Sitting of 16 August 1911

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

  LORD ACTON'S NATIONALITY BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BOOTH: I want some assurance that this Bill, which is the third on the subject, will accomplish the object of putting this nobleman right, and making him a British citizen. If I can have some assurance from the Law Officer of the Crown that the Bill will accomplish the purpose I will not oppose it.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I can assure the hon. Member that there is no doubt whatever that this Bill will accomplish its object, and will remove all possibility of doubt.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  Wellpark (Glasgow) Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Order Confirmation Bill,
  Considered; read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Amendments to—
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Amendment to—
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
  Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,
  Partick Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the exercise by the House of Lords and the Privy Council of their Appellate Jurisdiction."—[Appellate Jurisdiction Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable certain Bodies Corporate acting as Executors and Trustees to charge fees for their services and to act as Sole Executors and Trustees, and for other purposes."—[Trustee (Bodies Corporate) Bill [Lords.]

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th August; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MINT.
Copy presented of Forty-first Annual Report of the Deputy-Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (VESSELS DETAINED).
Copy presented of Return of all Ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its Officers, during the period from 1st July, 1910, to 30th June, 1911, to be provisionally detained as unsafe [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COMPANY LAWS IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Copy presented of Comparative Analysis of the Company Laws of the United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with a Memorandum prepared for the Imperial Conference, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUGAR.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Mitchell-Thomson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BANKRUPTCY.
Copy presented of Twenty-eighth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST, EXCEPT PARCELS).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Post Amendment (No. 10) Warrant, 1911. Dated 4th August, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Address for "Returns from every county court in England and Wales of the total number of plaints, etc., entered in each court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1910, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100; "And, of the sittings of the county courts in England and Wales holden before the judges of such courts in the year 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Masterman.]
COAL TABLES, 1910.
Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of coal in the British Empire and the principal foreign countries in each year from 1886 to 1910, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with statements showing the production of lignite and petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 271, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Buxton.]
IRON AND STEEL, 1910.
Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of iron ore and pig iron, and the production of steel, in the United Kingdom and the principal foreign countries in recent years, and the imports and exports of certain classes of iron and steel manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 270, of Session 1910)." —[Mr. Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Battleship Armour (Simpson Principle).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether any capital ships recently built have been fitted with armour founded on the Simpson principle; and, if so, which are they?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): No British ships have been fitted with armour founded on the Simpson principle. Whether any other capital ships have been fitted with such armour is a matter outside my knowledge.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no Royalty is paid to any foreign country for armour manufactured for British ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: That does not arise out of the question.

  Turret Gun Firing.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether, in the case of two turrets so placed that the guns in one fire over those in the other, complaint has been made by the crew serving the lower turret of the effects of the discharge above them; and whether this method of disposing the main armament has been found in every way successful?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

  Torpedo Attacks.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has been informed that the battle orders of the German fleet are, if the situation of contending forces permits, to close the lines to 5,000 yards and deliver a torpedo attack; and how many torpedo tubes are fitted in the German "Ostfriesland" and British "Neptune" classes, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information on this subject, or as to the number of torpedo tubes in the "Ostfriesland." "Nauticus" gives the number as six. As earlier German battleships have a bow and stern tube, in all probability the "Ostfriesland" has two tubes on each broadside. As regards the "Neptune," it is not in the public interest to give the information asked for.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is it not the fact that the information is already published in the so-called Dilke Return?
  Mr. McKENNA: If so, then it was unnecessary for the hon. Member to ask me for the information.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether at any period during the last three months the number of completed effective 18-inch torpedoes has been less than the number of tubes for these weapons at present in the Service?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is it not the fact that certain Government torpedo factory employés have been working overtime during the last few weeks?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member asked whether the number of torpedo tubes exceeded the number of torpedoes. The answer is most emphatically in the negative.

  Egyptian Civil Service.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any discrimination is shown as between Christians and Mahomedans in making appointments to the Civil Service in Egypt, or whether instructions have been issued to the representative of His Majesty in Egypt to discriminate in the making of such appointments between the members of the two communities named?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the late Sir Eldon Gorst's last Annual Report on Egypt, Part 5, where he deals fully with the question of the proportional employment of Mahomedans and Copts in the Egyptian Civil Service. No instructions in the sense suggested in the last part of the question have been or will be sent to His Majesty's representative in Egypt.

  Egyptian Native Army.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether it is proposed to take any steps to remedy the slowness of promotion in the Egyptian Native Army, to guard against the repeated promotion of English officers over the heads of native officers of longer service, and to encourage a more friendly state of relations between native officers and their English superiors?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Government have not received complaints in regard to promotions in the Egyptian Native Army, nor are they in possession
  1898
  of any information to show that the present relations between the native officers and their English superiors are other than, satisfactory.

  Egyptian Ecole des Beaux Arts.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether the Egyptian Ecole des Beaux Arts is at present under the control of Prince Fuad; whether Prince Fuad recently dismissed a number of the teaching staff; and, if so, whether the Egyptian Government will be advised to take steps to place the Ecole under the control of the Ministry of Public Instruction?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information in regard to the first and second inquiries. The decision of such questions must be left to the Authorities on the spot.

