Sitting of 6 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ashborne and District Gas Bill [Lords].
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferriers Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Luton Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Rhôs-on-Sea Pier Bill,
Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill,
Widnes and Runcorn Bridge (Transfer) Bill,
Sligo Corporation Bill,
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill,
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the transfer to the-Corporation of the City of London of moneys forming part of the trophy tax; to confer further powers on the Corporation in reference to Bunhill Fields Burial Ground and in reference to the working of the tramway of the Corporation authorised by the Foreign Cattle Market Deptford Act, 1898; to confer further powers on the Corporation with respect to the control of streets and structures in streets and buildings and in reference to repair of streets; to enable the Corporation to enter into agreements with the Stepney Borough Council in reference to the special rate leviable in the City under the Great Tower Bill Act, 1869; to make further provisions for the health and good government of the City; to empower the Corporation to borrow money; and for other purposes." [City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company to construct new railways in the county of Monmouth; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (PARTIAL EXEMPTION).
Return ordered, "giving the number of scholars on the Partial Exemption

Number of Partial Exemption Scholars in ordinary Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local Education Authorities (England and Wales).

Local Education Authorities.

Number of Scholars on the Partial Exemption Registers during the course of school years ending within the statistical year ended 31st July.

Number of Scholars on the Partial Exemption Registers on the last day of school years ending within the statistical year ended 31st July, 1910. (These figures are not available for the years 1904 and 1907.)

1901.

1907.

1910.

Under 13.

13 and under 14.

Total."

—[Mr. Albert Smith.]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
Return ordered "of the amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and

£2½ per Cent. Consols.

£2¾ per Cent. Annuities (1905).

£2½ per Cent. Annuities.

Local Loans £3 per Cent. Stock.

£2¾ per Cent. Guaranteed Land Stock (1891).

Guaranteed £2¾ per Cent. Stock (1903).

Guaranteed £3 per Cent. Stock (1909).

Other Securities.

Total."

Annuities for Terms of Years.

Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.

—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 24th April.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Limitation of Armaments.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposed to exchange information with Germany on the subject of naval construction, in view of the declaration of the German Imperial Chancellor against the policy of the limitation of armaments?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The speech of the Imperial Chancellor, to which
  Registers in ordinary Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales during the statistical year ended 31st July, 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, in the following form:—
  other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1911, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155, of Session 1910):—
  the question refers, expressly accepted the idea of an exchange of information, and expressed readiness to come to an agreement about it, and I see nothing in what the Imperial Chancellor said about limitation of armaments that in any way makes exchange of information less practicable or desirable.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the Foreign Secretary see any value in the exchange of information about naval building in this country when the Imperial Chancellor expressly said he would agree to nothing in the way of limitation of armaments? Is there any public purpose to be served?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will refer to the speech I made on the 13th March, he will see that I deprecated the use of the phrase "limitation of armaments," but I distinctly said that "reduction of expenditure" was a better phrase. So far as exchange of information might remove distrust between any two countries, it would have an effect upon reduction of expenditure.

  Decree of Monharrem (Translation).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was aware that no English translation of the Decree of Monharrem (1881) had ever been laid upon the Table of the House; and if, in view of the importance of the document, he would lay it in English, together with the other Papers promised in connection with the Baghdad Railway?
  Sir E. GREY: An English translation of the Decree of Monharrem, together with a translation of the "Décret Annexe" of 1903, which modifies the former, shall be laid.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of how soon these Papers will be laid? A considerable time has already elapsed.
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir. There is a great deal of translation to be done. I think, as I said on Tuesday, about the end of this month.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the question of perpetual leases would be dealt with in the new Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty, or in a separate agreement?
  Sir E. GREY: The question of perpetual leases will be dealt with in a separate agreement.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a new Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty has been signed by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the affirmative.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if British India and certain other Colonies and Dependencies would be excluded from the operation of the new Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty, and, if so, for what reason?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to Article 26 of the new Anglo-Japanese Treaty, which has just been issued.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: If they do not adhere to the treaty will there be a
  2398
  statutory tariff with Japan, or will they, under the operation of the most-favoured-nation clause, secure the same advantages, so far as the tariff is concerned, as this country does?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the Colonies would submit to any commercial treaties imposed upon them by the Imperial Government, or would submit to the commercial terms which are involved in this treaty for the Home Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I think if the hon. Member will refer to Article 26 he will see that it provides ample liberty. I do not think the suggestion in the question arises now.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say in what part of M. Renault's Report, and on what page of the Blue Book Cd. 4554, any reference is made to the correct translation of the French words in Article 49 of the Declaration of London—peut compromettre le succès des opérations—and whether the only reference in that Report to the correct translation of the French of Article 49 is in regard to the words—peut compromettre la sécurité du bâtiment de guerre?
  Sir E. GREY: The only direct reference is as stated, but the hon. Member must be aware that the word "compromettre" occurs only once in the article, and that it refers both to the ship and to the operations. In so far as the Report of the Conference indicates the proper English translation of one of the phrases of which the word "compromettre" forms the essential part, it naturally affects the translation of both the phrases grammatically dependent from the same verb.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the context of the word "compromettre" is different in the two cases?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think it is. I think it is the same, and therefore it is properly translated by the same expression.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the American translations of these words are?
  Sir E. GREY: I think the American version is the same, but I am not certain. I ask the hon. Member to give notice. I think in these two instances it is the same.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the passage in M. Renault's Report, on page 49 of the Blue Book, Cd. 4554, which states that the true destination of conditional contraband will usually be more or less concealed, that the captor must prove it in order to justify their capture, that in the absence of the presumptions contained in Article 34 the destination is presumed to be innocent, and that this is the ordinary law, according to which the captor must prove the illicit character of the goods which he claims to capture; and whether, in view of this statement, reliance can be placed on the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, that the past practice has been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods?
  Sir E. GREY: I must point out that to speak of "M. Renault's Report" is an incorrect and misleading description of the Report of the Conference. Hitherto the ordinary law as administered by Prize Courts has not placed the burden of proof upon the captor: that the been the case, for instance, in the Russian Prize Courts and in our own. The Declaration of London for the first time establishes the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the captor, and it is to this that the Report refers.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any authority which tells us that in ordinary cases the burden of proof in such matters is not on the captor but upon the owner of the captured boat?
  Sir E. GREY: I am informed that has been the case in the Russian Courts, and even in our own Prize Courts.
  Mr BUTCHER: Is there any authoritative statement on the subject in any book?
  Sir E. GREY: Of course, the important thing in these matters is the practice of the Prize Courts. We find that the practice of the Russian Prize Courts and the British Prize Courts is what I have said, and that is a strong indication of what the rule is.

  Mullingar Contracts (Surcharges).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would ascertain from the official auditors' reports and state the number of instances in the last six years in which the Mullingar District Asylum Committee, the Mullingar District Council, and the Mullingar Board of Guardians, respectively, in giving a contract rejected a lower tender and accepted a higher, with, in the case of each institution, the number of instances in which the special reason stated was to help an Irish industry, and the number of instances in which an Irish product was rejected and a non-Irish one at a higher price accepted?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): From the auditor's reports it appears that for the years ended March, 1906 and 1907 the Mullingar Rural District Council, and for the years ended March, 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908 the Mullingar Board of Guardians accepted unnecessarily high tenders for the supply of books, forms, and other articles, and that when auditing each half-year's accounts the auditor surcharged the amount of the loss against the members who voted for the higher tender. These amounts were recovered and lodged to the credit of the accounts. The auditor's reports do not contain the information asked for in the remainder of the question.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners pay no attention to allegations of duress under which tenants are forced to sign purchase agreements at exorbitant prices; whether their minutes show that, though the allegation is frequent, it is overruled without inquiry and the exorbitant prices enforced in almost every instance; whether they will make any inquiry into the three cases on the Levenge estate, Westmeath, in which they are aware that duress is being practised at the present time; and whether they will see that the grass farm of Tubberquill on that estate is, under the sale, made available to the small neighbouring tenants who signed purchase agreements subject to this being done?
  Mr. MOORE: Before that question is dealt with may I ask whether it will be answered as the matter is sub judice. When we ask similar questions we are told they are in reference to subjects which are sub judice.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think my answer will refer to anything which is sub judice. There is no foundation for the allegation in the first paragraph of the question, nor are the Commissioners aware of the duress alleged to be practised on the Levenge estate. The cases of certain tenants on that estate who have not signed purchase agreements are engaging their attention at present. The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the vendor's solicitors as to the lands at present in the occupation of the vendor.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners in administering Land Purchase Acts have any regard to a local want and an exceptional opportunity for satisfying it; if so, whether he will explain how it is that while in some cases of tenanted land suitable for distribution, but not offered for sale, they communicate with both landlord and tenant, get them to sell their respective interests simultaneously, and distribute the land, in the case of nonresidential farms on the Gradwell estate, Westmeath, publicly offered for sale by the tenant, Mr. M'Culloch, the Commissioners refuse to ask the landlord to join in the sale, and the land is about to pass from the neighbouring congested people to a rancher; and, if this is not the policy of the Government, whether he will see that the land is purchased and distributed under the Acts passed for that purpose?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The powers of the Estates Commissioners are limited to the purchase of land in fee simple, and they have no power to purchase a tenant's interest nor, having regard to the statutory authority under which they act, can they bid at public auctions such as that referred to. If the owner purchases the tenant's interest in the lands referred to in the question, and offers the lands as untenanted to the Commissioners, they will consider the question of acquiring them for purposes of distribution.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Estates Commissioners are at present acquiring from both tenant and landlord land in the same neighbourhood in which this is situated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If they are, they are buying the fee simple from the landlord.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the Tonlagee
  2402
  Farm, county Roscommon, estate of Mr. John Beirne, Ballinasloe, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; that the sale has been pending since 1907; would he state if Mr. Beirne has accepted the offer of the Board; if so, does the Board refuse to take up possession according to agreement; and what is the cause?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have been negotiating for the sale of this estate for some time. The owner refused an offer made by the Board, but an offer made on the 5th January last has been accepted, and arrangements are now being made by the Board for taking possession.
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked whether the tenants of Mr. W. H. O'Sullivan, of Bantry, residing at Breenymore, Bantry, have memorialised the Congested Districts Board with a view to the purchase of their holdings, and with what result; whether the tenants of Mr. W. H. O'Sullivan, residing at Rooska, Bantry, have requested the Congested Districts Board to negotiate for the purchase of their holdings; if so, with what result; and, if Mr. O'Sullivan has refused, will the Congested Districts Board put the compulsory clauses of the Purchase Act of 1909 into operation in order to compel Mr. O'Sullivan to sell his interest in the holdings of the tenants referred to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not received a memorial from the tenants in respect of the lands at Breenymore, county Cork, on the estate of Mr. O'Sullivan, but they have received a memorial from the tenants residing on the lands of Rooska, on the same estate. The owner was written to by the Board with a view to negotiating for a sale, but no reply has been received. The question of putting the compulsory clauses of the Act of 1909 into force in this case hat not been considered by the Board.
  Mr. GINNELLasked in view of the knowledge of the Estates Commissioners that their indifference to duress facilitates its practice, what evidence the Commissioners require before they investigate an allegation of duress; whether a letter from, or on behalf of, the vendor threatening seizure for arrears and contingent eviction unless his terms are accepted would be sufficient when a tenant is presented with the choice of losing his home or signing an agreement to purchase at a price which all parties know the holding cannot

  2403
  repay; which do the Government and the Commissioners prefer he should do; if the former, will he be reinstated and compensated; and, if the latter, will the holding be valued and the price reduced to the value?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that when dealing with an estate in order of priority they inquire into any allegation that any tenant had been induced to sign an agreement to purchase his holding by duress or other improper means, and take such action as they consider the circumstances of the case require.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state why the vesting orders have not been issued on the Ashbrook estate, at Carrigkittle, Kilteely, county Limerick, as the agreements were signed in November, 1905; and, in view of the fact that the tenants on an adjoining estate, who did not purchase until 1906, have received their vesting orders, will steps be taken to have the above sale completed, and thus bring some advantage to the tenants, who have been paying at the rate of 4 per cent. since 1905?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in this estate were lodged with the Estate Commissioners in January, 1906. The estate has not yet been reached in order of priority, but when so reached it will be dealt with as rapidly as possible.

  Lord Ashtown.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Sergeant Sharp, Royal Irish Constabulary, of Wood-lawn, county Galway, has recently asked a railway porter named Coen to withdraw his children from the National School of which Mrs. Cahill is principal teacher; whether Sergeant Sharp informed Coen that if he did not do so his son would cease to be employed by Lord Ashtown; whether Lord Ashtown about two years ago called at the office of the Commissioners of National Education in Dublin and reported Mrs. Cahill for an alleged violation of rules; whether in consequence the Commissioners caused an inquiry to be held; whether Mrs. Cahill was, after a full investigation, declared not to have infringed the rules; and whether, as Sergeant Sharp is accused of transgression of duty in this matter, he will cause a constabulary inquiry to be held into it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that Sergeant Sharp has not at any time spoken to Coen about the attendance of his children at any school. In 1909 Lord Ashtown called at the office of the Commissioners of National Education and reported that certain children had been withdrawn from the Woodlawn National School, and suggested that an inspector should be sent down to ascertain the cause. After full inquiry, the Commissioners decided that no action need be taken in the matter.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made inquiry; and, if not, will he inquire of the manager?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not heard of it before, but I will inquire.

  Dublin Metropolitan Police (Ex-Constable Cronin).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Constable Cronin, of the Dublin metropolitan police, who was so seriously injured in the discharge of his duty on the 4th of May last that he has since been compulsorily retired from the service; whether he is aware that this man, whose injuries necessitated the amputation of his right leg, has been offered a pension of 6s. weekly, subsequently raised to 8s. weekly, after protest by the injured man; whether he is aware that the police authorities have issued, and continue to issue, a circular promising to intending recruits a full pension in the case of malicious injury; and whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he will have the matter fully inquired into?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already pointed out, in reply to the questions on this subject on 3rd April, Cronin has received the highest pension which the law allows in the circumstances of his case. In the case of a constable of less than fifteen years' service full pay can only be awarded in a case other than a case of accidental injury?

  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what was the grant from the Exchequer for primary education in Ireland for the year ended the 31st March, 1910; the number of pupils on the rolls of the schools managed by the National Board for the same period; the

  2405
  number of pupils on the rolls of schools not under the control of the National Board; the average grant from the Treasury per pupil on the rolls; the average grant per head of the population; what was the number of pupils on the rolls of secondary schools, and the grant they received from the Exchequer for the same period; and how these figures compare with the corresponding figures for England and Scotland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to give the information asked for in the question, but if the hon. Member wishes to move for a Return I will consider whether it may be possible to grant it.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has made himself acquainted with the official promises given to national teachers in 1900, that no teacher then in the service should suffer solely from the raising of the average attendance of pupils; whether the Commissioners of National Education are aware of the continued decline of population where the ranching system prevails, and the consequent impossibility of maintaining an average; whether they have received memorials from teachers showing the loss of assistants, of status, and of merited promotion owing to this cause, over which the teachers have no control; whether he is aware that teachers of good record are threatened with further diminution of income on this ground alone; and whether he can give any assurance that, in the case of teachers in the service prior to 1900, the promises of that year and the general practice in the Civil Service will be observed, and no reduction of the teachers' income made in respect of average alone?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The average attendance warranting payment of salaries to national teachers has not been raised since 1900. On the contrary, the average attendance in the case of assistant teachers has been lowered. As I have already informed the hon. Member the payment of teachers since 1900 has been according to an entirely different scale and different conditions from those obtaining prior to 1900, and the new system has improved the position of national teachers materially. No system of payments could be devised that would prevent occasional hardship in individual cases, owing to a falling off in the population of the country and a consequent
  2406
  decline in the average attendance at the schools.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance on the last clause of the question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the date of Easter and to the absence from home of many teachers who will be attending the National Teachers' Congress at Belfast on 18th April, he will request the Commissioners of National Education to despatch the warrants for payment of teachers' salaries not later than 12th April, so that they can be cashed by the teachers before leaving for the congress?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is proposed to issue the money orders to the managers of schools on Thursday 13th instant in all regular cases where the school returns and claims for payment are furnished in due time. It is not practicable to have the orders for payment ready for issue at an earlier date.

  Derelict Boat (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he will ask the Congested Districts Board to institute inquiries in connection with the injury caused to the fishing industry and danger to fishermen's lives by a wrecked coal boat lying as a derelict on the fishing grounds situate between Beale Head and Ballylongford, North Kerry; and whether, in view of the continued injury and danger caused, the Congested Districts Board will take immediate action for the protection of the fishing industry as well as the lives of the men engaged therein?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have no information as to the wreck referred to. Inquiries will be made, but the case does not appear to be one in which the Board would be likely to intervene.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) to send an inspector to inquire into and report as to the great danger caused by the wreck?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will see first what the Congested Districts Board says.

  Teaching Irish.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the statement in the general Report on Irish, published in the Appendix to the Seventy-sixth Report of the Commissioners of National Education, that very often the time available for teaching Irish in national schools is wasted or frittered away unprofitably; and if he will consider the advisability of abolishing the payment of fees for teaching Irish as an extra subject, and using the money so saved to remove the limitation as to the number of teachers who can receive first-grade pay, and to promote the health and comfort of the children by making a grant for the heating and cleansing of the national schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the statement referred to. The Commissioners of National Education do not hold themselves responsible for the opinion expressed in the general reports of their inspectors, but at the same time they can see nothing in the statement that would warrant them in recommending the abolition of the payment of fees for Irish as an extra subject. These fees are paid only when Irish is taught in a satisfactory manner. The money granted for the encouragement of instruction in the Irish language cannot be used for other purposes.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that an extra fee will be paid for teaching French as an additional subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Education authorities in Ireland as well as in England agree that the teaching of the language of a country is the first and most important element of teaching?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think if the hon. Member reads the report referred to he will find that, although the inspector criticises in some respects the manner in which Irish is taught, he is perfectly agreed that it is a most valuable thing to be taught.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the policy of the Commissioners to teach Irish at considerable expense to the country, and to allow the children to proceed to schools to learn other subjects which are not in a fit sanitary condition and ill-heated for the reception of children?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The sanitary condition of the schools does not arise out of the question.

  Coronation.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether the Commissioners of National Education propose to grant additional holidays to Irish schools under their administration in respect of the Coronation and their Majesties' visit to Ireland; and, if so, whether, in view of the convenience to teachers and parents, they will make an early announcement of their intentions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have decided to allow managers to close their schools on 22nd and 23rd June and on 10th and 11th July. An early intimation to this effect will be made to the managers.

  Cahirciveen Water Supply.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the people of Cahirciveen for many years have been clamouring for an improved water supply, the present dearth of water being a danger to the public health; that the Local Government Board, on 19th December, 1909, held a sworn inquiry into the matter, and, as a result of the inquiry, gave notice to the rural district council that they would put into force their compulsory powers under the Public Health Act unless the council should proceed at once to provide a water supply; whether he is aware that, on 13th December, 1910, the Local Government Board issued a sealed order to the rural district council defining the area of charge, and that, although the council have laid the plans of Mr. Hick-son, C.E., before the Local Government Board, and requested them to sanction a loan, nothing has since been done; and can he say when serious action will be taken in the matter, in view of the approach of the summer months and the failure of the water supply, which will be inadequate during the summer months?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the question, except that the date of the default inquiry was the 16th, not the 19th, December, 1909. The plan of the reservoir has been received by the Local Government Board, but the rural district council have not yet submitted their application for a loan, although reminded on the 14th March that they should do so.

  Rateable Value (Crofton Estate).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state the rateable valuation of the farm now held by the Estates Commissioners, acquired by them from Messrs. Payne on the Pollock estate; and the rateable valuation of the farm given in exchange on the Crofton estate in county Roscommon?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not got particulars of the separate Poor Law valuation of the farm referred to, but will make inquiries. As I have already informed the hon. Member the Poor Law valuation of the lands of Ballybeg allotted to the Messrs. Payne on the Crofton estate is £389.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difficulty of ascertaining the valuation of this farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was part of a larger valuation, and there is some difficulty in making the proper apportionment in order to see how much belonged to the actual holding.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Was not the whole of the farm acquired by the Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; the difficulty arises from the fact that that was not so.

  Gospel Preachers (County Tipperary).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Cloughjordan, county Tipperary, on the fair-day about three weeks ago, a party of Gospel preachers were addressing the crowd in the street when the parish priest, the Rev. M. Costigan, came upon the scene and ordered them to desist; that when the preachers paid no attention to him he forced his way through the crowd and struck one of them with his stick or umbrella; that, urged on by the priest's example, someone in the crowd struck one of the preachers a blow with a stone, inflicting a wound on the head; and that two or three policemen were witnesses of the whole proceedings and made no attempt to interfere or to arrest the priest or the man who threw the stone; and will he say whether any arrests have been made since, and what proceedings it is proposed to take against the Rev. M. Costigan?
  Dr. ESMONDE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I
  2410
  ask whether these preachers drove from fourteen miles away from another town called Roscrea and forced themselves into a crowd of people who were transacting their business at a fair, and who were entirely Catholic, and whether they made use of words which offended these people very much?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer the question on the Paper. The Inspector-General informs me that a party of Gospel preachers addressed the crowd in the streets of Cloughjordan on 13th March. A fair was in progress at the time. The Rev. M. Costigan came on the scene and sent away a few people who were listening to the preachers. He pushed his way through the crowd, but the police who were present did not observe him strike any of the preachers with a stick or umbrella. A crowd gathered, and much excitement prevailed, and one stone was thrown which struck one of the preachers on the temple, inflicting a slight wound, but the police cannot say who threw the stone. No arrests were made, and there is not sufficient evidence for a prosecution. With regard to the question put to me, I think the whole House will agree that a fair in a Catholic community is not quite the place to choose for preaching.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is it not the fact that it is the practice of these itinerant preachers in Ireland to address open-air meetings in Catholic districts, while in Protestant districts meetings are held in tents and halls, and whether in the course of these open-air meetings they use grossly and unnecessarily offensive expressions with regard to the Catholic faith?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer for the usual practice of itinerant preachers.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that these men who are only preaching the Gospel after all, and are doing what they conscientiously believe to be right, will receive adequate protection, and if he has had other instances of this intolerance brought to his knowledge?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think, for a considerable time at all events, I have had my attention called to a disturbance of this kind, but anyone must know that it is impossible to lay down general rules, but the obligation of keeping the peace must be observed by both sides.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it denied that this parish priest struck the preacher across the face with a stick or umbrella?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes; it is denied by the police.
  Mr. MOORE: The police did not see it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The rev. gentleman himself also denied it.
  Mr. MOORE: He did not say it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is so at all events.

  Imported Meat (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether, with the purpose of having things sold for what they really are, and in view of the dissatisfaction prevailing in Ireland at the present state of the law, the Government will grant facilities for passing a Bill for the compulsory marking of imported frozen and chilled meat into Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot promise any facilities for the passing of this Bill.

  Thompson-Orpin Estate (County Waterford).
  Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a tenant has been evicted within the past year on the Thompson-Orpin estate, Balluduff, county Waterford; that two other evictions are pending; and that nearly all the tenants on this estate sent a memorial to the Estates Commissioners a year ago point-out that it comes within the definition of congested townlands under the Irish Land Act of 1909, and asking the Estates Commissioners to take steps under that Act to compel a sale; whether the Estates Commissioners have considered this memorial; whether they propose to make a further delay before dealing with it; and whether they will now direct one of their inspectors to investigate the circumstances of the estate under the powers conferred on them by the Act of 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to evictions on this estate. They received the memorial referred to and have the matter at present under consideration.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the following persons, namely, Anne Ganly, Bridget Nilan, Mary Melvin, Margaret Melvin, Henry Mara, Margaret M'Dermottroe, and Honor Winston, all of whom are over seventy years of age, who are resident in the infirmary of Castlerea Workhouse and paying their full cost of maintenance,
  2412
  have been refused their applications for old age pensions; and whether he will state the grounds upon which this refusal was made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No appeals have been received in these cases, and the Local Government Board have no information regarding them.
  Mr. REDDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury why Michael Fahey, of Erry Armstrong, Clara, has been refused a pension; is he aware that this man's mother died as far back as 28th March, 1844; has he seen a death certificate by Father Michael Bracken to this effect, and that Michael Fahey was at the date referred to five years old; and will he have the whole circumstances of this case reviewed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that Michael Fahey has been granted a pension of 5s. a week as from the 24th of last month.

  Orpen Estate (County Kerry).
  Mr. BOLANDasked what steps, if any, have been taken to secure the reinstatement of Thomas Gill, an evicted tenant on the Orpen estate, near Kilgarvan, county Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Thomas Gill for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate referred to, but, as the application was not received within the period mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, it could not be dealt with under that Act. Gill's application will be considered by the Commissioners when they are dealing with this estate which is the subject of proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. BOLAND: When will the estate actually be dealt with? Will it be within the next year or so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will find out,
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As far as I can.

  National School Inspectors (Galway Circuit).
  Captain CRAIGasked what was the date in each of the years between 1902 and 1907 on which the required annual conference was held between the chief inspector of national schools and the various local inspectors of the Galway circuit?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Wexford on this subject on 6th March.

  Road Board (Improvement of Irish Roads).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the 24th ultimo a resolution was unanimously adopted by the Irish County Councils General Council, protesting against the scheme for the administration of the grant for the improvement of Irish roads, mainly on the grounds of the inadequacy of the sum proposed to be allocated to Ireland; and, if so, whether, in view of the statements embodied in the resolution, he will institute an inquiry with the view of Ireland receiving her due share of the grant provided by the Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a similar question asked on the 3rd April by the hon. Member for North Dublin.

  Small Holdings (County Sligo).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 23rd May, 1910, a memorial signed by a number of small farmers or cottiers residing in the parish of Tubercurry, county Sligo, was sent to the Congested Districts Board pointing out that there were a number of non-residential grazing ranches in the district suitable for the enlargement of small holdings, and praying that, as the district was one of the most congested in Ireland, the owners of these waste lands be approached with the view of purchase; whether he is aware that on 26th May, 1910, the Congested Districts Board, in acknowledging the receipt of the memorial, asked for information as to the names of the landlords and occupiers of the lands referred to in the memorial; whether such information was supplied; and, if so, whether these landlords have since been approached, or any steps taken to have congestion relieved in this congested district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that as a result of the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member they have given directions for the valuation of the Hugh-Mossman Estate with a view to its purchase. Mrs. Howley, who was formerly a tenant on this estate, has already signed an agreement
  2414
  to purchase from the Estates Commissioners, and this land is therefore not available for the purposes of the Board. The estate of Miss Nicholson is being dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, and the estates of Captain Cooper and the representatives of the late Mr. Walker have not been offered to the Board.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Mr. Maurice Barry, Lougher, Annascawl, county Kerry, evicted tenant on the Ventry estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When the estate referred to is vested by the Congested Districts Board they will consider the claims of the representatives of Mr. Maurice Barry for reinstatement.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Am I to understand that this evicted tenant is not to be reinstated until the estate is vested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Until the estate is vested it will be impossible to reinstate him.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it not the fact that it is the Estates Commissioners and not the Congested Districts Board who have to deal with the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and will he ask them to deal with this?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will ask them to, but they can only do it by arrangement with the purchaser.

  County Fermanagh Magistracy (Mr. Patrick Scott).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Patrick Scott, J.P., of Scribbagh Garrison, county Fermanagh, is the same person that has repeatedly been fined for drunkenness in Belleek Petty Sessions court, in which he now adjudicates, and elsewhere in the county; in particular was he so fined at Belleek in May, 1909, and at Enniskillen on the 29th November, 1910; and will he suggest to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the desirability of relieving Mr. Scott of his duties as a justice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that Mr. Patrick Scott is not in the ordinary Commission of Peace, but became an ex-officio magistrate for the county Fermanagh, in October, 1909, by virtue of his election to the office of chairman of the Ballyshannon No. 2 Rural District Council. On 29th November, 1910,

  2415
  Mr. Scott was brought before a magistrate out of Petty Sessions at Enniskillen, and was fined in the sum of 1s. on a charge of intoxication. That matter was reported to the Lord Chancellor, and, having considered the circumstances of the case, he did not consider it incumbent upon him to remove Mr. Scott from the magistracy. No other charge of intoxication appears to have been brought against Mr. Scott since he became a magistrate, and a conviction for intoxication prior to the election of a chairman of a council, and his becoming a magistrate, has never been regarded as a ground for interference.
  Captain CRAIG: Are there not in that particular locality hundreds and thousands of respectable people fit to be justices of the peace, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this man is removed, and someone of respectability put in his place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a matter entirely for the Lord Chancellor, and not for me.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Estimates each year are seriously increased by having to take away from this class of magistrates the cases which are put before them, in order to have a fair trial in Belfast?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know why we should, on account of this one act of impropriety assume anything as to this Gentleman's general conduct.

  Census (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities have issued directions to take extracts from the Census returns and copy them into a book called the Householders' Register; and, if so, why this has been done, seeing that the Census Act and the regulations made under it direct that the returns shall be treated as confidential and that any enumerator who discloses any information such as is required above is liable to a severe penalty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such directions have been issued. It is the practice to revise annually the Register of Householders which is kept at each Constabulary Station in Ireland, and advantage is taken of the necessary visits of the police in connection with the preparation of the Annual Agricultural Statistics, and of the
  2416
  present Census, to obtain information for this Register. Nothing of a confidential nature in connection with the Census is disclosed by the enumerators.
  Captain CRAIG: Will advantage also be taken to ask those interested householders whether they are in favour of Home Rule, or not?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; I do not propose to.

  Dublin Corporation (Major John M'Bride).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Major John M'Bride, an official in the employment of the Dublin Corporation, in the course of a lecture on the 29th March last at the Sinn Fein Offices, Harcourt Street, Dublin, stated that though the sword had fallen from their hands at present they hoped to pick it up again, and they would not stop until they had swept away every vestige of the British Empire, and that they should strike how they might and when they might against the Throne and the British Empire and for the freedom of Ireland; and whether any, and, if so, what steps he and the Irish Law Officers of the Crown have taken against this person for sedition?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to similar questions on this subject.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it the intention of the Government to send a police note-taker to the next lecture that Major M'Bride gives?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If when the police receive notice of this intelligent gentleman's intention to deliver a lecture, I should not at all be surprised if a note-taker was one of his audience.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Employment as Bailiffs).
  Dr. ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary if the Royal Irish Constabulary are or have been acting as bailiffs in the eviction of town tenants; and, if so, will he give orders that they are not to be so employed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, Section 15, Subsection 3, empowers magistrates to issue their warrants to the police in such cases. When this is done the police carry out the duty imposed on them.

  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Loans).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Congested Districts Board have authorised the statement that they are willing to advance loans of £50 to be repaid in fifty years by an annual payment of £1 8s. 6d.; if so, whether these loans are granted only in the congested counties, or are all agricultural occupiers whose valuation is under £7 entitled to them; and what are the conditions and purposes for which such loans are granted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have approved of a scheme under which a loan of £50 can be obtained for the erection of a dwelling house with slated roof, repayable in fifty years by instalments of £1 8s. 6d. a year. The scheme only applies to the Congested Districts Counties, and is confined to tenant purchasers of agricultural holdings, the rateable valuation of which does not exceed £7.

  Land Commission and Estates Commissioners (Expenses).
  Mr. LARDNERasked what are the total expenses of the Land Commission and the Estates Commissioners, respectively, for each of the last five preceding years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The expenses of the land purchase side and the fair rent side of the Land Commission are not kept separately and cannot be precisely estimated. Many officers of the Land Commission perform duties relating to both sides.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will it not be convenient in future if the expenses of the two Departments are set out separately?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will see whether that can be done.

  Great Britain and Ireland (Financial Relations).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the present actuarial inquiry into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland will adopt as established the conclusions of the Financial Relations Commission; whether it will extend over the whole period since the Act of Union or only since that Commission; whether it is restricted to the actual public cash transactions between the two countries, or will take account of such things as the preponderance of public expenditure in one country as compared with the other, and the drain of rent, and now
  2418
  of purchase money, out of Ireland to absentee landlords; about what time its Report is expected; whether it will be accompanied by' sufficient data to enable business people to check its conclusions; and whether, in this matter affecting every class and section of the Irish population, he undertakes that there shall be no secret bargains with individuals, and that all information proper to be given to any shall be given at the same time and as fully to all Irish representatives?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This question proceeds upon an entire misapprenhension as to the character and purport of the inquiry referred to. The Committee is a purely advisory body for the sole benefit of the Cabinet, and, as it is not intended to publish any report, no information concerning its operations can be given. The names of the persons composing the Committee will, I expect, be made public before the end of the week.

  Baghdad Railway.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in April, 1903, a detailed answer was given by the Prime Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in reply to a question askng for information as regards the nature of the proposals which had been made to His Majesty's Government on the subject of the Baghdad Railway; will he state whether any proposals or suggestions have recently been made by any foreign Government to His Majesty's Government on the same subject; if so, will he state their nature; and, in view of the political and commercial considerations involved by the construction of this railway, will he give the House an opportunity of discussing any proposals which may be made before they receive the consent of His Majesty's Government, thus following the precedent set in 1903?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The statement in 1903 was apparently made when negotiations were in a very much more advanced stage than is the case with the present negotiations. It would not be desirable to make a statement at present.

  Plural Voters.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of having a Return submitted showing the number of plural voters in each Constituency in England and Wales?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I have considered this proposal before, but I am advised that it would be impossible to give such a return. The Register for any Constituency does not show which of the electors has a vote in another Constituency. It would be an impossible task to compare each name in each register with each name in every other register; and it would be equally impossible to make special inquiry with regard to each of the 7,000,000 names on the Registers.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is not in consequence a great deal of exaggeration made about the plural voters in the country?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: May I ask whether it would not be a comparatively easy task to give these particulars in regard to each constituency?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am told it is not at all easy to give the information, but I think there is no doubt about the conclusions which could be drawn from the information, however obtained.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make a beginning by giving us the figures for the Universities and the City of London?

  Imperial Conference.
  Colonel YATEasked whether, seeing that the Imperial questions of common interest which are to be brought up at the coming Imperial Conference cannot be adequately discussed without the share of India being at the same time considered, especially in the case of questions concerning combination for Imperial defence, and in view of the fact that the Premier of New Zealand has stated that he intends to bring up at the Conference the question of an Imperial Navy, the Government will consider the advisability of the direct representation of the Government of India by their own representatives, and also by expert opinion to determine the interests and the share of India in Imperial Naval defence.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Under the Resolution with regard to the Constitution of the Conference agreed to at the last Conference only Ministers can be members
  2420
  of the Conference, and the Secretary of State for India will attend when his presence is required.

