealing with the Board of Trade. I would ask him to explain the words the Prime Minister used, which are the pivot on which the debate turns.
"I cannot agree that it is possible to treat that department by itself and separate from other departments."
Are we treating it separately? There is a feeling that we are treating it in a piecemeal and incomplete fashion—a matter of the gravest public importance. I am not influenced by the feeling of economy. I do not intend to vote against the Bill, but I wish to put in a strong plea in favour of the Government showing its hand entirely and telling us what is going to be done with all the Departments, if not at this stage, certainly before we approach the Committee stage—in fact, I think a promise of this kind has been given. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman one question which presents a difficulty to me. The Committee to which the Prime Minister alluded when he explained this Bill a few nights ago recommended that the salary of the President of the Local Government Board should be increased, but not so much as the President of the Board of Trade. He is only to get £3,000 a year, and the President of the Board of Trade is to get £5,000 a year. Are they going to accept the recommendation of the Committee and make this distinction? If they are I would protest against it. I do not think we ought to have more distinctions of this kind made. Yet the Committee has made that recommendation. I wish the Government to give this matter, as they promised, a little more consideration, and they ought to put before the House the results of their deliberations before they ask us to arrive at a decision. The Prime Minister himself said the time had come when a full inquiry should be made into all the emoluments and all the duties, and then upstarted an

125
hon. Member opposite, who said, "Will that inquiry be by a Committee of the House of Commons?" The Prime Minister immediately replied, "No; it shall be in the first instance by a Departmental Committee." Where is the Departmental Committee, and what does the first instance mean? It meant that we should have first a recommendation from a Departmental Committee dealing with the whole subject in a particular way which the Prime Minister described, and then, also, it should be laid fully before the House before a decision was arrived at. That is the feeling that I have in regard to this Bill. It is not a feeling of hostility on the ground of the small amount of expense incurred, because we are dealing with very great matters, but it is because the subject has not been handled in a perfectly complete way.
I desire to speak with perfect plainness about this single proposal which is embodied in the Bill. This is a Bill brought in first by the late Government, and they attached great importance to it. They brought it forward because they were tainted with Protectionist principles. They thought trade was a matter of great importance, and that we should soon have a President of the Board of Trade dealing with tariffs, and that as he would have these difficult duties to discharge he should receive a large salary. The Bill itself contains a reference to the year 1826. In 1826 there were many reasons why the President of the Board of Trade should be paid a larger salary than he ought to receive to-day. Then this country was a Protectionist country. The President of the Board of Trade then had to deal with all those clever gentlemen who come along where tariffs exists. There were 2,000 duties levied in this country then, and therefore the duties in many respects were of a much more difficult and complicated character than they are to-day. But now this is a Free Trade country, and one of the theories of Free Trade is that commerce is not a thing carried on by the State, but by the individuals in the State, and what these individuals ought to get is fair play in the conduct of their business; and the object of the Department is merely to supply them with statistics, and not to busy itself too much in the intricate details of commercial affairs. I am not sure that the very Department with which we are dealing in the Bill has not already entangled itself, at great cost to the nation, in some of these questionable commercial enterprises. What is the origin of the continuance of the Sugar Convention while
126
this Free Trade Government is in power? It is a proof that these Departments are growing in their power, and in their pretensions to an extent which makes it difficult for this House and even the Ministers who have to deal with the Departments to grapple with. The feeling I have in regard to this matter is that we ought to take advantage of the opportunity which is presented to us, and look into the question of the relation between the House of Commons and these various departments. There is not a week that passes now but some great affair is relegated for settlement to some Committee that can take charge of the safety of the nation. There is only one Committee which can take charge of the safety of the nation, and that is this House of Commons, freely elected by the people in the country. We have recently had the occasion to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to attempts that he was making to tyrannise the House of Commons. He has told us with regard to questions that he asked us that if he answered the questions he would be interfering with those secret and confidential relations which exist between the Board of Trade and the railway companies. There ought not to be any such. This House is the responsible authority, and this House is well fitted to act with a full sense of responsibility with regard to these matters.
I do not intend, certainly at this stage, to vote against the Bill, but it presents many most difficult questions. What are the Departments which are to be dealt with as a consequence of this Bill? There is only one Department mentioned in it. It has been explained that the other Departments need not be referred to because the salary can be changed without a Bill. We ought to be told definitely what the whole scheme is. Why should the Board of Education be left out? Education is just as important as Trade or as the Local Government Board, and it is growing in importance every year. Since the Board was set up great new duties, involving expenditure as much as that on the Army and Navy, have been thrown on it, but no one mentions that Board. It is to be left still the unhappy handmaiden of those Gentlemen who are conducting affairs that they think more important. I think that is a strange decision, and I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend would tell us, the whole scheme of the Government. I should be better pleased still if he will promise that a Select Committee, or some body fully representative of the House, would

127
be occupied in considering the whole question. I do not believe in a decision by the Cabinet. It is too delicate a task for one Member of the Cabinet to fix the salary of another. Let it be left to the House of Commons, and let the House, with sufficient information given to it, consider the whole of these large questions, and I believe they would be settled in a way which would be satisfactory to the nation. It must be borne in mind that if the matter is touched now we cannot reopen it again for 10 or 20 years, but do not let us deal with it in a hasty fashion. I entreat the Government to give the House of Commons an opportunity of fully considering these great issues and settling them in a manner which will tend to a more effective discharge of the duties of the State.
Mr. H. BELLOC: There is one aspect of the Bill which I desire to put before the House very briefly. It seems to me that in the tone of the discussion, especially on these benches, we have in this Debate, as in so many others, drifted more and more away from the public opinion of the country and from the opinion of our constituents. That has been true of many Bills which we have debated recently in this House, and I think it is true on this occasion. I think when it is known to the artisan population which attempted to effect, but failed in effecting, a great democratic change in the first days of 1906 that one of our principal concerns has been to pay a man who is getting £40 a week an additional £60 a week, and when they find that that change is advocated by men who by a vast majority are men who have never to give a serious thought to the smaller sums of money, I think these artisans will think, and rightly think, that in our attitude many of us on this Question are out of touch with them and the general opinion of England. It is to be remembered—I shall endeavour to say nothing extreme in discussing this matter—that where salaries are paid in this way, those to whom they are paid and the method of their selection are something unique in the world. I do not say anything worse than that. It depends on a great historical tradition. It is part of an organisation which has never been broken, but it forms an anomaly of a most striking kind in the modern world. Almost everywhere else an effort is made to make it possible for people to select the ablest men to represent them in Parliament, and
128
to have them there and in almost every Parliament of the world men of the highest possible ability, men commanding the greatest salaries are willing to work in administrative offices for comparatively small sums in order to emphasise the necessity of the democracy being represented by free bodies—conomically free as well as politically free. The men who are doing the work of the German Empire, of Italy, and of other States are working for salaries which are infinitesimal as compared with what many of them can earn outside. That is true also of our public life when such a sacrifice is demanded. Take the particular case of the gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade. I know enough of the publishing and of journalistic world to be able to state that he could earn double by writing were he to give the time and energy to that particular thing in which he is an expert which he now gets for the office which he holds for the sake of the public interest. These salaries are enormous, and side by side with them you have men nominally freely elected, but whose election costs something like in the aggregate £1,000, and yet these men do give a great deal of time and energy to public work. There are two arguments which are used, and I think wrongly used, in connection with this matter—two arguments which have been acted upon traditionally with regard to those great salaries. They are both false. The first is that you must pay a good salary to get a good man. To begin with, in the political world, that is not true. It is not even true in commerce or in the productive efforts of the State. Mr. Swinburne died the other day; I wonder how much he earned by his pen. Who of us have not seen men who have made great fortunes and of whom we have said, "I would not know where to put that man if I had to pay him £200 a year." When we read of men who have made great fortunes we find that sometimes they have intelligence and sometimes they have not. You do not get your good man by paying a high salary. I do not stop to inquire into what happens in administrative circles. I imagine that some lady says when an office is to be filled, "Do you think that Tom is good enough for it?" And the answer is, "Tom is good enough, but he does, not go down with the House." It is needless to pretend that these offices are held by reason of the merits and abilities of the men who hold them when we find that an office is held in succession by men differing