  Egyptian University.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory position of the new Egyptian University; whether he is aware that it is substantially under the control of Prince Fuad, in whose absence the committee do not meet, and that thus far conducted merely as a night school; whether he will advise the Egyptian Government to consider the expediency of placing the university for the present under the control or supervision of the Ministry of Public Instruction; and whether he will suggest that the same course be taken in regard to the University Mission, under which students are sent to European universities, and which is at present under the unchecked control of Prince Fuad.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first question is in the negative. All the information which I have is contained in the late Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report's, and I would refer the hon. Member to that for 1907, which shows the nature of Prince Fuad's connection with the university, and to those for 1908, 1909, and 1910, which give further information respecting the inauguration and progress of the institution. I consider that it must be left to the Egyptian Government to decide on the form of control and supervision to be exercised over the Egyptian University and the University Mission.

  Uruguay (State Monopoly of Insurance).
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked whether the Government of the Republic of Uruguay is introducing this month into the legis-

  1899
  lative chamber a Bill to establish a State monopoly in insurance and to forbid within the territory of the republic all life, fire, and accident insurance operations otherwise than by the State; and whether it is proposed to take any, and if so, what, steps to protect the interests of the British insurance companies transacting business in the Republic?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir; and I am telegraphing to His Majesty's Minister to make representations to the Uruguayan Government.

  Land Valuation.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of Form IV. have been served in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, respectively, up to 30th June in this year?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The number of copies of Form IV. (including a certain number of Forms III. issued to statutory companies) issued up to the 1st July inclusive was:—

  England

  …

  …

  …

  9,292,345

  Wales

  …

  …

  …

  807,313

  Scotland

  …

  …

  …

  670,207

  With regard to Ireland I will refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury on the 17th ultimo to the hon. Member for Enfield.

  Payment of Jurors.
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether any estimate has been made of what the approximate cost would be of refunding out-of-pocket expenses to persons serving on juries; and, if not, whether steps, will be taken to secure that such an approximate estimate should be made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of jurors summoned to serve in England and Wales will be found on pages 22 and 23 of Command Paper 5501. I know of no means of computing the out-of-pocket expenses per head.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is not this matter quite as pressing as the Payment of Members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not so sure. Special jurors get a guinea per day and I have not been able to understand why a petty juror should not be paid.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to bring in a Resolution to deal with the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Special jurors are paid by the parties to the action.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: But will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Resolution to enable common jurors to be paid their out-of-pocket expenses.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A Resolution would not govern that case.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SICK BENEFITS.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a statement at a meeting of delegates of the Hearts of Oak Society that the Government were reconsidering their position on the question of granting sick benefits under the Insurance Bill from the first day of sickness; and, seeing that such a change would endanger the finances of any approved society, and that the friendly societies could usefully supplement the benefits under the Bill by voluntarily adding such as met a public want, if he will say if the funds set free by the Bill would be ample to grant such a benefit as the one aforesaid, and many other benefits to be decided upon by the members of the various friendly societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of no reason for departing from the position taken up by His Majesty's Government when this question was before the House. I think the funds of friendly societies set free by the operation of the Bill should be ample to enable them not only to give sick pay from the first day to their existing members, but in most cases also to continue any other privileges which are not included in the minimum benefits, but which are at present enjoyed by their members.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he does not accept the statement in the hon. Member's question that the change would endanger the finances of any approved society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the finances of an approved society would be quite ample to give this additional benefit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They can only grant the additional benefits if on valuation at the end of three years they find there is a surplus.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: What about the alternative benefits promised to take the place of the payment for the first three days?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a totally different thing. I agree that there should be certain benefits in substitution of these three days, but even after allowing for that I agree there will be a very considerable surplus for this purpose.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Have the Government closed their mind on that point? Are they quite satisfied that the alternative measure will satisfy the societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You have to take a wider view than that. If the societies are not satisfied they can use the money for that purpose if they like.

    INSURED PERSONS RETIRED.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if an employed insured person under the national insurance scheme retires from work at, say, fifty-five or sixty years of age, and lives on his savings, will he be able to continue to be an insured person entitled to all the benefits of the scheme; and, if so, on what conditions as to the payment of premiums?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A rentier in the position described would continue to be an insured person, and would have the right to continue paying contributions in accordance with Clause 10 (5) of the Bill in order to avoid falling into arrears.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does that mean that he will have to pay the employers' contribution as well as his own?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the two, the employers' and the workman's contribution, will be smaller than he will have to pay in the ordinary way to a friendly society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, for the benefits he will have under the Bill.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a man who has been a member of a friendly society for a large number of years can get benefits under this scheme for 7d. a week equal to those he would get from a friendly society for a smaller contribution?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly say so, having regard to the benefits which are conferred by the Bill. It is not my opinion, but the opinion of gentlemen more competent than the hon. Gentleman or myself to express an opinion after examining the figures very carefully.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that the benefits under the Bill are based upon a sixteen years of age scale? Does not that prove the point?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are all based on the Manchester Unity scale.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the actuaries' report says that the benefits at sixteen years cost 6¼d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that there is a margin of £1,800,000 over and above that amount.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The margin is over 11 per cent., so that it is 6¼d. plus the margin.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, what the hon. Gentleman forgets is that the 6¼d. does not take into account the allowance for arrears.