  National Debt Commissioners.
  Mr. FELLasked who are the persons known as the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and if these Commissioners have any power or authority to examine the accounts of the old sinking fund to see that the moneys properly payable to that fund are in fact collected are paid to that fund, and paid over to them for the purpose of redeeming the National Debt?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The National Debt Commissioners are:—
  The Speaker of the House of Commons,
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  The Lord Chief Justice of England,
  The Master of the Rolls,
  The Paymaster-General,
  The Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England,
  and their powers and functions are governed by the Acts 26 Geo. 3 c. 31, 48 Geo. 3, c. 142, and numerous subsequent statutes. These functions are as regards the Sinking Funds mainly confined to the application for the purpose of redemption of debt of sums issued to them by the Treasury under various Acts. The duty of seeing that these issues are duly made rests not with the Commissioners but with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if these Commissioners ever meet, and if they do, when was the last occasion on which they met? May I ask further, whether their powers are strictly limited to receiving money and extinguishing national debt, or whether they have any power to look into this fund?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have given the hon. Gentleman references to the statutes in which he will find all their powers enumerated. There has been no meeting of these gentlemen within my recollection.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what manner they have power to make a protest?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can only say to the Noble Lord, as I have already informed the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he will find all their powers in the statutes I have enumerated.

  Agricultural Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state how many agricultural schools have been established by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland since the year 1899, the names of these schools, the capital cost of each school, the amount subsequently spent in repair or extensions in each case, the number of students each year since the establishment of each school, and the amount expended annually since the establishment of each school?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Return promised in reply to a previous question by the hon. Member is in course of preparation by the Department of Agriculture, and on completion will be forwarded to him direct.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I put this question a month ago, and was informed that the information would be furnished in a week?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not surprised.

  Wages of Rural Workers (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, when arriving at the average wages of any person working for hire in a rural district for twelve months, as required by Section 93 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, amending the Labourers Acts, the inspectors of the Local Government Board accept as the basis of their calculations 365 times 2s. 6d, or fifty-two times 15s.; and can he state what were the intentions of the Government of the day in this respect when the Clause in question was considered in Committee of this House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not aware that the question whether the total wages earned by applicants for cottages in the year should be divided by 365 or 313 to find the average per day, or by fifty-two to find the average per week, has ever been closely examined by their inspectors. The applicant is usually asked what are his weekly wages, and, according as he works six or seven days, the average per day is at once ascertained. It was stated in Committee on behalf of the Government on 8th July, 1903, that it was the average daily wage that was intended.

  Plague (India).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he
  2422
  can state the sum budgeted for by the Government of India for dealing with the plague which is now ravaging certain districts?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Provision for plague expenditure and for other sanitary and medical charges is made in the Indian Estimates under the head "Medical," for which a sum of £1,301,600 has been allotted. I am unable to give the estimate for plague expenditure separately. In addition to the provision made in the public accounts considerable sums are expended on account of plague by district boards and municipalities. In 1908–9 recurring grants aggregating £200,000 a year were made to the provincial Governments by the Government of India for expenditure on sanitary improvements with special reference to the prevention of plague. And in 1910–11 non-recurring grants aggregating £380,000 were made for the same purpose.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the increase in mortality from plague during the cold season is due to the fact that people are then driven indoors to sleep in their plague-infested huts; and whether the Government contemplates making financial provision for the erection of sanitary houses in health camps at each of the infested districts?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The increased prevalence of plague in certain parts of India at the present time of the year is believed to be due to the fact that this is the season of greatest prevalence of rats and rat fleas. It is a well-recognised measure of precaution that on the first sign of the presence of plague the residents should evacuate their dwellings. The Government and the local authorities encourage and assist them to do this by the supply of tents and hutting materials, by erecting temporary dwellings, by providing guards for the vacated houses, and by money rewards. Expenditure on this account is included in the grants mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question. Special grants have also been made to local Governments by the Government of India for the purpose of improving general sanitary conditions, including the housing accommodation of the population.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman state how many people are at the present time in these health camps or sanitary houses in the plague districts?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.

  Cost of Public Education (Scotland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what was the cost of public education in Scotland in the year ended 31st March, 1910; what is the average cost to the Treasury per pupil on rolls; and what is the average contribution from the Treasury per head of the population for the same period?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Understanding that by "cost of public education" is meant the whole cost falling under the following main heads, the amount for the year 1909–10 is approximately £4,086,190, made up thus:—

  £

  1. Expenditure from Parliamentary Vote

  2,129,711

  2. Education (Scotland) Fund (excluding General Aid Grant included in 1)

  217,641

  3. Raised locally from School Board rates, school fees, etc., voluntary contributions and endowments

  1,738,838

  The Treasury contribution of £3,129,711 (which includes cost of administration), divided by the total number of scholars on the rolls of schools of all grades, including continuation classes, gives an average of £2 3s. per scholar. Per head of the population it gives an average of 8s. 7–57d.

  Public Elementary Schools (England).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Education what was the number of children on the rolls in the public elementary schools of England during the year ended 31st March, 1910; the average grant from the Exchequer per pupil on the rolls for the same period; and what is the contribution for elementary education per head of the population?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I hope the hon. Member does not attach any special importance to the words "on the rolls" as it is much easier to give him the information that he desires on the basis of average attendance. I assume for the purpose of my answer that the average attendance basis will satisfy him. The total number of children in average attendance during the year ended 31st March, 1910, in public elementary schools, including "special" schools, in England and Wales was 5,384,152. The average grant from the Exchequer per pupil in
  2424
  average attendance during the same period was £2 1s. 4d.; and the contribution in grants from the Exchequer for elementary education was equivalent to 6s. 2d. per head of the population on the basis of "the population as estimated to-the middle of 1910."

  Board of Education Staff.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether some members of the higher staff of his Department are recruited otherwise than by means of open competition, chiefly from graduates of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge; whether the clerical staff is recruited by means of open competition; and how many promotions have been made to the ranks of the higher staff, junior examiners and upwards, from the members of the clerical staff during the last five years?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: By Treasury minutes laid before Parliament the posts of examiner and inspector under the Education Department and the Science and Art Department were placed under the operation of Clause IV. of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the holders of these posts under the Board are thereby exempted from obtaining certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. This was done on the understanding that persons appointed to these posts should, as a rule, have obtained high honours at one of the universities (not necessarily Oxford or Cambridge). In practice, the persons appointed have, as a rule, had educational, legal, or other experience as well, and are appointed at a later age than the limit for the Civil Service, Class L., Competitive Examination. The clerical staff are supplied by the Civil Service Commissioners, either through the open competition for second division posts or through the competition for assistant clerkships which is limited to boy clerks. One promotion of a second division clerk to a junior examinership has been made within the last five years.
  Mr. PEEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be an opportunity for these clerks when they are otherwise capable of receiving the higher posts in the Education Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I not only think so, but I have acted on that principle and the one second division clerk who was promoted to the upper division was promoted by me.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that entirely different qualities are required of those who are to act as examiners and inspectors, from those that will probably be required from second division clerks, and has it not been found by experience to be necessary to follow the practice that is adopted?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is perfectly true, and is well recognised in all Government departments, I believe. But there are exceptional cases sometimes, and when one comes across exceptional cases, I do not think it is absolutely wise to keep the second division in an absolutely watertight compartment.

  Hele's Charity School (Plymouth).
  Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that in April, 1907, the Trustees of Hele's Charity School at Plymouth closed their establishment with the sanction of the Department on condition that application for a new scheme was promoted; whether such application was promptly made, and from that time onwards no effective action has been taken by his Department, with the result that this charity, with an income of about £540 a year, is precluded from assisting the education of poor boys in the district; and what steps are being taken by the Board to fulfil its obligations in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Education assented in April, 1907, to the closure of the charity school on the understanding that the trustees would make a formal application sufficient to enable the Board to establish the necessary scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts for the reorganisation of the charity. No formal application was in fact made, but it has been understood that the trustees were quite ready to apply. The Board were compelled to postpone their action on this, as on numerous other cases, in view of the great pressure of similar work in connection with endowments. More recently, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a Departmental Committee has been sitting to inquire into the administration of Educational Endowments, and the Board felt it desirable to postpone action on these matters as far as possible pending the receipt of the Committee's Report. I have now, however, given instructions that consideration of the case shall be resumed, and that steps shall be taken with a view to the preparation of a scheme
  2426
  as soon as the formal application is received.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have any applications been received?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No formal application has been received.
  Lord BALCARRES: Since April, 1907, has no application been received in the interests of this school?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. As far as I can find no formal application has been received from this school. We cannot act without a formal application, as the Noble Lord may know.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: How soon after formal application is made will the Board of Education see that the income of this charity is used towards the education of these poor boys?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as formal application is made the case will be proceeded with without any delay whatever.

  Catholic Voluntary Schools.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Education if he can give the name of the one Catholic voluntary school out of a total of 103 of all denominations which have been closed since the previous return was issued on 18th March, 1910; can he state whether any and, if so, what Catholic school has been recognised in the place of that closed; and whether there was any interval of time during which the Catholic children of the district were unable to obtain instruction in a Catholic voluntary school?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The name of the school was Thornley Roman Catholic School. It was replaced by Wingate Thornley St. Godric's Roman Catholic School. There was no interval between the closing of the one and the opening of the other.
  Mr. BOLAND: In view of the fact that a false interpretation has been given to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in giving returns in future, the advisability of distinguishing schools which have really been closed and schools for which other schools have been substituted?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I shall be glad to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I do not know whether it can be applied in all cases. Perhaps in this case we might make it clear by a footnote.

  Welsh Department of Education.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will publish as a Parliamentary Paper the observations of the Central Welsh Board upon the Report of the Welsh Department on the work of the Central Board, with the comments of the Board of Education thereon?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have only this week been informed that the Central Welsh Board looked for the comments of the Board of Education on the statement of the Central Welsh Board referred to in the question. When the statement reached me I obtained the observations of the Chief Inspector for Wales on it. I propose now to send down to the Central Welsh Board his minute to me which may be taken to embody the views of the Board of Education with regard to the main criticisms contained in their statement. At present, therefore, I think that to follow the course suggested in the question would be premature.

  Taxable Capacity (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked what the Financial Relations Commission found to be Ireland's taxable capacity in 1894–5, the amount of Imperial taxes actually paid by Ireland that year, the difference, and the amount of Imperial taxes paid by Ireland in the financial year ending 31st March, 1911?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The General Report, signed by eleven of the thirteen members of the Financial Relations Commission, states that "whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth." The separate Reports of different groups of members show, however, that there was no general consensus of opinion how relative taxable capacity should be ascertained. The amount of tax revenue contributed by Ireland in 1894–5 was £6,763,715. The total tax revenue contributed by the United Kingdom was £85,347,940, of which one-twenty-first part is £4,064,188. The figures for 1910–11 are not yet available.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the position of the Irish Provident Assurance Company; if this company
  2428
  are doing business under their own name, or have they become amalgamated with any other company; has any rule of court been made with regard to them; and whether care will be taken that the interests of policy holders who have money invested in this company will be safeguarded in the event of amalgamation or otherwise?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A society named the Irish Provident Friendly Assurance Society was registered in Ireland under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896. This society transferred its engagements to a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, named the London and Provincial Insurance Company, Limited, by Special Resolution, which was registered at the Central Office of the Registry of Friendly Societies on 19th August, 1910, in pursuance of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, Section 71 and 75, and Treasury Regulation 47, and the registry of the society was accordingly cancelled on 22nd August, 1910. The society has thus ceased to exist, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies has no information as to the subsequent transactions of the company. I would suggest that any further inquiries should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. JOYCE: Has any inquiry been made of the policy-holders who hold policies and have paid their money into this company to see that their interests are safeguarded?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman put that down on the Paper?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether it is not a fact that agents of this company received money from policy-holders under false pretences?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that all that had better be put on the Paper.

  Licence Duty (Biggar, Lanarkshire).
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked why James Brunton, a licensed grocer in Biggar, Lanarkshire, has this year, for the first time since his father built the premises in 1885, been charged Licence Duty by the Inland Revenue Commissioners for a store and stable situated 100 yards down the street from his shop?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am making some inquiries into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Board of Agriculture (Fisheries Advisory Committee).
  Mr. TOBINasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Development Commissioners have recently appointed an advisory committee on fishery subjects; whether any persons have been appointed on such committee as representatives of either the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or of local sea fishery committees, or of other English fishery interests; if so, whether he will give the names of such persons; whether the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee has expressed its dissatisfaction with the constitution of such advisory committee; and whether it is proposed to take any and, if so, what steps to secure the appointment upon such advisory committee of any representatives of the fishery interests in England and Wales?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for St. Austell's.

  Inland Revenue Promotions.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked why young men of inexperience in the Inland Revenue have received great increases in salary by promotion to positions of the work of which they have had but slight knowledge, seeing that they have been promoted over the heads of experienced men of twenty-five to thirty years of service, who have to supply the technical knowledge these specially promoted men lack, and that the promotion of the older men would have meant a considerable saving to the Revenue?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Promotions in the Inland Revenue Department are made on merit, and I am unable to accept the assumption contained in the hon. Member's question.

  Income Tax Collectors (Instructions).
  Mr. FELLasked what instructions were issued to the collectors of Income Tax during the month of March; if such instructions were to urge the collection of Income Tax before the close of the financial year, and afterwards to delay such collection and allow the payment to stand over until the early days of April; and if cheques for the payment of Income Tax were offered to the collectors on 30th and 31st March, and the collectors said they did not want them until 4th April?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that no instructions were issued to the collectors of Income Tax during the month of March; and consequently the second and third parts of the question do not arise. If the hon. Member will be so good as to put down a question with regard to any specific case of the nature indicated in the concluding part of his question I will inquire into it.
  Mr. FELL: Is it suggested that Income Tax collectors are acting on their own initiative in postponing the collection of these cheques?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it usual for collectors of Income Tax to ask those who are bound to pay Income Tax not to pay when they are willing to do so?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is a point on which I have no information, because they are not Treasury officials.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Who is responsible for them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The District Commissioners.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: To whom are the District Commissioners responsible?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are some thousands of private individuals scattered up and down through the country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that the collectors of Income Tax can collect it whenever it suits them, and that the Treasury have no power?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. They cannot collect it when it suits them. They collect it when it suits the District Commissioners.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Is there any Government official in the House of Commons who is responsible for the action of these Commissioners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I know of no Government official in the House of Commons.

  Development Fund Act (Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District).
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury has received an application from the Committee for the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District for a grant under the Develop-

  2431
  Fund Act, 1909; whether that application has been submitted to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for their observation and report; whether the Board have yet reported upon it; and if so, whether the application has now been forwarded to the Development Commissioners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the application in question is now with the Board of Agriculture, who have not yet reported upon it to the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the application was forwarded to the Board of Agriculture in July last year, and whether nine months is rather an unnecessary time to consider a simple application to the Board?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will be able to answer the question better when I have seen the scheme.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Are these Departmental Reports to the Development Commissioners confidential, or is the entitled to know their contents?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The House is not entitled to know the contents of the reports until they have been discussed by the Departments concerned—the Board of Agriculture, and, subsequently, the Treasury.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the House, then, entitled to know their contents?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not wish to be taken as covering all cases, but personally I do not see why it should not.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Board of Agriculture on the subject of the nine months' delay?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no greater power than my hon. Friend behind me.

  Employment of Children (Theatrical Entertainments).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number and ages of children under fourteen years of age licensed in London and in county boroughs during the past year for the purpose of taking part in theatrical entertainments?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): These licences are granted locally by the
  2432
  petty sessional courts, and no returns in regard to them are received by the Home Office. I have made inquiry of the London County Council on the subject as far as regards London, and am informed that the figures for 1910–1911 are not yet available, but that for the preceding year the total number of children licensed was 245, of whom forty were under eleven, sixty-six under twelve, sixty-seven under thirteen, and seventy-two under fourteen.

  Released Convict David Davies.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether the present whereabouts of Davies, who was discharged from Dartmoor Prison at the end of 1910, have been discovered?
  Earl WINTERTONasked if the police force of the country have yet succeeded positively in discovering the position, whereabouts, and recent antecedents of the released ticket-of-leave man David Davies?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer these two questions together. Davies on Tuesday last was charged before the magistrates at Oswestry with housebreaking, and was remanded in custody till the 13th instant.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if adequate steps were taken to discover the whereabouts of David Davies, and, if steps were taken, why the commission of the crime could not have been prevented?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Every effort was made to apprehend the convict Davies when it was known that he had broken the condition of his licence. I hope in the course of a few days I may be able to give fuller information as to his whereabouts. I do not know that the information will come with an equal air of novelty in all quarters of the House.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is now in a position to withdraw the charge made in this House that David Davies was enticed away for political purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be more able to reply to this question when I have acquainted myself with the full movements of David Davies, who was, I believe, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for some time.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that

  2433
  David Davies left my constituency many months ago, and nobody in my constituency knew anything more about him than the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's disclaimer.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will exonerate my constituency?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We must regard that as sub judice at present.

POINT OF ORDER.
Mr. O'GRADY: On a point of order, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you are aware of the purpose of the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division (Mr. Cave), to be brought before the attention of the House, as to the Archer-Shee incident, and whether it is not the fact that the contract was made between the two Front Benches; and, if so, whether you, Sir, were consulted in order that that might be allowed, the incident being of a rather minor character in view of the other pressing matters to be brought before the attention of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member. The Prime Minister offered a day for the discussion of the Archer-Shee incident, and I understand this is the day on which that discussion is to take place. Is there any impropriety, or anything improper in the hon. Member's putting a Motion down to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty? I do not follow the hon. Member.
Mr. O'GRADY: I ask whether you, Sir, as guardian of the liberties of private Members of this House, were consulted on the matter.
Mr. SPEAKER: The matter does not concern me at all. To-day is a day allotted for Supply. The first Vote of Supply is the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for the Kingston Division has put down a Motion to reduce it. It does not concern me.
Mr. O'GRADY: Would your ruling be, Sir, in the event of this question being discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division, that it would be distinctly out of order, as it is a question not of Supplies to the Navy, but one of compensation to the individuals.
Mr. SPEAKER: It does not concern me at all. The matter will take place in Committee of Supply. I have no jurisdiction over the Committee of Supply. It does not affect me in the least. The hon. Member must put any question he has to put to the Chairman of Ways and Means when he takes the Chair in Committee of Supply.
Mr. O'GRADY: On a point of Order. I that some strong protest ought to be made against the course of business to-day. I desire to ask whether it is possible for me to move the adjournment in order that the business I wish to be discussed may be discussed. I am sorry to trouble the House at all in this matter, but my reason is that during the Coronation festivities there will be hundreds and thousands of men and women and children of this country asked to rejoice while in a state of starvation. This House is an Imperial House of Commons, concerned with Imperial matters, and the incident that is to be raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), though I do not want to minimise its importance, is still only an individual matter.
Mr. SPEAKER: This matter cannot be raised now. If the hon. Gentleman objects to a reduction of the First Lord's salary he is entitled to vote in favour of it.
Mr. O'GRADY: I do not object to the First Lord's salary.
Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member can vote against the reduction when it comes on. I can assure the hon. Member it has nothing whatever to do with me. When the House goes into Committee of Supply the hon. Member can either object to it or support the Motion for reduction, and in reference to it can say anything relevant.
Mr. O'GRADY: Is it possible for me to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely that there are hundreds and thousands of men and women and children——
Mr. SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member make that urgent? The Coronation does not take place until the 22nd June, and these unfortunate people have been on the brink of destitution apparently for a great number of months; it has not suddenly arisen to-day, and is not a matter of urgency within the meaning of the rule.
Mr. O'GRADY: My point of urgency is that it is urgent that preparation should be made between now and the 22nd June in order that those people may be fed during the Coronation festivities.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will not the discussion of this particular incident, the importance of which I do not minimise for a moment, exclude discussion on general questions connected with the Navy?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Certainly as soon as that particular discussion is completed other matters on the Vote can be taken.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask, in reference to this subject as to the question of destitution, is not the proper moment for bringing it forward on the salary of the President of the Local Government Board?
Mr. O'GRADY: I am not concerned with the Order Paper at all.

ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND (DUBLIN CORPORATION).
Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask a question affecting the privileges of this House, in view of a notice which has appeared in the Irish Press to the following effect, that an official announcement has been made that the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin are about to present a petition, sealed with the seal of the City, and, under the ancient privilege will be brought to the Bar of the House of Commons by the Dublin municipality; and, in order that this House may mark its deep sense of indignation at the action of the Dublin Corporation in refusing to present a loyal Address to His Majesty on his visit to Ireland in July next, may I ask what steps we should take in order to prevent the Corporation of the City of Dublin appearing at the Bar of this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The position, I think, is this, that by a Resolution of the House passed in the year 1813, the privilege was granted to the Mayor and Corporation of Dublin to present their petitions at the Bar of the House. That was done by a Resolution of this House, and from that time onward, from time to time, the Mayor and Corporation of Dublin have so appeared. If it is the desire of the House to take away that privilege, that must be done, of course, by Resolution of the House. It is
2436
not a matter affecting the privileges of the House of Commons, but it is a matter which would affect the privileges of the Mayor and Corporation of Dublin. It is not a matter within the meaning of the word "privilege" as generally applied to our own proceedings.
Captain CRAIG: Under these circumstances the only manner in which this House can mark its sense of indignation of the action of the Corporation of Dublin will be by bringing a Motion before the House to rescind the Resolution standing on the books of the House. Therefore, Sir, I beg to give notice that at the earliest date I shall bring forward a Motion to rescind the privileges which have hitherto been granted to that disloyal corporation.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether it is the fact that the Resolution of 1813 was brought before the House and carried by the exertions of Henry Grattan?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Government have already told us that the business they propose to take on Friday is the Copyright Bill. In case that Bill should be read a second time before the conclusion of business, can the Government say what they will take after it?
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister, who is unable to leave his house to-day through indisposition, desires me to say on his behalf that if opportunity offers after the Second Reading of the Copyright Bill, we shall take the Labourers (Ireland) Bill and the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask what business will be taken on the Thursday of Easter week? I think the Friday will be a private Members' day.
Mr. CHURCHILL: There will be a Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday of next week.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I mean the week after.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister will make a statement, I hope, on Monday.
Mr. BARNES: May I ask when the Second Reading of the House Letting Bill will be taken?
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To promote Temperance in Scotland by conferring on the electors, in prescribed areas, control over the grant and renewal of certificates; by securing a later hour of opening for licensed premises; by amending the law relating to clubs; and by other provisions incidental thereto," presented by Mr. CAMERON CORBETT; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Millar, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Sir Walter Menzies, Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Captain Murray, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th May.
  CHARACTER NOTE BILL.
  "To make compulsory the giving of Character Notes," presented by Mr. WARDLE; supported by Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Sir Herbert Raphael, and Mr. Stephen Walsh; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 18th May.
  SMALL HOLDINGS ACT (1910) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Small Holdings Act, 1910," presented by Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS; supported by Mr. Morrell, Mr. James Parker, Mr. Frederick Guest, Mr. Brace, Mr. Noel Buxton, and Mr. Charles Duncan; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th April.
  LIMITATION OF OVERTIME IN FACTORIES BILL.
  "To restrict the Overtime worked in Factories within certain limits," presented by Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR; supported by Mr. Gill, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Sir George White; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 3rd May.

SUPPLY.— [Sixth Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

  ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £406,400, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Mr. O'GRADY: On a point of Order. I desire to ask whether I am entitled to move to report progress at the present
  2438
  moment for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of great public importance on a question which deeply concerns hon. Members on these benches.
  The CHAIRMAN: No; this day is allotted for Navy Estimates, and the particular Navy Estimates we are to discuss is specified on the Paper. I could not take a Motion to report Progress in order to discuss another matter altogether.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On the point that concerns us we would like an expression of opinion from you about it. We understand that the whole of this day is going to be devoted to a discussion of a case which is an attempt of what is practically to blackmail the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member to put his point as little controversially as possible.
  Mr. CAVE: May I ask whether the expression is not a breach of the Orders of this House, and whether the hon. Member should not at once withdraw and apologise?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the phrase as applied is absolutely disorderly, but, at the same time, I think it is an objectionable phrase to use.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I state that hon. Gentlemen on this side said, "Shame, shame," which is distinctly unparliamentary and disorderly.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If in your opinion the expression that I used was undesirable I certainly withdraw it out of deference, Sir, to you. The point of Order is, whether you can give us any indication whether this one question is going to occupy the whole of this sitting to the exclusion of other exceedingly important questions that have to be raised on the First Lord's salary.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I ask, on the same point of Order, whether it is not open to any hon. Member who succeeds in catching your eye to raise any question on the Vote?
  4.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes; in reply to the hon. Member I may say it is open to any hon. Member who catches my eye to raise any question relevant to the Vote. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), it is understood that on this day there is to

  2439
  be a discussion of what is known as the Archer-Shee incident, and that being the case, I certainly think we ought to spend the first part of the day discussing that question. I cannot bind myself, but I think I ought, as far as possible, to confine the Debate to that question at first so that we may dispose of it. I cannot bind myself as to how long that discussion will last, but I have been informed by hon. Members who are likely to know that they do not desire to carry on the discussion of that question during the whole of the day. I therefore hope, though I cannot promise, that the discussion will not occupy the whole of the sitting.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Are you aware that the idea underlying this Motion is a question of compensation for this young officer? Are you aware also that the case has been through the Law Courts?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of Order. I had better hear the case and then I shall be able to know whether it is in order or not.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move that the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty be reduced by £100, for the purpose of calling attention to the Archer-Shee case. I make no apology for bringing this matter forward—partly because the First Lord himself a few weeks ago invited me to give him an opportunity of explaining his attitude on the question. In view of the observation made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), I should like to add that I bring forward the Motion entirely on public grounds. I know nothing whatever of either Mr. Archer-Shee or his son personally; I have never seen either one or the other; I have had no communication with them; I move the Resolution simply because on public grounds I think attention ought to be called to the case. Whether or not the hon. Member for Leicester accepts that statement docs not very much concern me; I think the rest of the Committee will at once accept it. I am not going to attempt to re-open the merits of the case. They are entirely disposed of by the statement made in Court by the Law Officer of the Crown. I will call attention only to certain points connected with the dealings of the Admiralty with the case, which seem to me to require explanation, or at all events to require discussion in this House. The facts are shortly these: On October
  2440
  7th, 1908, a cadet at the Naval College, Osborne, reported that a postal order for 5s. had been taken from his locker. It was found that the order had been signed with his name and cashed at the post office. The Commander at Osborne made such inquiries as he could, and, his suspicions falling upon this cadet, George Archer-Shee, he reported to the Admiralty his conclusion that the postal order had been taken by this young fellow, thirteen years of age. The Admiralty without any communication with the boys' parents, without giving them any opportunity of knowing even what the charge was, or of assisting the cadet, wrote to the father on 17th October, saying that after an investigation of the circumstances the only conclusion possible was that the order had been taken by this young fellow, and they requested him to withdraw the boy from the college. That was ten days after the occurrence, and the first communication the parents received in the matter. The boy was, of course, at once withdrawn. The first matter requiring explanation is how there can be a system under which that very grave and serious step can be taken without warning to the parents or without giving the person charged at least an opportunity of defending himself. I may say, in order to placate hon. Members below the Gangway, some of whom I know have not raised the point of Order out of any desire to stifle the facts, that the father is not a rich man; he is a bank manager in the country, I believe, to whom money is certainly an object. He went at once to a solicitor. After writing four letters to the Admiralty, and after a delay of about a fortnight, he was allowed to see the documents, and ultimately to send a solicitor down to Osborne where some of the witnesses might be seen. The result was that facts were ascertained which threw a new light on the whole matter, and those facts were put before the Admiralty. After further delay the Admiralty took the step of appointing a gentleman known to many of us, and whom I certainly regard with very great respect, namely, the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, "to look into the matter." Whether he was bound by precedent or by instructions I do not know. I am sure that he would have wished, if he could, to hold a real inquiry into the matter, to hear all the facts, and to have the lad defended in a proper way. Rut, for some reason which I do not understand, he did nothing of the kind. He held a very informal private inquiry. He

  2441
  saw the lad and some of the witnesses. He allowed the solicitor, but no counsel, to come before him and ask questions of the witnesses. It is not to be wondered at that after an inquiry of that kind he reported to the Admiralty, as I understand, that he thought the charge was sustained, and the parents were informed that the Admiralty could not alter their decision.
  That is the second matter requiring explanation—how it is when a charge so serious as this is made and appealed against, there is no process by which the person charged, whether a cadet, or a private, or whoever it may be, can have the facts publicly and properly investigated? How is it that a man can be con demned, and, possibly branded for life, without a chance of being properly defended or having the facts properly-brought out? Is it not worth considering, as a public matter, whether some procedure could not be invented or put into operation under which such a thing could not again occur? It was not open to the father to sue the Admiralty for wrong, as an action could not lie, as it would against a private individual. The course taken—I think it was the only course open—was that the father brought an action against the Crown for breach of the contract under which this young fellow was sent to Osborne. That is, he said that the contract to educate and maintain the lad had been broken, and in form he ask for damages for that. Of course, that is not what he really wanted. What he wanted was to have a trial of some kind at which the facts could be openly stated and tested. That Petition of Right, as it is called, was brought, and the next of the unfortunate incidents attending this case occurred. The Crown, instead of saying at once, "We want the facts gone into, and you shall have an open trial," adopted a proceeding known to lawyers as a demurrer. That is, they raised a point of law, and said there was no contract upon which an action could be brought. I know that the present Attorney-General was not responsible for that course being taken. He found the demurrer upon the record when he came into office, and he thought it his duty to press it. The result was that this legal objection, which the learned judge properly called a technical objection, was pressed, and the judge thought himself bound by the authorities to allow it. The result of the action was that by no possible procedure, as things stood, could the real facts be gone into or examined or
  2442
  ascertained. That is the third point requiring explanation. The old tradition was that whenever a subject wanted access to the courts of the country and desired the decision of a jury, the Crown officials did what they could to facilitate that result. They were bound to maintain in form the privileges of the Crown, but, while maintaining them in form, it was open to them to waive those privileges for this particular purpose in order that the facts might come before a jury and the verdict of the jury be taken.
  The third point is, why is it that that very fine tradition in our country was departed from, and a point of law, which must have the effect of suppressing the facts, taken and pressed. Happily, Mr. Archer-Shee was advised to take that decision to another court. He went to the Court of Appeal, where the first breach was made in the armour of the Admiralty. Thanks to the counsel who argued the case for the appellant, and thanks to the sense of justice and the independence of the learned judges who heard the appeal, the whole aspect of the case was altered. I hope the time will never come when the judges will be the only bulwark that we shall have against the oppression of certain Government Departments. They have often been found so, and have been found so in this case, for the Judges of the Court of Appeal compelled counsel for the Crown, after a long argument, to give up his position, and the Court sent the case down to be tried on the facts. Then at last in, I think, July, 1910, nearly two years after this offence had been committed by someone, an opportunity occurred for the facts to be ascertained. The case was fought for three whole days. This young fellow—he was then, I suppose, fifteen years of age—was called and cross-examined by one of the ablest counsel at the Bar. After all, or nearly all, the evidence had been tested and sifted to the bottom, it was at last apparent to the Admiralty, as it had been apparent to others some months before, that no jury in England would come to a conclusion adverse to this young fellow. I do not think it would be right for me to go into the evidence, or into the facts, because it would be a long process, and because I am really precluded from taking that course by the result of the trial, for on the fourth day counsel for the Crown "threw up" his case, if I may say so. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in his reply to my question on 16th March, said "that the Solicitor-General stated in Court on behalf

  2443
  of the Admiralty that he accepted the statement that George Archer-Shee did not write the name on the postal order and did not cash it, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge. On the other hand, Sir Edward Carson, speaking on behalf of the plaintiff, agreed that the Admiralty had acted bonâ fide and under a reasonable belief in the statements that were put before them.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): More than that.
  Mr. CAVE: I am quoting your words
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There was something more.
  Mr. CAVE: Oh, yes, I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was reading from the answer of the First Lord in the House. The statement of the learned Attorney-General goes further than that. He said this:—
  "I say, further, in order that there may be no misapprehension about it, that I make that statement without any reserve of any description, intending that it shall be a complete justification of the statement of the boy and the evidence given to the Court."
  As might be expected, the withdrawal made by the learned Gentleman was complete and full, and I am sure no one was more glad than he was that he had the opportunity of making that full withdrawal. That was the result of the trial. There remains no question in regard to the charge against this boy. I am not going into the charge, but I should like just to add this: that so far as I can ascertain there is another jury which has acquitted the boy. From more than one source I have the fact that the boys at Osborne themselves have all along held the view, and hold it still, that no charge could be supported against this young fellow. A few days after the trial there was a short Debate in this House. The result of that was that it was said by several Members on this side of the House that they would be glad to leave the ultimate settlement of the case to the generosity of the Admiralty. Now the position was this: By some misfortune, a charge has been made against this young fellow which turns out to be unjustified. It is true that counsel accepted the view that the Admiralty acted under a reasonable belief of the statements made to them. Nobody can possibly dissent from that position. For all that, it is true that the Admiralty did come to that mistaken conclusion, partly because they had
  2444
  not caused full inquiry to be made before their final conclusion was arrived at. At all events, by whatever mischance, the young fellow and everybody concerned suffered very great hardship. The boy himself had lost two years' education at Osborne, and it was too late for him to go back to the college and resume his naval career. The whole course of his life must needs be altered. It was for the Government to say what course should be taken.
  I am not here for the purpose of pressing a claim for compensation, partly because I am not here on behalf of anybody entitled to compensation. Still I think I am entitled to say this: that in every case where mistakes are made in Government Departments, and individuals suffer, it has been the practice for the Government, if possible, to redress the wrongs which have been unwittingly done. I know that the First Lord said in the short debate of last year that "private rights have to be sacrificed for the public good." I think it rather the other way.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)made an observation inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Mr. CAVE: I am glad to hear that, because where a public mistake has been committed, the public department concerned ought to do their best to put it right.
  Mr. McKENNA: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CAVE: I know that after some months, nothing at all having been offered, the father put in a claim against the Admiralty for a large sum by way of compensation. I think it was £10,000. It is not a matter for me to discuss; but I agree with anybody who says that it was a large sum, and I think too large a sum.
  Mr. McKENNA: That was the only point.
  Mr. CAVE: If that is so, I should have thought the course of the First Lord was perfectly clear. That was that he, as representing the Government, should say: "I think this is too large a claim, we think it right to pay a less sum "—which he might have named, and to which he might have adhered. I think what really was wanted was not so much a large sum, but some definite act or process on behalf of the Government which should mark the fact that the charge was finally and absolutely withdrawn. I think a formal