129
wholly in character, and, if not in ability, certainly differing in the experience required for that particular office. It is ludicrous to pretend that these high salaries are what draw these men to these posts. There is a second argument used—that where large salaries are paid you avoid corruption. In the modern world you never avoid the taint of corruption, and you avoid it just as well where you test men by the standard of honour as by the standard of salary. You get work just as well done by the unpaid magistrates at Quarter Sessions as by the man who is paid a high salary. You get the work as well done in the Committees of this House, by the Members of those Committees, as by the heads of the great Departments. It is certainly not a good argument to say that these salaries are given for either of the two purposes for which they are paid. What can be said in favour of them is this. This is an ancient State, and it is a State which is justly proud of never having broken with this tradition. There is hardly an institution which has come down to us from the past which, however much a man attacks it he does not also feel in regard to it his patriotism pulsating if he has anything in him. That is an argument and a strong one, but it would be an argument for a very much larger scheme of reform than the particular scheme of reform produced to-night. Personally I shall vote against this Bill, and in voting against it I believe I shall be satisfying the opinion of my Constituents. I recognise the anomaly. I see the difficulty. To the holder of one legal post there goes five or six times the amount that goes to the holder of another post. That is an anomaly, but I suspect that too great facility for a change of this kind can be given. I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill as a protest against the proposal it contains.
Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: My hon. Friend takes a pessimistic view in regard to many matters, and I do not often agree with him, but, on the present occasion, I am in entire agreement with him, and I shall follow his lead and vote against this Bill. I look upon this House as the trustees of the public in regard to all matters of expenditure, and before we are called on to increase the salary of any Minister, we must have a clear case made out to this House that a good man cannot be obtained for less money. I do not know whether any hon. Member will contend that the right hon. Gentleman who
130
now holds the position of President of the Board of Trade or the late holder, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were not capable men for the post, and if they could be obtained for the salary and performed the duties of that office why should we add to the amount of money to be taken from the ratepayers of the country in order to increase their salary? I think we have no right whatever to do that. I quite agree that there is a certain anomaly in having so important a post as the President of the Board of Trade with a smaller salary attached to it than to the other offices of the Crown; but if it needs a remedy I would say it would be by some rearrangement of salary among the Ministers themselves. That no doubt is the correct way of dealing with it. At any rate, as long as we can obtain men willing to take the place at the salary I think we should be entirely surpassing the rights we have of dealing with the public money to increase the amount to be paid when no case has been made out for it.
Mr. E. H. PICKERSGILL: We are asked to-night to take the first step in a series of transactions which will largely increase the salaries of Ministers and bring entirely new political offices into effect without a full and public inquiry into the present distribution of offices and duties and to ascertain whether or not a more effective arrangement might be made. We were told the other night that an inquiry has been made by a Committee of the Cabinet. That is not the kind of inquiry that is called for, that this House expects, and that this House ought to demand. An inquiry by a Cabinet Committee may be satisfactory for the Cabinet, but, by its constitution, a Cabinet Committee seems to me, to a certain extent, disqualified for an inquiry of this nature, because it is composed of Gentlemen who either are or have been the political heads of Departments, and it seems to me that to inquire into a question of this kind you want men who come, of course, with great experience of public affairs, but entirely detached from any association whatever with the Department into which they are to inquire. They would, of course, receive evidence from the permanent heads of Departments, and upon that evidence they would come to the conclusion. What I feel is this, that the mere announcement of the conclusion of a secret Committee, without the evidence upon which the con-

131
clusion is based, without even a statement of the reason upon which it proceeds, is not calculated to inspire public confidence. This seems to me to be emphatically a case for inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee. I notice that the Prime Minister seemed to resent the suggestion of a Parliamentary Committee, as if a Committee of this kind would be like, say, Mr. Roebuck's Committee upon the conduct of the Crimean War by the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen. But, of course, there is no analogy whatever between the two cases. No one impugns the action of Ministers in this case. What we suggest is that the system might be improved. I have been looking into the matter, and it does seem to me that the precedents are all in favour of an inquiry by a Committee of this House. I may add one further word. There is a strong feeling in this House, which often finds expression, that the House has not sufficient power, especially with regard to Government Departments. Now I should be the last person to desire to do anything which would encroach upon the responsibility of Ministers, but here is a case not whether the action of individual Ministers is concerned at all, but a question with regard to the distribution of offices, and in a case of this kind it does seem to me not only right and proper, but strictly in accordance with precedents that a Parliamentary Committee should be appointed.
Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: I offer no apology whatever to the House for the statement that I am opposed to this Bill being passed into law. I have been struck with the fact that several Members on the other side have severely criticised the Bill, yet finished up by declaring that they cannot oppose it at the present stage. And on this side of the House above the Gangway we have had no speaker either approving or disapproving of the Bill. This is a question of the expenditure of public money, and it seems to me that these Gentlemen above the Gangway are always ready, especially if it is a case of old age pensions or unemployment, to talk about the taxpayers not being able to find the money. The hon. Member for Salford made a very severe criticism of the Bill, but wound up by saying he would not vote against it. He was followed by the hon. Member for Scarborough, who said that we on this side were not taking the right steps, but he did not tell us what the right steps were. We consider we have taken the right step
132
to-night by telling the Government that so far as we are concerned this Bill is not going to get a second reading, because we see that behind this Bill there is much more than is in this particular Bill, and we say that the time is not an opportune one for the Government to come forward with any scheme of this particular character, at the very moment when this House is watching anxiously for a few days hence as to how the money is going to be raised to meet the necessary expenditure for next year.
Yet in spite of all this anxiety and all this speculation as to where the money is to come from for next year, whether it is going to be taxation of the people's food or other things, in spite of all this, we have this Bill to give an increase of several thousands a year to Ministers, besides an increase in the establishment of their Departments, which will mean that their clerical staff are going to have their salaries increased. This will be followed by the Board of Agriculture, which will also mean an increase, and by the Post Office, and then we have got the Local Government Board. Taking the whole of these schemes into consideration, there is before the House a substantial increase in the expenditure of this country. As a party who are determined to put the interests of the people first, and not the salaries of any Minister of State, we are determined to resist the passing of this Bill as far as possible. The Prime Minister the other night, addressing the House, spoke to the following effect. He said:—
"As time has gone these two Departments"
(the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board)
"had collected and aggregated an enormous amount of multifarious functions, not, perhaps, very scientifically arranged or digested."
If they have not been very scientifically arranged or digested, is now the time to say to this House that we are going to increase the salaries of this particular Department? I say that we want them scientifically arranged and digested before we are going to consent to the passing of this particular Bill. Again the Prime Minister distinctly made the following statement, that the time had come when the general allocation of the functions and the redistribution of the duties should be made more scientific between the various Departments. In the face of that we are justified in our opposition to this particular Bill. It is right that the inquiry should take place, and we