    NON-APPROVED SOCIETIES (DEDUCTION'S FROM CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if, under Clause 55 of the National Insurance Bill, a member of a friendly society which does not become an approved society under the Act will be entitled to deduct from the contributions he has paid to this society a sum equal to the contribution deducted from his wages for national insurance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A scheme adopted under Clause 55 of the Bill by a friendly society which does not become an approved society would, of course, take into account the fact that employed members would have to contribute to the National Health Insurance. The precise manner of doing so would depend upon the details of the scheme.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Holland).
  Mr. SANDERSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has any official information showing that there is a serious epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in Holland; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent the importation into this country of moss litter and similar products which are likely to carry the disease?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): Official returns show that foot-and-mouth disease is at present prevalent in Holland. There is no evidence that this disease has ever been introduced by moss-litter, but further inquiries will, however, be made.

  Small Holdings (Frostenden, Suffolk).
  Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMPasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the case of George Grey, a market gardener, of Frostenden, Suffolk, who has been refused an additional acre of church land in the said village by the county council; and whether he can state the reason for the refusal to a man who has been a market gardener in the place for sixteen years?
  Mr. GULLAND: Yes, Sir. The Board have been in communication with the county council on this matter, and they propose to ask the Small Holdings Commissioner for the district to make further inquiry respecting it.

  Bablake School, Coventry.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the trustees of the Bablake school, Coventry, are proposing to increase fees from £2 to £4 per annum; and, whether, in view of the fact that this school is richly endowed, that such endowments were bestowed for the benefit of children of poor parents, and that the suggested fees are prohibitive to the class for whom the school was really intended, he contemplates taking any action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Governors have resolved that, subject to the Board's approval, the tuition fee at this school after the end of the school year 1910-11 shall be £4. They propose to make an exception in favour of all boys who came into the school at or before the beginning of that year. I am in communication with the local education authority on the subject and am not at present in a position to say what view the Board will take of the proposal. I should add that about 30 per cent. of free places are provided in the school and that a considerable number of the scholars also receive board, lodging, clothing, or other benefits at the cost of the Foundation.

  Infectious Diseases (Closing of Schools).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the spread of infectious disease, resulting in some cases in numerous deaths, consequent upon the delay in closing schools after an outbreak of disease; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the former system, under "which local managers were empowered to close the school upon the advice of a qualified medical practitioner?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such case has been brought to my notice. I shall be glad to make inquiries about any case to which the hon. Member will refer me. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Post Offices (Employment of Women).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether the surveyor of the Eastern District has instituted a plan for employing women in post offices for a few hours daily in the winter months and eight hours per day during the summer; whether the average earnings of these women are insufficient to keep them in food, lodging, and clothing; whether they are employed in seaside towns where the cost of living is very high; and whether he will state if he is satisfied that the work performed is of a quality sufficiently high for the necessities of the postal and telegraph departments?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It is not infrequently necessary to employ special season assistance at the post offices of towns where summer pressure obtains and the required assistance is provided in many ways, one of which is the extension of the duty of part time assistants. In all cases the wages, which are considered to be adequate, are fixed in accordance with the regulations, and no surveyor possesses any plenary authority with regard to the conditions of employment. I have no reason to think that the arrangements, adopted in the Post Office service to meet the incidence of season pressure are unsatisfactory from the point of view of efficiency.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the decision to increase established staff at salaried sub-offices, he will state how many married women, the wives of established officers in receipt of fixed wages

  1905
  and with the prospect of pension, are being employed as full time assistants; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such employment will not prevent the creation of established positions in the offices concerned?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am obtaining the information asked for in. the first part of the question, and will communicate it to the hon. Member as soon as possible. The cases are few. Married women would not be appointed as full-time assistants at salaried sub-offices under the existing regulations; but where they may have been acting in that capacity for some time, hardship might be occasioned by compelling them to give up their work. At the same time, they are not eligible for appointment to the establishment. To this extent their employment might tend to prevent the immediate creation of established positions in the offices concerned. I will, however, give the matter my careful consideration.

  Barnet Post Office.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General what are the combined units of work at the Barnet and New Barnet post offices, and whether the cost of living in that locality was ascertained and laid before the Hobhouse Committee of Inquiry; and, if not, whether he will cause the necessary information to be obtained?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The latest available figures of business for the offices referred to give a total of 146 units. The cost, of living in the locality was not directly ascertained by the Board of Trade, but has been estimated by analogy with neighbouring towns where investigations were made.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to ascertain the cost of living in. this particular district?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think there is no doubt about it.