  2445
  expression of regret might well have been sent, and the offer of a substantial sum made by way of compensation—so far as you can compensate for a wrong of this kind. The payment of the full costs incurred would have been reasonable. No such proposal was made. The only offer made was that the Government would pay the father's taxed costs; nothing else that I know of. That means, of course, that the father himself would have a considerable sum to pay for costs, and there would be no kind of redress for the suffering and loss of those two years' litigation, and nothing to mark that the charge had been withdrawn. I am not making any personal charge against the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I do think that this case has been most unfortunate, and in more than one aspect it does require a certain amount of explanation and justification to the House. I feel bound just to add one other fact, an element of comedy in what in other respects is a somewhat tragic occurrence. The Admiralty made a further mistake. After the trial somebody found out that the summer before this thing happened a letter had been written to the boy's parents saying that the progress he had been making in his studies had not been entirely satisfactory—I am reading the letter—and accordingly the authorities thought it right to warn him that they might consider it necessary that he should withdraw from the College at the termination of a period during which he would be on probation. That letter was actually put forward as a reason for no compensation being paid. I am told that such letters are written to many of these young fellows—as many as thirty in one term—and that they never lead to anything—except increased diligence on the part of the lads. Really, the suggestion seems to be that because you have not been very diligent in your studies, and have not made sufficient progress, you ought not to mind being charged with theft. I do not think that suggestion will be repeated in this House.
  To sum up, I think one would like to know whether boys who go into these schools cannot be protected against inconsiderate charges of this kind, because the result must be to deter others from going into the country's service. This is not, I think, the only case that has occurred. When such a charge is made cannot provision be made for a real inquiry into the case? Thirdly, when a subject again tries to obtain redress in this way cannot he be allowed to put his merits before a jury,
  2446
  instead of being stopped on the threshold? Lastly, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman who was good enough on a previous occasion to say that he wanted guidance from this House has had time to reconsider the matter, and whether he would tell us now what it is he thinks it right and generous to offer on behalf of the Government in respect of compensation and costs?
  In bringing the matter forward, I am not, of course, appealing to any particular party in the House; I am appealing to the general sense of the House, and I feel confident that if everybody were free to speak his mind, there are very few men in the House who, knowing the facts, and giving them fair consideration, would not think as I do that something ought now at last to be done to put this matter right.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated the case in as moderate and complete a manner as everyone who knows him would expect from him, and for my part I have not a shadow of complaint against a single word which he has uttered. He has, I think, very rightly asked, on public grounds, for information with regard to certain matters on the conduct of this case, and, speaking for myself, I confess that I do not shirk the duty. On the contrary, I am glad of having the opportunity of explaining certain matters in connection with this case which I do not think have been fully explained. From the manner in which the hon. and learned Member opened the case, I hardly think it necessary for me to make any elaborate explanation of my own personal conduct. But I should like to clear up one or two points upon which, although charges have not been definitely made, it would be absurd for me to ignore the fact that some of the organs of the Press have suggested charges. There seems to have been in certain quarters the notion that the Admiralty has been vindictive in these proceedings, and not only that the Admiralty has been vindictive, but that it has desired to conceal all traces of its action, and prevent justice from being done. I hope the Committee will credit the statement which I make, not only upon my own behalf, but on the behalf of all those concerned in this case, that their one desire has been to get, at the truth and to act upon the truth according to their duty and to the responsibilities placed upon them.
  It must be remembered that, in judging a case of this sort I am not in the position

  2447
  of a jury. I have got to administer a college with 400 boys, and I have a duty to the remaining 399 boys as well as to the one against whom a charge may be preferred. If I come to a conclusion upon the evidence brought before me that a boy is guilty of the charge made against him, it is my duty to have him withdrawn from the college for the sake of the 399 other boys. That is my duty, no matter whether I know, believe, or am told whether a jury would or would not convict. If I, in the administration of my duty, honestly and reasonably come to, the conclusion that the charge preferred against a boy in school is true—I must bear the consequences, I know, if the jury say he is innocent—it is my duty not to keep him. If I kept that boy I should be undermining the authority of the administration of the college. I should be allowing to remain in that college a canker, because the fact that the suspicion was held and believed to be true would pervade the whole college and would influence the lives of the 399 other boys, and would never be lost sight of through the whole career of the boy charged.
  As regards the fact of the case, I ask this Committee to agree with me that it is the duty of the head of a college, who in his conscience believes that a charge preferred is true, to act upon that belief. Why? What would the natural and human inclination of any man be who was placed in a position of responsibility for institutions of that kind? He has only got to say, "I do not think this charge is quite clear; I do not think we ought to act upon it;" he has only got to minimise the case and he knows that, so far as he is concerned, he will escape all future trouble. In every case of this kind let the Committee remember that those responsible for the college know that they are going to be subjected to attack, and very proper attack, when the parents or guardians in the case will rightly, and very properly, exercise their power to prove that they were wrong. Those responsible know that they could escape all the trouble or vexation if they would only overlook the offence and allow themselves to come to the opposite conclusion to that which they have come. I regard it, therefore, as a point of duty, and nothing less than a point of duty, that those responsible should act upon the beliefs, they have reason for——
  Mr. W. F. ROCHE: Without inquiry?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly not. I am coming to that point. I said should come to those conclusions to which they have reasonably come. Now in dealing with this case the hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no need to go into the facts of the case. They had been very fully investigated in Court, and certain conclusions had been arrived at after hearing nearly the whole of the evidence by those responsible upon either side for the conduct of the case. On the one hand the charge against the boy was unreservedly, and in the fullest and frankest manner, withdrawn, and his word was accepted. On the other hand—and this the House must notice is a very remarkable conclusion—it was admitted after hearing all the evidence not merely that the Admiralty had acted bonâ fide, but that they had acted upon a reasonable belief in the truth of the statements made to thorn. Now, I put it to any hon. Member who has got to be responsible for a decision, if upon evidence given an hon. Member has formed a reasonable decision, a reasonable opinion, a reasonable belief, is it proper or is it improper to act upon that belief. There can be but one answer. It is a man's duty to act upon beliefs reasonably formed. There is no charge here either of bad faith or of defective judgment. The case is admitted to be one in which the Admiralty acted bonâ fide and with a reasonable belief in the statements they made. So much for that part of the case.
  Now I wish to turn to the case, not in its details, but in its procedure as it came to me. The charge was that a postal order was stolen and cashed on 7th October. An investigation was held on 8th October. After the investigation the procedure is for the Captain of the College to report to the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, and then for the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth to report to the Admiralty. The Captain of the College, after investigation, came to the conclusion that the boy should be withdrawn from the College. The Commander-in-Chief endorsed that report and came to the same conclusion, and made a statement accordingly to the Admiralty. Directly I saw the papers—I believe I was away the moment they arrived, but within a day or two I saw the papers—I recognised at once the terrible infliction that such a case as this would bring both upon the boy himself and upon the parents. And I looked round for evidence in examining the case which would enable me to say

  2449
  that in my judgment I thought the Captain of the College was wrong. I examined the evidence very carefully, and I observed there was an omission as I thought. The handwriting on the postal order had not been compared with the handwriting of the boy charged. I say frankly at once I do not attach very much importance to evidence of handwriting. I do not know I should be very disposed to convict anybody upon evidence of handwriting, and, therefore, what I say now does not in any way reopen the case, but is said in order to bring to hon. Members the truth as to my own state of mind. Although an expert may frequently be wrong when he says a document is written by a particular individual, he is not likely to be wrong if he says the document is not written by a particular individual. And, accordingly, I sent the postal order to be examined with the hope I should be told that the signature on the postal order was not in the handwriting of the boy against whom the charge was made.
  I thought that if I had this evidence before me I should have a strong basis to go upon against the report which had come up to me from the College. That was my first action and that explains the whole of the delay. Although the offence was committed on 7th October the father received no letter until 17th October. That investigation was being made in the hope that it might be in the boy's favour. Now I stop here to make an observation in which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will agree with me. What has struck me in cases of this kind is that nine-tenths of the mischief is done when the first public inquiry is held at the college when the charge is preferred, and when witnesses are called in from outside and the fact that the charge is made becomes a matter of public notoriety in the college. It is then that nine-tenths of the mischief is done before the Admiralty hears of it. After my experience in this case—when this happened my experience of the administration of Osborne was not very long—I amended the regulations and I have issued instructions that no public inquiry, or no inquiry which could lead to publicity, should be made in respect of any charge against a cadet if, as the result—the charge being of a serious nature—the cadet would have to be withdrawn upon the charge being found true; and that no such inquiry should be made, first of all, without prior communication with the Admiralty, and, secondly, without prior communication with the parents. I agree with
  2450
  the hon. and learned Gentleman in that respect the method was at fault. Do not let it be understood that I am endeavouring to shield myself at the expense of the captain of the college. He only inherited the system, and was acting strictly in accordance with the regulations existing at the time. The moment the facts became known to me I altered the regulations, and I hope the Committee will consider that part of my explanation satisfactory.
  The next point the hon. and learned Gentleman made was a point of which a very great deal was made at the trial. It is not a point which affects the merits of the case, but it seemed to go to show that the Admiralty had been very negligent in their response to the parents' appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that on 20th October Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, writing on behalf of the father, asked to be allowed to know the evidence upon which the boy had been charged, and that although they wrote four times they got no answer until 3rd November. I think that is the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. What is the fact, at any rate so far as I am concerned, in regard to that? On 20th October, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis asked for leave to inspect the documents. That letter was received at the Admiralty on the 21st. and it was sent over the same day to the Treasury solicitors, because it was thought as solicitors on one side were conducting the case, it was necessary for solicitors on the other side to do the same. The letter was sent over to the Treasury solicitors for observations, and it came back on the 22nd or the 23rd, and it was minuted by me on 23rd October, two days after the letter was received. It was minuted by me as approving of the father being allowed to know the evidence against his son. There was no delay at all, because it was minuted by me within two days of the receipt of the letter. During those two days it had to go backwards and forwards to the Treasury solicitors. On the 28th Messrs. Lewis and Lewis wrote to say they had heard nothing with regard to the case of George Archer-Shee, and the letter was marked "Urgent." On the 29th they wrote to say they were surprised that they had received no answer. On the 2nd November Messrs. Lewis and Lewis wrote:—
  "Are we to expect any answer?"
  What had happened in the interval? My minute went back to the Treasury solici-

  2451
  tors. On the 26th October Lord Desart, who was then acting as Treasury solicitor, wrote a private letter to Sir George Lewis suggesting an appointment. On the 27th Sir George Lewis replied, and on the 28th Lord Desart suggested a date for a meeting. On the 29th Sir George Lewis called and saw Lord Desart, so that the whole of this complaint is based on a misunderstanding. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend hears these facts now for the first time.
  Mr. CAVE: Why?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will explain. This fact, which is most vital in regard to the conduct of the Admiralty, has never been explained before for a very simple reason. I can only explain it in one way. Whilst Sir George Lewis was seeing Lord Desart and arranging with him, another partner in the firm, not in the least knowing, I am sure, that Sir George Lewis was privately communicating with Lord Desart, was going on writing letters to the Admiralty urging us to give a reply. Meanwhile we knew that Lord Desart was arranging with Sir George Lewis, and we took no further action. I am sure after this explanation, all of which is on record and in documents, it will be admitted that there is no ground for a charge of delay to be made against the Admiralty. Two days after the request was received I had given leave that the evidence should be made known to the father. This has been represented as a case in which the Admiralty have thwarted and prevented an inquiry. What did we do next? I do not suppose there is any precedent for such action as ours in the whole course of the experience of a public department.
  Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has not yet heard what I have to say. We allowed—and this fact was admitted in the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—the solicitors representing the father to go down to Osborne taking with them an eminent counsel, with full opportunity to examine all the witnesses, to see all the necessary documents, and to get at the very root and bottom of the case. Here were we who were prospectively going to be the defendants in an action allowing the plaintiffs to see everything we had got—and we concealed nothing from them—with full power to examine and cross-examine all witnesses. After
  2452
  that I do not think it can be said that we were seeking concealment, or that we were anxious to get a conviction.
  Mr. CAVE: I did not say so.
  Mr. McKENNA: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say so. As a result of this investigation a report was sent to me by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, in which they gave grounds, in their judgment, for thinking that the charge had been wrongly made. I read their case, and I read it with the greatest respect, and with the greatest desire to agree with them, but I am bound to say that I do not think the evidence justified me in refusing to accept the statement of the captain of the college and those who had examined all the material witnesses at the time. I determined, however, to do my utmost to assure myself and the college authorities as to the real truth of this ease. I looked round, then, for someone whom I could send down to Osborne to investigate the whole question afresh. The gentleman whom I invited to go was Mr. Acland. What were Mr. Acland's credentials for such a task? Mr. Acland since 1903 had been the Recorder of Oxford. He was thoroughly familiar with judicial proceedings and their methods. In 1904 Mr. Acland had been appointed Judge-Advocate of the Fleet by Lord Selborne, and he is in that office at this time. It must be remembered that the function of Judge-Advocate of the Fleet is to question the decisions of authorities, and if I had looked round for any man of high integrity and great ability who was likely to have a bias, from the practice of his office towards the defendant in any action, I should have selected Mr. Acland. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that nobody was more anxious than I was to get an opinion from an independent party at that time that the charge ought to be withdrawn. No one was more anxious than I was. Mr. Acland investigated the case. He made a report to me, and his report came out once more unfavourable to the boy. After that I had in the exercise of my duty no option but to refuse to take the boy back. What was the next step? An action was then brought by the father for breach of contract, and it was brought by the method known as a Petition of Right. I do not pretend that I am very learned in the precise meaning of a demurrer to a Petition of Right——
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had inquired as to the handwriting on the postal order. I

  2453
  want to know was the handwriting in the postal order declared to be by an expert the same as the boy's handwriting.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am most unwilling to make any statement of that kind, because I do not wish to say anything which would minimise or whittle down the effect of the absolute withdrawal of the charge. I merely referred to that point. I only referred it to the expert because I wanted him to say it was not the same. Let the Committee understand that in all these proceedings I can only act upon reports, and as soon as it was reported by my hon. and learned Friend that I ought to withdraw the charge I withdrew it instantly. Now we come to the question of the demurrer. I will only say this upon it. There are certain rights or prerogatives which we speak of as the Prerogatives of the Crown. In these days the Prerogatives of the Crown are not exercised for the benefit of the Crown but for the benefit of the public. Those Prerogatives are in existence, and any Minister in charge of his office is a trustee for the time being for the maintenance of those Prerogatives. I should not be doing my duty if it were duty to demur or not to demur, so long as Parliament leaves those powers in my hands, if I did not enforce them. It is, as my hon. and learned Friend Sir Rufus Isaacs says, a legal point which does not rest with the Admiralty. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said it was only thanks to the judges in the Appeal Court that the case was ultimately heard. I do not think he is there doing full justice to my hon. and learned Friend. I have here the Shorthand Note of the trial—I am referring now to the trial of the appeal in the Court of Appeal—and at the bottom of page 90 it will be seen that the Solicitor-General says:—
  "I do not know if I understand your Lordship rightly. Is that indication of your Lordship's opinion that it would be better that the facts should be tried before the point of law is decided?
  "Lord Justice Vaughan Williams: In this particular case, I do think so.
  "The Solicitor-General: If your Lordships think that, I certainly should not dispute it. That is quite sufficient as an indication to me that your Lordships are of opinion that it would he the better course to take. The learned Judge below took the view that I put forward, that it was bettor to deal first with what went to the root of the matter, and your Lordships have heard that point now.
  "Sir Edward Carson: The learned Judge in the Court below suggested that the facts ought to be tried.
  "The Solicitor-General: No. I say he took the view that I put forward. He asked me whether I would have the facts tried, and I said I thought if I was right on the point of law there was nothing to try, and I claimed my right. That I quite agree, and there is
  2454
  no question between us about it, but I say at once if your Lordships say that you think it would be better that the facts should be tried first, I should fall in with that view."
  My hon. and learned Friend at that time had a perfect right to insist on his view and on his original claim. He had already got the decision of the Court below in favour of his claim, and he could have insisted and taken it up to the House of Lords. The mere fact that the facts were pleaded at the same time as the demurrer alone gave the Court an opportunity of discussing the Appeal. Once we had claimed the right, as we were bound to claim the right, under the demurrer, we had no objection to the trial of the case. I now come to the last point—the question of compensation. The hon. and learned Gentleman at the conclusion of his speech said there was a touch of comedy in this case with regard to the answer to the claim for compensation. He said somebody had discovered, after the trial, that the boy Archer-Shee had been under warning, and that statement was invented or discovered or trumped up afterwards as an afterthought.
  Mr. CAVE: I did not say that it was either invented or trumped up.
  Mr. McKENNA: Well, brought forward. I wish to be perfectly fair. It was found out and brought forward as an afterthought in order to deal with the question of compensation. The facts are exactly the reverse. When the history of the case was brought up to me on the petition of right, there was in the evidence to be sent to the solicitor the fact that a warning letter had been sent to the father on the ground that the boy's studies were unsatisfactory, stating that the father should be prepared to continue his education elsewhere. When that letter came up to me, I withdrew it from the paper. My hon. and learned Friend never heard of that paper, but I had. I had it before me from the start, but I deliberately withdrew it from the paper, although it was very material to the questions of that case, because I did not think it affected the only issue we had to try. The hon. and learned Member thinks such a material fact as that had been forgotten by me when I had to deal with compensation, but I can assure him I have a much better treasured mind than that. I knew it all the time. I never brought it forward, I never should have mentioned it in this case, and I never intended to mention it until not only was £10,000 claimed, but I was met with the assurance that the

  2455
  claim of £10,000 was the only basis on which compensation would be considered.
  I now come to the conclusion of this case. That was the only outstanding issue. I desire to be fair, and I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that as between the State and an individual, though there be no legal claim, yet it is the business of the State to act fairly and generously. I do not dispute that for one moment, but I have got to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and I was confronted with a claim for £10,000, and for a complete indemnity for costs. What did I propose? I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to act on my behalf. When Messrs. Lewis and Lewis wrote the letter, I think of October, 1910, asking what we proposed to do on the subject of damages and compensation, we replied that there was no legal claim against us at all, but for our part we should be very happy that the question should be discussed and decided between my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had conducted the case with so much skill for Mr. Archer-Shee. I wanted my hon. and learned Friend to settle the question. He is a very fair-minded man, it was he who reported to me that the charge ought to be withdrawn, and I thought he might be reasonably left to decide in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite what the claim against us ought to be. I was met with the reply that the only basis of discussion would be £10,000 compensation and a complete indemnity for costs. Well, I refused. I refused, and I have to take my trial now. Is it reasonable that we should pay £10,000, which is more than a naval officer would receive as retired pay after thirty years' service? If there was still the faintest suspicion that we were in any way continuing our injury to the boy's character, and if there was any suggestion that we had not withdrawn the charge absolutely and unreservedly, then vindictive damages might be claimed against the Admiralty most justifiably, but there is no such case. It is a clear case of compensation for injury done.
  Was it or was it not material to that question, and to that question only, that the boy had received this warning letter? The hon. and learned Gentleman says it was a trifling matter. These warning letters were sent, in numbers, I think he said, and no consequences followed, except greater application on the part of the
  2456
  boy. As a matter of fact, in that year 1908, twenty-seven such warning letters were sent, and twelve boys who received warning letters were withdrawn, or very nearly one-half. These are no idle threats. The actual chance of that boy remaining in the college after the father had received that warning letter was only a half chance, and, as regards his prospects of a brilliant career, there were 400 other boys in the college competing, and is this one boy to be selected as a case for such an extravagant demand, as I think, for compensation under the conditions which I have described? No, I could not come to any other conclusion. I say now, I think it is a case for fair and even generous treatment. Why, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman will say, did I confine my offer to paying the taxed costs. I did not. I offered to pay, not merely the taxed costs, but all the taxed costs of the inquiry, all the taxed costs of the issues on which the father had lost, as well as those on which he had succeeded. But why taxed costs, he may say. Why not full costs? I do not know what the full costs are. This case began as far back as October, 1908. Surely, by this time a bill of costs had been rendered and has been paid. Let me know the amount. What I am asked to do, is to give an indemnity for costs. I do not desire to give a blank cheque of public money to any firm of solicitors, however eminent. I want to know the bill before I pay it, and, when I was willing that my hon. and learned Friend should discuss with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite all the questions, I was refused. I must leave the matter there to the House. So far as I am concerned, I can assure hon. Members on both sides that I have never been actuated by any desire in this case from the first except to know the truth, and, knowing it, to act upon it in accordance with my duty.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I shall attempt to retain the attention of the Committee by imitating the example and tone and method which has been set me both by my hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will understand me if I say that I postpone until the conclusion of the few observations with which I shall trouble the Committee any question at all of compensation. I agree that the question of compensation is important to the boy and is important to the public interest, but it is relatively unimportant to the great questions

  2457
  of principle raised here. I will ask the Committee to recollect, that this boy went to Osborne with the highest possible testimonials as far as his moral character was concerned from the school at Stonyhurst, where he had spent some years. The Committee will forgive me if I quote one of them. The Vicar of the college said:—
  "Until the day on which he left the college he was regarded by all who had opportunities of knowing him well as a singularly upright and honourable boy?"
  It is true to say of the five testimonials which he took with him at the time he passed into the public service that everyone was equally favourable to his moral character. I desire to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord and the Committee to the real gravamen of the case against the Admiralty. The theft was discovered on the 7th October, and on the 17th October the cadet was expelled from the college on the charge of theft. I begin here, and I am bound to say that my suggestion is that a grave error of judgment was committed by the Admiralty during those ten days by not allowing any mention to be made of the matter to the boy's parents. I do not insist upon that charge against the right hon. Gentleman, because he has in the handsomest possible manner admitted that it was an error of judgment, and it is against the possible repetition of such an error that certain precautions are to be taken. The only reason why I mention it is because I think that, whilst we recognise what he said, we must come to the conclusion that it was one of a number of errors of judgment of the same kind, every one of them serious. On the 17th October the boy was expelled. An inquiry, of course, had taken place before that, and I would ask the Committee to consider why it was that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention what the nature of that inquiry was. You are dealing with the ease of a boy—I suppose about thirteen years old, little more than an infant—and an inquiry was held as to his conduct, with the charges against him being theft and forgery. I venture to commend this view to the consideration of the Committee that it is wrong to arrive at any definite conclusion of guilt against any child of that age at an inquiry at which he is unrepresented by trained and skilful persons in order that they may sift in his interests the evidence that is advanced against him. This point is fundamental, and I do not really gather that the right hon. Gentleman dissents from that.
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I agree.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: That relieves me from the task of insisting upon it. With regard to this case, there was a second practice which we understand will be corrected in future, and that was that the inquiry took place in ignorance of the parents of the child, and that, therefore, neither they nor he were properly represented. The next point is that on the 20th October Messrs. Lewis and Lewis wrote to the Secretary of the Admiralty asking for permission to inspect the documents upon which the Admiralty founded the charge, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) in his ignorance of the facts which have been fully explained now by the right hon. Gentleman made a complaint that for a fortnight no reply was received to that letter. As I understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is this, that Lord Desart represented the Public Prosecutor, and was having a series of interviews with Sir George Lewis, and the Admiralty were in ignorance of these interviews.
  Mr. McKENNA: Lord Desart was acting as our representative; he is the Treasury solicitor; he was having interviews with Sir George Lewis, but the firm of Lewis and Lewis did not know of that fact.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Do I understand that the Admiralty knew that, but the Treasury solicitor did not know that Messrs. Lewis and Lewis were acting? I do not think Messrs. Lewis knew that Lord Desart was acting when they were writing to say that they had no reply to their letters.
  Mr. McKENNA: There were two members of the firm. Lord Desart was the Treasury solicitor, and of the two members of the firm, whilst one member of the firm was engaged with the Treasury solicitor, another member of the firm was writing direct to us and pressing for a reply. I do not think the two representatives of the firm of Lewis and Lewis knew each what the other was doing.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: What I do not gather is the reason why Messrs. Lewis and Lewis were pressing their repeated letters during this fortnight if they were cognisant of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I can only say that it seems to betray an extraordinary method of conducting important business on the part

  2459
  of the Admiralty. I pass on to the next important matter. On the 3rd November Messrs. Lewis and Lewis's request was granted, and on the 4th November the Secretary to the Admiralty wrote to inform the solicitor of the evidence upon which the boy was expelled. And here is another point to which I ask the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The latter refused in these circumstances to give the representative of the boy an inspection of the report which was forwarded from Osborne dealing with the matter. I do make the gravest possible complaint of that. What is the report? It cannot be contended that there is now anything in the nature of the case which is confidential.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not say there is.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: That assurance comes very late in the day. An application was made at the time by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, long before the innocence of the boy was vindicated and whilst it was doubtful whether or not he would ever be vindicated. Messrs. Lewis and Lewis asked for an inspection of that report which had been forwarded from Osborne and to examine the statements which had been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman for consideration. He was of opinion that this report should not be shown to them. The next step was on the 18th of the same month, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis went to Osborne and took a statement from several witnesses. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed, and in my judgment rightly claimed, credit to himself for having allowed Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to see at that time the witnesses upon whose evidence he and his advisers were founding themselves. But in addition to Messrs. Lewis seeing the witnesses, they made observations, but that could have no result if the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers took no notice of the observations made by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis when they had seen the evidence. Let me tell the Committee what the Admiralty did while Messrs. Lewis and Lewis made these representations. On the 9th December a long letter was sent enclosing copies of documents and letters from Messrs. Lewis and Lewis asking that the Admiralty should reopen the question of the boy's expulsion at an inquiry at which he should be represented by counsel, and I may say here that this was a matter that affected the boy's whole life. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) says "No." I am in the judgment
  2460
  of the whole Committee, and I am sure that all parts of the Committee will agree with me. Does anyone really suggest that if at the age of fourteen a boy is justly branded with the guilt of theft and forgery that the language I have used is in any way exaggerated?
  Mr. HOLT: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that in his experience of public school life he has not known of a boy being justly expelled from school for a small theft and yet that he should subsequently rise to a perfectly honourable position?
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I think the Committee as a whole will come to the conclusion that I have not stated the case extravagantly. I would only ask indeed that any Member of the Committee should apply the circumstances of the case to his own boy. Well, to go on with this case, I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that there was any reconsideration of the Admiralty's position at this stage, and therefore in my judgment the suggestion I make to the Committee is that a grave error of judgment was committed when the Admiralty refused the claim of the boy's parents that they should be represented by counsel at a further inquiry. I have spoken of the gravity of the offence, and is it not absurd that at this stage of the case this little boy, hardly more than a child, should alone have an opportunity of dealing with the evidence, dazed and staggered as he must have been by the gravity of the offence alleged, and confronted by authorities who loom in the eyes of childhood with an amount of awe which is never known in adult years. The Admiralty did not assent to that, but they wrote saying that they proposed to hold a further inquiry, and they informed Messrs. Lewis and Lewis that the papers had been handed to Mr. Acland, the Judge Advocate General, for him to look into the case. I may be permitted to say that Mr. Acland is well known to me, and I associate myself unreservedly with what has been said of him by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I agree that no one could have suggested one who would judge with greater humanity and greater competence in the investigation of this matter. That cannot be disputed. But the observation none the less remains that the most competent and most humane judge that ever lived is wholly unable to sift and investigate a

  2461
  charge like this unless he has the assistance of those who are concerned and unless he is able at that inquiry to have presented before him both sides of the question. But that is just what the representatives of the boy were denied, and denied day after day up to this point, in the whole course of this inquiry. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman and his representatives, in spite of the fact that they had placed the case before Mr. Acland, were taking up a position of this kind: "We have tried this matter, we have tried it without allowing the boy to be capably represented before us, and we do not intend to allow the boy to be capably represented at an inquiry, and we do not intend to modify our opinion." Messrs. Lewis and Lewis wrote again on 31st December, saying:—
  "You will remember in the first instance the course adopted by the Admiralty was founded upon an investigation conducted by one side only without any opportunity being given to the Cadet or the Cadet's friends of being represented."
  How did they deal with that? They wrote back and said they did not see any necessity for it:—
  "I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acknowledge receipt of your letter relative to the case of George Archer Shee, and my Lords desire me to say that the further enquiry is not one at which a representative of your side in the sense ill which you use the word would be appropriate."
  That means that the Admiralty at that time admitted that they utterly refused to give the boy any chance at all of being heard and having the advantage of a capable representative to state his side of the case. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will defend that. I think it is clear that he is bound by admissions he has already made to say that he does not assent to that. He told me, and I am bound to say quite properly told me, that he thought the boy's father and the boy's friends should have been informed at first, and, I presume, should have been represented at the first inquiry. I gather also that he will agree with what was afterwards said. What becomes of the refusal of the Admiralty to allow the boy's parents to be represented in view of the statement made by the Solicitor-General at the conclusion of the trial—a very generous statement. He said that he had accepted unreservedly the view that the boy was completely innocent of every charge brought against him. Therefore it is evident that the Admiralty having erroneously formed a view of the boy's guilt were refusing to allow his relatives to be present or to give them any
  2462
  chance at the only inquiry which they would grant, or at which there would be an opportunity of establishing his innocence of the charge, an innocence which was established so long afterwards at the expenditure of so much time and money. What would have happened if this boy's relatives had not been able to obtain the assistance of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson)? Surely it is clear that if this boy had been a poor boy, even in the sense that his relatives would not have been able to go to the expense of carrying the case through the courts and obtaining such services as those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would have been branded with the stigma of being guilty of these charges. He certainly would not have had the advantage of the brilliant and fearless advocacy of the right hon. and learned Member, which was so largely responsible for obtaining this opportunity for him and for having this trial and vindication. What happened when the petition of right was presented? The right hon. Gentleman said he was not very familiar with the nature either of a petition of right or of a demurrer, and I may very respectfully say that the observations he made on this point in my judgment betrayed that circumstance, and at the outset he made that very clear. What happened when the petition of right was brought by the boy? It was open to the Government to meet that in two ways. As the right hon. Gentleman says, he might have met it by demurrer alone, without putting upon the record any defence as far as facts were concerned. That is quite true, but if they had done so the Admiralty would have been in this position, that if their demurrer for any reason failed it would have been an undefended action. I think that statement is a well-founded one, and I have given some little attention to the matter, and so have my hon. Friends. Apart from all legal technicalities, what was the alternative which a layman can understand which presented itself to the Government at that time? They might ask themselves whether they were going to use their technical defence in order to prevent the full trial of the facts of this case upon which the boy's representatives insisted. If you strip this question of all technicality that was the issue which confronted the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman when it became their duty to state their case before Mr. Justice Ridley. I do not know where the responsibility rested for

  2463
  the course which was pursued. I have had a long experience of the Attorney-General, and we are all well aware of his tact, judgment, and humanity, and I find it very difficult to believe that that responsibility was his.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the plea was there on the record, which was the point taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). But so far as anything that took place at the trial is concerned I take the full responsibility. I had to take the record as I found it, but it would not be right to suggest that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was responsible for arguing the points which I argued in Court.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Then it becomes my duty to state that in my view the hon. and learned Gentleman committed a tragic error in this respect. The hon. Gentleman says, in effect, this being the previous history of the case, I propose to insist upon a technical point, that no petition of right lies in the case of a subject, and I propose to insist upon that under circumstances which would close the door for the last time in the face of this boy who is attempting to establish his integrity. That was the effect of it. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there were any other means by which the boy's character could be vindicated? The Admiralty had refused the boy permission to be represented at the previous inquiry, and now, when through the avenue of a petition of right the attempt was being made to secure a trial by judge and jury, who were waiting to hear the case—the jury had been sworn and were waiting to try the facts, the boy's representatives were insisting upon their right that these facts should be tried—and the hon. Gentleman said: I, representing a great Government Department, insist upon this technical point, the case shall not be tried, the facts shall not be gone into, and the boy shall be deprived of the opportunity of clearing his character. In spite of the Attorney-General he has now enjoyed that opportunity, and it has resulted in the vindication of his character and the establishing of his innocence before the world. Had not the Attorney-General been ultimately deterred from pursuing this course by the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the boy's innocence never would have been vindicated, and he would to-day, an innocent
  2464
  boy, have been under the stigma that he had committed this theft and this forgery.
  What happened when this case went before the Court of Appeal? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has quoted the observations made in answer to the Lord Justice when the Solicitor-General said that if their Lordships indicated an opinion that the facts ought to be tried the Government would not dissent from that view. I do not wish to infer any unreasonable attitude on the part of the Government, but it is elementary knowledge to anybody who has any experience of the Court of Appeal that if the Attorney-General representing the Government had refused to assent to that suggestion made in the Court of Appeal it would have become a grave public scandal. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the representative of a great Department (the Solicitor-General), when the Lords Justices state that in common justice the facts must be tried should say that they shall not be tried. The fact remains that as far as the trial of this action was concerned—the trial which alone has vindicated the integrity of this little child—as far as that action was concerned. every step was taken by the Government through its legal advisers to prevent the boy having an opportunity of vindicating his character, just as every step had been taken by the Admiralty before the case came into the hands of its legal advisers to prevent the defence of the boy at the previous inquiry being heard. This House is justly impatient of long extracts, but I venture to ask their patience and their indulgence while I read to them a passage from a judgment of a learned judge which is a sinister pronouncement on this very point. Lord Justice Farwell in giving judgment in the case of Dyson v. the Attorney-General, in which a technicality under Form IV. was raised, said:—
  "The convenience in the public interest is all in favour of providing a speedy and easy access to the Courts for any of His Majesty's subjects who have any real cause of complaint against the exercise of statutory powers by Government Departments or Government officials having regard to their growing tendency to claim the right to act without regard to legal principles and without appeal to any court. Within the present year alone there have been no less than three such cases. In the present case we find the law officers taking a preliminary objection in order to prevent the trial of a case which treating the allegations as true (as we must in such an application), is of the greatest importance to hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects. I will quote the Lord Chief Baron in Deare v. Attorney-General, 'It has been the practice which I hope never will be discontinued, for the Officers of the Crown to throw no difficulty in the way of proceedings for the purpose of bringing matters before a Court of Justice when any real point of difficulty that requires