133
ought to be in a position to know exactly what it is going to mean to the Government when the whole of these Departments have been dealt with, as indicated on the notice paper before the House. On every possible occasion, while I am a Member of the House, I am going to resist this expenditure on highly paid officials. So long as I have the honour to represent a town where the people are starving for the mere necessaries of life, I shall do my utmost to prevent these people having to pay towards an increased expenditure on Ministers who have very handsome salaries. It is argued that it is a question of money in order to get the best man, but that I submit is to put a Cabinet Minister on a lower plane than ever we have heard him put on before. I thought that to occupy a high position in a Government, Tory or Liberal, was sufficient in itself, and that it was not a question of money. But if you are going to put Ministers on a lower plane, then I am sorry for them, so far as the Government of this country is concerned. The time is not opportune for this expenditure; but even if it were opportune, this increase ought not to be given until the whole scheme has been laid before the House, and until an inquiry has been held which would prevent overlapping and bring about arrangements that will make for, at all events, something like economy and greater efficiency than we have at the present time. I hope that Members who have criticised this Bill will have the courage of their convictions, and go into the Division Lobby, and so let the Government know that they personally are not going to vote for this increased expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friends of the Labour party will vote against this Bill, in order to demonstrate, so far as they are personally concerned, they are going to put their foot down on this increased expenditure.
Mr. GEORGE RENWICK: For some years in connection with Chambers of Commerce I have taken part in the agitation to raise the status of the President of the Board of Trade, but I am rather surprised that this Bill in no way mentions any improvement of the status of the President of the Board of Trade or the transfer of his duties. It is simply a Bill to give a blank cheque to the Treasury, or, in other words, to pay any salary that they think proper to the President of the Board of Trade. On these grounds I most strongly object to the Bill, and I shall do my best to oppose it. We have heard
134
during the Debate a demand for inquiry. During the last Parliament, in 1903 I perfectly well remember that a Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject. I have here the Report of the Committee. I find they recommended an increase of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, but at the same time the Report contained a very important passage about the transfer of duties. I cannot imagine how the Government, having this fact in mind, could have brought in a Bill of this skeleton character and expect the House simply to swallow it because it is recommended by the Treasury Bench. I should like to remind the House of one or two points in connection with the Board of Trade. The commercial community are strongly of opinion that at the present time the Board of Trade has too much to do. Its duties have increased enormously. It is a very ancient body, as probably the House knows. We have been told it has been established for two hundred years. It has been abolished during that period several times. The last time it was abolished a well-known statesman, Edmund Burke, called it
"a solid imposture and imposition to delude the people."
I am strongly of opinion it is no better at the present time. It was reconstituted in 1786. Those who were responsible to Parliament at that time did what the present Government has not proposed to do; they did at any rate, as stated in this Report, appoint a practical Board. I will read, an extract from the first page of the Report:—
"The present constitution of the Board dates from 1786. In that year a Committee of Council was created for the consideration of matters relating to trade and foreign plantation, and the following were members of it."
Then were mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, the First Lord of the Treasury, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the principal Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, such Privy Councillors as held any of the following offices, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Treasurer, the Master of the Mint, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, such holders of office in Ireland as are Privy Councillors in England, and ten other members specified by name. We may smile at the constitution of the Board, yet the important fact is that the Government of the day did recognise that it was necessary to have a Board of Trade in name. The present holder of the office addressed a meeting in Newcastle a short