  Glasgow Corporation Telephone Employés.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked (1) whether, while National Telephone Company operators with five years' company service on being taken over by the Post Office will be entitled to the full period of annual leave in 1912, the ex-corporation (Glasgow) operators, who have already completed five years' Post Office service apart from previous company and corpora-
  1906
  tion service, will not receive the full period of leave until 1913; and (2), what is the reason for giving to the staff of the Glasgow Corporation Telephone Department, on transfer to the Post Office, conditions, worse in many respects than those already promised to the staff of the National Telephone Company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Although in some respects the staff of the Glasgow Corporation Telephone Department will have been less favourably treated than the staff of the National Telephone Company on transfer to the Post Office, the conditions of transfer, taken as a whole, are more favourable to the former staff than to the latter.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General why the transfer conditions comprised in the Memorandum of 1905, relative to the staff of the National Telephone Company, were not applied to the staff of the Glasgow Corporation telephone department on its transfer to the Post Office, in view of the fact that the memorandum was issued previous to the transfer of the corporation undertaking; and whether he is aware that it produces discontent in the public service that such discrimination should be made on the transfer of different staffs engaged on exactly similar work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was drafted to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House which sat in 1905 to consider the provisions of the agreement of 2nd February, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company. The case of the Glasgow Corporation staff did not come within the purview of the Select Committee's report or of the Memorandum. The Glasgow Corporation staff have benefited by comparison with the National Telephone Company's staff in that, after a comparatively short period of employment under the Corporation; they were taken into the service of the State more than five years' earlier.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the memorandum of 1905 represented the policy of his Department towards the staff of any company or service which could be taken over, and was there any reason for not extending it to the Glasgow Corporation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Memorandum had relation solely to the National Telephone Company's staff, which in many respects is different from the Glasgow Corporation staff. For instance, none of the Glasgow Corporation men were pensionable, while the men of the National Telephone Company's staff to a considerable degree have pension rights. There is a large accumulated pension fund which will be handed over to the Postmaster-General, in return for which certain benefits will be granted.

  Delivery of Press Telegrams.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the absence of adequate provision for the prompt delivery of press telegrams delivered during the night; whether he is aware that, on 9th August, telegrams relating to the business of this House left London at times varying from 11.40 p.m. to 12.35 a.m., and were delivered at their destination, five minutes' walk from the Sheffield Post Office, after four o'clock, having taken from three hours and thirty-five minutes to four hours and twenty minutes to reach their destination; and whether he will make inquiry and take the necessary steps to secure a better service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member probably refers to the congestion of telegraph news in the Central Telegraph Office on the night of the 8th instant and the morning of the 9th, when the amount of news telegraphed constitutes a record. The amount was half as much again as the average, and some delay could not be avoided. I am, however, making special inquiry, and if there was remissness proper notice shall be taken.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he can say what effect the granting of old age pensions has had on the poor rate of Scotland?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): In answer to my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the answers given to the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire on 14th February, and to the hon. Member for North Salford on 27th February of this year. As stated in the latter of these answers, the annual saving to the poor rates in Scotland due to the removal of the pauper disqualification for old age pensions is estimated to be about £83,000.
  1908
  Data are not as yet available for accurate calculation of the total effect of the grant of old age pensions on the poor rates in Scotland.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when the data are available, to communicate the reply?
  Mr. URE: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what effect the granting of old age pensions has had on the poor rate of Ireland?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the similar question of the hon. Member for East Clare on 14th instant.

  Superannuation of Teachers (Scotland).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Lord Advocate whether he can now state when the scheme for the superannuation of teachers in Scotland will, in terms of the Education Act of 1908, be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. URE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 13th ultimo to a question on this subject addressed to him by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire. I am not at present able to add anything to the information contained in that answer.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers was merely a dilatory answer, and can he not now give us some information as to what steps are to be taken to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament in respect of these teachers?
  Mr. URE: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer he will find that it was not merely dilatory; it was a very distinct one.

  Marquess of Zetland's Crofting Estate (Aultbea, Ross-shire).
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that on the crofting estate of the Marquess of Zetland at Aultbea, Ross-shire, the sole resident justice of the peace is the Marquess's factor; whether he is aware that at a recent sitting of the Crofters' Commission in that district, dealing with disputes between the crofters and the proprietor, it came

  1909
  out in evidence that the said factor, though a justice of the peace, induced a crofter to sign a document by which he, not being capable of understanding its purport, renounced his croft to the factor, though he, as the factor well knew, never intended to renounce his croft; and whether, in view of these facts, the Crofters' Commission will continue the man in his holding?
  Mr. URE: I am making inquiries with reference to the circumstances of the case to which my hon. Friend has called my attention, and pending receipt of information he will understand that I express no opinion on the allegations made.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make representations to the Lord Chancellor in the matter?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir, I will endeavour to ascertain the facts.

  Phthisis (West of Scotland).
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked whether Doctors Dittmar, Dewar, and M'Vail, medical inspectors of the Local Government Board, have now completed their investigations into the extent to which phthisis exists among the industrial communities in the West of Scotland; and, if so, when that Report will be presented to Parliament?
  Mr. URE: I understand that reports have been received in regard to certain localities, and are now under consideration, but it would be premature to make any announcement as to publication.