  2465
  judicial decision has occurred I venture to hope that the former salutary practice may be resumed. If ministerial responsibility were more than the mere shadow of a name, the matter would be less important, but as it is the Courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression.",
  That doctrine was also laid down recently in another action in regard to the view taken by the present law officers, I believe, but whether that is so or not the principles that were there laid down ought to be adopted for the permanent guidance of the law officers of the Crown. When the only means which is open to a subject to vindicate his character and restore his reputation lies through the avenue of the Law Courts—it does not lie with those to whom the public have given the conduct of public cases to slam the door in the face of a suppliant and say he shall not go to the Law Courts. I only want to offer one concluding observation on the question of compensation. I do not know, and I do not care, whether too much compensation has been asked for, and I recognise, in some sense, the justice of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He complained that nothing was said on the part of those representing the boy in regard to any smaller sum. I do not express any opinion as to whether the claim for compensation is or is not an excessive one. The ground I am bound to take up is that the right hon. Gentleman, in his letter of reply, in terms offered to pay the taxed costs of the case, but, I am sure, unintentionally, he did deal somewhat disingenuously with the Committee. He said: "I do not know what the amount was of the untaxed costs, and how could I say that I would pay any part of them?" In his letter written at the time the right hon. Gentleman used the term taxed costs, but if he had simply said I will pay the actual costs between party and client, these costs equally are liable to taxation with the other kind, and if any case was made against them that they were excessive the Department would run no risk.
  Mr. McKENNA: I was not asked that.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: It was the right hon. Gentleman's own offer. The right hon. Gentleman offered in terms the taxed costs. But I do not wish to become involved in a technical argument, the Committee ought to treat it in an altogether higher spirit. I will only say in conclusion that I suggest to the Committee and to the Government that they would be well-advised if they think it right to make an offer, to remember that after all the injury done to this boy has been of a very real and very cruel character. They
  2466

  will remember that, after all, this boy was at the most sensitive and impressionable period of human life. He was a child of only thirteen years of age, and no doubt many hon. Members have sons of their own, and will call to mind what view they would take of this unfortunate case if it was their own son. The Committee will remember that in this case a boy of thirteen years of age had at the most impressionable period of life been bruised for two years, and he supposed for two years that all those who knew him thought that he had committed this grave offence. He would know that his schoolfellows and his friends had not been convinced of the falsehood of the terrible charge made against him. The case may have been put too high in regard to compensation, but I would ask the Government to consider that the injustice extended over a long period, although the boy has emerged from it triumphantly, and the Government of this great country ought not to measure in too nice a scale this question of compensation.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not intend in any way to trench upon the very wise and salutary tradition of this House which has almost passed into a law in regard to any Member of this House who takes part in a Debate here in regard to a case in which he has previously acted as advocate. In anything that I am going to say, therefore, I shall not touch upon the facts, but I shall content myself with repeating what I said when the case was closed, that I was very glad to be in a position, and it was a source of real pleasure to me to find myself in a position to state in open court as strongly as I could, so that no one can misunderstand what I was saying, that the boy was absolutely cleared from any charge which could be made against him. I rise in consequence of some observations which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and also to answer some of the criticisms of which I do not in the least complain, made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I quite appreciate the spirit in which the matter was treated by the hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to the duty of a law officer in such circumstances. But I dissent entirely and absolutely from the statements which were made by him as to what the duties of law officers are under such circumstances. In what I am saying I am following out the traditions of my office as they have been

  2467
  handed down for many centuries. So far as I know—and I looked carefully and anxiously at the time to see whether I could find in the books any precedent—there is none for an officer—for, after all, ridiculous as it may have been, this boy's legal status was that of an officer in the Navy—there is no precedent for an officer, either in the Army or Navy, being allowed to bring his case into a court of justice before a judge and before a jury. It has been admitted again and again, and it has been stated in the most emphatic terms by the judges, that it is not open to an officer, any more than it is open to a Civil servant, to present a case in regard to any complaint of any dismissal which has taken place. The reason is not far to seek, because all these commissions of officers and employment of Civil servants are dependent upon the King's pleasure. Any person is liable to be dismissed without explanation and without any justification given, and still is not to be entitled to go into court to question it. He is to have recourse to such other methods as may be afforded him, but I am quite sure that no lawyer in this House will deny my statement that it is not open to any officer in the Army or in the Navy to bring his case into open court for trial.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think the Attorney-General has forgotten that one question in dispute in the case was whether this boy was an officer or whether he was not there merely under a contract of education, because, if he was an officer, he could have claimed a court-martial.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I assure the right hon. Gentleman I have not forgotten the fact. There is no doubt that a naval cadet is an officer. There is no question about it. If there is any question I will produce the King's Regulations now. The Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) is there, and I will take it from him. The moment he is a naval cadet he is an officer in the Navy.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: He cannot claim a court-martial.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No; but he is an officer, and, being an officer, he cannot go to a court of justice in order to get redress, whatever the grievance is. I am not concerned at the moment in asking whether or not that is a good and sound principle of jurisprudence. It may be said by a great many persons that such a right ought to be open in the courts of law.
  2468
  What I say is that it is not for me as law officers to make the law, but it is for me to administer it, and I have to deal with the law as I find it, and the books are full, as every lawyer knows, of decisions that there is no such right of action, and that the court cannot even discuss such an action if it is brought before it. The late Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, when one of these cases came before him, said it was quite impossible to discuss questions of the kind, and he pointed out that no one could alter the contract between an officer and the Crown, not even the Queen herself. It is something which the Queen cannot do, and which no one of the Queen's subjects can do, and the consequence is that you always remain with this contract, simply one of dismissal at the King's pleasure.
  One other word in order that there may be no misapprehension. When we are speaking of the rights of the Crown we are really speaking of the rights of the public. The Crown's rights in these days are the interest of the community, and it has been thought from time immemorial that it is in the interest of the community on grounds of public policy that there should be no right of action in courts of law in such cases. If the principle which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith) referred to is correct, every time a subject—for example, a postman or a private in the Army wishes to bring an action against the Crown, am I to understand that it is the hon. and learned Member's view that it will be the duty, following out the quotation which we read from Lord Justice Far-well's judgment, of the law officer at once to state that he is content to have the case tried? The point I want to call attention to is that this is just one of those matters in respect of which a law officer has no right to waive the privileges of the Crown. He is the guardian of the privileges of the Crown, that is, the rights of the public, and he must not waive them. If those rights have to be abolished, it is entirely a matter for Parliament, and once Parliament has done it anyone can bring such an action. The quotation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) referred was given by Lord Justice Far-well in a Form IV. case, which is a totally different case. I think that is the error into which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) fell when he referred to it. It is a different case entirely, because it is in respect of Revenue cases only. It was a case in which the question was

  2469
  raised as to whether a subject in dealing with taxation could bring an action against the Attorney-General and the whole point of the decision was that an action would lie against the Attorney-General, because he is the representative of the Crown and consequently, if the subject had some complaint to make about some principle of taxation, he was entitled to bring this action against the Attorney-General and claim a declaration. I do not imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) would suggest that under circumstances such as I have described, or under any circumstances in which a servant of the Crown who was liable to dismissal at the King's pleasure brings an action into Court it would be the duty of the law officer to claim a privilege which is really the right of the public. I do not think myself that a law officer is entitled in this matter to exercise a discretion, because, if he once does that, in the very next case that is brought before the Court he is confronted with the observation. "You waived on the last occasion; you might just as well waive it in this." I have found, on studying the cases of the waiving of privilege by law officers, that they are very jealous indeed of waiving privileges, and I have been unable to find a single precedent in which there has been a waiver of the Crown Prerogative allowing such a case to be brought. I should have been only too glad if I could have said, as law officer, "Try the case." What objection could I have to trying the case? My difficulty was this. I stepped into the matter when the record was already completed, when the plea of the demurrer was already on the pleas, and there was that plea at the very threshold of the case which had to be dealt with, and I should have been wanting in my duty if I had said, "This is an unpleasant matter for me to have to argue. I do not care to have to take this point in a case where a boy is trying to vindicate himself, therefore I will waive the right of the Crown, and will allow the case to be tried." I do not think I was entitled to do that. In administering the law I was bound, until Parliament expressed a different view, to maintain the Crown Prerogative, and it was simply in accordance with that view that I took the point and argued it.
  So far from there being any general assent to the view of the right of waiving I have been criticised by lawyers since for having given way to the Court of Appeal when it pressed the point on me that it
  2470
  would be better, in this particular case, because they had not sufficient facts before them to determine the question of demurrer, that the case should be tried. They have said to me that I have, by doing that, allowed a case of this kind to be tried, and ever afterwards, when a case arises between a Civil servant or between any military or naval officer and the Crown, he will always be able to say "there was a case in which this was allowed to be tried, and consequently it might be done in this particular instance.
  Sir E. CARSON: This was not an action by an officer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Surely the point involved in the demurrer was that? We are not arguing that because it is not relevant to the point on which I rose to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith). It was an action, it is quite true, by a father, but the point involved was whether a father could maintain an action for breach of a contract the breach being dismissal of the boy from the King's Service. Therefore an exactly similar point was involved, although I quite agree that it will entitle others to argue that you could differentiate this case because it was brought by the father. That has never been decided. The demurrer has never been overruled by the Court of Appeal, who said they thought they ought to have fuller facts before them before they came to a conclusion. I have only risen for the purpose of making that point clear and not so much because it is involved in this particular case, but because there may be some misapprehension in the future as to what the rights of officers are under similar circumstances, or those who have not attained to the dignity of officers but are still servants of the Crown. I was anxious to make the position clear, which is that Parliament must correct it if it is intended ever to be corrected.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I do not think the House ought to spend a very long time about this point of law.
  Mr. O'GRADY: No, it is a damned scandal.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask if the hon. Member (Mr. O'Grady) is in order in using the words he just did. He spoke of a damned scandal. Ought he not to be ordered to withdraw that abusive expression?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I did not hear any remark of that kind, but hon. Members should

  2471
  abstain from interruption. This is a matter of obvious importance which should be discussed.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I emphatically protest against this case being tried over again by the lawyers in this House.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can enter his protest when he catches the Chairman's eye.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Then I will leave the House. I won't listen to this any longer.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The First Lord of the Admiralty said at the beginning of his speech that his one desire in the matter was to get at the truth. I will only say this much in reference to the Attorney-General's argument, that when a Petition of Right was brought and was taken to the Court of Appeal, the judges in that court, who had quite sufficient authority, felt and intimated to the Attorney-General that the case, on the merits, should be tried. I think that is quite sufficient authority to this House to rest on against the argument the Attorney-General has put forward, and for me to say that I am entirely in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) that the attempt on the part of the Crown to prevent the hearing of this case on its merits in the Court of King's Bench, in whatever good feeling it may have been made, was a disastrous exercise of their discretion. The speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty has relieved me of many matters on which it would have been otherwise necessary to dwell. I understand that the position is perfectly clear now. I understand the right hon. Gentleman has intimated that the view of the Naval authorities, if any necessity for such an inquiry as this arises again, is that, in the first place, it shall not take place without a, communication being made to the Admiralty; and in the second place, a communication being made to the parents of the boy. I should like to make sure on this third point, on which I think the right hon. Gentleman was not clear. Assuming these two communications to have been made, has he further directed that, under no circumstances, shall an inquiry in respect of a grave criminal offence take place without children of tender years being represented at the inquiry by a friend, by counsel, or by other qualified persons.
  Mr. McKENNA: The father of the boy is to be given the opportunity of being present before any inquiry of any sort which can give the least publicity either in Court or otherwise, to the case.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: If I may say so, with all respect, that is really not enough, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks over the matter. I wish to obtain from the Admiralty a clear assurance on the present occasion that henceforth it shall be the right of the boy himself, or the parents, or the representatives of the boy, to have him suitably represented at this inquiry, in order that proper witnesses may be called, in order that the witnesses against him may be cross-examined, and in order that a full and fair inquiry to both parties represented should take place. The representatives of the Admiralty have not given that assurance, and I beg, before we close the Debate, that the assurance should be given, for I think every fair-minded man in the House will say that it is an outrageous thing that, while every citizen in this Realm has the right in every criminal case, however unimportant, to be represented if he thinks fit, that right should be denied to naval cadets of tender years who are confronted by superiors, and who are totally unable to deal with the facts.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: You have only to do as is done in an ordinary criminal case. Think of the scrupulous solicitude of the law to prevent any admission being taken from an accused person. A statement is never taken without full warning being given that anything a man says may be used against him in evidence. He is not obliged to say anything at the preliminary trial at all. He may reserve his defence. That a little boy should be placed in the position of being confronted with this kind of charge, without being represented by the parents, or guardians, or counsel is absolutely intolerable, and a thing not to be thought of by any just man. I come now to the next point. I do not wish to use strong or controversial language. After the inquiry which was allowed to take place at Osborne the papers were fully submitted to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty allowed the matter to be examined by Mr. Acland, who is an old friend of my own, and I fully associate myself with everything that was said about him. May we have an assurance again that such an investigation as that will not take place, if I may say so, in

  2473
  such a hole-and-corner way. The accused person was not repreented. Mr. Acland had no opportunity of seeing the witnesses or hearing them cross-examined, and seeing the view which the First Lord of the Admiralty took of the previous inquiry, and seeing that he took in thoroughly that that inquiry, as his admissions ever since lead us to believe, was thoroughly unsatisfactory, he surely committed a serious error of judgment in not allowing the subsequent inquiry to take place under more proper conditions. He refused the specific appeal made to him on 8th February, 1909, that there should be a full and fair inquiry, and decision on this matter by an independent person. I would remind him that such an inquiry could have been held before men of judicial eminence, such, for example, as Sir Edward Fry, Lord Lindsey or Mr. Romer, any one of whom would have been able, if the opportunity had been offered, of holding such an inquiry.
  When it became known to the First Lord of the Admiralty that the first inquiry was so thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that the inquiry before Mr. Acland was one without any opportunity for the full representation of the boy, it was again most unfortunate that this third appeal for a proper inquiry before a judicial authority was again refused by the Admiralty. The matter really does not stop there. I do not wish to labour it after what I have said, but surely it was unfortunate when the parties had got before the King's Bench that the Attorney-General insisted upon the demurrer, and but for the subsequent proceedings in the Court of Appeal this whole investigation would have terminated and lasting ignominy would have rested upon the boy. Will the Attorney-General say that even if he had advised the First Lord not to waive the prerogative of the Crown the First Lord could not have said, "I do not insist upon your taking that point."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said before—I am not sure that the First Lord quite agrees with me, but it is certainly my view—that in representing the Crown in a Petition of Eight, it is for me to determine the question whether that Petition might lie against the Crown. As I have said I do not think it is a matter in my discretion. I think it is entirely a question of law.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: My authority is not so great as that of the Attorney-General, but I did work for a long time in the office of the Attorney-General, and have some
  2474
  knowledge of these matters. When the head of a great Department has told us with the greatest emphasis that his one desire is to act fairly towards the boy, I am surprised to hear the Attorney-General say that the First Lord could not have instructed him to get at the truth by the only way the truth could be got at—namely, by a public examination in open court. I will not say more upon that than I have done. I wish to point out that the first inquiry was, as is now admitted, a most unsatisfactory one. The second one, before Mr. Acland, was one at which the boy was not represented, and the third one, which was asked for before a judicial authority of great weight, was refused by the Admiralty. As to the fourth, whatever the merits may be, the Atorney-General took up the position that it should not be gone into, and that the technical plea must be insisted upon. Now, after all this, we have a full investigation of the boy's character. I gratefully acknowledge the action of the Attorney-General on that occasion. Then we have a letter, which I think has not been referred to as yet, in which an expression of regret was asked from the representatives of the Admiralty and from the First Lord. In this House my Noble Friend behind me put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty as to whether he had any objection to expressing regret for the great and grievous wrong inflicted on the boy. What said the First Lord of the Admiralty? He said that the Attorney-General, who was then Solicitor-General, had apologised and expressed his great regret in court and that he himself had expressed his regret in this House. If the authority of the father of the boy, which I quote from the letter he wrote to "The Times." is correct—I have not been able personally to inform myself on the matter—the Attorney-General did not express regret in court, and the First Lord of the Admiralty did not express regret in this House. That is distinct authority, which is vouched-for by the parent of the boy in the one case, and by the shorthand notes in the other. I say it was an unfortunate oversight if that was the case. I think that surely after the parents of this boy had endured the anguish of seeing him confronted with the whole power of this great Department and accused of this offence, and after the innocence of the boy had been vindicated, the least he could have done would have been to give a frank and free expression of regret. The

  2475
  First Lord, when confronted by my Noble Friend, said, "I did express my regret, and the Attorney-General expressed his regret." That is a most significant and eloquent expression. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the presence of this House, thinks it ought to have been done. He thinks the Attorney-General ought to have expressed his regret. He thinks he did so himself. If he thinks he did or if he thinks he ought to have done so, surely he ought at this moment to freely and frankly express it. The parent of the boy until two days ago said that from that day to this he had received no single word of regret from the Admiralty or the Attorney-General.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said a great deal more than I was asked to say with reference to that, but what I had to say with reference to the matter was a complete vindication of the boy. There was no question of expressing regret. If it had been mentioned or thought necessary, or that it would have helped the case, I would have added it without a moment's reflection. But at the time I stated so fully and freely what my view was that I should have thought it was covered by what I did say. I said:—
  "I may say, on behalf of the Admiralty, not only that I accept the statement, but I say in order that there may be no mistake about it that I make that statement, without any reserve of any description, intending that it shall he a complete justification of the statements of the boy and of the evidence he has given in Court."
  If a statement had been made to me that an expression of regret in terms would have been valued, I should have instantly given it, because it would have been quite proper and the boy was entitled to it; but I thought it was covered by what I said.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I quite appreciate what the Attorney-General said, but what I wish to point out is that a distinct request was made to the Admiralty by his solicitors that a full expression of regret should be made. I am not speaking of the Attorney-General in this matter; I am speaking of the First Lord. He had not then made any such expression of regret. On the contrary, he used words which I think were very unfortunate in reply to a question of my Noble Friend. I wish, therefore, to put this question across the floor of the House. What possible objection can there be to the representatives of the Navy of this country, after all the custodians of one of the most generous and honourable services in the
  2476
  world, now saying or writing to the father of this boy an expression of that regret which they believed they had given and which I am perfectly certain in calmer moments they would feel they ought to have given? I do not wish to dwell on this question of compensation for more than a very few moments. What would under the circumstances that I have detailed, which I think do show a great error of judgment on the part of the First Lord or the Attorney-General, any hon. Gentleman do towards the person whom he had innocently wronged? Surely the first thing that any man of honour would do would be to endeavour to place him at any rate in the same pecuniary position as he was in before, and fully indemnify him for all the expenses which he has incurred in this struggle for his boy's honour which he thought right to make and which he was right to make. The Attorney-General knows as well as I do that taxed costs are a ridiculous offer in such a case. It means that because "we, the Admiralty, having, in good faith, it is true, but under a grievous error of judgment and with most imperfect inquiries, caused you to undergo two years' agony of mind while fighting for your very existence as an honourable person, are not to express our regrets in public and are to allow you to be fined in some thousands of pounds, the difference in the case which would be paid in this case and the taxed costs." That is not a position which the Admiralty on consideration could take up.
  Mr. McKENNA: I never did.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Very well. I presume I am bound to take the representatives of the Admiralty writing under instructions saying they are willing to pay the taxed costs of the trial and inquiry.
  Mr. McKENNA: Allow me to say I said first of all I was willing to leave it to be settled by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Then I was confronted with the statement that we could not deal with you except on the basis of a payment of £10,000, not costs, covering indemnity, costs, and an apology, not an expression of regret. As I conceived that I had done my duty I did not give an apology, and I did not think I was justified in the interests of the public in accepting those terms. It was then I sent the counter offer of the taxed costs.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I will not go back on this question of the expression of regret.

  2477
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked in this House whether he would give one. He said he had given one and that the Attorney-General had given one. He was mistaken. Neither of them gave any such expression. I put it to every Member in this House that that expression of regret—I have not used the word apology which might be repugnant to the high spirit of the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represents—is the least that can be asked, and I trust it will be given. I know nothing of these interviews. I only know the documents. On the documents the offer of the Admiralty was made in the most formal way by their solicitor to pay the taxed costs of the trial and the inquiry. I say, without pledging myself to a matter of £100, that if that offer was accepted anybody with experience in these matters knows perfectly well that the result would be not merely the indignity to the boy and his family, but of a heavy pecuniary loss amounting to perhaps £2,000 or £3,000. That is not a position which the Attorney should take up, and it cannot be a position which anybody who represents the British Navy can take up in relation to the father of this boy who has been so wronged. Those are the matters on which I wish an explanation. I trust before the Committee loses its hold of this question it will itself see that justice is done, that an expression of regret is given, and that what a fair-minded, generous-minded man believes is right, compensation for this indignity is given by the right authority.
  Mr. McKENNA: May I be allowed to intervene for one moment in reply to a matter which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I was mistaken in my reply to the Noble Lord when I stated that my hon. and learned Friend had expressed his regret in terms. At the time I had read the statement as an expression of regret, I certainly meant my statement in the House of Commons as an expression of regret. I now make it in the fullest and frankest manner, and give a most unqualified expression of regret for the pain and suffering to which both father and son have been subjected.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: A general question of importance has been raised by this matter. Is it to be quite clear that in future cases of this kind, when there is a preliminary inquiry, any boy can be represented by counsel and by representatives of the law to protect him when the first inquiry is held? I think that is essential. In this
  2478
  most unfortunate case, where the facts were examined without any judicial inquiry, the result was that for the time being the guilt of the boy was supposed to be established beyond dispute. But the first moment that these facts come on for a real trial the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General does not even attempt to go on with the case, and at once withdraws. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that this points out most conclusively that unless, when you have your inquiry, the boy is entitled to be represented by counsel such an inquiry is useless and a farce. Another point which is very broad and of great importance is the view which the Attorney-General has given us with regard to what he calls the Prerogative of the Crown. As I understand the Attorney-General it is this. Whatever be the merits of the case, however much he thinks that case is entitled to be tried, he looks upon himself as bound in future, in protecting the Prerogative of the Crown, to say "I will not waive my discretion, and I cannot do so." May I point out that he did in effect waive his discretion in this case, for after all the Court of Appeal gave no legal ruling, and if the Attorney-General really stuck to that view he ought to have stuck to his guns and gone to the House of Lords. I am very glad that the Attorney-General took the course he did take. Unless he had given way this boy could not have got a trial. An officer might have gone to a court-martial, but this boy could not get that. In a case of such merit as this in which anyone would wish to do justice—and this was the only way to do justice—I think the Attorney-General might say that in future he would not take that narrow pedantic legal view of the Prerogative of the Crown.
  If this is the Prerogative of the Crown, which is what the argument of the Attorney-General comes to, we occupy very extraordinary positions. Here is the Prerogative of the Crown exercised by a gentleman who, with all respect, is a party in the case, an advocate in the case, and who is not a Cabinet Minister. Here we have a Prerogative of the Crown of great importance to His Majesty's subjects exercised without control of the Cabinet. I hope that in future cases the Attorney-General will take a broader view of this matter and look upon himself as bound to see that justice is done in a broad and generous spirit, and that when there is a case of discretion it should be exercised

  2479
  not as this was exercised, but fairly on the merits as he might exercise his discretion on his own judgment in his own litigation. On the question of compensation I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke a little disparagingly and with a little harshness of the claim for £10,000. Here you have a grievous injustice done to the son, and the father is dragged through the Law Courts for two years. Every technical obstacle is put in his way. He has been denied an inquiry at every stage in the real sense of the word, and he only gets it, poor man as he must be, as has been stated, at great pecuniary sacrifice. Do not take too harsh a view of a man who comes to you in that position. Do not say that he ought not to have made this claim. Think of his feelings and the spirit in which he was bound to come to you. I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman's own son had been placed in that position, and he was coming claiming compensation, no father here would say that £10,000, or even £20,000, could really compensate him for the injury done. Whatever claim may have been made let the right hon. Gentleman before the close of the Debate get up and say, "I am ready to do the right thing." He has got an absolute discretion I understand to do the right thing. Preposterous claims, he thinks, may have been made. Let him say what he thinks he ought to do, and let him do it like a man. I hope that not only will the right hon. Gentleman do that, but that he will also deal generously with the question of costs. I do not wish to haggle about this money question, but it is a matter of great importance to the people concerned. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken an absolutely mistaken view of the question of costs. There are what are known as party and party costs, and what are known as costs as between solicitor and client. I have had litigation, unfortunately, and I know that party and party costs are poor compensation for your litigation. Let the right hon. Gentleman say, "I will give you, not party and party costs, but what are known as indemnity costs, or solicitor's and client's costs, of course to be taxed." If I may explain to the right hon. Gentleman, indemnity costs mean solicitor's and client's costs, and they are, of course, taxed by the taxing officer. Let the right hon. Gentleman put those engaged in this litigation in what is called the indemnity position;
  2480
  that is to say, that they shall be paid by the right hon. Gentleman such sum as he would then be bound to pay. It is for the right hon. Gentleman on the question of compensation to take a generous view, and, now that public opinion is riveted upon him, to do something which will put this boy right in the eyes of the world. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, coupled with an expression of regret, he will do something to restore this boy to that position in the world which I am sure every Member of this House desires that he should occupy.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: There are one or two matters to which I think the attention of the Committee may well be directed in connection with this question. It is some considerable time since I heard the First Lord of the Admiralty describe his position as head of this college, and I understood him, unless I am mistaken, to say for the sake of the other boys at the college it is his duty to expel a boy as a thief and a forger, if he suspects him, although the evidence does not warrant him. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That certainly was my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I understood him to say that, apart altogether from the question whether a jury would convict if any charge was brought, it was his duty, for the sake of the other boys, if he entertained a suspicion that forgery and theft had been committed by a boy, to expel that boy.
  Mr. McKENNA: I never said that, nor anything like it.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I will not discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman; I will wait until I have seen the Official Report. I have heard with surprise that it is possible for a boy of thirteen to be charged with crimes of this sort without an inquiry being held, or without any representative of the boy being present when he is charged, and I have heard with more surprise in this instance no communication had been made to the boy's parents, and no protection afforded to the boy. I have heard, too, with surprise, that the parents' first intimation as to the matter was when the boy was expelled. It is a relief to know that a system such as this, which has existed in the past, will in future be cured. But it must go further than that—the system must be altered in another respect. The inquiry held must not be of a perfunctory character, as in the past. The first inquiry

  2481
  that was held after the postal order had been stolen consisted merely of two or three cadets, and a short examination of the postman. What happened to this boy was sentence of expulsion, a sentence by which his career was absolutely ruined at the start. The Committee should require that there shall be no repetition of such inhuman conduct as charging a boy who is without defence, and charging him without any communication with his parents. There should be some assurance to this Committee that the system will provide a proper inquiry and not a perfunctory one, an inquiry at which not only evidence will be properly taken, but for which all reasonable evidence will be gathered. That, I think, is necessary. As regards the question of demurrers that has been raised, the learned Attorney-General regards it as his duty to insist upon the prerogative of the Crown. The Attorney-General knows perfectly well that the prerogative of the Crown is very often waived. In the present case the Attorney-General did so at the instance of the three Lords Justices, and, if he did it at their instance, he ought to have done it at once in a case where common humanity demanded it of him.
  Reference has been made to the way in which the Attorney-General acceded to the suggestion of the Lords Justices of Appeal, that the case should be tried on the facts. To say that, is merely to deceive this House. It was a polite way of retiring from the case; it was simply an intimation to the court that he would not pursue the matter further; and the learned Attorney-General is not entitled to claim credit from the Admiralty in respect of that action. As to the attitude of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the question of compensation, I think in a matter of that sort that it little accords with the dignity of his office that he should offer the defence, "I was not asked." The right hon. Gentleman, as regards the question of compensation, said, "I was not asked to pay anything except £10,000." Surely it was his duty in the first instance to say, "I can do this, or I can do that, but what you ask is too much, and I am not prepared to go to that length." To take up the defence, "I was not asked," is not a dignified attitude on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to start with. Moreover, it is not an attitude justified by the facts, which appear from the letter written by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis:—
  "We are directed to inform you that the proposals contained in your letter is, in our client's opinion, and in our own opinion, entirely inadequate to meet the justice
  2482
  of the case, and we much regret that some more generous offer to repair the cruel wrong had not been forthcoming."
  This letter was written after the discussion between the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). That is the end of the whole of the correspondence, and here you have, at the end of the whole of the correspondence an expression of regret that a more generous offer had not been forthcoming from the Admiralty. In the face of that, how can the right hon. Gentleman come to the Committee and say, "I was not asked"? I believe that in the opinion of every right-thinking man it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman not to wait to be asked, but to go out in order to put right the wrong that had been done. That duty exists still, and I hope he will see his way to make this duty good. As to the matter of compensation, I agree with hon. Members who say that no pecuniary compensation can be a real compensation in a case of this kind. I hope the Committee will retain charge of this matter until we get some definite expression from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to what he intends to do. He says he has not been asked, and, if that be his answer, then he is is asked now. Let the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do in the matter of costs and compensation. I trust the Committee will insist that he does that. There are two sorts of costs, as the hon. Member opposite observed—party and party costs, and solicitor's and client's costs. There is, as the learned Attorney-General can inform the First Lord of the Admiralty, a more effective scale of costs, known to lawyers as "solicitor and own client's costs." That is a scale of costs which would entitle the client to receive everything which his solicitor has legitimately expended in his behalf in the course of the case. I hope that scale of costs will be applied to the Admiralty, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, in the matter of compensation, will take the opportunity before the discussion closes, to state what his proposal may be.
  Mr. McKENNA: On the subject of compensation and costs there appears to be some misapprehension as to the attitude of the Admiralty on the point. But L would like to say that I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) has consented to give help, with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-

  2483
  General, and if we can obtain, also, the assistance of Lord Mersey, for my own part I shall be only too glad to undertake the consideration of what should be the compensation and what should be the scale of costs. I think this is eminently a question, as I have always held, to be taken into consideration by an independent person who would know how to deal with the case.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: I am sure the House heard with great satisfaction that one of the results of this discussion will be that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the wrong inflicted is rectified. I hope that in future, no matter what the rank or class of the man serving the Crown may be, that he will have ample opportunity of vindicating his rights before a properly constituted tribunal. I have no intention of endeavouring to follow the lawyers through the technicalities of the case, and, indeed, I am not competent to do so. I do wish to say that undoubtedly a grievous wrong has been done to the young boy, and that it is difficult to make adequate compensation. It may be a comfort to the lad himself, and also to his friends and relatives, to know the feeling of those who have been associated during the whole of his lifetime with this boy. I happened to be at Stonyhurst the other day, and I had the opportunity of meeting the superiors of this lad, the Rector and Prefect of that great institution. The Rector is from my own part of the world, a Father Bodkin. The moment he heard of the decision which was arrived at with regard to this boy, who had been with him and was afterwards sent to Osborne, he had such a complete belief in the innocence of this child, for what else was he but a child, that he at once communicated with those who had the management of the boy and offered him a welcome, and a hearty welcome, to come back to the walls of Stonyhurst. I only say that to show the view of the Prefect and masters, and the unanimous opinion of his fellow students who had worked for years with him side by side in the classroom, that this youth was incapable of doing what was attributed to him.
  I heard that this lad has some connection with the constituency which I have had the honour of representing in this House for some time. I do not know if that is the case, but whether it is the case or not, or whether his friends are supporters of mine or not, I hope I have the manhood to stand
  2484
  up for the boy in a case in which great wrong was inflicted on an innocent chap. I believe it would be a monstrous state of things, when all sides are practically agreed in saying that this child is absolutely guiltless, if an agreement was not arrived at. I am happy an agreement has been arived at, and though a great wrong has been inflicted on the boy and great pain on the family, I believe the open vindication of his character will do a great deal to make good that wrong. I hope and believe that on a question of pounds, shillings, and pence where the honour of a lad is concerned that there will be no unworthy haggling on both sides of the case. I have taken the liberty as an old Stonyhurst boy to express my greatest relief that this lad has vindicated his position, and that what might be a certain aspersion on my old College has been removed.
  Mr. CAVE: We all heard with the greatest satisfaction the full expression of regret which the First Lord has given voice to to-day, and also the suggestion that the matter should be referred to the great authority of Lord Mersey, if he is willing to act, together with the two learned counsel. I think the Debate has not been without result, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. MORTON: I object to the Motion being withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: I desire to explain if it is withdrawn the hon. Member can move another Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: I do not want to move another Amendment. I know I am quite within the regulation. I do not think, however humble I may be, that that right ought to be taken away. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee so much with regard to this case as to what has arisen out of it. I hope that there will be a proper written apology as requested from the Admiralty, and that there will be proper compensation. I am sorry to hear that the Admiralty should ever have suggested taxed costs only, for they only amount to half costs as a rule. The exercise of this ancient right of the Crown is causing a great deal of mischief in connection with the carrying out of the law at the present day. I should have thought that the Government would have shown a good example in this matter to the people of the country. The Attorney-General has not attempted to uphold the