135
time ago, and he had to speak in regard to this very matter. He said to the Chamber of Commerce in Newcastle, at their annual meeting:—
"I am the Board of Trade."
L'Etat c'est moi. I do think in connection with important matters connected with the Board of Trade we want something more than one man sitting; we want a real Board. We want—
Mr. SPEAKER: The matter to which the hon. Member is referring does not appertain to this Bill at all. He is raising a wholly different point. The Bill does not deal with the constitution of the Board.
Mr. RENWICK: To the best of my ability I was calling attention to what was not in the Bill and what ought to have been in the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can bring in a Bill of his own.
Mr. RENWICK: I would like to bring in a Bill dealing with this question, and if I brought in a Bill dealing with an important matter of this description I certainly would bring in a very different Bill from this. I do maintain, considering the important matters that the Board of Trade are called upon to deal with at the present time, that it is absolutely necessary that before we consent to give the Government the powers they ask for in this Bill we ought to demand from the Government what they are going to give us in return for this power they are asking to give an increased salary to this Minister. We have the greatest confidence in the present holder of that office. We believe he is a man of enormous ability, and we believe—although it is not mentioned in the Bill—that very likely the Government intend to deal upon the lines of the Report I have already referred to. In that Report it was recommended, with certain conditions of procedure, that a salary of £5,000 should be paid to the President of the Board of Trade, that £1,500 should be paid to the Parliamentary Secretary, and £2,000 to the Permanent Secretary. That is an increase over the present salary from £2,000 to £5,000. We cannot believe that the influence of the President of the Board of Trade will be increased in the same ratio. We are told that the present holder of the office wields an enormous influence in the Cabinet. If that influence were increased in the same ratio that 2,000 bears to 5,000, I am afraid
136
that certain Members would have a very unhappy time. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will tell the House what amount the Government propose to pay in salaries, what they are going to do in regard to the transfer of duties, and, above all, why they ask the House to agree to this proposal. These are important questions which the House and the commercial community of the country are entitled to have answered. For many years they have been agitating not merely for an increase of salary, but for a Ministry of Commerce. We shall not get that in connection with this Bill, and if we are not careful we shall find that while we have agreed to the payment of a larger salary, all our cry for a transfer of duties and an improved status has gone by the board. It is beyond the power of one man to deal with all the various duties connected with the Board of Trade. Shipping itself is an important matter; but the Board of Trade has to deal with harbours, lighthouses, consular services, public companies, trade disputes, bankruptcies, patents, and trade statistics; and, in addition, there are railways, tramways, electric lighting, water and gas companies, inspection of boilers, motor traction, and so on. It is impossible for any one man to deal with all these various matters, and I am not surprised that the Prime Minister, remembering the varied duties of the President of the Board of Trade, asks for power to give a larger salary in the expectation that they will get a better man. But I think that if the Government consult the President of the Board of Trade he will soon let them know that no matter what salary they fix, it is impossible to get a better man than they have at present. There is something else behind this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland that it is inopportune to give the Government a blank cheque of this description at a time when there is a great deficiency, of which we shall hear more on Thursday. I hope the House will consider very carefully before they consent to expend this extra sum of money. These are not days for centralisation; we want decentralisation, a transfer of duties, and a general reorganisation, and if the Prime Minister had come before the House with a scheme which commended itself to the commercial element in the country he would not have been in the position that I am certain he is now in, or have met with an opposition which I believe will lead to the defeat of this Bill.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: We have listened to a good many arguments against this Bill, and I candidly admit that there have not been many speeches in its favour. But when hon. Members realise the character of most of the arguments which have been brought against the provisions of the Bill, I think they will agree that they are not really relevant to the issue before the House. The hon. Member for Sunderland, for instance, stated that more expenditure on highly paid officials would be objected to by him on every possible occasion, and the hon. Member for Newcastle has condemned the proposal on the ground that the time is inopportune. Well, there is no proposal in the Bill that the present occupant should receive any increase whatever. The main object of this Bill, if I may say so, is to enable the status of the particular Department to be raised. I am not going to dwell upon the constitution of the Board of Trade, although very many points have been raised in connection with it. I am not going to defend the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury to sit upon the Board, or to allude to the various points which have been raised in regard to grievances, and which ought to be raised in Committee of Supply rather than in connection with this Bill. We have had questions connected with the load line, the Trinity Brethren, railway rates, and the Sugar Convention, all subjects connected with the administrative work of the President of the Board of Trade. Well, if there have been defects in the administration of the President of the Board of Trade during the course of the financial year, it is open to hon. Members to challenge that administration when the Votes come before the House, and especially when the Vote for the Board of Trade salary comes before the House. The proposals under this Bill really relate to the increase of the staff of the President of the Board of Trade. The Prime Minister has stated that the increase of the annual contribution which will be required from the taxpayer as the result of the passage of this Bill will be £2,800 per annum. In the event of the House insisting upon the salary of the present occupant of the position being increased—it will be, of course, to £5,000 a year—it will make £5,800. That is the maximum, so far as the inquiry at present has gone into the total expenditure, that will be involved in the future under the provisions of this Bill. One hon. Member alluded to the salaries of Ministers, I think he
138
said, sitting upon this Bench. He placed the figure at £180,000. Well, that is, I believe, a great exaggeration; but even with all the Government Ministers in both Houses it is possible that that sum may be reached. I have not gone into the figures. What I would point out to hon. Members is that the cost of the administrative salaries of Ministers on this Bench is about £65,000 per year. They may be paid too high. They may be considered too little. That is not the question that we have got to discuss. The question of their salaries will come up when the Votes come before Parliament in the Estimates. They do not occur in the provisions of the present Bill. If hon. Members confine their attention to the present Bill they will see that the first section merely repeals the old Act, which prevents the House from raising the status of this Department, whilst other Departments may have their status raised. The second portion of the first clause prevents the present occupant receiving any increased emoluments so long as he holds that particular office.
Now there is another point: it is alleged against the Prime Minister that he has not carried out accurately the pledge he gave to the House of Commons last year. It was when the hon. Member for Rotherham moved the Amendment to the Address. In this he pointed out that the Chambers of Commerce, and all the great industrial representatives of the country, believed that the status of the Board of Trade ought to be raised, and the feeling expressed in this House was almost unanimous in that direction. The hon. Member for Dulwich seconded that Amendment, and said his experience of the Board of Trade showed him that it was absolutely essential in the interests of the trade of this country that that status should be increased. Those sentiments were cheered to the echo by all the hon. Members who were then sitting behind him. The same view was taken upon this side of the House, and even the Labour Members who spoke upon that occasion pointed out the importance, at any rate, of having further improvement in that direction, and they advocated, if not additional remuneration for the President of the Board of Trade, that there should be a new Minister, with a new salary, no doubt, who was to be a Minister of Labour. The present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, promised an inquiry. The Report of the proceedings of that Debate of last year says he promised a

139
Departmental inquiry. The Prime Minister has no recollection of having used those words. He believes, and he stated so to the House the other day, that he carried out the spirit of the undertaking he gave to the House. There was an inquiry; it was a Cabinet inquiry, and consisted of the Postmaster-General, the President of the Local Government Board, and the President of the Board of Trade. These three individuals, no doubt, were all interested and partial to the interests of their departments, and hon. Members opposite no doubt think that savours rather like a certain individual being called upon to inquire into a question relating to himself But in order that they should not get their way five other members of the Government were appointed on the committee. They were the Home Secretary, the President of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Education, and the First Commissioner of Works. That Committee went into the matter and made certain recommendations. They did not see their way to make any radical alteration so as to prevent overlapping and duplication and complication to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and others have alluded. What they did find was that it was a matter of real importance at the present moment to deal with four Departments, viz., the Board of Agriculture, the Post Office, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade.
Having been interested in trade more than in any other Department, I, at any rate, welcome very strongly the recommendation that the Board of Trade should be one of those Departments that should have its status raised. The trade of this country has enormously increased, whether it has increased as much as it would under the system of Tariff Reform I must leave to hon. Members opposite to say. We think it has increased very largely owing to our system of Free Trade; but whatever be the cause, there is no doubt that for a series of years the trade of this country has been increasing by leaps and bounds, and the Board of Trade is not able, with its present staff, to deal adequately with the increased amount of work. Finally, I would point out this to the House: that the Board of Trade is not only called upon to look after the trade of the greatest commercial trading country which the
140
world has ever seen, but it has also increased duties to perform. The Board of Trade has very difficult duties to carry out in connection with arbitration, conciliation, and negotiation between employers and employed, and such duties are every day becoming more necessary. It is not, therefore, merely a question whether the President of the Board of Trade should have his salary raised or not, because that will come up on the Estimates when his salary will be before the House, but it means also that the permanent officials, who are the advisers of the Board of Trade, who have to look into these matters, and sift all the questions connected with our great industries, should be well paid. It is upon these grounds that I submit this Bill to the House, and I trust it will be given a second reading.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I rise to support the second reading of this Bill, but upon grounds which have not up to the present been stated in the course of the Debate. One of my hon. Friends behind me objected to these proposals on the ground of their indefiniteness, and he pointed out that in clause 1, sub-section (1), there was an unlimited discretion given to the Treasury as to the amount of salary to be paid to the President of the Board of Trade. I may point out to the hon. Member who made that criticism that it would be perfectly competent to him to move a very simple Amendment after the words "such annual salary" the words "not exceeding £5,000, as the Treasury determine." But that criticism is a Committee point, and not a second reading matter.
Now, what is the position as far as the second reading is concerned? Perhaps I may make an observation with regard to the suggestion that there is a desire to decry the present occupant of the post. Either it is right that the status of the Board of Trade should be raised to this extent, and the salary should be £5,000, or it is right that it should remain at £2,000. If it is right that the salary of the President in future years should be £5,000 it must of course be clear that it is right that the present occupant of the office should receive £5,000. Either one of these propositions is right or the other is. I for one decline to believe that the House of Commons would ever be guilty of the meanness of providing for future occupants to enjoy £5,000 a year whilst imposing upon the present occupant the inferior salary. Is it right or wrong that