  Coronation (Extra Pay to Metropolitan Police).
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state to what extent members of the Metropolitan Police have been rewarded, either by extra pay or increased leave, for the extra duly performed by them in connection with the Coronation, and if there has been any delay in paying to members of the force extra money granted to them in respect of such extra duty; and if it is intended to grant any extra remuneration to the Metropolitan Police in respect of the additional work being performed by them in consequence of the labour troubles in the Metropolis?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Metropolitan Police received three
  1910
  days' extra pay and three days' extra leave in recognition of their services in connection with the Coronation. There was no delay in paying this money, the last payment having been made some weeks ago. The last part of the question is premature.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any truth in the report that there has been considerable delay in giving the strike pay in the case of the police who were employed at Tonypandy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that question offhand.

  Bristol Shops (Boot and Drapery Trades).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in Bristol shops in the boot and drapery trades have been allowed to be open in contravention of a closing order, and that no action is being taken to secure compliance with the order; and whether he can take any steps to secure such compliance?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a complaint to this effect, and I find, on inquiry, that it appears to refer to the fact that on the day before the Coronation shops were kept open beyond the hours fixed by the closing order. The order, while allowing an exemption for the days preceding the ordinary bank holidays, did not make any provision for the case of special holidays, and in strictness therefore a breach of the order was committed; but the local authority did not consider it necessary, in the circumstances, when the matter was brought to their notice, to take any proceedings. It is a matter within the discretion of the authority whether or not to take proceedings in any particular case, and I have no power to interfere. I may add that I have no reason for supposing that the orders are not in general adequately enforced in Bristol.

  Dr. Lightfoot's Petition.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had come to any decision, and, if so, what decision, in connection with the petition in the case of Dr. Lightfoot?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I find no reason to doubt that the conviction, which was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal, was right. As regards the sentence, the prisoner did not appeal against it, and, as he has served only six months out of

  1911
  five years, it is too soon to consider the question, of advising an. exercise of the clemency of the Crown.

  Coronation Prayer-book.
  Mr. MORTONasked whether Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode have published a Prayer-book commemorative of the Coronation in which it is stated in the table of affinity that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is forbidden; and, if so, who is responsible for this statement of the law by the Established Church of England?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the matter referred to in the first portion of this question a matter with which this House has anything to do?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not seen the Prayer-book referred to, but I do not suppose it differs from other Prayer-books. I understand that no authority has been issued for the alteration of the table, but that the matter is under consideration.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: What has this House got to do with Messrs. Eyre and Spottis-woode's Prayer-book?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not quite sure what are the relations of the Home Office to the matter. I should not like to answer a question on this very difficult matter without consulting legal and, if necessary, ecclesiastical authority.
  Mr. MORTON: Is it not a fact that the officials of the Church of England are public officers, and are therefore not permitted to do anything contrary to law?

  Friendly Societies.
  Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish, through the Registrar of Friendly Societies, a Return of the information available under the Friendly Societies Act of 1896, which provides that every society or branch must submit its full title and address to the Registrar before it can enjoy the rights and privileges conferred by registration, showing the number of branches of friendly societies having quarters on licensed premises?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that the tendency of all friendly societies at the present time is to avoid having the registered office at a public
  1912
  house, but that in many districts in the country no other place for meeting can be found. The only source from which the number of societies with quarters on licensed premises can be calculated is Appendix N. to the Chief Registrar's Report for 1906; and I would point out that the information is not up-to-date and that the nature of a society's quarters cannot always be accurately inferred from its address. If, however, the hon. Member thinks that the facts which are available would be of service to him, I would ask him to communicate direct with the Chief Registrar, who will be happy to give directions for taking out the figures, though the labour involved would be considerable.

  Middleton Election.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Attorney General whether his attention has been, called to an infringement of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, during the Middleton by-election, when favours were distributed from the door of the Liberal committee room to the crowd in the street; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The only evidence in my possession is that of a reproduction of a photograph which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian," to which my attention was called by the hon. Member. It is said to be a bad picture, and does not afford sufficient evidence of an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act. I know nothing further of it, but I am making inquiries into the matter to see if there is any other evidence.
  Captain CLIVE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the photograph to which his attention has been called can be otherwise than accurate?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The photograph which I saw, depicted a small crowd of children holding up their hands, and a man at the door of the committee room holding up his hands. That is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence.