  2485
  system. He says he went on with it because he found it so. At least a Liberal Government should have backbone enough to alter this old procedure. It would not be the first time the procedure has been altered in the interests of the people. We are told by the Attorney-General what many people do not know that the Crown now means the people. Unfortunately it gets abroad that it means the Sovereign, and very often it gives him a bad name when he has nothing whatever to do with the matter in question. I have heard people say over and over again that they do not like to look after their rights because they do not want to be offensive to the Sovereign. It cannot, therefore, be too well understood that what is called the Crown now means the people, and the people as represented by the Government have authority.
  My experience in this matter in some cases has been unfortunate, and in some cases not. I remember twenty or thirty years ago the Crown claimed a right, and we took the case to the police-courts. The magistrate dismissed the case, and told us how sorry he was to have to do so. We had another case in the city, where the Crown claimed the right in connection with the Post Office Department. In the case of pouring sewage into a river at Aldershot we gave them notice that we would take them before the police-court, and I am very glad to say that on that occasion the Army Council waived their right and ran away. The Government is supposed to represent the masses of the people in this country, and I think they might very well consider some way of breaking this ridiculous and wicked method of carrying on the business of the country. It is all very well to say that the Crown ought to have this right, but the Government, as representing the people, should show a good example and not a bad one. All sorts of claims are made, and I do not know of any Act of Parliament that gives the Crown any such right. It may be what they call common law that has arisen out of custom, but then those customs might be broken, and have been broken. Hon. Members will remember that about the year 1892 Mr. Gladstone broke the custom and procedure which allowed the Attorney-General to take all sorts of outside business——
  The CHAIRMAN: What has this got to do with the Motion before us?
  Mr. MORTON: I am only following the Attorney-General, but I daresay he is
  2486
  wrong. I am sorry it was necessary to bring this case before the Committee at all. It is unfortunate to get justice done in this way, and that the time of this Committee should be taken up. I hope this will be a lesson to the Admiralty, and that they will sink all those absurd notions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned on the opposite side with regard to the dignity of the Admiralty. I should think that the dignity of the Admiralty ought to lead them, directly they found out, to make the most ample written apology and give compensation. I hope in future we shall be able to live in this country without the horror of such a situation as this to a young child and his parents.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I am sure the whole of the Committee are very glad to hear the generous apology made, and the generous expression of regret by the First Lord of the Admiralty in this House. That is quite beside the point that I brought to his notice last year and again this year. I want that generous expression and apology sent to the father of the boy on paper, being documentary evidence that that lad's honour is vindicated, and that the Admiralty consider it is vindicated. There is no use doing it in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has been forced to do it by public opinion in this House. Let me show the Committee how he has been forced to do it. On 29th July, 1910, I expressed the hope that the First Lord would see his way to give proper redress to the young officer, who had suffered so severely and so unjustly for a crime he had never committed. That is many months ago. I am not going to speak a word about remuneration. I do not think those who think earnestly in this case would think at all about remuneration. It is the honour of this boy whose career has been blasted and was blasted and damned for all his life by the action of the Admiralty; that is what I want to see cleared, and a proper apology sent to the boy. How does all this case come about? It comes about by the method of the First Lord in nearly every single case he takes in this House. He is asked questions from that or this bench and he gives either very evasive answers or grossly inaccurate answers. Let me give a question just now. It is all very well for the First Lord to get up and say that he is so sorry, and express the fullest regrets. That is quite right. That is what I asked him to do. Let me give an instance of one of his answers. I asked some days ago whether the Admiralty tendered any expression

  2487
  of regret to Mr. Archer-Shee, or an apology or made any redress or compensation on account of the unfounded and cruel charge which the Admiralty have unreservedly withdrawn. What did he say? He replied:—
  "Yes, sir; if the Noble Lord had followed the proceedings in Court——"
  which I think was a very impertinent thing to say to me. Why should I follow the proceedings in Court? I wanted a definite straight answer from the First Lord, which neither I nor anybody else could get.
  "If the Noble Lord had followed the proceedings in Court he would have heard the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Admiralty, express the fullest regret. I also at the earliest opportunity in the House expressed full regret at the incident."
  That is absolutely incorrect.
  Mr. McKENNA: Might I point out that that was a supplementary question, and I was answering on the spur of the moment without the opportunity of referring to the documents.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I think that is very clever. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he was totally incorrect I will not pursue the subject. I am merely illustrating how very inaccurate he his in his answers to all parts of the House. He never expressed any regret whatever, of any sort or kind, nor did the Attorney-General express regret in Court. After that wish of the right hon. Gentleman I did study the proceedings in Court, and I found that the Attorney-General never expressed any regret. That he had a wish to do so, I quite agree, and possibly the First Lord had a wish to do so; but my point is that he did not do it, and neither of them has yet sent the apology which is due to this young officer and his parents for the cruel wrong that they have sustained at the hands of the Admiralty. I have several questions very much to the point that I wish to put to the First Lord. I find that he gave orders or instructions to the Attorney-General to withdraw the charge so as to prevent its going to a jury. Was not that so? I expect if it had gone to a jury, the jury would have added a rider which would have made the First Lord very uncomfortable. I am rather sorry it was not allowed to go to the jury, because apparently they would have expressed the opinion that there was really no shadow of reason for the charge which had been made. What did the boy go out to the world as? A liar, a coward, a thief,
  2488
  and a forger. That cannot be denied. As he went out to the world with that character, when the Admiralty found that he was not guilty, their bounden duty was to send an apology in the most gentlemanlike, free and open manner—a thing they have never done to this day. That is my point. I hope the First Lord will do that. He has been perfectly right and generous about his apology here, but I say he was driven into it. He would not have done it if we had not brought the matter before the House. I want to drive him into this other apology to the parents and to the boy who suffered this terrible shame.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a warning. Who is the best boy at school, or in a regiment, or on a ship? The pickle, the one who gets most often into scrapes and rows. He is the best fighting man you have in a row. Warnings! I will not talk about myself; but there were no better boys at school than my brothers, and they were warned forty times. Warning has nothing whatever to do with it. That the boy was warned, and because he was warned is not to get whatever is right now is folly. Probably the boy is a very good boy. I do not know anything about him, but I have all the greater respect for him because he was warned at school. Was the right hon. Gentleman ever warned at school? Did the Law Officers of the Crown, especially the Attorney-General at the time, consider that there was evidence sufficient to convict before the trial was undertaken? If the Attorney-General did not think so, why did not the Admiralty compromise and yield at once? Further, why was no Naval Court of Inquiry held to ascertain the correct conclusion first? If such an inquiry had been held by independent naval officers it would have been most useful and would very likely have prevented the blunder. To use the Judge-Advocate for this duty instead of naval officers was quite contrary to naval custom. As the First Lord knows, a Naval Court of Inquiry is secret; it is held with closed doors; and the whole question would have been found out and this terrible blunder, this shocking wrong, would never have been committed. I was very glad to hear the First Lord say that he was taking steps—which I think are wise and salutary—that the father should always be consulted immediately in future, and I hope he will assure the Committee that if any case of a similar character should unfortunately occur in the future in any training establishment, there will

  2489
  be a proper Naval Court of Inquiry—which has nothing whatever to do with a court-martial. Why was the father of the lad so cruelly treated at the Naval College as to be refused information. That, in my opinion, was a wicked wrong.
  Mr. McKENNA: He was not refused information.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Pardon me, he was refused information. I am making the statement. The First Lord says "No," but I make the deliberate statement that he was refused. I want all these questions answered, and I am sure I shall be supported in all parts of the Committee. Was the matter reported on by the Navy Law branch of the Admiralty themselves at all, or only by the private office alone, and then dealt with by the First Lord himself? That is a very important question. Is it not a fact that there was a former very similar case, in which a Naval cadet at Dartmouth was only saved from expulsion and permanent disgrace by the confession of another cadet, who at the last moment telegraphed that he was guilty and not the lad accused? The case was very similar to this. The lad's parents strongly protested; there was no Court of Inquiry, the charge was suddenly withdrawn, the boy was ordered to be liberated and allowed back at Dartmouth. When things of the sort that we have heard today occur the Committee and the public are doubtful of the justice meted out in these schools, and we ought to be very careful that these things do not occur again. Was the Director of Naval Education at the trial in his official capacity, or was he there by leave or by the direction of the Admiralty? I believe that the First Lord settled all these questions himself.
  Mr. McKENNAdissented.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I am glad to hear it, but there is every reason to suggest that he did. The First Lord the other day made one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. He said:—
  "If any member of the Board submits to me a document and I approve, that document has the approval of the Board of Admiralty."
  That is absolutely incorrect. It is a very important point. It was brought before the House of Lords, but was never answered. Does the First Lord still state that that is a fact? The First Lord might have the advantage of a document on some great abstruse strategical problem
  2490
  written by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. G. Lambert)——
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): I hope not.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I hope not also, but it is possible. Or it might be a document on the strength of the Fleet, or the discipline of the Fleet. According to this doctrine, the First Lord would approve it, and that would be the law as far as the Admiralty goes. Where do the Sea Lords come in? This is altogether wrong; the First Lord knows it is wrong; and I hope he will correct it. He knows perfectly well that the Board is two Lords and the Secretary, and that was only originated when the Board was at sea. All great questions connected with the Fleet have to go before the full Board, and not two Lords and the Secretary. I do not like the style of the First Lord. He comes down to this House and says, "I" and "My." I heard him say, "I laid down so many ships; I have so many men."
  Mr. McKENNAdissented.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Oh, yes; I heard it with my own two ears. They are not his ships, and they are not his men; they belong to the State. I have been fifteen years in this House, and fifty-two years in the Navy, but I never before heard a First Lord come down to the House or make a speech except he said "We," which meant the Board or the Government. "I" is very much weaker than "We." It lays him open to the attack which I am attempting to deliver at this moment. If he would look at the Press he would know that the editorial "We" is a great power. If a leading article were signed "John Smith," or any other single name like that, nobody would pay the slightest attention to it. I should like the First Lord to ruminate a little over that, and not say "I" so often, but to say "We," which would give more power and be more respectful. I do not know how it is, but the First Lord seems to create a tremendous amount of irritation. He irritates and annoys his supporters. Certainly he irritates his opponents. But he not only does that: he irritates the people abroad. I have been reading some of the German Press on the question of the strength of the Fleet under the German Navy Law of 1900. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs distinctly told this House that the German Navy Law of 1900 provided thirty-three "Dreadnoughts," cruisers, and pre-

  2491
  "Dreadnoughts." Those were his words. Whether he made a mistake or not I do not know, but that is what he said, and that is what went over to Germany. Now, the First Lord of the Admiralty knows perfectly well that the German Navy Law of 1900, plus the additions of 1906, gives fifty-eight armoured ships—"Dreadnoughts," cruisers, and pre-"Dreadnoughts." The First Lord of the Admiralty himself also said that the year 1908 added four battleships to the German programme. What I want to point out is that these inaccuracies are very fatal. They went over to Germany. I have had letters from Germany, and I have also read the German Press. When he found out his mistake he should publicly have shown that it was a mistake, and have shown how it occurred. The First Lord of the Admiralty and myself, and many Members of this House, know how the mistake occurred. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was speaking of "Dreadnoughts." One of the German papers called attention to this false statement concerning the numerical strength of the British Fleet given by the Government and the Admiralty. I say that that sort of wrong information—not intentionally given—is fatal to good feeling, and makes that irritation which we want to allay between this country and Germany. My letters from Germany say: "There you English, you are doing the same thing again; you are making mis-statements about our Fleet: you have told your people that we are only going to have thirty-three 'Dreadnoughts' by 1917. When your people find out that we really shall have fifty-eight, when your Government have said——"
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord in order in talking of Germany?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not a case in which any and every question can be raised. On the other hand, I think, perhaps, the Noble Lord can easily shelter himself behind the Naval Intelligence Department.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Motion is for a reduction of my salary, and the Noble Lord is charging me with an alleged offence made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: On your information.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no. I do not understand that the words the Noble Lord quotes he alleges were used by me.
  The CHAIRMAN: Unless they were provided by the Naval Intelligence Department the Noble Lord cannot attack the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: They must have been made by the Naval Intelligence Department to the First Lord.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is not in order in attacking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this Vote except in so far as the figures were provided by the Naval Intelligence Department.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: No, Mr. Emmott, I was confining myself accurately to what comes from the Naval Intelligence Department, through the First Lord, into the ears of the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. McKENNA: No such statement as that quoted by the Noble Lord was ever communicated either by the Naval Intelligence Department or by me to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; nor, I might add, was said by him.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot pursue the discussion in that case.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Of course, I bow to your ruling. I do not see where to bring this question forward, though I dare say I shall find a method.
  The CHAIRMAN: We shall have the Shipbuilding programme; it will be relevant then, and the Noble Lord will be able to bring it up.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I will conclude my remarks, and I hope that the First Lord will answer the questions I here put to him. I also hope he will see his way to make as ample, full, and generous an apology as possible to the father and his son, who have suffered such a cruel wrong. The boy was charged with a heinous offence, for which he was proved "not guilty." Since that day of being proved "not guilty," neither the boy nor his father have ever received one shadow of a shade of apology or expression of regret from the Admiralty.
  Mr. BARNES: I desire to call the attention of the Committee to a matter which.

  2493
  although it may not be so exciting or interesting as the one just under discussion—especially to those hon. Members who can send their sons to Osborne or Dartmouth—is yet one of considerable general importance to the nation. I once raised this question about the training of the officers and the men in the Navy, and, I think, on this occasion I shall be able to show, at least I hope so, that the scheme which is in operation, I understand, only tentatively and experimentally, is undemocratic and costly to the nation, and must in the nature of things, be inefficient. In order to make my point clear, it is necessary to say a word or two as to the evolution of the Navy from sail to steam, and to follow that process by a few words in regard to the particular scheme in question. I am sorry to have to interpose before the reply is given to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth; but possibly he may be none the less willing to wait until I have done, in as much as he, as well as myself, is interested in the scheme upon which I am to comment.
  In the old days of sail the Navy was quite a simple thing compared to what it is now. At that time there was two general branches of the Navy. There was the upper and the lower deck. There was the executive officer on the upper deck, and there were the fighting men below. In the course of time, with the addition of steam, electricity, and science generally in the Navy, the Navy has become a much more costly, complicated, and elaborate a machine. In the course of evolution an entirely new branch was introduced into the Navy, and, so far as my memory serves me, that new branch of the personnel forms about one-third of the whole. It is a very large and increasingly important branch, and it is this branch that I want particularly to address the Committee upon. The engineering branch of the Navy, until the inauguration of this scheme, consisted of three main divisions: the engineer-officer, the artificer, and the stoker. The engineer-officer was between the executive officer and the lower-deck man. He did not belong to either class. Up to the time the Cawdor Scheme was put into operation, some six years ago, the engineer-officer stood some half-way between the two I have named, and belonged to neither. The artificer is a man drawn from civil life; so is the stoker. The net result of this scheme, so far as I can understand it, is to absorb the whole territory of the engineering-officer into the executive branch of the Navy; to have reduced
  2494
  the artificer to a sort of mechanical cobler, and to have driven the vast army of stokers into an acquiescence with this scheme by a largely illusory promise of an infinitesimal chance of promotion. I should like to say a word or two under each of these heads—on the engineer-officer, the artificer, and the stoker.
  It is not necessary to go back before the days when this scheme was inaugurated. Still, at that time, some few years ago, the engineer officer was a man who was trained for the comparatively small amount of £40 or £50 a year. He was a man who went into the Navy at an age when there was some sort of chance of selecting a career for himself. The Navy had the advantage of a man going into its service at an age when he could select the engineering branch of the Navy as his life's work. The engineer-officer was drawn from a class of the people comparatively large as compared with the executive branch of the service; from people who could afford £40 or £50 a year to send their sons to Key-ham. Even there there was a mixture, a sort of infusion of the democratic ideas by exceptionally smart boys being put into the service from the dockyard. These boys had passed certain competitive examinations. There was, I understand, some little friction as between the engineer-officers and the executive officers. The first apparently had some complaint, or at all events they thought so, that they were not allowed full power of discipline over their own staff. I believe they also wanted to be ranked in some higher manner than they had been ranked. But it is sufficient for my argument to say that the engineer-officer had, or thought he had, a grievance. Like an Englishman, possibly he put forward his grievance at inappropriate seasons. I do not know. My ground of complaint under this head is that instead of meeting the engineer-officer in a reasonable spirit, and dealing somehow or another with his grievance, the Admiralty have jockeyed the old engineer-officer out of the Service altogether, and have annexed his territory to the executive-officer branch. In so doing they have, I submit to the Committee, unnecessarily narrowed the field of selection. By that means they have made the Navy less democratic than it was, and, I am afraid, made it less efficient than it was. That remains to be seen in the course of time, but I venture to say if you narrow the field of selection from which you are going to draw your officers for the Navy it necessarily follows,

  2495
  as night follows day, that you are not going to get the high standard of excellence that you hitherto had.
  Let us consider this from the democratic point of view. I take it no one can possibly send their sons into Osborne or Dartmouth unless they are fairly wealthy. I notice from the Inland Revenue Returns that those people with £700 a year or more number 258,000. That may represent a population of 1,500,000 or thereabout out of a population of about 44,000,000. Not only is the officer of the Navy now selected from that small number, but that all other jobs worth having are given to the same people. The position of Army officers and the higher officials of the Civil Service, in fact every position which is worth having in the public service is filled from that class of 1,500,000 of the population. It seems to me you have almost abolished selection altogether, and so far as that small number of the population are concerned, it may be said to be all prizes and no blanks for them. I object, therefore, to the matter on that ground. We have a Navy costly enough to be careful about it, and so complex and elaborate that it requires the best brains in the community to guide it, and inasmuch as brains are not the monopoly of any class of the community I object to the Navy being put under the control of that small section of the people. It may have been necessary to have arranged for some form of common entry as covering the marine, engineer, and executive officers, I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the Navy to form a judgment upon that. If it was necessary to have lumped all these people into one there were two ways of doing it. They might have enabled the same class which hitherto supplied the Navy with engineer officers to have supplied the Navy with executive officers, or they could have allowed the small class that have hitherto supplied executive officers to supply also engineer officers; they have adopted the latter course. What they have done is to carry out something similar to what was known as the Holmes' circular, and to put it into absolute operation. The Admiralty do not talk about these things, but they carry them out without asking for leave.
  I leave that part of the topic with the observation that the Navy, so far as it has altered matters, in lumping the engineer officers in with the executive officers
  2496
  has been made less democratic than it used to be. And so far as it narrowed, as it must necessarily have narrowed the field of selection by requiring from the sons of those people now going into the Navy not £40 or £50 a year, but £125 to £130, it has made an undemocratic move. The parents of boys sent to Osborne and Dartmouth must be able to find not only the £75 fee, but auxiliaries as well, which brings the sum up to from £125 to £135. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that was done before. I am not now pleading for things to be allowed to remain as before. I am pleading for improvement. And it is no answer to say, and, as a matter of fact, it is not quite true to say, that things are as they were before. If hon. Gentlemen cast back their minds to the old days of Nelson, they will find that the figure was not £120. It was much cheaper to get into the Navy in those days than it is now. Things are not as they were before. The Navy, so far as the executive branch and now the engineering branch are concerned, is less democratic than it was before, and because it is less democratic it is less efficient. I do not mean to say that people who have less money have more brains than other people. I remember a dictum of the Tichborne claimant which divided everybody into two classes, those with money and no brains and those with brains and no money. I do not believe that at all myself. I believe we are all much of a muchness, but I say there are just as much brains in the scale of those a little below those who have money.
  I come from that higher branch now to the intermediate branch. I say, as time goes on, you will get a less efficient branch in the higher ranks because they are only open to a small branch of the community. A boy is sent to Osborne at 12½ years of age without any idea of what is going to follow. And, therefore, you have a person thrust into a situation without having chosen it. Having these less efficient men at the top, it seems to me some arrangements should be made whereby you could get more efficient men into the intermediate stage, and that you should at all events retain the artificers who do the practical work of the engineers' staff. The artificer is still a man drawn from the ordinary workshops of the community. He is a man who has served his apprenticeship in the ordinary way, either in marine shops or in engineering shops of some sort or another. He has been bound at the expense of his parents for a period of five, six, or seven years, during which he has

  2497
  been getting small wages. It is impossible to say to what extent the parents may have made sacrifices to give their sons this technical training. But it is true to say, and it is a laudable ambition on the part of many thousands of working people in this country, that they do involve themselves in considerable sacrifice, and that they do pinch themselves and their families in order to give their sons this technical education. The Admiralty up to the inauguration of this scheme, and still, to some extent, have had the advantage in the artificer engineer of a mechanic who I venture to say, with some experience, is the best engineering mechanic there can be found anywhere. The Admiralty have had the advantage of that man's early training, and have had it for nothing. The artificer has been willing to join the Service, and he has, on the whole, served the Admiralty loyally and well. So far as I know not a single complaint in regard to his disciplinary spirit or his efficiency as a mechanic has been made against the artificers, and I do not know why he should be supplanted as he has been.
  What is the scheme so far as the artificer is concerned? The artificer up to quite recently might be said to have been the right-hand man of the engineer officer. He did practically every day work, not only in the use of tools, but he did the necessary repairs to the engines and auxiliary machinery, and he also did the watch-keeping duties. It is on record in the Cawdor memorandum or in the evidence taken before the Court of Committee that in the opinion of the engineer officers examined before that Committee the watch-keeping duties were the most important appertaining to the artificers' duties as a whole. It seems to me there is no reason why he should be disturbed in these duties if they were discharged with efficiency and well, as I am told they were. The scheme involves so far as I understand it the supplanting of the artificers by men from the stoke rating. That is to say, into the 4,000, or thereabout, artificers of the Navy you are going to introduce a small proportion as compared with the number of men from who they are drawn, but by no means small a percentage when compared with the artificers, and you are thereby putting a very great bar to the promotion of artificers. The Admiralty, in introducing this scheme, are I say breaking faith with the men who joined the Navy as artificers prior to this scheme. What are the facts?
  2498
  We were told by the First Lord the other night when I ventured to say that the Admiralty were breaking faith with the artificers that he had given it upon his personal honour that no man who was in the service prior to the inauguration of this scheme should be worsened in his prospects of promotion. I make no charge against the First Lord, but the circumstances are such that it is altogether beyond his control to prevent these men from being worsened. During the last six years there has been introduced into the artificer ranks from the stoker rating no less than 413 men. They have been promoted to what is known as mechanicians. Let us consider this in the light of the Order-in-Council issued by the Admiralty in December, 1907. According to that Order-in-Council the stoker promoted man, the mechanician, was to be drafted into the Navy in certain fixed proportions to artificers and active stokers. According to this Order-in-Council, three of the mechanician class should be introduced into the battleships and large cruisers, and two artificers and one stoker will be displaced in consequence of the introduction of the three stoker mechanicians. As a direct result of the introduction of these 413 mechanicians of the stoker class, two-thirds of the artificer class have already been displaced. If we take it that the promotions from the artificer ranks have to be in a fixed proportion, say of one-third, then it follows that inasmuch as there has been introduced 413 stoker men into the artificer ranks, and as they have displaced something like 270 artificers, therefore one-third of that number, or about ninety artificers, have already been debarred from getting that promotion for which they had a reasonable chance prior to the scheme, and they are getting to-day less wages in proportion, as they have been denied that opportunity. The difference in wages is something like 1s. or 1s. 3d. per day. I may be told that it is unfair to take a fixed proportion, and that the Admiralty have no idea of promoting one-third. I may also be told that the one-third arranged for by the Admiralty Order in 1907 was, in consequence of the scheme and as a set-off against the chance of promotion, lost by the artificers.
  If the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty takes that line, it is all very well to make a promise by an Order-in-Council, but it is another thing to carry it out. You have not promoted the one-third which was promised in 1907, and it

  2499
  is no answer to reply that the number of promotions has been increased in consequence of the inauguration of the scheme. Not only have you broken faith with the artificer class, but you are not going to get the watch-keeping duties carried out so efficiently and so successfully as they were by the artificers. The line is taken that the artificer is a man accustomed only to the use of his tools, and that they have to be trained for watch-keeping duties after they have joined the Navy. We have been told by the Admiralty that watch-keeping is just as much a matter for the stoker as for the engineer artificer. I do not take that view, and I hope I shall have the support of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, when I say that in order to carry out watch-keeping duties efficiently you must have a man who is not only accustomed to the use of tools, but who knows exactly when the machine or the engine he has charge of is doing its duty. The idea of a man only being entitled or qualified to use tools because he was a mechanic is an altogether preposterous idea. This reminds me of a tale I once heard of a large firm of printers not far from this place. A year or two ago there was introduced into that firm a new manager. He was the son of the proprietor, and had just come from Oxford or Cambridge. This young fellow, seeing a number of men standing about looking at the machines while they were working, asked who they were, and he was informed that they were highly skilled men. This young man took it into his head that it was a waste of money employing them to look at the machines, and he decided that all but two of them should be discharged. Of course, disaster followed, because the men who were discharged were the men who could set the machines going and they were the only men who knew by the sound the machines were making whether they were working properly or not. This is equally true in the case of the men I have mentioned. Let me refer for the moment to the old question of breaking faith with the artificer class. Let me remind the Secretary for the Admiralty that it is from the watch-keeping men that promotions come. Necessarily the man who is watch keeping is the man who is in charge for the time being, under the control of a superior officer, and the man on the watch is the man who ought to detect things going wrong, is the man who reports things which have gone wrong, and he is the man, more than the workman who
  2500
  simply uses his tools in repair, who ought to come in for promotion. In taking away the watch-keeping duties from the artificer class you are to that extent taking the chances of promotion from them.
  Let me deal with the justification put forward by the Admiralty for the introduction of this scheme as far as the artificer is concerned. I remember one justification put forward when we were discussing this matter a year or two ago was that the Admiralty wished to get rid of the trade union element. I should be sorry to think the Admiralty had anything of that sort in their mind, more especially while the hon. Member for Camberwell has a voice in the policy of the Admiralty. Therefore I think I may dismiss that point. Other justifications have been put forward, and the main one is that there has been a fear on the part of the Admiralty that there might be an insufficient supply of artificers. It seems to me that the supply of artificers is very largely regulated by the conditions of service. If you are going to make those conditions of such a character as they are under this scheme, if you are going to break faith with those men, probably you will find the supply short. In so far as there has been any shortage of artificers it has been in consequence of the fact that their wages are too low, and they ought to have been raised long ago. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the wages of the artificer class in the Navy have not been raised since the year 1882. In civil life, during those twenty-nine years, there has been a very considerable advance in the wages of the ordinary mechanic and engineers, as well as in the case of mechanics. This class of artificer ought long ago to have had their wages very considerably increased Let me make a contrast between the cost of running a "Dreadnought," so far as engineers are concerned, and the cost of running the "Mauretania." I find that a "Dreadnought" is running with six engineering officers, including two artificer engineers, and twenty-three engine-room artificers, making a total of twenty-nine at a cost of £3,900 per annum. The "Mauretania," with thirty-three engineer officers and three refrigerating engineers is run at a cost of £4,800. In view of these figures I think there is here a good case, not only for raising the wages of the artificer class, but for raising the wages of the engineer officers as well.
  I pass from the artificer class, and I now come to the stokers. It has been customary, when this point has been raised be-

  2501
  for the Admiralty to appeal to the democratic sentiments of their own followers to support the scheme and justify it on the ground that it is going to give a chance of promotion to the stokers. I do not believe for one moment that that is the real justification. I believe that is merely an afterthought. As a matter of fact it makes very little difference to the stoker. You have in the Navy about 34,000 stokers. You have had in the Navy during the last six years that this scheme has been in operation, either in the Navy or passing out of it in the way of stokers, something like 50,000 men. Up to now you have had a total of 413 stokers promoted out of 50,000. It seems to me that the proportion is so small and so infinitesimal that the chances of the ordinary stoker getting a promotion into an artificer is about equal to the chance of a Member of Parliament inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven. I scout the idea of it being any justification of this scheme that there is a small chance presented to these men of rising not with their class but out of it. What does the stoker want? He has told the Admiralty what he wants. He has put forward an appeal to them through his own union and he has asked not that he should have all his technical knowledge stuffed into his head when he cannot assimilate it, but that he should have more wages, and I think he ought to have more. The stoker has to do the hardest and roughest work in the Navy under conditions which must have a bad influence upon his health. He gets paid at the rate of 1s. 8d. per day rising to 2s. 6d. per day after three or four years' service. What the stoker wants, in the first place, is a considerable increase of his wages, and, in addition to that, he ought to have the chance of promotion to warrant rank as this scheme goes on. Instead of giving him that chance through technical knowledge, I submit that he ought to have it rather through the duties he can do, which require only ordinary common-sense to carry out. I have gone through the points of this scheme——
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present——
  8.0 P.M.
  I should have been done by now if it had not been for the Count. I submit there ought to be a full inquiry into the working of this system, and that that inquiry should not be conducted exclusively by Navy men, but that there should be a number of outside
  2502
  men with a general knowledge of the civil community. I suggest there should be a sensible reduction in the fees paid at the naval colleges at Greenwich, Dartmouth, and Osborne, so as to bring the positions of engineering officers and executive officers within the reach of a larger section of the community. I suggest, further, that there ought to be an increase in wages of the artificers as a class. They are not now getting the wages they ought to get. I have information to-day from the Mercantile Marine Engineers' Union that the marine first engineer gets wages from £18 to £20 per month, and that engineers lower down get £12 per month. I suggest the wages of the artificers should be brought up to nearly, if not quite, the level of the men outside. There ought to be some better provision than has yet been made, so that those men in the service prior to the introduction of the scheme some six years ago should get that promotion which they would otherwise have got but for the introduction of this scheme, and which I submit I have proved by the figures I have given has been denied to them. I hope these points will be considered, as well as any other points that may be put by my colleagues, and that we shall have a satisfactory reply to-night.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: There is one point of Admiralty policy which has not been touched upon in the Debates on the Navy this year. It was discussed somewhat more fully last year, but to-night, when we are really parting with the question of the Navy Estimates, or at all events with the most important Navy Votes for the year, I think it would be desirable that we should have some statement of Admiralty policy again on the question. The point to which I refer is the question of the immunity of private property from capture at sea. Last year the First Lord made a statement which I do not think received at the time the attention it deserved. It represented, I believe, an alteration in the view of the Admiralty, as compared with their previous declarations of policy. I doubt very much whether that declaration received either much attention in this country or that attention abroad which it might have done. I believe the present attitude, at all events, of the Government, so far as I can judge from the literature I have had the opportunity of reading, is entirely misunderstood on the Continent. It is thought we meet this question with an absolute blank non possumus and an uncompromising nega-

  2503
  tive, and that it is due to the opposition of England that no further progress can be made in exempting private property from capture at sea. That is largely due to the fact that in the instructions which we gave to our delegates at the Hague we did take up an attitude which made it practically impossible to make any further progress. The instructions include this sentence:—
  "If nations generally were willing to diminish their armaments, naval and military, to an extent which would materially relieve them from the apprehension of the consequences of war, and, by rendering aggression difficult, would make war itself improbable, then, if such an agreement were dependent on the abolition of the right of capture, we might waive our objection to it in principle."
  That did appear to make our assent to this reform practically conditional, as I think, on the millennium. I think in subsequent Debates both the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty have shown that is not quite our view. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said we were willing to give up what he considered a valuable privilege if we got a quid pro quo. The First Lord of the Admiralty, on 21st March last year, repeated that, and said, if proposals were made to us upon the basis of maintaining our naval supremacy, we were willing to consider this reform. He said:—
  "If we can secure the peace of the world and reduce this gigantic burden of armaments, the Government would be willing to consider any proposals for the exemption of private property from capture at sea."
  Under those circumstances, I am hoping the First Lord may be willing to repeat that sentence in order that increased emphasis may be given to it. We have all deplored international competition in this country and in all Europe, but we have deplored it in different terms. The view held on the opposite benches is that it is impossible to escape from it, and that nothing we can do can lift the pressure of these armaments which crush down, not merely this nation, but all Europe and all the world. The hope which is entertained in this country that we can lighten that pressure to some extent by means of arbitration treaties with one country after another—with the United States first, and then possibly with other countries afterwards—is a rift in the clouds, and I would not by one single word attempt to minimise the greatness of the possibilities wrapped up in the project of an Anglo-American treaty of arbitration. It would, no doubt, relieve us to some extent directly, but it would have a much greater influence indirectly by its effect on the public opinion of the world.
  2504
  Its main influence surely in lightening the burden of armaments and in checking the international competition of armaments could only be indirect. It could not really lighten the pressure of the European situation except by an indirect influence upon public opinion, but, if you could secure exemption of private property from capture by an international agreement, then you would undoubtedly touch one of the great strings of the international competition in armaments, and it is from that point of view I regard it.
  It has often been said this reform is not to be argued so much on the ground of humanity. No doubt commerce destruction does inflict less miseries as a mode of warfare than many other forms of hostility, but, if we could both drop commerce destruction and relieve ourselves of a necessity of commerce protection there is not the least doubt we should be able in that way to minimise to a very large extent the burden we have to face. I think even the Noble Lord the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) would very largely agree with me on that point. His view, if I do not misrepresent him, is that we are practically sufficiently protected in reference to battleships, barring the problematical two he wishes to have against the possibility of the Triple Alliance having more battleships at some future date. Excepting for that additional insurance, which I think is a heavy over-insurance, the argument which he has been urging upon us in these Debates is that we require a swarm of cruisers to protect our commerce against the practice of commerce destruction, which, I think, we have it very largely in our power to get rid of. That is only one of the ways in which the existence of this mode of hostility forces us onward in the path of competition in armaments. The weaker nations, too, take up exactly the same plea—the necessity of protecting their commerce against the chances of our aggression. The possibility of commerce destruction provides cheap fuel for all popular agitations of the Navy Leagues of this country and of other countries.
  The necessity of protecting our commerce and the possibility of commerce destruction is one of the great causes which increases the weight of international competition in armaments that we all deplore. If the Admiralty would really abandon this old traditional policy in this matter there might be disadvantages in

  2505
  foreign wars—and I will come to that in a minute—but I think we should assuredly have taken a great step in checking the springs of the great international competition in armaments. Of course, I cannot pretend in this Debate to make a complete statement of the case for this reform. I know what will be said on the other side. They will say we cannot do it because we would deprive ourselves, to use the words of these advocates themselves, of the only weapon we have in the case of war. But of course I assume that we should retain the right of commercial blockade and of cconfiscating contraband, and it will be seen that we still keep in our own hands effective weapons of naval war. I feel the difficulties under which a layman labours in forming any opinion upon a subject so complicated, and he is not helped by the divergent views of naval experts. He has to form the best judgment he can, and for my own part I can only say that I have studied the history of naval war and have tried to form some kind of opinion as to the possible losses commercially which we might sustain and the possible effects which these losses might produce upon us and also the possibility of the losses that we might inflict upon other people, and I say that, supposing we were to drop the destruction of commerce altogether and supposing other nations were also to drop commerce-destruction, it would not alter my view in the least of the necessity of our maintaining a great and even a supreme Navy.
  When the advocates of commerce-destruction urge that this is our sole weapon, and treat commerce-destruction as being almost the only mode of war that is open to us, I think we may say that surely that is a very great exaggeration. I should be inclined to think that even if a gun was never fired, providing there were guns to fire, the value of a supreme Navy would still be seen in the fact of its providing us with a balance in the International Bank of Credit upon which our diplomatists and statesmen could safely draw in times of international complication. That influence is seen in the history of Europe even when there is no naval war. Apart from that, the Navy is there to guard us against invasion, and, lastly, it supplies us with a great weapon, the history of which shows that by its means we have taken possession of our various Dominions over seas. Surely, also, when we are told that this is the sole means we have for naval war, I should have thought, judging simply from the history
  2506
  of naval war that the Navy had a greater value to us in providing us with power to distrain, to take possession of the foreign possessions of nations with which we might get into hostilities, and by that means to exercise a coercive force upon them. I believe that that pressure would be infinitely more valuable to us and more formidable to our opponents than the mere chance of picking up ships here and there about the seas. I will take the case of the Spanish American War. It was not so much the pressure of commercial destruction in that case as the fact that the Americans were able to seize upon Cuba, and the Spanish Fleet was practically bound to come out and make some sort of fight for the possessions of Spain. Therefore, I venture to say that all that kind of argument must be enormously exaggerated, and that even if we give up that power of commerce destruction we would have still, I venture humbly to submit to the Naval experts, a very efficient and very formidable means of conducting naval war.
  I cannot, of course, at the moment go into the questions raised by the Declaration of London. By tacit consent these questions are laid upon one side for the present; but put this commerce destruction as high as you like, even in ancient times, even in the wars of the eighteenth century, does it show evidence of having produced the effect which its advocates claim for it? Is it not true to say, as has been said by Laveleye, that there never was a nation which asked for peace in order that its merchant shipping should be spared. It is quite true that in the Napoleonic Wars the pressure which was produced by the command of the sea which we held against Napoleon did have some sort of influence, but I very much doubt indeed whether that influence by itself would ever have terminated the Napoleonic Wars if it had not been for events on the Continent entirely unconnected with it. All these views of past history, all these analogies, whatever their value may be, whatever judgment you may frame upon them, are surely out of date in view of the changes which have taken place in recent years, or at any rate since these events happened. Supposing we did now go to war with a Continental Power. I will take the case of France, as France is a country with which we have friendly relations, and with which we are not therefore likely to go to war.