141
the office of the Board of Trade should be increased in importance and the emolument raised from £2,000 to £5,000? I have listened to the arguments addressed to the House from below the Gangway, and I should like to ask the Members of the Labour party a very simple question. Is it their view that the Cabinet Ministers who at present are paid £5,000 a year do not deserve that sum, and ought to be paid less? We all know that is not the view of anyone who has had a successful commercial or professional life, and it is not the view of any of us that those who are fit to serve in the most important positions in the Cabinet are not worth £5,000 a year. It is folly to put that argument forward, because we have passed beyond the stage of saying that no man is worth more than £500 a year. There is no one in this House who does not know that many Members of the present Government made very large pecuniary sacrifices when they accepted £5,000 a year, which some people seem to think is an excessive emolument for their services. The question before the House ought not to be an invidious distinction between the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board with reference to their respective salaries. For Members of the Labour party to suggest that the representatives of the two belligerent services ought to be paid larger salaries than the representatives of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade is somewhat remarkable. There is nobody in the House who has ever proposed that the Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, who receive £5,000 a year, should receive less. Success in commerce and professions very often means more than that to individuals. There are many members of the Junior Bar who are making more than the Prime Minister. If a comparison is to be made between the two belligerent services and those of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, then I would venture to remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that all the great social problems of the future will have to be solved by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. Almost all the great social problems which will interest the democracy in future will have to be solved by these two Departments; and I would ask hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members as a whole whether it is in the interests of democracy and in the interest of the effective solution of these great problems that you should say to ambitious men
142
—men with Parliamentary ambitions—that service men should receive the greatest and highest rewards, and that the representatives of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board should be regarded as representing inferior Departments by reason of their smaller salaries? That is not a lesson in the interests of the democracy, for whom the Labour party claim to speak. I hope that the House of Commons will see that the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board enjoy the position to which the importance of their duties entitle them; and believing that no ground exists for making a distinction between those two offices and others, I have no hesitation in recording my vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. P. CURRAN: The Labour party are not so much concerned with the expenditure proposed by the Bill as with the principles contained in it. I believe that Cabinet Ministers should be paid trade union rates. There is a difference as to what trade union rates are. It is perfectly obvious to the majority of the Members of this House that the manner in which this proposal has been brought forward is not likely to recommend it to democratic feeling. In the first place, we are informed by several gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who have spoken for the Government that three of a Committee were appointed by the Cabinet. The three gentlemen occupied posts that are under consideration. Well, I venture to say that if you set any of our artisan classes, which we claim to represent in this House, to make inquiries as to why their wages should be increased they will discover reasons without the slightest difficulty. Therefore I think the Government have not taken quite a democratic view of the question before the House. I venture to say that no corporation in this country would attempt to increase the salary of its highest paid official by a private committee. The matter would have to come before the whole corporation, and a vote taken. In my judgment—and this is the chief point of the opposition, so far as the Labour party is concerned—this is not a question of increase of salary but a question of giving the House an opportunity of having something to say on a Report which should have been placed on the Table of the House by impartial persons. If that had been done, I do not think the Labour party would have taken up the attitude they have done in this matter.

143
Then it has been advocated not only from these Benches but from others that it would be advisable in a company of this description to have a separate Department to carry out a certain amount of work now under the control of the Board of Trade. I submit that the Board of Trade is endeavouring, as one Department, to do more than any one Department can do. It has multifarious duties, as the Prime Minister put it, and in order to relieve it of some of these duties, we have advocated that a Minister of Labour should be appointed, which would relieve the Board of Trade of a great deal of the detail work that it now has in hand. It will be said that that means still further expenditure; but if it gave greater satisfaction, and if matters were adequately dealt with under a new staff of that description, in my judgment the money would be better spent than in raising the status of the Department under consideration in this measure. During my short experience in this House I have acquired knowledge as to how Departments are overlapping each other. I have one or two questions which I have interviewed Ministers upon in relation to grievances felt by some of my own Constituents—industrial grievances. I have been sent from one Minister to another, and the other Minister has sent me back again, and I have been obliged in despair to put a question across the floor of the House, and then have not got a satisfactory answer. The overlapping of Departments is another reason why a Minister of Labour should be appointed. I have no objection to raising the status of a Department; but, on the whole, I am to a great extent in agreement with the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. At this present juncture the expenditure out of the Treasury of a sum of money for already fairly well-paid officials is bound to create an outcry of indignation in the country, especially amongst the impoverished artisan class. I do not say that is a strong argument, but, of course, the artisan who is starving and who helps to contribute to the wealth of the country is likely to consider a man with £5,000 a year well paid, when he is only able to get a pound a week for his wife and family. Whether that is sound argument or not it is a criticism which the Government will have to bear. My closing words are that the Government should give proper consideration to this measure,
144
and should appoint a Committee to give consideration to the question whether the salaries and status of the Department should be increased, and if they do so they will get the confidence of the House, which I feel they have not so far as the Debate has gone.
Sir WILLIAM HOLLAND: I should like to express the gratitude which I know a very large number of business men throughout the country feel towards the Prime Minister for having sanctioned the introduction of the measure. Organised commercial opinion has been working at this subject for the last 15 or 20 years. Scores of hundreds of resolutions have been passed calling upon the Government to raise the status of the Board of Trade. This is the first serious attempt to take any step forward in that dirtection, and I think the services the Government are rendering towards giving effect to this view should be heartily acknowledged by those who have entertained that opinion for so many years. I thoroughly agree with the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool. It is against this discrimination against the office of the Board of Trade that we most indignantly protest. Why should this brand of inferiority be put upon the representative of our great and growing commerce? This question I have heard asked at scores of meetings of Chambers of Commerce, and I have not heard it answered on the present occasion. I do not think it will retard the formation of a Ministry of Labour later on; I do not think it will retard the revision, if necessary, of the amounts which are allowed for the payment of Secretaries of State, but I think this inequality which at the present time exists undoubtedly ought to be remedied. The Board of Trade is adding new departments every year. It is organising its machinery so as to compete more successfully with our great foreign competitors. Commercial missions, for instance, are being sent abroad from time to time, and different departments are being formed for the production of more elaborate statistics than hitherto, and we want to encourage the Board of Trade to make its machinery more in harmony with the demands of modern commerce. Therefore I, for one, cordially support the Bill.
The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 77.

Division No. 72.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Agnew, George William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Harwood, George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Robinson, S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Beale, W. P.

Hedges, A. Paget

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Beauchamp, E.

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bell, Richard

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Higham, John Sharp

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

Bennett, E. N.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bowerman, C. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Seaverns, J. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Seely, Colonel

Brigg, John

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Bright, J. A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Soares, Ernest J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Brooke, Stopford

Illingworth, Percy H.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Bryce, J. Annan

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Sutherland, J. E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kekewich, Sir George

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Byles, William Pollard

Lamont, Norman

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Causton, Rt Hon. Richard Knight

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Tomkinson, James

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Chance, Frederick William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Maclean, Donald

Verney, F. W.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Vivian, Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Clough, William

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

M'Micking, Major G.

Waring, Walter

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Maddison, Frederick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cowan, W. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Crossley, William J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Waterlow, D. S.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Meagher, Michael

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Menzies, Walter

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Duckworth, Sir James

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Mond, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Erskine, David C.