  Women's Suffrage Bill.
  Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that his promise of facilities for a Women's Suffrage Bill next Session is being claimed exclusively on behalf of the Bill introduced this Session by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester; and whether he will now state if the promised facilities

  1913
  will equally be granted to any other Women's Suffrage Bill which secures a Second Reading and is capable of Amendment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The promise referred to was given in regard to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, and read a second time on 5th May, which appeared to the Government to satisfy the tests which they had laid down as the conditions for granting such facilities. One of those tests was that the Bill should be so framed as to be capable of free discussion and amendment. The Government clearly cannot undertake to give facilities for more than one Bill on the same subject, but any Bill which, satisfying those tests, secured a Second Reading would be treated by them as falling within their engagement.
  Mr. PETO: Is it a fact that any other Bill connected with women's suffrage can possibly have been before the House at the time that that answer was given?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have said so, that the promise referred to the Bill before the House at the time. That does not say that there will not be any other Bill before the House next Session on the same subject.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is not it a fact that the first promise of facilities in connection with a Women's Suffrage Bill was made to a deputation of Liberal Members, and that it was merely owing to the accident that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester secured a favourable place in the ballot that the facilities were offered by the Prime Minister to that Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the meaning of the word "again," in the passage "next Session when the Bill has been again read a second time," that it applies to any Bill?
  Mr. PETO: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the words before "again" he will see that it refers to the Bill under discussion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It must have reference to a Bill which has secured a Second Reading and complied with the tests laid down by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government. Any Bill that secures a Second Reading and conforms to those tests will be a Bill which will come within the undertaking given by the Government.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not it a fact that the promise was given, not only for a Bill which was read a second time, but which was agreed on by the Conciliation Committee, and did not the Prime Minister give this promise?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the only undertaking he gave. The Prime Minister did not give an undertaking that he would favour one Bill more than another. What he promised to do was on behalf of the Government to give facilities to any Bill which would conform to the test which he laid down: that is that it must be a Bill which is capable of Amendment.
  Mr. ROCH: Was not the last undertaking on this subject given by the Prime Minister in a letter to Lord Ripon on the 16th of June, in which he made specific reference to the Bill then before the House and no other?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly the question put by the hon. Member for Blackburn, which I have answered.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the reply of the Government would not apply only to the Bill which obtained the consent of the Conciliation Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will apply to any Bill which will satisfy the tests I have mentioned.

  Supply (Irish Totes).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked how many days have been given this Session to discussing Irish Supply; how many Votes have been discussed; and how many have been passed without any Debate?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Irish Estimates were under consideration on five days during the present Session, when six Votes were discussed, the last occasion being the 23rd May, when a whole day was devoted to Irish Supply. The remaining twenty Irish Votes have been passed without discussion.

  Fines upon Workmen (Vickers, Limited).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a notice issued by Vickers, Limited, of Erith, detailing the offences for which fines will be inflicted upon their workmen; and whether his Department can decide that such conditions put the firm outside the category of good employers, and therefore should not receive Government contracts?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Careful inquiry shall be made into this matter.

  Coronation Medal (Territorial Force).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether a decision has yet been arrived at with respect to the grant of the Coronation medal to members of the Territorial force who were on duty on 22nd June and 23rd June?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. A circular letter has been sent to each unit specifying the conditions of the award and calling for the names of the individuals qualified to receive the medals.

  Army Supply (Frozen Meat).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will supply the names, stating the units to which they belong, of commanding officers at Minehead who asked that frozen foreign meat might be supplied to their units in place of fresh British; whether such request was due to the fact that the fresh meat supplied was of inferior quality or not fit for consumption; and, if such was not the case, what was the reason for such an unusual demand?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question the day before yesterday. With regard to the remainder of the question, inquiry shall be made.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the second point, whether he has not had time in three days to obtain the names? As regards the first portion, will he not give the names of the commanding officers who did not ask for frozen meat, in common justice to them?
  Colonel SEELY: As to the second part of the question, the Noble Lord did not give me sufficient notice to enable me to obtain the information. With regard to the first part of the question, the names of the units in camp were, of course, known.

  Army Ordnance Department (Colchester).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Under-Secretary for War can now announce the result of the inquiry into the terms of employment of labourers in the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester; and whether any increase of wages has been or will be sanctioned?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. The minimum wage for labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester has been raised from 17s. 6d. to 18s. 6d. a week, with effect from 1st April last, and the officer in charge has been authorised to give a further increase up to 1s. to men at present on the minimum when performing work which involves special responsibility or skill.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that this increase might date back for the fourteen months during which the Department has been inquiring into the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think we can do that. We have arranged already for the payment.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the increase of wages can be extended to other places where similar labour is done.
  Colonel SEELY: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department think that these wages (19s. a week) are adequate for a man, with a family, who, as he says, does skilled work?
  Colonel SEELY: That is not the question which has been put to me. I am asked about a particular increase of wages—not about the general adequacy of wages—but I understand that these wages compare favourably with wages paid to persons not in Government employ engaged on the same work in the same district.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: If 17s. a week was paid by this Government up to now at Colchester, what was the amount paid when the Opposition was in power?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know.

  Canada and United States (Reciprocity Agreement).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to a telegram sent by the President of the United States of America to the editor of the "New York American," thanking him and the seven Hearst papers for the success of the Evangel on the question of reciprocity; whether he is aware that the principal item in the Evangel alluded to has been Annexation viâ Reciprocity; and whether,

  1917
  in view of the fact that this policy has now received the approval of the President of the United States, an explanation may be demanded by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington of this endorsement of a policy designed and intended to disintegrate the British Empire?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of the facts, and the inference drawn by the hon. and gallant Member is in direct contradiction to the public utterances of President Taft.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the length and breadth of the United States this agreement is treated as a long step towards commercial union of the country.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. Sir; I am not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for what is said or thought in the United States.