  2507
  Supposing we have complete command of the sea; supposing we have destroyed the hostile fleets—would our power to destroy commerce have any other effect except that we should divert some trade from French ports to neutral ports such as Antwerp, or some of the trade from French flags to Dutch or German flags, and also we should impose upon British and also perhaps to impose upon British underwriters a duty, which no doubt they would fully discharge, of compensating French merchants and ship owners for the injuries which the British Navy would have inflicted upon them. If all this is so, surely at least there are three new facts which enormously diminish the value of commerce-destroying. You have first got the Declaration of Paris of 185G. That allows the possibility of a great neutral trade being carried on. It prevents the possibility of a naval war being waged against every kind of trade, or of such interference as we attempted in the old days. You have got, in the second place, an immense development of railways. It is quite true that the interference with sea-borne supplies might raise prices and in some cases affect commerce; but take the single case of Germany. I find that Germany has twelve railway lines across the Dutch frontiers, eight railway lines across the French frontiers, six across the Swiss, thirty-six across the Austrian, and four across the Russian frontiers. In these circumstances, even with the completest control of the sea which you could imagine, you could not abolish the trade, although, no doubt, you might annoy and irritate and handicap the trade of Germany, and might even produce a commercial crisis and a good deal of suffering. Can anyone think of the possibility of interfering with supplies to an extent that we should be able to put such pressure upon Germany as to bring her to her knees by that kind of naval warfare? Certainly this seems to me an erroneous view.
  The third point is the whole development of national and international insurance under which you simply do not know whom you are hitting. Whoever you may who you are hitting. Whoever you may hit, you will ultimately hit the British insurance companies, because England has almost the whole of international insurance in its hands. I believe that modern conditions have brought it about that this ancient and historic form of warfare, commerce destruction, is really an ineffective
  2508
  weapon. It is a niggling method of making war which may ruin merchants and may cause suffering to individuals, but which I do not believe will ever paralyse nations. It seems to me that there are methods of making war which are a good deal more effective, and in which the supreme Navy will give a very good account of itself. But this particular method is I think a very ineffective one at the best and it may recoil upon ourselves in a very expensive form of boomerang. What loss of commerce might take place in a naval war I do not know, but I am of opinion that, assuming one to take place, we are so vulnerable that we require a great and overwhelming force of cruisers to protect ourselves, because we have an immense commerce at stake, the annual profits of which are estimated by the Board of Trade at some £90,000,000 sterling. We are, moreover, dependent almost entirely for our food upon our sea-borne supplies, and at the same time we require an immense amount of raw materials to be brought across the sea, and if the sea was—I will not say shut to us, because that is impossible—but if there was serious interruption our sea-borne trade might be half-starved and our industrial system might be crippled. I do not, however, wish to put that too high. I do not for a moment think, and it would be very inconsistent with my argument to say that the loss which we might sustain would paralyse us, or bring us to ruin. But I think it might inflict heavy loss upon ourselves, and I do not put it higher than this that I do not think that we could really do any vast or decisive harm by this method of war to any belligerent, while, to a certain extent, we should involve ourselves in very considerable loss on account of it.
  I will only allude briefly to one other question that always comes up on this point. It is said even if it is ineffective at all events commerce destruction, or the possibility of it, is a deterrent to war. The fact is it is said abolition will either increase the chances of war or decrease the fear of it, but we are really face to face with this argument that the chance of our inflicting this loss upon individual merchants and shipowners in foreign countries will have its effect in averting war or making war less probable. It may have that effect, but I think it is exaggerated, and I am far from saying that a question of this kind can be settled by dogmatic statements. It is not one fact, but many complex facts that have to be considered,

  2509
  and there is ground for thinking that in international crises even if we drop the possibility of commerce destruction the fear of war would still operate with the business class under modern international conditions of finance, and they would still be averse to the outbreak of war because of its dislocation of commerce, severance of connections, interruptions of trade, the fall of securities, and all the other effects which appeal to the business man. That fear, therefore, will always operate, even if we were to drop commerce destruction entirely. This, again, is but the old argument which has been urged against any mitigation of the barbarities of war. It is held by some that you must make war as barbarous as possible in order to make it less frequent, and really that strikes at the root of all the mitigations which have ever been introduced in the practice of war at all.
  There is a class of naval and military expert who sneer and ridicule the possibility of war under limited liability, and wish for what they call absolute war—war in its old unrelieved barbarism. All I would say is that the same argument has been used on many, many occasions in the past, but when one thinks of all the admitted approaches that have been made to this principle of limiting the horrors of war one feels that we must be content with making progress slowly, and step by step, wherever we can, produce an effective limitation on the practice of war by international agreement. I think this conception that the savagery of warfare should not be interfered with, should not be entertained. We have introduced the principle of limitation by tentative approaches to it, and what may be described as first steps have been made towards the recognition of the principle. For instance, it is now agreed by international agreement to give notice to ships then in ports on the declaration of war that commerce destruction—that great and effective weapon, is about to take place. We exempt fishing fleets, hospital ships, and ships engaged in the work of civilisation, and we have arranged now for the immunity of mails on board ships. To conclude, I would venture to think we might make some practical proposals. In the first place, even if we cannot abolish commerce destruction altogether, and cannot secure immunity to private property from capture, we might at least accept the French proposal to abolish the payment of prize money for naval captures. Let us concede, if you like, that
  2510
  commerce destruction is a necessary part of a naval war, but you need not induce people to do it, by allowing them to make private profit out of it. It smacks too much of the old idea of simple plunder. And even if it is impossible at once to get the whole reform we might at least do that, and I think we should have a stronger position to make what defence we can to the world for the retention of commerce-destroying.
  A week ago, in the Reichstag, Motions were put forward aiming at securing treaties of arbitration, and there was one put forward by the Socialist party which called upon the Government to make progress in the direction of limiting our armaments and the abolition of the right of capture at sea. In the course of the debate which took place on the subject, not merely Socialist speakers, but the speakers of other parties treated that as practically accepted. The final resolution which was accepted in the Reichstag does not carry you very far in the direction of disarmament. At all events it merely invited the Imperial Chancellor to declare his willingness to enter into joint negotiations with other Powers as soon as proposals were made by a Great Power. That was not, perhaps, taking any very decisive step in that direction, but the debate shows quite clearly that it might be quite within the power of our Government to effect an agreement on this important point, and it is along those lines that it seems to me we should proceed if we wish to relieve the European situation. The present Government is willing to consider a proposal if made, and other continental Governments are equally prepared apparently to make progress along the lines of this reform. I cannot but hope that it may be possible in future for someone to make some practical proposal, for I am quite clear in my own mind that, if we could carry this reform and abolish the right of capture, it would be one of the greatest possible steps we could take towards international limitation of armaments.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: The House to-day, just as on Tuesday, it presented itself at its best, presents itself at about the worst it could possibly do. We have been considering during the early part of the day a question which has been well worked in a certain section of the Press, and we had an immense number of Members present, but now we are beginning to discuss subjects which are of great interest to the

  2511
  working people who, after all, are the majority of the country, and then we find that the House is very sparsely populated indeed. I want to refer to the question of the policy of the Admiralty with reference to the wages to workmen upon public works being constructed under their authority. I know that the usual answer is that, whatever the complaints are, the Admiralty has transferred their liability to the contractor, and that they are not responsible either for the wages or the working conditions or anything else. I hope I may be able to prove that circumstances will occur very shortly which will force the Board of Admiralty to consider it part of their duty to interfere in the matter to which I am going to direct attention, and that they will be obliged to have some policy relating to the subject.
  I wish to call attention to the fact that the Board of Admiralty, I believe, are attempting to the best of their ability to evade the Fair Wage Clause. Some time in March, 1909, the House passed a new Fair Wage Clause, which it decided should be inserted into all contracts let by the Admiralty and the different Government Departments for the future. I believe in the case of the War Office for some considerable time now all contracts have been worked under the Fair Wage Clause, and notices have been posted on all the works of the country, wherever barracks and other works are being constructed by the War Office, announcing the fact to the contractor and the workman that the wages agreed upon in those districts between employers and workmen must be the wages paid upon those works, but I am afraid, down to quite a recent date, the Board of Admiralty have done nothing of the kind. By one subterfuge or another they have evaded their responsibility and duty to this House.
  I am not in the slightest degree impugning the policy of the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara). I know he is sympathetic towards labour, and if he had the deciding of the policy of the Board of Admiralty it would be a far different thing, so far as the bottom dog was concerned, but he has not unfortunately. We know how sympathetic he is to us and to our movement. They evidently put him here, or at least somehow or other he always gravitates here, when these discussions are on as a sort of buttress between the real enemy of labour who manages the policy of his Department and us, rather than that the
  2512
  culprits should be here themselves. The hon. Gentleman has denied that that is the case. This is the situation. In the case of Portsmouth dockyard everybody knows that a certain contract was let to Messrs. Morrison and Mason. There was considerable dispute as to the wages that ought to be paid, and eventually a compromise was arranged with the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary who himself went down into the cuttings and saw the nature of the work. The compromise which was made was for the time being satisfactory, considering that the contract was let under the old contract. You would have thought that the Board of Admiralty, if they were anxious to secure decent wages to the men, would, when they had any new works to let, put in the contract the clause as to fair wages which was passed by this House. But as a matter of fact nothing of the sort has occurred. They decided to let some additional works almost as large in character as those under the first contract months after this House had passed the last fair wages Resolution, and instructed the gentlemen who are in charge of Departments to insert the fair wages clause in future contracts. Instead of letting the new contract, which involves hundreds of thousands of pounds with the proper trade union clause as decided by this House in 1909, the Board of Admiralty thought they could escape paying the workmen decent wages by extending the old contract to the new works. That is the case at Portsmouth. In addition to that, one year and two months after the passing of the Resolution requiring that workmen employed by Government contractors should get fair wages, a certain contract was let to the firm of Sir John Jackson, Ltd., a firm which is represented in this House by one of the hon. Members for Portsmouth, and with the exception of a special class of men who, owing to the intervention of the Financial Secretary, get the benefit of the clause, the workmen are excluded from its operation up to the present time. As a matter of fact no tender has been accepted for work at Portsmouth that contains the new fair wages clause, insisting upon the contractors paying proper wages. When I explained this the other night I said it was an illustration of some peculiar perversity about the decisions of the Board of Admiralty. They say they try to be fair, but they always manage in their decisions to down the bottom dog. There is not a decision come to which is not against

  2513
  the man who works for his living. I know that the Financial Secretary is not responsible for it, but I ask him if there has been a single decision during the last two or three years given by his Department that has not been for wages to the worker less than are the standard wages in the locality where the work is done?
  It is not as though Portsmouth were an isolated case. Let us go to Rosyth—the largest works the Department has under construction at the present time. What is the situation there? When tenders were being advertised for, as this was an oasis with no particular locality where you could fix any rate of pay at all for this class of work, I begged the First Lord in this House to say what should be the minimum rate for the work at that place. He said he was sure the Board of Admiralty would arrange all that, and that his hon. Friends might take it for granted that the interests of the workmen would be well looked after. You know the kind of stuff we get, and so the tender was accepted with the old form of contract in it. I believe that three weeks or a month after the fair wages Resolution was carried in this House a contract was signed for work with the old clause in. I complained the moment I knew it was let with the old clause, and promises were made that it should never occur again, and it was explained that a little time was necessary in order to arrange the new form of tender. The contractor has paid fivepence an hour on these works. I had a friendly chat with him, and he told me that was what he intended to pay unless he was compelled to pay more. Some time after that, I am not sure whether it did not amount to considerably over a year, the Board of Admiralty extended the contract. They wanted more work done, and more docks constructed. You would have thought that, after what I had pointed out in the case of Portsmouth, they would at least in this new contract in the case of the extended works at Rosyth arrange for giving the workmen the advantage of the new fair wages clause passed eighteen months before. Nothing of the sort; I wish the Financial Secretary to listen to what I have to say on this matter. He will have to hear about it before the year is out, and perhaps before many months are out. You would have thought naturally that, as they were going practically to let another million's worth of work eighteen months after the fair wages
  2514
  clause was passed in this House and knowing the difficulty and controversy which had occurred by extending the old contract at Portsmouth, they would now let the new contract so that the workmen would get the benefit of the clause. That is not the Board of Admiralty's way of dealing with workmen who claim the right to proper wages. That is what the Board do not want.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara) indicated dissent.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Financial Secretary wants fair wages to be paid, but I say positively that the Board do not want that. I say your intentions are all right, but I am not concerned with men's intentions. I want to know the result of what they do. The result is that an immense proportion of this work which is let again eighteen months after the passing of the Fair Wage Clause of this House will for the next four or five years at Rosyth be under the old Clause, which enables the contractor to do just what he likes. The Board of Trade have got out what they consider to be a list agreed on by employers as to the proper wage to be paid to labourers employed in the building trade, which includes navvies. The rate at Leith is 5½d., at Edinburgh it is 5½d., at Grangemouth 5½d., and at Larbert, a little higher up, it is 6d. an hour. You would think that the Board of Admiralty would fix upon one of those rates, ranging from the mouth of the Forth to the top end, showing that the average rate was from 5½d. to 6d. an hour for this class of work. Nothing of the sort. There happens to be a little place near that has no rate for labourers at all, Dunfermline. It would be quite improper to select those places where there is a definite rate, because that would actually give the man a chance of earning from 5½d. to 6d. an hour. That is not what the Board of Admiralty wants, because the contractor is only paying 5d., and the Board of Admiralty do not want to compel him to pay more, so they fished about to find a place with a fixed rate which would be a proper rate, and they settled on Dunfermline, which has no labourers' rate at all, and excluded the four places with rates ranging from 5½d. to 6d. an hour. We have endeavoured to keep the men quiet there while the works are on. Certain classes of workers are getting more than 5d. an hour, but the contractor admits that his rate for navvies

  2515
  is 5d. an hour and he sees no reasons for altering it, unless the Board suggest that the rate is higher.
  9.0 P.M.
  I put a question to-day thinking that the Admiralty would never agree that 5d. an hour for a poor navvy working in the trenches at Rosyth was a fair wage, and that I might give them a chance to get out of it if it were possible. The answer sent to me this afternoon admits that the rates I have quoted are rates observed in Government Departments as being rates of wages paid, and then it goes on: "I have made inquiry into the matter and I have no reason to doubt that the contractors for Rosyth are paying a fair rate," that is 5d. an hour, less than £1 a week. I heard to-day a description of the proceedings of this House by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady). I forget exactly, or else I do not want to remember, what his description was, but if it was a correct description of the proceedings of the House at that time, what sort of description will the hon. Member for Leeds give of this action of the Board of Admiralty in deciding that 5d. an hour is enough for a navvy working in the trenches at Rosyth? I do not think it would be possible within the language admitted as being parliamentary for me to express what my feelings are with regard to Rosyth. Therefore I will leave it. It is one of those subjects, as the costermonger says, where you cannot find words to express your feelings nicely. The Board of Admiralty need not have gone out of their way to say that the contractors' rate was a fair rate. They might have said that there was no rate applicable to the locality, or that the rates in the towns I have mentioned did not apply to these works. They might have said anything they chose to justify their attitude on the subject. But to go out of the way to declare that 5d, an hour is a fair rate for a navvy at Rosyth was so extraordinary an action that I am sure, if a day's Parliamentary time can be given to discuss the decision of the Admiralty in relation to an injustice done to one man or boy, we should be entitled to ask for a Parliamentary day to be given to discuss what I consider an injustice to two or three thousand men. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonshire is going to reply for his Department, but, at any rate, I consider myself that for the Board of Admiralty
  2516
  to have gone out of their way to declare that 5d. an hour is a fair wage——
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Who said it?
  Mr. J. WARD: "I have made inquiry into the matter, and I have no reason to doubt that the contractors for Rosyth are paying a fair rate."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where the 5d. an hour is in that statement?
  Mr. J. WARD: I assume that before the Board of Admiralty answered that question declaring that a fair rate was being paid they inquired what was the rate.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Mr. J. WARD: Then all I can say is that two-thirds of the men are working for 5d. an hour, and therefore by inference I am bound to suggest that the Board of Admiralty have declared that 5d. an hour is a sufficient wage for these men.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there was a different rate from the rate of the locality.
  Mr. J. WARD: Yes. I put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day asking him to refer to a Board of Trade Report issued as to the wages in this locality for labourers. The wages in this Board of Trade Return from both employers and employed are 5½d. an hour at least—5½d. at Edinburgh, 6d. at Grangemouth, and 6d. at Larbert, right away up the Firth. My information is that there was never less than 5½d. an hour paid at these works or anywhere near these works until the Board of Admiralty sent a contractor there, and it is the Board of Admiralty, in fact, which is reducing the wages. The influence of the wages they are paying is to reduce the rate paid by everybody in the locality. On the instructions of the men I have given a copy of their notice to the contractor, and I have also sent one to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in regard to this question, and I do assure him that we are not going to admit that 5d. an hour for the laborious drudgery which the men have undertaken on these works is a fair wage, and on the first favourable opportunity we shall put that point to the test, though I shall be very loth to do anything to delay these works, which I am as anxious to see completed as any right hon. or hon. Member opposite. The work which these

  2517
  men have to do means slavery, considering the conditions in which it has to be performed. And the next point of criticism which I desire to bring forward has reference to the housing of these men. On this matter the Board of Admiralty have beaten me from pillar to post. There is no housing accommodation at all at these works. The Board of Admiralty gave the contractor a piece of land, half an acre or three-quarters of an acre, or something of that kind, near Inverkeithing, at the extreme end of the works, where, as a matter of fact, the men require a train in order to get them to their daily labour.
  Yet there is plenty of land available for housing, but the Admiralty will neither give the contractor any site for building, nor will they permit the contractor to build or build themselves. What is the situation at the present time? The answer of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is that private enterprise has supplied all that is required, and he stated that he went over certain great buildings, a sort of great barracks, what we call a "packing can," at Inverkeithing, which accommodates some 600, 700, or 800 men. It is a fact that there is this place for the accommodation of those who are employed upon the works—a sort of fourpenny doss-house. That is considered good enough for Admiralty workmen; that is the result of private enterprise—this fourpenny doss-house, this "packing-can" provided for these men. We have heard complaints against the present Government in regard to the condition of affairs in South Africa in connection with Chinese labour, but at Rosyth we have a condition of things absolutely typical of that at the present time. There are plenty of married men, but there is only accommodation for some 300 of them, and they are obliged to leave their wives anywhere they can under the present circumstances. I think it is time that the House insisted upon the Board of Admiralty doing something to deal with this important question. What happens? If a man is ill he has only a little bit of a bunk for his accommodation. Nobody can attend to him, and the consequence is he has to be carted off to the workhouse. The Lord Advocate gave us a list of those brilliant British workmen who "never shall be slaves," who, the moment they became ill in the doss-house of Iverkeithing, had to be sent off to the workhouse.
  There are 3,000 men employed upon these works, with no hospital accommodation within miles. Even the hospital they
  2518
  can reach is so full that it is necessary to send men who become ill to the workhouse infirmary. The Lord Advocate informed us that during the last twelve months twenty-four men who had sustained accidents at the works were treated at the workhouse by the Poor Law Union authority, because no provision had been made by the Board of Admiralty, which is considered to be so kind to the men in its service. I have spoken of these matters with some heat, but I think hon. Members will see that I am justified in doing so, that we have a real grievance, a grievance that we are not going to allow to rest, because, sooner or later, we shall take action on this matter, which may perhaps prove uncomfortable to His Majesty's Government, unless they do something to make provision for the men whose case I have been putting before the Committee.
  Mr. SPEAR: I would not venture to intervene in this discussion if it were not one in which many in my constituency are interested. I hear among my constituents from time to time expressions of opinion upon these matters which I am glad of an opportunity to bring before the representatives of the Admiralty. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow I found that many of the difficulties which he explained are experienced by the men whom I represent. I have realised, in moving among my Constituents, that both with reference to engineering officers and artificers, as well as stokers, the difficulties which the hon. Member spoke about with such great ability prevail among them. They feel that they have not full justice done to them as regards remuneration or promotion. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to take these questions into careful consideration. I am sure the Board of Admiralty are anxious to pay a fair wage, and where they fail it is from lack of knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and not from any desire not to pay the men under Government employ adequate wages. I am sure that every Member of the House will agree that Government employés ought to be paid at least as well as are men employed by private firms. Therefore I ask the representative of the Admiralty on this occasion to consider well the case of these men, who I believe have presented it by petition to the Department. I hear, howver, complaints about their being so long in receiving replies to their petitions. The questions which they raise are important, and I do trust that their petitions will be

  2519
  considered as quickly and as speedily as possible, so that their suspense may be removed, and that they may have an opportunity of knowing whether there is any prospect of their receiving the consideration to which they think they are entitled and for which they have appealed.
  I agree also with the hon. Member for Glasgow in the strong appeal he made that promotion in our dockyards should be by merit. The fact of a man being born in a humble degree should be no bar to his progress provided he has the ability to fill any position which is in the power of the Government to bestow. I know the Admiralty have done something to give our sailors better food—I still think there is room for improvement. We depend very much on the personnel of the Navy. Good ships are valuable, but we must have good, contented, well-fed men to man the ships. I do think there is room for the Admiralty to go still further in securing for those men better food than has hitherto been the case. With reference to the Navy, I feel strongly, as one who believes in the maintenance of our Navy in a state of complete efficiency, that that can best be done if we make our dockyards the first source of supply both for new construction and for repairs. I know very well it may be necessary to keep in touch with private yards in cases of disaster, and that we want a wider field to recruit ourselves and to regain our position. But still, it seems to me, we ought to have in the Royal Dockyards the best men that can be got and the best machinery, and that we should look to those dockyards as our first source of supply.
  I believe the Navy will be kept in a more efficient state in that way than it can by leaning on private yards. There is another point to which I desire to refer; sailors are very often disappointed at not being in port when they would like to vote at, say, Devonport or some other part of the country. I think that the Admiralty ought to issue instructions to those who are in command to offer every possible facility for the conveyance of those men to the port where they are entitled to vote, so that they may have the opportunity of fulfilling their duty as citizens. I would like to go a step further, so that those men who are at sea might have some means of recording their votes, and not continue to be disfranchised, as is at present the case. I know the Admiralty are anxious to do what is right and just. I put before them
  2520
  these matters from dockyard employés in my own Constituency. The grievances which have been stated so ably by the hon. Member below the Gangway, and which I have tried to endorse, are ones which to those employés are very real. I am sure the Admiralty will give all due consideration to them. My closing word is an appeal that petitions which are sent representing their case before the Admiralty may be dealt with as expeditiously as possible so that the men may know whether there is any hope of securing what they deem to be their just rights and their just claims at the hands of the Admiralty.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) with regard to the question of artificers in the Navy. There are still one or two points which he did not cover and which I would like to deal with. I have taken rather a deep interest in this question, because I realise that there is a very great injustice being done to the men who are in the Service at the present moment. We have debated this subject on several occasions before, and it seems to me that the best way to illustrate the position is to take a parallel from the Mercantile Marine, for after all the men who are in the Navy as engine-room artificers are men who have served their apprenticeship in the workshops of the country as engineers and machinists, boiler-makers, etc. They have thus served their time and become practical mechanics. When they joined the Navy I certainly think they had a fair and reasonable right to expect the same outlook and the same promotion as those same men would obtain if they joined the Mercantile Marine. In the Navy, I am sorry to say, their conditions are anything but equal, and not only is that so, but, owing to the new system of stoker mechanicians, the difficulties of the artificers seem to be increased, and there seems ultimately to be a great chance of the artificers being scrupulously excluded from service in the Navy at all. It has been argued in this House that the idea of the scheme for the promotion of stokers into mechanicians is with the hope of widening the range of promotion. It has always seemed to me to be a very unfair proceeding and a very unfair proposal to give one man promotion to the detriment of another man. If we could have from the Admiralty some explanation and some idea that the stoker would be promoted,

  2521
  but not to the detriment of the artificer, and that the artificer would likewise be promoted there would be some fair reason in the arrangement.
  So far as I can understand it, the position is something like this. A number of men who joined the Navy as stokers are to be taken away from their stoking and to be given training for a year or two. They are being trained by the very men in the Navy whom they are going to displace, that is the artificer and the artificer engineer. It seems to mo as though the hardship lies here, that in the Mercantile Marine the man of the artificer class is the man who becomes the third, or the second, or the chief engineer. But in the Navy the stoker is to be trained, and he is to be put over the artificer or over the type of man that will have the opportunity of becoming third, or second, or chief engineer in the Mercantile Marine. That seems to me to be a rather lopsided proposal, and it is a throwing overboard of men specially trained as skilled mechanicians. After all, whatever argument may be advanced by men occupying positions in the Government, I do venture to suggest that the hon. Member for Blackfriars who can claim to be a trained skilled mechanic, and myself also as a trained skilled mechanic, can pretend to understand this question as well perhaps, if not a little better, than some of those who are defending the position. Therefore we say that whilst we are perfectly prepared to admit that the stokers are an exceedingly able class of men in the Navy, and whilst we desire to see every avenue of promotion given to those men, and whilst we suggest and have suggested and continue to suggest, that the stokers be given advanced rate of wages, to all which appeals the Admiralty lent a deaf ear, all they can think of is this scheme as a result of the Cawdor Memorandum where after all, only five persons were examined, and on a perusal of the evidence one is led to the conclusion that at least three of them were against the finding of that inquiry. Therefore it seems to me, as far as I can understand the matter, there is really no defence for it at all. With regard to promotion, there is a paragraph on page 126 of the Cawdor Memorandum, which, I think, completely knocks down the statement that promotion is to be the same in the future as in the past, and that the position of the men who joined the artificer rank prior to the Cawdor Memorandum
  2522
  will be in no way endangered by the mechanician. The paragraph states:—
  "It appears that under the present system, the engine room artificers who are still mechanicians of various trades, are employed on board ship to some extent in doing watch keeping and engine driving work which is largely taught them after having joined the Service, and which does not require any very considerable degree of workmanship or mechanical training. In consequence, whilst they are so employed, their workmanship and mechanical ability is not being utilised to the best advantage, and the long apprenticeship which they have served at their varions trades is being wasted. It is a matter for consideration whether competent engineer drivers and stokehold and engine-room watchkeepers could not be trained from the stoker ratings of the fleet, and the artificer class in this way will be free to perform their more legitimate occupations in the ships workshop."
  That shows conclusively that the idea of the Cawdor Memorandum was to displace the artificer rank and to put in a position superior to them men from the stoker rank, who had not the same mechanical training, and could not have the same mechanical insight into the various questions connected with machinery in the Navy. I have never heard of anything similar to that in the mercantile marine. In the mercantile marine the artificer class can rise to the highest position. The artificer has the stoker under his control, and also all the engines, boilers, and machinery in the ship. By law the men in the mercantile marine are compelled to go to sea for a certain time, and to undergo a certain examination, and the ship owners are compelled by law to have these men with chief, second, or third engineer's certificates, to man the mercantile marine. In the Navy the whole thing is turned upside down, and the less skilled man is placed in charge of the more skilled man. That is an indefensible position. Surely we are not putting our claim very high when we ask that some further inquiry should be made. At the Cawdor inquiry not one of the 4,000 men affected by the new scheme was invited to give evidence or to attend the inquiry. They were all ignored, and treated in the usual Admiralty method as though they were not worth a moment's consideration, and were not of the slightest concern to those in charge. The First Lord of the Admiralty disclaims this attitude, but we judge not from what Ministers say, but from the effects of the system. Another point is that we cannot find out the cost of the new system. We have the Estimates, but they are so mixed up that Socrates himself could not fish out the cost. When the system was inaugurated we were given to understand that the stokers were to volunteer for this new rank. I know what I am speaking about, and I say that

  2523
  if the Navy were dependent for stoker mechanicians upon men volunteering the whole scheme would break down tomorrow. As a matter of fact, men are largely being pushed into the business whether they will or not. They are being driven like a flock of sheep. We ask that the First Lord should at least give us a definite promise as to the number of men to be promoted in the future. Do not put us off with flimsy promises to which the Minister cannot be pinned, but give us a clear, definite statement. We shall then know where we are, and the uneasiness which exists among this large class of men will be minimised.
  With regard to Admiralty shiprights, I understand that a petition was presented in September, 1908. A Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and a report was presented in 1909. From then till now the report has been before the Treasury, and the men are still waiting for their case to be considered. In regard to other matters, I have given the Financial Secretary some hard knocks, but on this matter I could give him a high testimonial as to the celerity with which he dealt with the question so far as he is concerned. But the matter has now left his hands and is before the Treasury, and the men have been waiting ever since 1908. Can any Member imagine a number of men working for an ordinary employer asking, through the proper channels, for an advance of wages or an improvement in their conditions, and being compelled to wait three years before the consideration of their case was concluded? These men have a real grievance—they are simply asking for a civil answer to a reasonable petition. But although the Treasury have not given their decision on the report, some parts of it have been put in operation. One part deals with an extra allowance to the men whilst employed in London. This allowance amounted to £40 a year, which, as a result of the part of the Report put into Operation has been reduced to £25. That is a Paddy's rise. I understand that the whole of the men employed in London do not receive this allowance, and they ask that if it is to be cut down, at any rate all the men employed in the London area shall receive it. Moreover, the men have petitioned the Admiralty annually since 1904, but no answer has yet been given to the petitions they have presented. That is the statement which is given to me, that
  2524
  since 1904—and not only since that year, but I believe for a period of twenty-nine or thirty years—these men have had no advance at all in their wages. It is obvious to everybody that the wages of outside workmen had been advanced. The cost of living, too, has been increased. Therefore, I do plead with my hon. Friend to bring pressure to bear upon the Treasury so that these men, who have had so unconscionable a period to wait, may expect before very long some improvement in their position.
  Another point that has been brought forward is that one of the minor recommendations has been carried out and that three men have got advances of £25 a year as chargemen. These men are of a certain rank, who have taken charge of a position of chargemen, and have received the advance I name. I want to give every credit where credit is due. Still, I want to say that there are 1,000 men waiting for an answer to their petition for three years. They have been waiting very patiently indeed, and I do ask the Financial Secretary for the Admiralty to use every endeavour to bring some pressure to bear upon the Treasury to have this matter settled in a fair and reasonable way.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) raised to-night again the extremely interesting question of the entry of naval officers into the Navy. He says that under the Selborne scheme of 1902 the system of entry of naval officers is becoming increasingly anti-democratic That is one of his main objections to it. I do not know that I should be found an advocate of the scheme if that were so. Let us examine the facts. The scheme of "common entry" dates from 1902. My hon. Friend knows that prior to that the executive officers and officers of the Engineers and of the Marines were entered at different times—as to age I mean—and trained on different lines. He knows that the genius of the Selborne scheme is common entry; that those intended to be officers should start at the same age, and that in the initial stages they should all share the same training. Theoretically it is a fact that anybody can apply for entrance, but my hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that the fees which follow undoubtedly restrict the area of selection. It is not for me to deny that. I need not go into the method of selection. I am a very cordial advocate of it, particularly of the viva voce interview