Mooney, J. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wiles, Thomas

Falconer, J.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Williamson, A.

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Ferens, T. R.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Partington, Oswald

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

Findlay, Alexander

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gibson, J. P.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Yoxall, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

Gulland, John W.

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hudson, Walter

Ashley, W. W

Doughty, Sir George

Jowett, F. W.

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barnes, G. N.

Fell, Arthur

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

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bull, Sir William James

Forster, Henry William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cave, George

Gretton, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Haddock, George B.

Oddy, John James

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hall, Frederick

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pretyman, E. G.

Crooks, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Curran, Peter Francis

Helmsley, Viscount

Renton, Leslie

Dalrymple, Viscount

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Renwick, George

Delany, William

Hill, Sir Clement

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

146

147

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Younger, George

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Thornton, Percy M.

Snowden, P.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Craig and Sir F. Banbury.

Stanier, Beville

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

Starkey, John R.

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

Question put accordingly: "That this Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 76.

Division No. 73.]

AYES.

[11.8 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Agnew, George William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Radford, G. H.

Ashley, W. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gulland, John W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Balcarres, Lord

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Robinson, S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harwood, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Beauchamp, E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bell, Richard

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Hedges, A. Paget

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

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

Brigg, John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bright, J. A.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Seaverns, J. H.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Seely, Colonel

Brooke, Stopford

Holt, Richard Durning

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bryce, J. Annan

Horniman, Emslie John

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Joynson-Hicks, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Byles, William Pollard

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambert, George

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Chance, Frederick William

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Tomkinson, James

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Vivian, Henry

Clough, William

Maclean, Donald

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

M'Callum, John M.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Cowan, W. H.

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Crossley, William J.

M'Micking, Major G.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Maddison, Frederick

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Marnham, F. J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Menzies, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Erskine, David C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wiles, Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mond, A.

Williamson, A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Falconer, J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fenwick, Charles

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

Ferens, T. R.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Findlay, Alexander

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Partington, Oswald

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Gibson, J. p.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Crooks, William

Hall, Frederick

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Curran, Peter Francis

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Barnes, G. N.

Delany, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Helmsley, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bull, Sir William James

Doughty, Sir George

Hill, Sir Clement

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cave, George

Fell, Arthur

Hudson, Walter

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Ffrench, Peter

Jowett, F. W.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Fletcher, J. s.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Gretton, John

Lamont, Norman

Craik, Sir Henry

Haddock, George B.

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Waring, Walter

Meagher, Michael

Rowlands, J.

Watt, Henry A.

Mooney, J. J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Snowden, P.

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

Oddy, John James

Stanier, Beville

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Starkey, John R.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Peel, Hon. W. R. w.

Summerbell, T.

Younger, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sutherland, J. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thorne, William (West Ham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. C. Duncan.

Renton, Leslie

Thornton, Percy M.

Renwick, George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bill read second time.
Motion made and Question put: "That the Bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Renwick.]
The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 124.

Division No. 74.]

AYES.

[11.15 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ashley, W. W

Ffrench, Peter

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Renton, Leslie

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barnes, G. N.

Haddock, George B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Summerbell, T.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hudson, Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cowan, W. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Thornton, Percy M.

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meagher, Michael

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Delany, William

Mooney, J. J.

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Doughty, Sir George

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Renwick and Captain Craig.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Parker, James (Halifax)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Findlay, Alexander

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Agnew, George William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gibson, J. P.

Mond, A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Beale, W. P.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Beauchamp, E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bennett, E. N.

Gulland, John W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Partington, Oswald

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bright, J. A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brooke, Stopford

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hedges, A. Paget

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Clough, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Robinson, S.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Crossley, William J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rowlands, J.

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Duckworth, Sir James

Lambert, George

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamont, Norman

Seaverns, J. H.

Erskine, David C.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Seely, Colonel

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Spicer, Sir Albert

Falconer, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ferens, T. R.

Maddison, Frederick

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Sutherland, J. E.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Williamson, A.

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Waterlow, D. S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Tomkinson, James

Watt, Henry A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Waring, Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

The House adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eleven of the clock.

  Fleets in Mediterranean.
  Fleets in Mediterranean.
  Jones and Stoney Estates, Comity Mayo.
  Jones and Stoney Estates, Comity Mayo.
  Royal Engineers (India and Burma).
  Royal Engineers (India and Burma).
  Indian Telegraph Department.
  Indian Telegraph Department.
  Thefts from Registered Letters Posted at Gibraltar.
  Thefts from Registered Letters Posted at Gibraltar.
  Ardrossan and Arran Mail Steamer Service.
  Ardrossan and Arran Mail Steamer Service.
  Post Office (Supervising Officers' Association).
  Post Office (Supervising Officers' Association).
  County Post Offices (Bank Holidays).
  County Post Offices (Bank Holidays).
  Army Boots and Shoes.
  Army Boots and Shoes.
  International Congress of Applied Chemistry.
  International Congress of Applied Chemistry.
  Island of Lewis (Assessments).
  Island of Lewis (Assessments).
  Copyhold Lands (Manor of Sedgeforth).
  Copyhold Lands (Manor of Sedgeforth).
  Death of Asiatic Fireman from Beri Beri.
  Death of Asiatic Fireman from Beri Beri.
  Death of Asiatic Fireman (Steamship "Baron Balfour").
  Death of Asiatic Fireman (Steamship "Baron Balfour").
  Local Authorities (Aggregate Debt).
  Local Authorities (Aggregate Debt).
  County Courts Bill.
  County Courts Bill.
  Hambleden Rural District Council.
  Hambleden Rural District Council.
  General Post Office, Newgate Street.
  General Post Office, Newgate Street.
  Legislative Council, Jamaica (Enfranchisement of Women).
  Legislative Council, Jamaica (Enfranchisement of Women).
  Suffragettes (Miss Patricia Woodcock).
  Suffragettes (Miss Patricia Woodcock).
WELLS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LISBURN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: The Orders made on March 9 and 30 last discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
BATH (CITY) ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: The Order made on March 2 last discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
PRESTON, CHORLEY AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