  LABOUR DISPUTES.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, during the recent strike in London, the postal authorities applied to the strike leaders for permits to pass postal vans and stores; and whether the same were obtained?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the 10th instant I was approached by some of the firms who contract with the Post Office for the conveyance of mails by road within the London postal district, who declared that they could not carry out the services unless they were able to obtain further supplies of forage and petrol. On the same day an officer of my Department communicated on my behalf with the Central Disputes Committee, who agreed that the work of the Post Office contractors in handling fodder and petrol for the use of the service should be facilitated. I may add that I have taken similar action at Liverpool, and have been able to maintain throughout the disputes the continuity of the mail cart services.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a very humiliating position?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; in the circumstances of the moment it seems to me a most sensible arrangement.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Were the communications of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks in writing?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; an officer of my Department consulted the leaders of the strikers. There may have been correspondence; I am not sure.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May we have it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Was the right hon. Gentleman unable to obtain adequate police protection without obtaining these permits?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are not my carts or employés. They are the carts and employés of the contractors.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does this form a precedent?
  Mr. PIKE-PEASE: Did the right hon. Gentleman get a written permit to use the streets of London from the strikers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No use was made by me of any permit. It was made use of by the employés of the contractors.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to secure that, in the event of strikes, those men who desire to serve their employers shall be permitted to do so without molestation within the London area?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as it is in the power of the police, workmen who desire to continue in their employment will be protected in the exercise of their right.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable non-union men, in cases where fair wages are given, to continue their employment without molestation from trade unionists?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Non-union men are now by law entitled to continue their employment without molestation; and, so far as it is in the power of the police, they will be protected in the exercise of this right.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is unaware that several non-union men have

  1919
  been prevented from earning their livelihood by strikers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of Messrs. Bolton's men who had the eightpenny wage were stopped from going on, although they were perfectly satisfied? They were terrorised.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very difficult to deal with specific cases by question and answer across the floor of the House, especially when no previous notice of the questions has been given.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce stronger legislation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would ask the Noble Lord to wait until the King's Speech next, year.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the police are unable to maintain order, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any other steps?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Where it has been necessary, other steps have already been taken.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce legislation to prevent non-union workmen from sharing in the advantages which have been obtained by the union men?
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked whether the Metropolitan Police who were sent to Salford during the recent strike were taken off pay in the Metropolis during the whole period that they were on duty in Salford; and is the result that the Salford Borough Council is in consequence liable for paying them during the whole of that period?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In accordance with the regulations of the service, the Metropolitan Police sent to Salford were taken off pay as stated. The Salford borough is liable for the whole of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police employed there while they were away from the Metropolis.
  Mr. BARLOW: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the arrangement made in regard to the Metropolitan police sent to Hull?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Hull authorities are bearing the whole of the cost of the police. The police were kept beyond
  1920
  the first three days, so that there is no difficulty at all as between the liability of Hull and Salford in the matter.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is it not the case that at Hull out of the five days the Metropolitan police were engaged there they were taken off pay for four days, the Hull authorities being only responsible for one day?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that the sending of the police to Hull was done on very short notice indeed, and that a slightly better arrangement was made in regard to Salford than in regard to Hull, but, owing to the fact that the police were kept at Hull beyond the first four or five days, the Hull authorities did become liable for the whole of the amount.
  Mr. BARLOW: Was the precedent in regard to Hull brought to the attention of the Salford authorities?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure that both of these local authorities will make no difficulty about paying the money for the aid received at a time when they needed it very much.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the complaints made against the police for their conduct on Thursday of last, week at Poplar?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No inquiry can be made until normal conditions are restored.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what abnormal conditions prevailed in the Poplar district?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The police are fully occupied at the present time, and I am not able to give any information as to the actual position in any particular district in London without notice.
  Mr. CROOKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether little children are playing on the pavements in Poplar this morning as on any other day?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to hear it. If little children had a monopoly of the pavements, better conditions would very soon exist.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men, women, and children were assaulted on this occasion and that they have absolutely no redress unless he takes some action in the matter,