  2525
  of the Committee with the candidate which I have not the slightest doubt arrives at the real truth of the native genius of the boy far more rapidly and better than a month of written examinations. Without going into that, my hon. Friend knows that, having entered, the boy goes for two years to Osborne, and then for two years to Dartmouth. Then he goes for six months in a training criuser—the "Cumberland" or the "Cornwall." After getting through the "passing-out" examination, which determines the place of the cadet in the Navy List, he goes on a sea-going ship for three years as a midshipman. The first batch of midshipmen under the scheme who have been at sea joined the Fleet in the year 1908, and take the rank of sub-lieutenants next month.
  As to the cost of the system, my hon. Friend says the cost to the parent is very much greater than under the old system, particularly with regard to the engineers. What I think he overlooks is this. That under the old system, in all three branches the boys entered our service at a later age, and that during the time they are at Osborne, their parents, under the old system, had to maintain them. I think it is only a fair thing to add that to the cost of the old system. The boys enter now at the age of between twelve years and eight months and thirteen years. Their parents pay £75 a year for the first four years and £50 for the next three. Railway expenses, holidays, and so on up to the end of the midshipmen's career have to be counted, so that my hon. Friend is about right when he says that the cost to the parent is between £600 and £650. That is a very-fair and moderate calculation. Such a cost considerably narrows the theoretical right of anybody to send up their son to become a cadet in the Royal Navy. What he did not mention—and it is only fair to the system to mention it—is that we have the right, and exercise the right, to charge a limited number, being the sons of officers in the Army, Navy, and Marines, or of civil officers in the Admiralty, an annual fee of £40 instead of £75. If hon. Members go into it carefully they will find that, taking one thing with another, the old scheme was much about as expensive as the new scheme.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Not the engineers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am coming to the engineers. The engineers, under the old system, entered between the ages of 14½ and 16½, and they spent five years at Keyham.
  2526
  The annual fee was £40. Again, prior to 14½, you have to add the cost of the education of a boy at a crammers. "But," says my hon. Friend "the dockyard apprentice, the engine-fitter apprentice, had a chance during his apprenticeship in the dockyard to pass an examination and go to Keyham with a bursary free, and ultimately to become an engineer officer in the Royal Navy." He said you robbed them of that, and that is a real defect in this scheme. I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as to the extent to which the dockyard apprentices were going to Keyham and could become engineer officers in the Royal Navy. I think he has associated with that the case of the shipwright who could get a scholarship and could go to Keyham for a year and join the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, and which includes a larger number than the fitter apprentices to which my hon. Friend directed his attention. To what extent have we deprived these dockyard apprentices of opportunities for promotion which they had in the past. Let me say this about the dockyard apprentice. I was for a good many years a schoolmaster, and I know a little of this matter. I have been to these dockyard schools, and no boys engaged my attention more by their good behaviour, their quiet demeanour, and determination to use every opportunity of advancement and to follow up every chance put in their way than these dockyard apprentices; and it is a fact that the design of every single ship now on the first line of the Navy is due to ex-dockyard apprentices. I can speak in the highest terms of these boys, and I should be forgetful of my duty if I did not have regard to the fortunes of these youthful, intelligent, most industrious, and admirable lads—the apprentices in the Royal dockyards.
  I think my hon. Friend and other Members have really over-stated what were the opportunities for these lads. Engine-fitter apprentices who showed exceptional merits at the end of the fourth year of the six years' apprenticeship were examined and were eligible for a studentship in marine engineering. Not more than one or two a year were selected, not more than one or two a year went to Keyham. They remained at Keyham for a year, with free teaching and £25 bursaries to cover expenses. That undoubtedly was open to them, and is not open to them now. It is perfectly clear it was open to them to become officers in the Royal Navy as engineer officers.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is perfectly true, but the hon. Member forgets there was a large number of warrant officers who could go into the engineering department under the old scale who cannot now. That is where the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) is right in saying that the Service is not so democratic now as in the old days. These people used to get in as well as the apprentices.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will go into that with the Noble Lord. What I was saying was that these opportunities for these engineer fitter apprentices becoming engineer officers of the Royal Navy is gone to this extent: that ten or eleven of them found their way to this promotion in ten years. I said it was about one or two a year. I now hear that eleven succeeded to the commissioned ranks in ten years. I quite admit that has gone for the moment. At the same time, I ought to say that last year we gave a scholarship to one engineer fitter apprentice. I think he spends his first year of scholarship in the yard, and then he will go for three years to Greenwich with the prospect of entering the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. With regard to the shipyard apprentices, the effect of the closing of Keyham will be that the apprentices will spend one year of scholarship in the yard. The closing of Keyham necessitates keeping the apprentices one year in the yard and then proceeding to Greenwich. These lads never had a chance of becoming engineer officers, therefore we rob them of nothing. They had a chance of entering the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors; they have a chance now, and their position is in no way affected by the new common entry scheme. We have established a new scholarship in electrical engineering for electrical fitter appentices valued at £40 a year, and further, there is at this moment a Committee sitting upon the organisation and numbers of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. I cannot anticipate that report, but I can go the length of saying that I hope, though in no way desiring to prejudice the recommendations of the Committee, it may be able to make recommendations affecting the advance of very clever apprentices, whether engineer fitters or shipwrights, of such a character as will give these lads opportunities equal to those open to them in the past.
  Mr. BARNES: You mean giving them one a year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That has roughly been the effect in the past. There were eleven in ten years. If we can do better no one will be happier than I shall. With regard to the Selborne scheme generally, I have always admitted that whilst it is most admirable, its area of selection is restricted, which restriction is brought about by the heavy fee. The matter is one that has been constantly before the minds of those of us responsible, after the First Lord, for the administration of the Admiralty. It is one to which I have given considerable thought and attention. I am anxious, and always have been, to see whether it is not possible to cast the net wider. But I make this frank confession: this thing is so good, and the ultimate finished product is so admirable that I have been rather chary of seeking to impose upon it any views which I might hold and which might be more or less in respect of this matter of a doctrinaire character. I have not been headlong in suggestions, because undoubtedly we do turn out a most admirable product as a result of this system when these young lads become officers in His Majesty's Navy. Now with regard to the mechanicians——
  Mr. BARNES: Has the hon. Member nothing to say about the reduction of the fees?
  10.0 P.M.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already said that there are two or three ways in which we could make the net wider, and I have pointed out that we might reduce the fees to the lower sum of £40. I will undertake to give the whole matter of casting the net wider every consideration, but I cannot now hold out any promise of an immediate alteration of this system in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Barrow and the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is that by the arrangement we have made the engine-room artificers have been prejudiced, hut really that is not so. From the beginning we undertook to create a certain proportion of warrant ranks amongst the engine-room artificers, and that proportion has been adhered to. The prospects of the mechanician class from the stoker class rising to warrant rank have not worsened the prospects of the engine-room artificers. The system sets the engine-room artificers free for other duties, and while it enables us to have repairs kept better in hand and ships not so long in the dockyard, at the same time it does promote

  2529
  collaterally the chances of promotion to a very deserving class, namely the stokers in the Navy. We want to relieve the engine-room artificer so that he may attend to his proper duty of repairs and maintenance in the first place, and in the second place we want to improve the prospects of the stoker. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that the stoker mechanician cannot properly drive the engine, but I think that is entirely beside the mark. If anyone will go into the system under which the stoker mechanician is selected, and the period of time which has to be covered by his training, he will see that it is not at all appropriate to call him an unskilled labourer. On the contrary, he is a fairly skilled man with a fair knowledge of one trade. The best men are selected from the stokers. They have to acquire an elementary knowledge of one of the skilled trades, they go through a two years' course at Chatham, and the stoker mechanicians possess considerable intelligence.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: But he cannot do repairs.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, the engine-room artificer does the repairs. The stoker mechanician does twelve months further probation, and at the end of that training he is confirmed as mechanician. By the arrangement we are making we are setting the engine-room artificers free to do their work, so that our ships shall not be so long in the dockyard. We are training a class which can effectively do the work which we require.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Repairs?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, the engine-room artificers will do the repairs. The opposition we have had to-night suggests the idea that the skilled mechanic is being supplanted by an unskilled labourer. I do not think the mechanician is anything approaching an unskilled labourer. I object to the suggestion that after a first-class stoker has gone through all his training he is not fit to drive the engines. Our experience is that he is fit for that duty. This system sets the engine-room artificer free to ply that trade, and our repairs to ships are much more in hand than before this scheme was adopted. But, over and above all this, we are opening an avenue of promotion to an extremely deserving class, which is a large class in the Navy.
  I must refer to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Stoke in some little detail. He alluded to the Fair Wages Resolution of
  2530
  this House, and the dates upon which we were able to put them into our contract. Now the hon. Member says the last Fair Wages Resolution was not put into the contract at anything like the date it ought to have been. The old Fair Wages Resolution is dated the 13th February, 1891, and the new resolution is dated the 10th March, 1909. Let my hon. Friend observe that the old Fair Wages Resolution was confined absolutely to wages, but the new Resolution is much wider in its scope. The old Resolution provided that the wages paid should be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen, and that applied not only to the main contract, but to any sub-contract. My hon. Friend knows better than I do that the new Fair Wages Resolution, dated the 10th March, 1909, not only deals with wages but also with the general conditions to be observed. It is nothing like so simple in its application as regards the wages as the old. First of all it says the contractor shall pay rates of wages not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the district; in the absence of such recognised wages those which in practice prevail amongst good employers. Where there are no such wages recognised or prevailing in the district, those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar shall be adopted.
  Mr. J. WARD: That is the point: "Where the industrial conditions are similar."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Then there is also the question of the way that applies to sub-contractors, just like the old Fair Wages Resolution. Beyond that there are the hours of labour and the conditions of employment generally accepted in the district. The hon. Member asks why we did not put the new Fair Wages Resolution in our contracts at an earlier date, and I am endeavouring to give an explanation. The Committee will see this Resolution was wider in scope than the old fair wage resolution, introducing the question of the hours of labour and the conditions of employment. The wider scope of the Resolution, and particularly its reference to the conditions of employment in the district, had to be taken into account in determining how far the fair wages clause was being observed, and necessitated very careful consideration on our part when the question of incorporating it in our contracts generally came up. In June, 1909,

  2531
  three months after the Resolution was passed, the Treasury appointed an Advisory Committee, and in September, 1909, or six months afterwards, that Advisory Committee made certain recommendations as to the best way to give contractual effect to a Resolution of the House of Commons, which in one particular especially—the question of taking note of the conditions of labour—was rather wide in its scope. It had to be carefully considered how one would give contractual effect to that general condition.
  My hon. Friend charged us with not having put this new Fair Wages Resolution into our contracts earlier, but directly we got the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in September, 1909, as to the best way to go to work, we put the new Resolution into all our general contracts for stores and material unless they were running contracts. We inserted the new clause in the tender forms for the annual contracts for stores and materials, but, so far as the works contracts and ship-building contracts were concerned, the matter, no doubt, was not so simple, and a good deal of examination had to be made and legal advice had to be taken as to how we should give practical effect to the new Resolution. Finally, an Admiralty Order, dated 16th January, 1911, ordered the insertion of the new Fair Wages Resolution in all our contracts made as from that time. I must repeat that in the simple stores and material contracts it was inserted immediately or a very short time after we got the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, but so far as the works and ship building contracts were concerned it was not so easy, and the matter required further consideration. That is the reason for the delay which has taken place in regard to the contracts for ship building and works.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that in July of 1910 it was promised, in answer to a question from me, that this new Fair Wages Clause should be in all the new contracts and that in October of the same year, four months later, the old Fair Wages Clause was inserted in a contract of Sir John Jackson.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter could not be dealt with as expeditiously as was anticipated, and it is a fact that it was not the practice to put the Clause into our contracts for ship building until the order of 16th January, 1911.
  Mr. J. WARD: Nearly two years afterwards.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not correct to say that is true of all our contracts. I am trying to explain that the new Fair Wages Resolution went into the simple stores and material contracts—the annual supply contracts for the year—almost immediately we received the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The last point raised was with regard to the wages at Rosyth, and it was also raised by the hon. Member for Stoke. The hon. Gentleman, as I understood, spoke of an agreed rate in the locality.
  Mr. J. WARD: The rate signed and agreed to by the employers in the locality. Of course, if the Admiralty do not want to pay that I can understand the matter.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not a question of what the Admiralty want to pay, but what they are bound to make the contractor pay under his contract, and beyond that, of course, they cannot go. This contract is under the old Fair Wages Resolution, as my hon. Friend knows very well, and therefore it is not a question of an agreed rate. It is a question of the rate current for competent workmen in the district. Consequently, to tell me the agreed rate is this or that is to tell me something which, under the Old Fair Wages Resolution I cannot exact from the contractor. That is the fault of the Resolution, but, if the Resolution is in the contract, it is no use endeavouring to force anything beyond that. I am glad we have got the new Resolution, and I am sorry it was not possible to put it in earlier; but it will be in them now. The hon. Member tells me the agreed rate in the district is so much, but it has nothing to do with the case.
  Mr. J. WARD: We will make it, then.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman can make what he pleases, but the contract is under the old Resolution, and he knows as well as I do that that is the rate current for competent workmen in the district, and is not necessarily an agreed rate. I have got to deal with the contract as it is. He says the rate at Rosyth is 5d. for general labourers, and that in the locality very much higher wages are paid. I have before me the rates at Rosyth. It is 5d. to 5½d. for general labourers. There is a contract for a new graving dock at Leith, and there it is 5d. and 5½d. for general labourers. At Methil there is a

  2533
  harbour extension and the rate is 5d. and 5½d. At Dunfermline, builders, including Admiralty Department men, 5d. and 5½d.
  Mr. J. WARD: You pay some of your men 4½d. I believe one of your contractors is paying 4d. They can, in fact, pay anything.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Do not let us get into an acrimonious discussion. The hon. Member says the contractor can pay anything he likes, but that is not so. It has got to be the rate current for competent workmen, and I have to do the best I can and to see what is the rate. I admit it is a difficult task, and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ward) knows it is a difficult task. The rates for general labourers at Rosyth are 5d. to 5½d.; Leith, 5d and 5½d.; Methil and Dunfermline district the same. Surely these figures show what is the rate current.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Financial Secretary will surely see it is only a proof of what I have said that whenever the Admiralty are asked to interfere they hunt about to find what is the lowest rate.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think it is fair to say that. It is the rate current that has to be paid so long as the contract is under the old Resolution I have referred to. The new Fair Wages Resolution is different. Now, with respect to navvies, of whom the hon. Member is so strong an advocate, they receive at Rosyth 5d. to 5½d.; at Leith, Methil and Dunfermline the same. The timbermen are also associated with the navvies. At Rosyth they receive 7d. to 7½d. At Leith, Methil and Newport 7d. I should be glad to go into these figures with the hon. Member so that he may see for himself that the people are paid the rate current. The question really is, what are the terms of the resolution which is incorporated in the contract, and I have to see that they are carried out. With regard to the point about hospital accommodation, I must say that I have found Messrs. Easton, Gibb and Company very reasonable people to deal with. I have been in communication with them, and twice I have been there, and I have raised many of these questions of accommodation for the workmen. I will take the case of the hospitals, on which I have been personally in communication with Messrs. Easton, Gibb and Company. There is a little mortor ambulance. It is not a question of taking the men over rough roads without any attention. There
  2534
  is a first-aid provision in the grounds. Tb might be desirable that there should be hospital accommodation in the interests of these men, who are going there now by the thousand. I cannot say at this moment, but I shall be glad to have a further report upon the point, and I will see whether it may not be possible to meet the hon. Member in regard to it.
  Mr. J. WARD: I would like some promise that the right hon. Gentleman will try to formulate some scheme, seeing that since July last 24 accidents have occurred and the men have had to be taken to the workhouse, because there was not hospital accommodation available at the place.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The contractor has a liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and if there is a reasonable prospect of accidents he would provide against it. It is his duty to do so, to prevent having applications under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I will not promise that a hospital shall be erected on that site, but I will promise to go into it and to make any representations I can in the direction desired. The hon. Member knows it is my desire to get the best accommodation we can from the contractor, and I will see whether it is necessary or not to have an hospital on the spot in addition to the first aid appliances, and the means of rapidly taking them to Dunfermline. Any representation the hon. Member makes shall have every consideration, and I will transmit whatever he says to the contractors, and I think that it will receive due consideration from Messrs. Easton, Gibb and Company.
  Mr. J. WARD: I want to know whether the Financial Secretary listened to that part of the complaint referring to the housing. I complained bitterly of that. There was accommodation for single men, out of 3,000 men on these works there was only accommodation for 300 men with their wives and families. The consequence is that the conditions are disgraceful. It is a terrible thing that the domestic life of these men should be destroyed in this way.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend knows that we have placed a piece of land at the disposal of the contractor, which he can use for no other purpose than the accommodation of these men. I found the accommodation there was not half full when I went. I went into the subject very fully, and I find from a news-

  2535
  paper report that some of the men took rather strong objection to the system of accommodation by way of huts, which I understand is what my hon. Friend refers to. I will show him a copy of the "Rosyth Courier," in which the shanty system is denounced.
  Mr. J. WARD: That is in regard to those very places which my hon. Friend has declared were so satisfactory. They object to these miserable shanties. They want places where they can have their wives and children.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought this report referred to the huts. It is a speech by the Superintendent of the Scottish Navvy Mission, F. G. Tiller, who is addressing a meeting on "Hut life on public works." Again, I say, although (his is a great contract work, we cannot entirely absolve ourselves—I do not for my part—from some responsibility for the well-being of these men. They are under a contractor, it is true, but we are to some extent fiduciaries for their well-being, and although this matter is upon the contractor, and there are good reasons why he should look after their interests, in my view we cannot absolve ourselves from all responsibility in this matter. I shall be only too glad to hear my hon. Friend's representations on the question. An hon. Member asked me about the delay in carrying out the recommendations contained in the report of the Writers Committee. Changes in regard to certain features of it have been promulgated by the Treasury, but the great bulk of the recommendations are still the subject of consideration by that authority. I hope there may be no great delay in our getting the matter finally settled, but I really cannot say when that will be. I can only say that I am very anxious to have the matter settled, but it is now under the discussion and consideration of the Treasury.
  Mr. LEE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in his spirited defence of the Selborne scheme of education. It is hardly likely that I should feel it necessary to do so in view of the fact that I am myself somewhat implicated in the origination of that scheme. Nor do I wish to follow up what he has said in regard to works at Rosyth. I have no local knowledge, and I am not able to tell whether he or the hon. Member (Mr. John
  2536
  Ward) has the better case. But there was obviously a very serious warning running through the hon. Member's speech, and I hope the Admiralty will take this matter into their consideration at the earliest possible date, not because I wish to influence them in their decision one way or the other, but because anything which would lead to delay in the completion of those Government works would be considered a very serious matter indeed by the nation at large. I say no more, because it is a very delicate subject, but we earnestly trust nothing will prevent the completion of these works at the earliest moment. There is another question of broad policy, an entirely new question in these Debates—a new question of policy, which has never before occurred in the history of this country, and one about which the House is entitled to have a little information. We have seen in the last few days a proposal made—I do not know on which side of the North Sea, and it does not matter—for England and Germany to come to an agreement to exchange information with regard to their naval programmes. That suggestion was made in this House by the Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago. Since then it has been approved and accepted by the Imperial Chancellor in the Reichstag, and it seems to me that it introduces an entirely new principle of the utmost importance in the interests of good feeling and good understanding between the two countries. I think as an ideal, it is most praiseworthy, and that any agreement which could obviate or lessen the suspicions, counter charges, apprehensions, scares, such as led, I am afraid, to a good deal of ill-feeling between the two countries in 1908–9, and subsequently would, I am sure, be welcomed by everyone. Those who believe in a strong and supreme Navy and those who believe in a smaller Navy, would all be united on that ground and all that we wish to know is in what way that ideal which has been adopted on both sides of the North Sea can be made practical. At this stage, beyond the fact that we know the agreement in general terms has been come to, we do not really know what this suggestion means. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is in a position to tell us at present, but we shall not have another opportunity of raising the question in the Navy Debates this year. What the House is entitled to know, in the first place, is at what stage this interchange of opinion will take place.

  2537
  That is a difficult question, because I cannot believe that the House of Commons or the Reichstag would for a moment consent to the communication of information to a foreign Government before it had been laid before the responsible Parliament in either country. That creates technical difficulties, because it has been the custom in England and in Germany for the Navy Estimates to be produced at quite different periods of the year.
  It is also necessary to consider what would be the nature of the information. Is it to be merely the amount of expenditure or sufficiently detailed information with regard to the programme of shipbuilding, the size of the ships, armament, and, above all, when they are to be completed? Unless the information is on a fairly accurate and detailed scale, I am afraid that, so far from leading to a better understanding it will only lead again to suspicions that the one country or the other is trying to steal a march on its rival. That is what we want to avoid. It does not require that either country should either lessen or increase its shipbuilding programme, but if it is to be of any value, and not a source of irritation rather than in the interests of peace, it is important that it should be laid down in the clearest possible terms what is to be the extent of the information, and by what means it is to be communicated. I do not ask these questions in any hostile spirit at all. On the contrary, I welcome the proposal and hope that the goodwill and the wisdom of statesmen on both sides may enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding it. I do say that there are very real difficulties in regard to it, and I hope that at the earliest possible moment the Admiralty, or, if necessary, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will communicate to the House the terms of the agreement and the extent of it in order that it may be clearly understool beyond the shadow of a doubt on both sides of the North Sea.
  That brings me to a point which I have previously raised and on which the right hon. Gentleman has given no reply on behalf of the Admiralty. It seems to me that an exchange of information is going to be of comparatively little value unless it is clearly understood in both countries what is the standard on which each country is building, because that is, after all, the measuring rule. It is the method of appraisement which has existed in the past so far as we are concerned, but which
  2538
  unfortunately no longer exists on account of the action of His Majesty's Government in, first of all, giving up the old-fashioned standard to which we were so well accustomed not only in this country, but all over the world, and the setting up something which is not understood in this country, and which is still less understood by foreigners. That question of the standard is one which the right hon. Gentleman for some reason or other studiously avoids when he makes his usually lucid and informative speeches. He never deals with that, and I hope we may be more fortunate on this occasion than in the past. It surely cannot cause any offence in any part of the world. We have never hesitated in the past to proclaim that we support the two-Power standard, and it has never been misunderstood. Until there has been a regrettable diversity on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench there was no doubt in the public mind as to the standard on which we were building. There has been a great divergence of authoritative opinion on the bench opposite. The Prime Minister stated on no less than three occasions that the two-Power standard was to be maintained in this country, and that it was to be held to apply to any two Powers wherever they might be situated. That was clear and definite enough. Then we had the Home Secretary giving his version of the two-Power standard—namely, that it only applied to any two forces available for aggressive purposes against these islands. He has forgotten that we have to protect the British Empire. Then we had the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, giving an entirely new interpretation which had never been suggested by anybody before that the two-Power standard only involved two Powers in European waters. The right hon. Gentleman will see that these definitions are entirely incompatible with each other.
  As the responsible Minister who has to build to standard, he should inform us what is the standard to which ho is building. I shall leave him a few minutes in which I hope he will clear up that much-debated point, about which I think there is no mystery at all, but which, I think, needs a great deal of explanation. At any rate, I think that a clear understanding in this question of standard is absolutely necessary before any scheme of exchange of information of foreign Powers can be made practicable. We know, unfortunately for the scheme to which I have just

  2539
  referred, that the German Chancellor has said that while the German Government make no complaint whatever of the British claim "to maintain," in the words of the Prime Minister, "an unassailable supremacy on the sea," they do not recognise it; they are not prepared to accept it. A counter statement of standard has been laid down by the Chancellor in the German Reichstag, in which he stated that the only standard which Germany could accept for her naval or military forces was the sum total of German capability. That is to say we have got the full capacity of the German shipbuilding yards. We know that, if possible, that full capacity will be used as soon as convenient, and we have got to face that fact in future. A standard is necessary not only for the information of this country and of our rivals, but in order to breed a sense of security in this country we must adopt a standard which is competent to meet that possible menace to our supremacy on the seas, a standard which I believe can only be satisfactory if it approaches the standard now known as the standard of two keels to one. We are in this position, that we do not know the standard at which we are building. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, before the Debate closes will in the ample time which I shall give him for this purpose, inform us to what standard he is building. I do think, in view of the language that has been used during the last few weeks by the German Chancellor, language of which I do not complain in the smallest degree, language almost mediæval in its frankness, which certainly leaves nothing to the imagination, it is folly on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, merely to help himself round a difficult corner in debate in this House, to hold out a half promise of reductions in the Navy Estimates next year. He cannot possibly know that he will be in a position to make those reductions. On the contrary, so far as one can see, examining the standards of foreign countries, so far from the Estimates being lower next year, they will be bound to be higher if the right hon. Gentleman does his duty. I suggest to him, in quite a friendly spirit, that it is always a mistake to borrow trouble, and he is borrowing trouble by giving these—I will not call them promises, because he was very careful to guard himself, but half-promises, to those who should be his friends below the Gangway—promises or half-promises, which I feel certain he will not be able to make good
  2540
  when he stands up at that box, always assuming that he is in that position at that time next year. I think that his action in holding out these hopes will give those who are in favour of a reduction of the Estimates real cause of complaint, because he is holding out hopes which cannot be realised. We, on our side, I think, have a right to expostulate with him on this subject, because, next year, if the Government are successful—which is a large assumption—in passing their Parliament Bill, there will be a great relaxation of the bond of discipline, or shall I say the bond of common interest on the other side of the House, a very great relaxation, and the right hon. Gentleman will find his position very much more difficult if he has to introduce the Naval Estimates. Then he will have to rely, I believe, almost entirely on the support which he receives on this side of the House in order to enable him to pass his Estimates through. Therefore, I think we have a special right——
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The hon. Gentleman is travelling a long way from the question before the Committee.
  Mr. LEE: I at once accept your ruling, Sir, and will not transgress again. I have practically made the few remarks I wish to make, and I will only suggest that the promises which the right hon. Gentleman has indulged in with regard to the reduction of the Estimates are, I am afraid, misunderstood, not only here, but abroad. They are interpreted more as a sign of weakness in our determination to maintain our naval supremacy, because it is not generally understood abroad, as it is here, that they are really only dictated by domestic or internal difficulties.
  Sir ALBERT SPICER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider one point. There have been many discussions from time to time with regard to the allowance of rum to men of the Navy. I do not want to make a suggestion of any drastic nature, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the time has not come when, instead of rum being served to all who do not give in their names that they do not require it and want some small financial allowance instead of it, that the process should be reversed, and that rum should only be served to those who ask for it, and that the small financial allowance should be made to all the others. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will admit that

  2541
  this is not a drastic proposal, and after all it is only going in the direction which the habits of society practically recognise. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) who is watching me, if he will look back upon his school days, I think will admit that the custom was in all public schools—I know it was at the schools to which I went—that beer should be handed to every boy as a matter of course, and it was left to those who did not wish to have it to say so. But to-day—and I think this applies to most schools I know—the custom has been reversed. There has been a sort of evolutionary process going on, and now beer is not served unless it is asked for. It is taken for granted it is not wanted unless it is asked for. I suggest to the First Lord of the Admiralty that if he would make the change that practically has been made in others of our great institutions, he would be doing a service to many men, and I believe it would be in the best interests of the nation.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will reply to the questions put by my hon. Friend opposite and my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The suggestion which he (Sir A. Spicer) has made appears to me to be a very valuable one. I am not able to say without an examination of the details of bookkeeping and of supply in the Service whether the suggestion is one which I can undertake to adopt, but I will certainly inquire into the matter in a most sympathetic spirit. With regard to the questions put by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), let me, in the first place, say with what pleasure, if I may use the word, I recognise the tone with which he received the statement made by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the proposal for an interchange of naval information between this Government and the German Government As he will readily understand, I am not in a position to say anything more on this subject than has already been said by the Foreign Secretary, namely, that the question of interchange has been agreed to in principle. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend at the very earliest moment will answer all the questions which were properly put by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the matter.
  Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether information will be communicated to a foreign Government before it is laid before the House of Commons?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not able to speak upon this matter, as I am not fully informed at the moment how far negotiations by my right hon. Friend have gone; but I do not imagine that the negotiations would include any interchange of opinion which would go beyond what is ordinarily stated in this House. With regard to the second question put to me—namely, the standard to which we build in this country, I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman is making difficulties in the matter. He quoted various statements of right hon. Friends of mine with the object of showing that their statements do not in every respect agree with one another.
  Mr. LEE: In any respect.
  Mr. McKENNA: Let me very briefly, as I endeavoured once before, to put the matter in a nutshell. The numerical calculation of the two-Power standard, which was always a rough-and-ready standard, was very properly applicable in days when there were no fleets to be considered outside the fleets of European waters. Consequently the two-Power standard might very properly be understood to be a numerical standard; but as fleets developed in countries very remote from Europe it was quite obvious that a numerical standard no longer had the same value. Any two European Powers could combine their fleets together and could make the fleet of the total strength approximately equal to their total numerical strength; but if you were to combine a fleet in European waters to a fleet in Asiatic waters it is perfectly obvious, owing to the great distance between the two and the difficulty of combination, and the absence of a base of whichever fleet attempted to join the other, that the total strength of the two fleets when they combined would not be equal to the total numerical strength of the others in European waters.
  Mr. LEE: That is not what the Prime Minister said in November, 1908, when things were the very same.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister never used the word numerical in 1908; he said two-Power standard.
  Mr. LEE: Whatever they may be and wherever they may be situated.
  Mr. McKENNA: Reckoning the standard by calculation of numercial strength, I endeavoured in 1908 to the best of my ability to make the explanation to the hon. Gentleman I am making now. As it is an

  2543
  explanation obviously founded upon reason, I cannot see what objection he takes to it. The Foreign Secretary stated that the two-Power standard in the old numercial sense—the sense in which the hon. Gentleman understands it—applies to any two European Powers. Obviously it does; because the bases of their navies being close to our own, a combination between two European Powers would have a total strength approximately equal to their total numercial strength; that is to say, they could combine approximately the whole of their forces. I hope I have now made the point clear.
  Mr. LEE: My only mistake was in thinking that the Prime Minister meant what he said.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not examined the words, which do not justify that statement. The Prime Minister, in 1907, stated, in reference to the two-Power standard, that in reckoning the Powers you have to remember what are the forces they can combine. It is ludicrous to suppose that two Powers situated 8,000 miles apart could combine with the same total strength as two Powers situated 200 miles apart. One other point was with reference to my statement that I hoped to see a reduction in the Estimates next year. I am quite content to back my proposition against that of the hon. Gentleman. Provided the conditions I laid down are satisfied and there is no material change in foreign programmes, I am pretty confident I shall be able to realise my expectation.
  Mr. LEE: Wait and see.
  Mr. CROOKS: With regard to the removal of the torpedo department to Greenock, have the Admiralty disbanded once for all the torpedo department at the Arsenal? If the Greenock factory is not large enough, do they propose to go to contractors for any additional torpedoes they may want, or do they propose to utilise the men already waiting for work at Woolwich? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to carry out his promise that, in connection with the continual construction of "Dreadnoughts," some of the gun-mounting work shall be done at Woolwich? My last question is with regard to the ratings of the lowly-paid mechanics
  2544
  in the Navy, such as plumbers and blacksmiths, who have not had a revision of their pay since 1882. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into these matters, and give them his sympathetic consideration?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We have had an interesting Debate, but some of the speeches have been long. They would not have been less effective if they had been shorter, and other Members would then have had an opportunity to speak. I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what his policy is in regard to the Marines? Ever since this Government have been in power they have cut down the strength of the Marines from 10,800 to 15,800. What is the basis of the policy of the First Lord? Is it the intention of the Government to do away altogether with the Marines, who have done so much for the country, and have held aloft the flag in all parts of the Empire? Are the men, who, in the most trying circumstances on land and sea, have upheld the honour of the flag, to be wiped out of existence? That, it seems to me, is the way the policy of the Government is tending.
  As to the Greenwich Old Age Pensions we had a very interesting statement from the Financial Secretary the other night. He told us that in connection with the money which had been wrongfully used and taken away from these pensions, and used to pay the pensioners of the Seamen's Reserve Pension Fund, that he had made certain arrangements by which all the men who receive their pensions from the Greenwich Pension Fund shall receive it from the Seamen's Pension Fund; that he had taken them all off. I think I am right in saying that what he meant was that he had not put any more on.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is not retrospective.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then I have no more to say, except to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there are at the present time quite a thousand men over sixty-two years of age who are eligible for this pension, and who, owing to lack of funds, are not able to obtain that pension. It is a very serious matter, in view of the fact that the Government have brought in a general Old Age Pensions Act. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to

  2545
  remedy this, and give some recompense to these old men who have fought for their country.
  Mr. BOOTH: Our hon. Friends on the opposite side want continuity of policy. May I ask them to support a suggestion frequently put forward from these benches, that is that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have some kind of a Committee to advise him. By that we should get continuity of policy, so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897. (ORDER IN COUNCIL.)
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [4th April], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make Orders in Council under The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, authorising the execution of military manœuvres in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Cambridge, and also in the county of Ayr, drafts of which were presented to this House on the 7th day of February last."—[Colonel Seely.]
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Mr. CARLILE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your ruling as to whether this draft Order in Council can now be taken in the form in which it stands upon the Paper? The draft Order in Council refers to a number of counties and states that drafts have been presented to this House on the 7th of February. No drafts of these counties were presented to the House upon the 7th February, with the exception of one for the County of Ayr. I ask your ruling whether in these circumstances the Motion is in order and can be taken now?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): On the point of Order, I was about to move Amendments of which I have given notice at the Table on that very point, and if it would be for the convenience of the House I will explain them. The difficulty arises from
2546
the fact that whereas the Orders arrived simultaneously they were not printed until successive days.
Mr. CARLILE: If the draft Orders were not presented on the day named in the Motion, can it be taken, or can only that portion be taken in reference to the draft which concerns the County of Ayr, which undoubtedly was presented?
Mr. SPEAKER: When a Resolution is proposed it is always capable of Amendment. I see no objection to amending it. If from the Resolution as it stands it appears that some of the Orders were not presented on the 7th February, the Motion can only apply to those presented on the 7th February.
Colonel SEELY: I was about to move the following two Amendments. Perhaps I may formally move them now, and then make any explanation the House may wish for upon the general question. I beg therefore to move after the word "House" ["drafts of which were presented to the House"] to insert the words "as to the County of Ayr," and after the word "day" ["on the 7th day of February"] to insert the words "and as to the other counties on the eighth day." The reason for this is that whereas these two draft Orders were duly despatched to the House from the War Office on the 7th day of February and deposited in proper form, by a clerical error only one appeared in the Votes and Proceedings on the 7th day of February. The mistake was observed, and the other Order, both of which lay on the Table in the Library, was found in the Votes and Proceedings on the 8th of February. In drafting this Motion it was not observed until more than five weeks afterwards that that error had been committed with regard to the 7th and 8th, and the technical objection arises which the hon. Member has now called attention to. If this Amendment be accepted I think the Motion will be strictly in order, and we can then proceed to discuss the Motion as amended.
Lord BALCARRES: This Motion first appeared on the Paper the day before yesterday. It would be convenient, having discovered the mistake which occurred five weeks ago, if the right hon. Gentleman had put his Address to the Throne down in a properly amended form. It could have been put down in the correct form yesterday. I think it is a pity that this mistake should have occurred. My