L. Torphichen;

L. Bowes (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I rise to ask my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War the Questions standing on the Paper in my name—viz: (1) How many of the 315,000 men required to complete the Territorial, so-called, Force have been enrolled up to date; (2) how many of these now serving in the Force are
622
under twenty years of age; (3) what is the lowest age at which they have been, and are now accepted; (4) how many Territorials now serving have engaged for one year only.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, in reply to the first Question, the strength of the Territorial Force on the first of this month was 8,938 officers out of an establishment of 11,267, or seventy-nine per cent.; 254,524 men out of an establishment of 302,017; or a total of 263,462 out of an establishment of 313,314, which comes out at eighty-four per cent.
In answer to the second Question I am sorry that we have not got later particulars than October 1, 1908, but on that day there were 188,785 men on the strength of the Territorial Force of whom 62,288 were under twenty. The answer to the third Question is that the limit of age for men is seventeen, and for boys fourteen. In answer to the fourth, I cannot give the noble Earl the actual number of men serving at the present time for one year, but the figures I can give will make it pretty clear. We had last year 107,857 one-year men serving in the Force—Volunteers who had transferred for one year. On April 1 last out of these 107,857 men 56,238 had already re-engaged for one year or more. That is to say, that these men had signified their intention of re-engaging before their year was actually up. Of the rest I hear from all sides very good accounts. I have no doubt that the number of one-year men who are re-engaging is considerable, although, of course, a certain number will leave the Force.
THE EARL OF ERROLLAre any being taken on now on a yearly engagement?
LORD LUCASNo; the term for which any man has to enter the force now is four years?
VISCOUNT MIDLETONI understood the noble Lord to say that the number of officers was seventy-nine per cent. of the establishment. Can he tell us whether that statement is to be taken as referring to officers on a mobilised or a peace standard?
LORD LUCASThe peace and war standards are the same; there is only one.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONThen we may take it that in case of mobilisation at this moment we have seventy-nine per cent. of the number of officers actually required to take the field?
LORD LUCASYes; and eighty-four per cent. of the men.
THE EARL OF ERROLLI take it that the number of officers short in the Territorial Force is, roughly, 2,500?
LORD LUCASYes.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREWill the noble Lord the Under-Secretary allow me, on the Motion to go into Committee, to put to him a question which I ask, not in any critical spirit, but really to elicit information? The history of the question is this. The late Government brought in a Bill to deal with the subject of transferring certain powers of the Secretary of State, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Adjutant-General to the Army Council. Last year His Majesty's Government brought in a Bill which, except in one very small detail, was practically the Bill of their predecessors. The wording of the two Bills was practically the same—that is to say, they transferred all the powers except those falling under one very small head. This year the Army (Annual) Bill starts, so to speak, from the other end. It transfers all the powers that it mentions. I hope I make myself clear. The old Bills transferred all the powers with very small exceptions; this year's Bill transfers only the powers that are mentioned. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the transference that we are asked to make this year is exactly the same as we would have been asked to make last year if the Bill that was then introduced in another place had been pushed through and had reached this House. I am anxious, as I say, to know whether the policy of His Majesty's Government this year is the
624
same as it was last year and as was the policy of their predecessors.
LORD LUCASClause 8, the object of which is to make individual members of Indian and Colonial forces subject to the Army Act when attached to any part of home forces for the purposes of training or exercise in the United Kingdom, is inserted at the wish of the self-governing Colonies. Clause 9 is merely an enabling clause. It makes it clear that the Colonial Legislatures can, if they wish to do so, apply the whole or any part of the Army Act to the Forces of the Colony when they are serving with the Regulars. The creation of the Special Reserve has rendered Clause 10 necessary. Under the Army Act as it stood the Reservist, when called up, became a Regular. That was in the days when all Reservists were ex-Regulars, and when practically the only time they were ever called up was on mobilisation. But now the existence of the Special Reserve has created a new kind of Reservist, and it is not thought desirable to treat him as a Regular when he is up simply for annual training. This clause, therefore, enables him to serve as a Special Reservist and not be treated as a Regular when on annual training.
The object of the provision in Clause 11—the last clause of the Bill—is to extend the definition of the Governor so as to include the High Commissioner or Commissioner of a British Protectorate. The definition of Colony was extended by the Army (Annual) Act of 1904 so as to include Protectorates, but no corresponding alteration was made in the definition of Governor. It is also made clear that in Australia and Canada "Governor" means the
628
Governor-General of Canada and Australia, and not the Governors of the Provinces of Canada or the States of Australia. I think I have now explained the whole of the provisions of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONI think the lucid statement of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary will have made it quite clear that a number of points have been dealt with in this Bill which have long required to be dealt with, but which, in the experience of successive Secretaries of State, have had to be put off through exigencies of pressure at this time of the year in the House of Commons and the necessity for carrying the Army (Annual) Bill by a particular date. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any remarks at this stage, except to congratulate the Secretary of State on having at last put in order a number of things which might otherwise have been left to be settled in time of crisis. But I would ask your Lordships to consider the statement made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary with regard to the constitutional responsibility of the Secretary of State. I think that in the transfer of these duties to the Army Council, however necessary they may have become, it is extremely desirable that we should satisfy ourselves that the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament is not in any way interfered with.
I cannot, I confess, view with the same equanimity as the noble Lord does the position as it is left under Clause 4 of the Bill. New powers are conferred on the Army Council. Those powers are statutory and absolute; but the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by the same clause are not statutory and absolute. He has a responsibility under the Order in Council of 1904, and care is taken to show that there is to be no interference with that responsibility. But that Order in Council is by prerogative, and what has been given by prerogative can be withdrawn by prerogative. There is nothing, so far as I am advised, which could prevent the Crown, on the advice of the Ministry, from withdrawing the Order in Council of 1904, and thereupon the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament, existing under and given by that Order in Council, would to that extent be limited and withdrawn.

629
What I would press upon His Majesty's Government is this. There certainly is, in the minds of many people, a doubt upon this question, and it seems to me that it would to only reasonable and wise, before parting from the Committee stage of the Bill, to put among the provisos in Clause 4 a clear statement that nothing in the clause shall interfere with the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament. That will not in any way affect the intention of the Government, and I commend it more especially to the consideration of the noble Lord because I understand that in another place an Amendment to that effect was down for discussion, but as the clause fell under the closure before the Amendment was reached there was no opportunity of eliciting the views of the Secretary of State and of competent lawyers in the other House on this subject. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further, except to express the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, will press the Amendment of which he has given notice, and that it will not be placed in any way as a limitation of another Amendment, but will be allowed to form a subsection by itself, so that it may be clearly established that the responsibility of the Secretary of State, which has always existed, to His Majesty and to Parliament is left entirely unimpaired.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, allusion has been made to an Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, to add, at the end of Clause 4, a new subsection to the effect that—
"Nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament."
Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary that I should state now my reasons for putting down this Amendment, rather than wait until we get in Committee.
LORD LUCASHear, hear.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI understand that the object of the Government is exactly the same as my own, and that they do not wish to interfere in any way with the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Indeed, it is stated in the Notes on Clauses which precede the Bill that—
630
"The full responsibility of the Secretary of State to the Crown and to Parliament is expressly preserved."
Therefore clearly it is the object of the Government to preserve full responsibility. The question is, Is that responsibility expressly preserved by the Bill? In the Bill as it stands I venture to think it is not; and for this reason. At the present moment the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament is fixed by the Statute of 1863. If your Lordships look at Clause 4 of this Bill you will see that subsection (2) provides that—
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August nineteen hundred and four respecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament and regulating the distribution of business amongst the members of the Army Council and the powers and duties transferred to the Army Council by this section shall be deemed to be business within the meaning of that Order and any part thereof may be reserved to the Secretary of State accordingly."
By the Letters Patent which constituted the Army Council the Secretary of State became a member of that Council, and therefore the question is whether, as a member of the Army Council and being one of that body, he still retains actual responsibility as Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament. The powers given to him by this clause are given with reference to such powers as are mentioned in the Order in Council, which, as has been pointed out, may be altered or abolished. Let me suppose, just for a moment, that this Order in Council were revoked. What, then, would be the position of the Secretary of State? I think, at all events, it is doubtful; and as I am sure the Government desire that no doubt should exist, I do not see, as at present advised, why they should object to insert a distinct and separate proviso to the effect that—
"Nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament."
That is the whole point, and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that it is better that this proviso should appear as a separate subsection.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
LORD LUCASwho had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (2), which Lord Camperdown had just read, and to insert the following new sub-section—
"(2) The powers and duties transferred to the Army Council by this section shall as from the commencement of this Act be deemed to be business within the meaning of the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August nineteen hundred and four regulating the distribution of business amongst the members of the Army Council and the provisions of that Order as to the reservation to himself of any part of such business by the Secretary of State and as to the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament shall apply accordingly,"
asked permission to alter the wording of this Amendment by leaving out the words—
"and the provisions of that Order as to the reservation to himself of any part of such business by the Secretary of State and as to the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament shall apply accordingly,"
and inserting in their place the words—
"The Secretary of State may however reserve to himself any such business and nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament"
This, he said, embodied Lord Camperdown's words, and the Government thought the provision appeared better in this form. The effect of the Amendment was two-fold. In the first place, the subsection was redrafted in order to remove any possible ambiguity as to whether or not it could be interpreted as being retrospective. As the Government particularly wished that it should not be made retrospective because of the case of Lieutenant Woods, which might thereby be affected, they had had it re-drafted so that by no conceivable circumstances could it possibly be considered as retrospective in any way. In the second place, the Amendment as he now proposed to move it gave absolutely everything that Lord Camperdown desired. It was not usual to insert in an Act of Parliament words defining the responsibility of a Secretary of State, because this responsibility had already been established by what he might describe as the unwritten law of the Constitution. There could be no question of the delegation of responsi
632
bility as between the members of the Army Council and the Secretary of State; and in order to make it clear that the responsibility of the Secretary of State did not rest on the terms of the Order in Council, the Government proposed this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 3, line 25, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following new subsection:
(2)'The powers and duties transferred to the Army Council by this section shall as from the commencement of this Act be deemed to be business within the meaning of the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August nineteen hundred and four regulating the distribution of business amongst the members of the Army Council. The Secretary of State may however reserve to himself any such business and nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament.'"—(Lord Lucas.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it was difficult to argue upon an Amendment which was not on the Paper, although the noble Lord the Under-Secretary had been good enough just before the meeting of the House to show him the Amendment as he had now moved it. The Amendment was open to the objection that it dealt with two subjects—first, the distribution of duties among the members of the Army Council, and, second, the responsibility of the Secretary of State. He preferred the words of his own proviso. As he had stated what his objection to the Government's Amendment was, perhaps the noble Lord the Under-Secretary would kindly tell him what the objection of the Government was to accepting the perfectly clear and distinct form in which he (Lord Camperdown) proposed to insert this proviso.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)My Lords, I think there is not any very great difference between the Amendment of the noble Earl and the redrafted Amendment of my noble friend the Under-Secretary, but there is one particular advantage in the drafting of Lord Lucas's Amendment which I think the noble Earl will recognise when it is pointed out to him. In the first place, may I say that I am not aware of any previous Act wherein what is called the responsibility either of a Secretary of State or of a Minister of the Crown to Parliament has ever been expressly recognised. The truth is that all the powers conferred by an Act of Parliament upon a Minister are bestowed, so to

633
speak, in an atmosphere of Parliamentary and constitutional responsibility which is supposed to cover them all. No references can be found in an Act, for example, to the Cabinet, nor to its responsibility. It is a part of the constitution of the country, and as such is very well known by everyone. Accordingly, being somewhat of a purist in these matters, or, if you like, a prude, I do not like the idea of introducing this special reference to Ministerial responsibility in an Act of Parliament. However, it was introduced into an Order in Council in 1904, when the constitutional advisers of His Majesty did not include myself. There it is in the Order in Council, and now what is desired is, by Act of Parliament, to make a transfer of some fresh powers to the Army Council in addition to those dealt with by the Order in Council. That being the case, the noble Earl opposite proposes to provide that nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament. In my opinion nothing of the kind could happen: but what the noble Earl desires is secured by the Amendment of my noble friend the Under-Secretary, which also secures something else—namely, that the Secretary of State may reserve to himself "any such business." If it is desirable to say that responsibility to Parliament is to be preserved by Statute and ought not to be preserved by Order in Council, is it not equally desirable to say that the reservation by the Secretary of State to himself of any such business should be secured by Act of Parliament instead of by Order in Council? This is the difference between the two Amendments, and I think the noble Earl would be well advised to accept Lord Lucas's Amendment subject to reconsideration on Report.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he understood that Lord Camperdown desired to secure that the reservation which he moved concerning the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and as to which the noble Earl and the Government appeared to be agreed, should be given the dignity of a separate subsection. It seemed to him that Lord Camperdown's Amendment in no way contradicted the Government's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI would suggest that the settlement of the Amendment might be left over until the Report
634
stage, so that the drafting could be considered, and an opportunity allowed for a conference, if necessary, between the noble Earl and the Secretary of State. There is really nothing between us.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would be pleased to accept that suggestion. He only wished to make it plain that the reservation of business was one thing and the statutory responsibility of the Secretary of State quite another thing. Because they were different he had thought it better that they should be referred to in separate provisos.
ORD LUCASexpressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
LORD LUCASmoved to amend this clause, which dealt with billeting in cases of emergency, by providing that in the case of unoccupied premises the section should apply as if the owner were the occupier.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 7, page 6, line 17, after the word 'Constabulary' to insert the words 'In the case of unoccupied premises this section shall apply as if the owner were the occupier thereof.'"—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAVERSHAMasked whether there was any real necessity for the large powers which the clause took to billet in private houses. Under the clause there was not a single private house that could not be entered for this purpose by the military authorities in the event of emergency. In the past, public halls, and buildings of that character, had been utilised for billeting Volunteers, and he hoped to have an assurance that the tremendous powers given by this clause would not be exercised except in the case of absolute necessity, and that the chief officer of police would in all cases consider the convenience of private householders by ascertaining first whether accommodation could not be found in public halls and

635
similar buildings and in victualling houses in the neighbourhood. If the troops were quartered at one place for any length of time they would, of course, be put under canvas, and the difficulty would not arise. The clause also provided that—
"The prices to be paid to an occupier other than the keeper of a victualling house for accommodation furnished and food and fodder supplied by him shall be such as may be fixed by regulations made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury."
He trusted that, in fixing these prices, the Army Council would not adopt a schedule such as that contained in the Bill. That schedule would, in the case of soldiers billeted in private houses, be altogether unjust. He therefore hoped the Army Council would press upon the Treasury for a much more liberal scale of allowances.
LORD LUCASreplied that these powers would only be exercised in the case of great emergency. The best use would be made of public buildings, and it would only be in the last resort that billeting
636
would take place in private houses. Everything had been done to make the inconvenience necessarily caused in time of danger as light as possible. With regard to the question of prices, a schedule could not be laid down for a time of emergency, but when an emergency did arise full consideration would be given to the price of food at the time and the inconvenience to which the occupiers of private houses were placed.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received Tomorrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 31.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.