2547
reason for rising is that the right hon. Gentleman two nights ago indicated that owing to some error in the Vote Office these Papers were not to be found. Upon inquiry I find that the Papers never were received there, and therefore the officials concerned were in no way to be blamed. The responsibility for the error lies elsewhere.
Colonel SEELY: I have had two copies placed in the Vote Office since yesterday afternoon. This is only an Amendment of form, and it states on the face of it that this refers to the counties specified. Therefore nobody can be under any misapprehension as to what we are voting for now. It was a clerical error for which neither the War Office or anyone else could be accountable.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved—"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make Orders in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, authorising the execution of military manœuvres in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Cambridge, and also in the county of Ayr, drafts of which were presented to this House as to the county of Ayr on the 7th day, and as to the other counties on the 8th day, of February last."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Message [28th March], 'That it is desirable that the Professional Accountants Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know what this means. I may be wrong, but in the
2548
whole course of my experience I do not remember a similar Motion being made; and, as the Government have the whole time of the House, I must ask them to put this down so that we can discuss it. No doubt it may be all right, but we must have an explanation.
Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): In many cases it is done without notice at all, but to-day it has been put down with notice, and therefore more opportunity has been given for discussion than has been given before.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not remember such a Motion. I understand the Professional Accountants Bill is a public Bill brought in by a private Member of the House of Lords. Now, a public Bill, brought in by a private Member in the Lords, is to be submitted to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I never remember a public Bill being brought in by a private Member and being submitted to a Committee of both Houses.
Mr. GULLAND: I think it was done in the case of the Licensing Consolidation Bill last year, and also the Perjury Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: As far as I remember those were Government Bills and Consolidation Bills. This is entirely a new thing. It seems to be introducing a new practice into our history, and I should like to know something about it.
Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not here, but I will put it down for to-morrow.
Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

HELE'S CHARITY SCHOOL, PLYMOUTH.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. ASTOR: The President of the Board of Education this afternoon, in answer to a question I addressed to him, said that a scheme which was promised by that Department four years ago, dealing with a local charity at Plymouth, was not yet ready. I may state that due notice was sent to the right hon. Gentleman this evening that I intended to raise the matter. In his reply he stated that no application had been received from the trustees of this particular trust in Plymouth, and

2549
therefore he appeared to suggest that the blame for the delay fell upon the trustees. I may inform the House that this matter refers to Hele's Charity, a trust founded some 200 years ago to provide education for poor boys in Plymouth and district. There are two points that I wish to bring before the House specially. First, that owing to the mismanagement or delay, the boys who ought properly to find themselves educated by the trust have not been able to be so, and, secondly, I wish to draw attention specifically to the reply of the President of the Board of Education to-day.
The Hele Charity School was closed in 1907 by mutual consent of the trustees and the President of the Board of Education. It was arranged there should be a conference that autumn to decide the lines upon which the trust should be run in the future. The chair at that conference was taken by a representative of the Board of Education, and, after considerable discussion, all those present at that conference agreed unanimously to the lines of a proposal on which this trust could be run. Six months afterwards the trustees applied to that Department for this scheme to which all had been looking forward. The application was acknowledged, and the reply of the Board of Education said that owing to pressure of work, in the Drafting Department I believe, they had not been able to prepare the scheme. Six months later another application was sent, and this time, when it was acknowledged, a different reason was given to the effect that the Charity Commissioners were inquiring into the local charities. The trustees waited another year, and then applied again for this scheme which had been promised repeatedly. This time a different reason again was given, namely, the appointment of a Departmental Committee. Again, in May, 1910, the trustees wrote applying for an interview. They wanted to come up and find out why this scheme, which had been promised, was not yet ready. The Department refused to receive them; refused the interview. Finally, on 29th March, 1911, a letter was sent to the Board of Education with the words in it to which the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to-day appeared to attach particular importance; that is to Bay, the words "a formal application."
The question I wish to put before the House is, who is to blame for the delay in connection with this trust scheme? The right hon. Gentleman, by his answer to-
2550
day, gave the House to understand that the trustees, because they had not applied for this scheme, were to blame both for the delay and mismanagement. Whatever may be the case, the result has been that this money, amounting to an income of about £500 a year, has not been used as originally intended by the donor 200 years ago, the money has accumulated, it is not being used for the purpose of education at the present moment, and the Board of Education have no scheme, although they have been repeatedly written to upon the subject. Lastly, the President of the Board of Education, by his answer to-day, has accused the trustees of neglecting their duty in not having applied for this particular scheme, but, as a matter of fact, if any blame is due to anyone, it is due to the negligence of the Board of Education.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. P. Trevelyan): The hon. Member who has just sat down said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education had blamed the trustees of this charity for not sending in a formal application. It is quite true they did not send in the formal application, without which we cannot take any action in the matter, but he added that the Board understood that the trustees were quite ready to apply.
Mr. ASTOR: Have they not, applied?
Mr. TREVELYAN: They have not formally applied. If the hon. Member will read the actual words of the answer of my right hon. Friend he will see that he said that "no formal application was in fact made, but it has been understood by us (the Board) that the trustees were ready to apply." My right hon. Friend certainly does not wish to cast any blame upon the trustees, and does not wish to imply that they are responsible. I agree that the delay in this case is most unfortunate, and no one is more aware of this than the President of the Board of Education. If this scheme were the only one it would be, of course, quite indefensible that it should have been delayed three or four years, but, so far from this being the only one, there are at this moment a large number awaiting attention. At this time the situation is this: Since the year 1902 the Board of Education have been utterly unable to keep pace with the number of schemes which are required under the Act of that year owing to the fact that a very

2551
large number of endowments which had been applied for school purposes ceased to be of any value for those purposes, because those purposes were handed over to the local authorities and put upon the rates and taxes. An enormous number of endowments ceased to be applicable to the purposes to which they had been applied; and, in consequence, hundreds of schemes all over the country were required in order to find new purposes to which the money would have to be applied.
At the Board of Education there is only a limited staff, and all these schemes, whether they are important, whether they concern large or small sums of money, give rise to various difficult legal details. Scheme-making is a very laborious process. It takes a long time, it has to be done very exactly, and in every case the highest legal officers in the Board have to attend to the scheme, and have to go through all the details before it can possibly be published by the Board. These officials have an enormous amount of other work besides the scheme work, which is generally a great deal more pressing than scheme-making. The result is, and we admit it, that there are waiting scores of schemes all over the country which it is very desirable should be dealt with. When my right hon. Friend began his duties he found this difficulty: that there were scores of schemes waiting which it was very undesirable should be delayed any longer. Of course, he had to consider what action he would take. It might be said that he ought to have applied for a larger number of lawyers to do the work at the Board of Education, but that would have been an immense public expense in order to do a thing quickly, which in most cases is not of very great importance in regard to the individual details. What he did was to appoint a Departmental Committee, over which I have been presiding, in order to inquire into the best way of dealing with all these endowments we have got upon our hands. I am not in a position at the moment to say what the Committee have reported because the Report is not published, but we have finished our work and have made recommendations and I very much hope, before very long, some means may be found to deal not only with this scheme but with any other. No doubt there are many other Members who have schemes in their Constituencies which they think we ought to deal with. It is not only this
2552
scheme, but the scores of schemes which have resulted from the 1902 Act which ought to be dealt with. I hope they will be dealt with soon by some general method. Until that is done there must be a large number of schemes in arrear, and in this case my right hon. Friend has done what he can do now. He has given special orders that this one should be dealt with at once. I hope that will satisfy the hon. Member as far as his scheme is concerned, but that does not meet the real difficulty we are under of the large number of other schemes which are still waiting to be dealt with. We give him a preference, and I am very glad that he should have it. As soon as he sends in formal application it shall be dealt with at once. But no great improvement in this matter can be expected until we deal in rather a vigorous and drastic way with the general question of all these small, or comparatively small, educational endowments which you find all over the country. I hope the promise of my right hon. Friend to deal with the matter the moment the actual formal application is sent in will satisfy the hon. Member.
Lord BALCARRES: In the first place the formal application has been sent in. I do not know how long it takes to carry it from Plymouth to London, but it was sent in days ago. An application which I think anyone would look upon as formal has been sent in at regular intervals during the last four years. The clerk to the trustees has written constantly to say: "I am directed by my trustees to apply for a scheme, a scheme having been promised by the Board." The speech of the Under-Secretary really shows that there is a sort of paralysis at the Board of Education. He says you have hundreds of these schemes. All I can say is the Department has no business to close schools unless it is prepared in the immediate future to provide new schools. This school with an income of £500 a year, quite unsectarian and doing excellent work, has been hung up since 1907, and the money is simply lying idle accumulating in the bank. He says there has been great delays. Of course there has.
The efforts of the Board of Education are not being devoted to this kind of thing. They are being frittered away in litigation. Only to-day a decision went against the Board of Education. That takes time and wastes money, and occupies the attention of the Board.

2553
Weeks of time have been occupied in dealing with the Swansea case. What steps are being taken really to deal with these matters in a businesslike way? The hon. Gentleman told us that the Committee has reported, but we know perfectly well what that means. It means weeks and months of delay before a general scheme can be introduced. A scheme on the lines of one of the Bills introduced in the 1906 Parliament dealing with elementary education has been promised. I presume that will have priority over schemes dealing with these schools under charity trusts. I beg the Under-Secretary to remember that his Department is gradually getting a reputation for being most unbusinesslike in its management of these educational affairs.
And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Thirty minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Petrol Tax.
  Petrol Tax.
  Agricultural Rates.
  Agricultural Rates.
  Excise and Customs.
  Excise and Customs.
  Fish Confiscated.
  Fish Confiscated.
  Estate Duty Office.
  Estate Duty Office.
  Road Board (Roads in Caithness).
  Road Board (Roads in Caithness).
  Development Fund (Forestry in Ireland).
  Development Fund (Forestry in Ireland).
  Ballyvaughan, County Clare (Conveyance of Agricultural Produce and Fish).
  Ballyvaughan, County Clare (Conveyance of Agricultural Produce and Fish).
  Evicted Tenants (East Clare).
  Evicted Tenants (East Clare).
  Salmon and Trout (Close Season).
  Salmon and Trout (Close Season).
  Labourers' Cottages (County Mayo).
  Labourers' Cottages (County Mayo).
  Barley Imported (Ireland).
  Barley Imported (Ireland).
  Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
  Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Aldworth Request.
  Aldworth Request.
  County Galway (Councillors).
  County Galway (Councillors).
  Assault on All-for-Irelander.
  Assault on All-for-Irelander.
  Royal Dockyards.
  Royal Dockyards.
  Horn Case (Solicitors' Costs).
  Horn Case (Solicitors' Costs).
  Welsh Coal (Royal Navy).
  Welsh Coal (Royal Navy).
  Royal Marines.
  Royal Marines.
  Assistant Paymasters (Royal Navy).
  Assistant Paymasters (Royal Navy).
  Royal Naval Reserve.
  Royal Naval Reserve.
  Collections in Royal Navy.
  Collections in Royal Navy.
  Admiralty Labourers (Wages).
  Admiralty Labourers (Wages).
  German Navy Law.
  German Navy Law.
  Royal Marine Clerks.
  Royal Marine Clerks.
  New Magazine Rifle.
  New Magazine Rifle.
  Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Military Outfits.
  Military Outfits.
  "Compulsory Service."
  "Compulsory Service."
  Army Air Battalion.
  Army Air Battalion.
  Territorial Force (Deputies Lieutenant).
  Territorial Force (Deputies Lieutenant).
  Oats (Army Contract).
  Oats (Army Contract).
  Gibraltar and Mediterranean (Fortifications).
  Gibraltar and Mediterranean (Fortifications).
  Military Officers' Sashes.
  Military Officers' Sashes.
  Army Aeroplanes.
  Army Aeroplanes.
  Alderley Edge School.
  Alderley Edge School.
  Explosions in Coal Mines.
  Explosions in Coal Mines.
  Workmen's Compensation (Taxicab Drivers).
  Workmen's Compensation (Taxicab Drivers).
  Ex-Inspector Syme (Metropolitan Police).
  Ex-Inspector Syme (Metropolitan Police).
  Coal Mines (Report of Royal Commission).
  Coal Mines (Report of Royal Commission).
  Sale of Poisons (American Practice).
  Sale of Poisons (American Practice).
  Released Convict David Davies.
  Released Convict David Davies.
  Shops Bill (Drapery Trade).
  Shops Bill (Drapery Trade).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objections).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objections).
  Asiatics (Liverpool and Birkenhead).
  Asiatics (Liverpool and Birkenhead).
  Police Commission (India).
  Police Commission (India).
  Jamaica Bananas.
  Jamaica Bananas.
  European Turkey (Martial Law).
  European Turkey (Martial Law).
  Macedonia and Albania.
  Macedonia and Albania.
  Parliamentary Hours.
  Parliamentary Hours.
  Notification of Births Act.
  Notification of Births Act.
  Workhouse Children.
  Workhouse Children.
  Cheese Allowance.
  Cheese Allowance.
  Tinned Meats.
  Tinned Meats.
  Meat Extracts.
  Meat Extracts.
  Adulterated Flour.
  Adulterated Flour.
  Milk Inspection.
  Milk Inspection.
  Pigeon Diphtheria.
  Pigeon Diphtheria.
VISCOUNT BANGOR.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Wednesday last, that the right of the Viscount Bangor to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
His Majesty's answer to the Address of Tuesday last delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield), and read as follows—
"I have received your Address praying that I will make the Orders in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, the drafts of which were presented to your Lordships' House on the 7th of February last. I will comply with your advice."
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable in the case of the petition for additional Provision in the following Bill have not been complied with:
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision in the
Aberdare Urban District Council Bill. [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision.
Read, and agreed to.

SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
OYSTERMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LUTON GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    FELIXSTOWE AND WALTOX WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments.
WESTBURY ESTATE.
Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.

  DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES BILL. [H.L.]
  (Petition for additional Provision.)
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday the 27th instant.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED DRAINAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday the 10th of May next.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, AND THORNABY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HEBBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Fitzwilliam,

V. Hood,

L. Aberdare,

L. St. Levan,

L. Sanderson (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 2nd of May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
STAR LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES BILL. [H.L.]
DUNDEE HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Lytton,

E. Londesborough,

L. Silehester (E. Longford),

L. Leigh,

L. Wenlock (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on
1074
Tuesday the 9th of May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

RIIYMNEY VAI.LEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
AEON LWYD VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
EASTERN VALLEY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form 1 he Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

D. Northumberland (Chairman),

E. Leven and Melville,

E. Cathcart,

V. Hampden,

L. Dawnay (V. Downe);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 9th of May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is a usual one before the adjournment of the House at this time of the year. There is no change in it from what was done last year, and I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the Home shall sit after the Recess.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Eversley.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I have had an opportunity of giving the terms of this Bill some consideration. I think that probably your Lordships feel that the principle of the Bill is a good one, analogous as it is to the principle of the Prescription Act as applied to private rights of way, but the question is a very technical and difficult one. I have read some of your Lordships' proposed Amendments, and I own I have great sympathy with the attempts made to deal with points where it is thought injustice would be done to owners of land. On the other hand, I have read the Amendments proposed by my noble friend behind me to meet these points, but I am not sure that difficulties would not then arise in other ways. It seems to me very desirable that we should have the advantage of the assistance of the Government draftsman, and, if possible, of the Law Officers in regard to this Bill. I therefore suggest that, if your Lordships agree, the measure should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, in order that it may be thoroughly sifted and put into shape before it comes up again for the consideration of the House. There are undoubtedly points which require closer consideration than it is possible to give on an occasion like this. I am not prepared to suggest Amendments with regard to the provisions of the Bill without a good deal of consideration, and, possibly, some assistance; and if your Lordships thought fit to take the course I have suggested, I would move that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made seems a very reasonable and wise one. It is obvious to any one with legal attainments, or even to any one without legal attainments, who reads the Bill that it bristles with points that require consideration and possibly amendment, and therefore I think it is wiser to thresh the matter out in a Joint Committee of both Houses, where it could be thoroughly
1076
discussed. There are points raising matters of law and involving technicalities that require a good deal of examination, and it would be wise that the Bill should go to a Joint Committee.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that the course proposed by His Majesty's Government is an agreeable one to me. I recognise the great difficulty of arguing the technical points that arise on this Bill in Committee of the whole House, and it seems to me that the subject would be better ventilated by the reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The course proposed would, in my opinion, be favourable to the passing of the Bill; for if it is agreed to by a Joint Committee, in all probability there would be no difficulty in passing it through both Houses of Parliament.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, having put down several Amendments to this Bill, I should like to say that I have no objection to the course proposed by the noble Viscount, provided that I have not to serve on the Joint Committee. But I take this opportunity of stating that the Amendments which stand in my name were not put down with any hostile intention, and that I have no hostile feeling whatever against the principle of the Bill. I say this because I should not like the impression to be conveyed by the Motion of the noble Viscount that this House is in any way hostile to the principle of the Bill.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I did not intrude when this Bill was read a second time, although considerable reference was made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a judgment that I had given in an important case—the case of the Duke of Sutherland—which to a certain extent gave rise to the necessity for this Bill. I think the noble Lord was rather in error in certain references he made to the other decision of Mr. Justice Chitty. But I have only risen to concur in the course suggested—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee—and to point out that whatever view be adopted with regard to some of these Amendments they will inevitably necessitate consequential Amendments at later stages. Therefore I think it is necessary that there should be expert assistance in dealing with the wording of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, as several Amendments stand in my name I should like to say that I, too, concur in the course which it is proposed to take. I am sure any one of your Lordships who has read the Bill or tried to amend it must be well aware that its drafting is by no means perfect. One thing, at all events, is quite certain—that there have been a good many cooks employed on this Bill; and some of those cooks, I would say from the result of their work, were not legal cooks. However that may be, I wish to say that I have no objection whatever to the suggested course with regard to this Bill. In fact I quite agree with those who have spoken, that t he best course is to refer this Bill to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. With regard to the clause which I propose to omit, I mentioned this matter on the Second Reading, and the Lord Chancellor suggested that it would be better to deal with the Scottish law as to rights of way, which is entirely different from the English law, in a separate Bill. That was a hint which I thought a very good one, and perhaps the Joint Committee may see fit to deal with the point in the way the noble and learned Lord suggested. But because noble Lords from Scotland disapprove of dealing with this question as it affects Scotland in a single clause tacked on to a Bill which relates to an entirely different law of rights of way, it must not be supposed that for that reason we are in any way hostile to the object of this Bill; and if we had gone into Committee to-day I should have been able to show that not one of my Amendments was prompted by any desire to wreck the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, what the noble Earl has said is perfectly true with this exception, that when I said there ought to be separate treatment of Scotland I did not mean to convey that there ought to he a separate Bill. The whole House, I am quite satisfied, is desirous of carrying out the principle underlying this Bill. I conceived that all through the Second Reading debate; and I hope that the result of the step which my noble friend Lord Haldane has suggested will be that we shall get an agreed Bill and one which will pass as an agreed Bill through both Houses of Parliament without unnecessary delay. I think that would be a most gratifying course to the noble Lord who
1078
has introduced this Bill, and whose persistent efforts on behalf of the public in this cause will, I think, be acknowledged by all.
Amendment moved—
To leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.")—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to; Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

THE BAGHDAD RAILWAY.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to state the nature of the compensation which the Baghdad Railway Company is entitled to obtain from the Turkish Government on account of the renunciation of the right to construct the section of the line from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. I put this Question on the Paper in consequence of an answer which I observed was given by Sir Edward Grey in another place on March 23. In reply to a Question with regard to the Baghdad Railway, the Foreign Secretary said—
"An agreement between the Turkish Government and the Begin lad Company on ibis subject was signed on the 21st inst. It provides for the renunciation by the company of the right to build the section of the line from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf, and to construct a port at Basra, in favour of a new Turkish company, on condition that no Power except Turkey shall have a share in. the new company greater than that of the Baghdad Railway Company, and that the latter shall have the right to demand from the new company or from, the Turkish Government compensation on account of the above renunciation. The Baghdad Railway Company are also to construct a port at Alexandretta and to build a branch line from there to Osmanieh on the main line, without a kilometric guarantee."
I submit that the wording of the answer also implies that some further compensation is contemplated to the Baghdad Railway of which at present we are ignorant. I believe that the Foreign Office is to lay Papers shortly on the subject, and I hope, nevertheless, it may not be the case that the noble Viscount opposite may decline to answer my Question on this ground.
I cannot resist taking the opportunity of pointing out what an extraordinarily favourable position is now enjoyed in Asia Minor by the Baghdad Railway

1079
Company—in other words, by the German Government—justifying the boast of the official organ of the German Foreign Office that "With pride we are able to look upon a new monument of German work, German application, and the German spirit of enterprise." What is the position? The Baghdad Railway Company have now obtained agreements to construct a railway from Konia to the Gulf, although, as we also know, they have abandoned the right to construct the final section. On the Konia-Bulgurlu section, which only amounts to something like 125 miles in length, the Company, I understand, have made up to now a profit reaching something like £800,000, and that profit could only come out of kilometric guarantees and construction guarantees, because the country which it traverses, as I know from my own experience—unless it has considerably changed in the last few years—is little better than a howling desert. In addition to that, they have obtained the immensely valuable concession of making the line from Alexandretta to Osmanieh, a concession so valuable that they are not even insisting upon the kilometric guarantee. They have also obtained the right virtually to turn Alexandretta into a German port; and that, I may point out, may have the effect of entirely altering the commercial future of the railway. I would also point out that under the terms of this new agreement there is no prospect of the Turkish Government ever recovering possession of the Port of Alexandretta, because they will be precluded from doing so unless they acquire at the same time the Taurus section, which as everybody knows is an extremely unprofitable one and would cost an enormous amount of money to make. In addition to that they have, so far as we know, come to an arrangement with the Russian Government by which German trade is going to find its way into Persia viii Khanikin to the prejudice of this country.
What, I would like to ask, does this so-called renunciation amount to? They apparently are making a great parade of having renounced the final section from Baghdad to the Gulf. All who have expressed an opinion on this subject are united in the view that in no circumstances is this particular section likely to be of any commercial value whatever. It may have a considerable amount of political value, but it has no commercial value whatsoever.
1080
Where, therefore, does the question of renunciation come in? If they were renouncing something that was going to be commercially profitable, they would clearly be entitled to compensation; but as there is no question of deriving any advantage from this section, commercially or economically, there does not seem any obvious reason why any compensation should be awarded.
This so-called renunciation merely amounts to this, that it is practically a stipulation that no country with the exception of Turkey is to hold a larger share in the undertaking than the Baghdad Railway Company, or, in other words, the German Government. I understand that the proposal is that the shares should be apportioned as follow:—The Turkish Government, 40 per cent.; Germany, 20 per cent.; France, 20 per cent.; and ourselves, 20 per cent. Everybody knows that such commerce as there is in those parts is entirely our own. We are infinitely more affected than anybody else, and it appears to me on the face of it that our interests are not safeguarded by the share of 20 per cent., which will enable us to be outvoted whenever it is necessary to do so. In these circumstances I venture to express the opinion that I am entitled to ask the Question standing in my name, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give us a reassuring answer.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, I do not at all complain of the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House to this most important topic. He has made a number of very interesting observations, but he has left out of account, if he will allow me to say so, the cardinal fact that this is Turkish territory, that the Turkish Government is a sovereign Government, and that they may make arrangements with the German concessionaires or others—subject, of course, to diplomatic action on our part or on the part of France or any other Power—to make whatever arrangements may seem to them to be to their general advantage or to the advantage of European or Eastern trade. The noble Lord, I think, overlooks, or dangerously minimises, the fact that the Turkish Government is really the master of its own territory. We had an interesting debate on this matter on the occasion of Lord Curzon's Motion

1081
about a fortnight ago, and it was then my duty to inform the House of the position in which the various issues concerned stood at that moment. Since then negotiations have been proceeding between Turkey and the concessionaires.
As to compensation, the nature of the compensation would naturally be the subject of agreement—not between us and the German concessionaires, but between the German Company and the Ottoman Government. It appears to be taken for granted by the noble Lord also that the construction of the section of the railway between Konia and Baghdad is likely, according to expert opinion, partly for the reasons that the noble Lord has indicated, to cost proportionately more than the section between Baghdad and the Gulf. The Baghdad Railway Company, as I understand, have therefore reserved the right to claim, either from the Ottoman Government or from the new company which, as the noble Lord is aware, the Ottoman Government is about to form to construct and work the section between Baghdad and the Gulf, the right to pecuniary compensation for their renunciation of their conceded rights over this particular section. I do not think—and the noble Lord, if he thinks about it, will agree—that anything is to be gained by further discussion at this, we might almost call it the initial, stage of the discussions between the Ottoman Government and the Baghdad Railway Company, on the one hand, and between the Ottoman Government and His Majesty's Government on the other hand. Very important steps are being taken in the way of discussion, but at this stage, things being what they are in both these aspects, I am afraid I can only say that nothing would be gained by any further discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships have listened with interest to the further contribution which the noble Viscount has made to public enlightenment on this difficult subject, but I am not sure that my noble friend will think that he has obtained very much light from the answer. We understand that Papers are to be laid. How soon, may I ask, does the noble Viscount think that Papers will be laid?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I understand they are being prepared with all expedition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That may mean a great deal or not very much. I know they have to be prepared with great care and that a great number of consents have to be obtained, and I do not complain because His Majesty's Government are taking proper time to prepare them. But I was a little surprised by one observation of the noble Viscount. He said that the negotiations were only in their initial stage. I think that any of your Lordships who listened to the debate the other night would have thought, from the attitude the Government took up then, that they were very near absolute completion. I am rather glad to hear that they have only reached the initial stage.
VISCOUNT MORLE Y OF BLACKBURN: I was very careful to use the words "hopeful and of good promise," which are words characteristic of an initial stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should have hoped that they were characteristic of all stages of a negotiation. I do not in the least quarrel with the noble Viscount, and I was not trying for a moment to convict him of inconsistency. He was speaking with a great sense of responsibility on both occasions, and from the necessarily not very precise language he was able to use I gathered a wrong impression; but I thought, and I believe a great number of your Lordships thought, that matters had reached a very forward position. I am glad to hear that the negotiations are only in their initial stage, for I am bound to say that my impression has been that on this particular matter the British Government is not going to make a specially good bargain. I may be right, or I may be wrong, but I should be glad if His Majesty's Government would realise that if they make what is not a very good bargain that bargain will be subject to a great deal of criticism hereafter.
It appears to me that His Majesty's Government are not going to make a very good bargain because I gathered from the speech of the noble Viscount ten days ago that the effect of the new arrangement is that over the greater part of what is known as the Baghdad Railway the British Government will occupy a very inferior position, if, indeed, it occupies any position at all. As regards the Gulf section, the last section of the line to which my noble friend Lord Newton referred, although the British

1083
Government will occupy a definite position, it will still be an inferior position. Considering the history of this subject, and the great part which Great Britain has played in the affairs of Turkey and in the solution of these different points of policy, it is a matter of some surprise that we should occupy so inferior a position as the result of this bargain. I do not grudge Germany her success. I think it is very important that every country should have an opportunity of furthering its own interests and its own objects of policy. It is important for Germany to have such an opportunity, for I cannot help thinking that the German Government think they have not been well used in the past, and that by the fortunes of diplomacy they have not had such fine opportunties as other countries have had. If the result of the policy of His Majesty's Government is to remove that feeling, it may be of great public advantage. But as to how that matter may stand we must reserve judgment until we see the Papers. From the hint which had been given we were under the impression that we were not going to make, so far as this country is concerned, a good bargain; but if the matter is still in the initial stage there may be an opportunity of revising it a little in our favour.
The noble Viscount said, in answer to my noble friend Lord Newton, that he (Lord Newton) seemed to forget that this territory belonged to Turkey, and that Turkey is a sovereign Power and has control over her own territories. That is, of course, a perfectly true observation up to a certain point. Everybody knows, however, that owing to her financial circumstances Turkey is not entirely mistress in her own house, and has not been mistress in her own house ever since any of us can remember. She has, owing to misfortune or misgovernment, or both, lost complete control of her own affairs. She has lost it because she has been bankrupt, and therefore has been unable to pay her way. Consequently, all the great Powers in Europe have, and ought to have, a certain control over her policy, and that control takes the form of a power to prevent her raising her Customs Duties—that is to say, to prevent her having complete control over her own revenue and the method of raising it. It is all very well to say that the territory belongs to Turkey, but the financial control of Turkey is not her own but is largely vested in the Powers; and I submit that we are bound to use the power we possess;
1084
and that it is not an answer to a question whether British interests are safeguarded to tell us that this is Turkish territory and that Turkey is an independent sovereign State. I will not say more, except express my sorrow on behalf of my noble friend that he has not been able to obtain more clear information from His Majesty's Government. We shall await the promised Papers with interest.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, unless I misunderstood the noble Viscount, the Baghdad Railway Company, otherwise the German Government, are going to obtain, in addition to other advantages, pecuniary compensation for not making a line which under no circumstances would be commercially popular. That may be an instance of the extremely practical nature of German diplomacy, but I do not think it redounds greatly to its morality, and I cannot conceive the British Government being successful in a similar attempt.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I have now to ask your Lordships' attention to a circumstance which I am sure will be regretted in all parts of the House. It is that Lord Onslow, who has so long and with so much satisfaction to everybody concerned discharged the duties of Lord Chairman, has now come to the conclusion that he cannot resume the duties of that post after Easter. When my noble friend the Leader of the House moved that Lord Balfour of Burleigh should take the Chair during Lord Onslow's absence, I think we all understood that Lord Balfour did not contemplate continuing the occupancy of the Chair much beyond Easter. But at all events what may happen later may be left open. I now move that Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House from Easter until further order. That will give a little time to consider what would be the best course to take.
Moved, That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House from Easter until further order.—(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, though I have no right to speak for

1085
my noble friends around me I do not suppose that there will be slightest objection to this Motion. W., are all deeply grateful to Lord Balfour for the assistance which he always gives us on these occasions. I understand from the noble Viscount that this is only a temporary arrangement until some other arrangement can be come to, and when a more permanent appointment comes under discussion a more important person than myself will occupy a seat on this Bench. I cordially assent to the present Motion.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I ought to have added that I had the advantage of consulting Lord Lansdowne upon this Motion before he left the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD AMPTHILLLords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies—

1. Whether the Immigration Bill recently introduced into the Parliament of the Union of South Africa had previously been approved of by His Majesty's Government, and whether the measure referred to imposes or may impose any disabilities upon the British Indians lawfully domiciled in the Cape and Natal provinces, from which they were free under the Immigration Laws of these States which are repealed by the new Bill.

2. Whether the Immigration Laws of the Cape and Natal repealed or about to be repealed by the new Immigration Law of the South African Union Parliament exempted domiciled British Indian residents, their wives and children, from the tests imposed upon fresh immigrants; and whether it is a fact that under the new law such people, once they are out of the Union may be prevented returning if they fail to pass any education test the Immigration Officer chooses to apply to them.

My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whom I venture to congratulate on his translation to a new and no less important, and, I hope, equally congenial, sphere of public service, has
1086
kindly promised to answer my Questions at short notice, and therefore I shall not extend them by any comment. I merely ask the noble Lord to kindly answer the Questions as they stand on the Paper.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the Bill, as is shown by the Parliamentary Paper Cd. 5579, was submitted to His Majesty's Government in draft. Various Amendments were suggested, subject to which His Majesty's Government have accepted the Bill as redressing the grievances of the Indian community with regard to immigration, to which Lord Crewe's despatch of October 7 was particulary directed. Since the Parliamentary Paper was published the Minister of the Interior has given notice of an addition to Clause 5 of the Bill for the purpose of clearly securing the rights of domiciled Indians, their wives and children. Clause 25, section 2, of the Bill makes it possible for any person lawfully resident in the country who wishes to leave it for a time to obtain a permit ensuring that he will be readmitted on his return, and if he has omitted to obtain this permit the addition to Clause 5 provides for readmission if domiciled without any educational test.

THRIFT AND CREDIT BANKS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Thrift and Credit Banks Bill; and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether His Majesty's Government have an early intention of introducing legislation dealing with the questions raised in that Report.
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that last year a Thrift and Credit Banks Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House, and, by common consent, was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee made an exhaustive inquiry into the subject and issued what I hope will be a Report of some value. I am anxious that the matter should not be lost sight of, and therefore beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, my noble friend the President of the Board

1087
of Agriculture regrets that he has been called away by an old and important engagement, and has asked me to answer the Question on his behalf. The matter of rural credit has been receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government for some months most but owing to the regrettable Mess of one of the Parliamentary draftsmen it has not been possible to lay the Bill on the Table of the House, but my noble friend hopes to do so at an early date after Easter.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, this is certainly not the occasion to go fully into this question, but I should like to remind your Lordships that Lord Dunmore has a Bill down for discussion early in May which deals with small ownership. The subjects are distinct though they are intimately connected, and I think it would facilitate discussion and the formation of opinion if His Majesty's Government would let us know what their intentions are about the noble Earl's measure before Lord Dunmore's Bill is taken.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
SALES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law with respect to the sale of fertilizers, feeding stuffs, dips, seeds, and other articles sold for agricultural purposes—Was presented by the Lord Clinton; read la; and to be printed. (No. 48.)

THE EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until April 26.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until April 26.—(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On that Motion I should like to ask the noble Viscount, for the convenience of your Lordships, what business the Government propose to take on the reassembly of the House.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I understand that the first business will be the Army Annual Bill. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I might, perhaps, be allowed to put a question to the Secretary of State for War. It has reached me privately that the suggestion of the Government is to pass the Army Annual Bill through all its stages as quickly as possible. But if there are any novelties in the Bill we should have to consider whether we could pass it through so rapidly as proposed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is only one novel proposal in the Bill, and that is about horses. I made some reference in another place to what those proposals would be, and legislation is required. This one new clause will no doubt interest your Lordships, and it is right that you should have full opportunity of considering it. We might, if it were thought well. take the Second Reading on the first day after the Easter adjournment, and then I could make a statement fully explaining the who matter so that we could go into Committee after we had had a discussion of that statement. There is, as I have said, only one new point in the Bill, and it concerns horses. I would remind your Lordship that the Bill must pass into law by April 30, otherwise the Army becomes an illegal body, and the Bill has to receive the Royal Assent before that date. I think there will be ample time to arrange matters, and the noble Marquess may take it that we should desire to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite as to the best use of the time at our disposal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. None of my noble friends particularly interested in this matter are in the House at the moment, but if there should be any reason for asking the noble Viscount to, give us one day between two of the stage perhaps he will allow us to communicate with him privately.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Certainly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Wednesday, the 26th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.