  1921
  and further, is he aware that by asking us to wait, he is asking us to wait probably until the House will not meet for weeks, so that we shall have no opportunity at all of raising this matter until it is altogether too late?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commissioner of police and the officers are working at very high pressure, and I am certainly not going to put any further pressure upon, them.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of people who were simply using the streets, and were entitled to use them had not merely their heads and shoulders cracked, but were dragged brutally along the streets merely because they could not get out of the road of the patrols quickly enough?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking as to a number of specific allegations of which notice should be given. It would be better if he would raise the matter on the Appropriation Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I did raise this question days ago—I think almost a week ago—[Interruption]—I do not know whether you want people's blood—[Interruption].
  Mr. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member kindly address himself to me.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to address myself to you. I have given the right hon. Gentleman five days' notice. Does he consider it reasonable that the people who were assaulted on this occasion should be compelled to wait before inquiries are made?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think that, at any rate, the consideration of matters that are past must necessarily be deferred until matters which press for attention in the present have been satisfactorily arranged; and I am not prepared to ask the officers and the heads of the Metropolitan police force to embark upon what must necessarily be a long and detailed inquiry at a time when I can assure the House, from personal knowledge, that they are fully occupied from morning to night; and I hope that hon. Members will not accept the highly coloured accounts which the hon. Gentleman gives of the treatment which the Metropolitan police are alleged to have meted out to peaceful people. Such allegations are contrary to the experience of most of those who know London.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he cannot put pressure upon the police in this matter, he will, at least, issue a very strong caution? I would like an answer to that question.
  Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked if, in view of the inconvenience caused to every section of the community by industrial disputes in those industries which affect general public utilities, and in view of the special nature of those industries, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of introducing, at the earliest opportunity, legislation to provide for the establishment of the compulsory investigation of all disputes in such industries, and to make illegal the declaration of a strike or lock-out in such industries before such investigation has been carried out and reported on by a competent commission, who shall also endeavour by conciliation to settle the disputes in question; and if he is aware that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, which is now in force in Canada and is designed to effect the above-mentioned objects, has met with success in the Dominion, and that legislation modelled on it has been passed recently in the Transvaal Parliament?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am fully aware of the Canadian Act referred to. At the present moment I cannot usefully add to the answers already given by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade on this subject. The whole question of the improvement of the means available to prevent and shorten industrial warfare is now engaging the earnest attention of the Government in consultation with representatives of important associations of employers and workmen.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, owing to the great importance of the subject, whether he will arrange for Papers to be laid on the Table of the House giving information as to the results obtained under the working of the Trade Disputes Act, and Acts of a similar character in other countries?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; the Prime Minister is prepared to lay Papers on the Table giving the information as far as available.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: In view of the gravity of the proposal suggested in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no

  1923
  attempt to rush legislation through the House in. any way limiting the right of working men to strike?
  Mr. CROOKS: If such a Bill is introduced by a private Member, will it receive the support of the Government?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot express any opinion upon that; I think it would be premature to give any answer at all in respect to the character of legislation. We are now only in the state of inquiry and consultation with the various leaders of employers and men.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance on the point which I put to him?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend may depend upon it that a matter of such very great importance must have full time and full consideration given to it.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when inquiry is being made into the working of the Trades Disputes Act in Canada, he will at the same time consider the getting of further information with regard to the making of compulsory arbitration general in Australia and New Zealand?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Arising out of that suggestion, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the views of the working men's leaders in those countries are also ascertained?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the answer I gave refers not only to Canadian experiments but to experiments in other countries as well.
  Mr. PEELasked, in view of the unrest which prevails at present in so many important branches of industry, and of the continual disturbances of the public peace throughout the country, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to see that adequate military and police assistance is given in all places where it is required; whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department will remain in this country during the Recess, so that he may be constantly in touch with the officers of his Department or the local authorities who may make demands upon the Home Office for advice in cases of local difficulty; and whether it is in accordance with the established traditions of his office that the
  1924
  Home Secretary should not absent himself from the country under similar circumstances?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In regard to the rest of the question, it may be assumed that the Secretary of State is not likely in critical times like these to desert his post or fail in any way in his duty.
  Sir W. BYLES: Having regard to the fact that certain parties have a desire for compulsory military service in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of enrolling the civil population as special constables, in order that they may face the music in Liverpool streets?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked whether application was made to the strike leaders last week for permission to move fodder and petrol on behalf of the Government; and whether a permit was granted on condition that nothing except fodder or petrol was moved?
  Colonel SEELY: I am informed that no such application was made by the War Office or by any of the commands. I have no knowledge of any action that may have been taken by contractors for petrol or forage on their own initiative.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement made on Sunday afternoon to the effect that the Government had to go to the Strike Committee for permission to move petrol and fodder, and if the statement is incorrect, and is not corrected, is it not apt to be believed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already answered the question.
  Mr. POINTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, is he aware of the great danger of the situation on the Midland Railway system in the Sheffield district consequent upon the partial stoppage of work, where incompetent men working busy signal-boxes are being kept on duty twenty-four hours, and that at various places in the district drivers are passing signals standing at danger, being instructed to do so by the company's officials; and in one case a train having passed a danger signal at Dore

  1925
  station by order of the station-master narrowly averted disaster by pulling up only a few yards from an engine standing on the same road; that incompetent men are in charge of heavily laden passenger trains; whether, in view of the great danger to life and limb that may result from such arrangements he is able to take such steps as shall eventually safeguard the travelling public and prevent loss of life.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The Board of Trade have no information regarding the facts suggested by my hon. Friend. Inquiry will be made, and a communication will be made to him when we see the result.
  Mr. POINTER: In view of the very grave circumstances that have come to my knowledge and that I have passed on to the Board of Trade, will the Board of Trade push on the inquiry as quickly as possible, in order to avert any further danger?
  Mr. TENNANT: Certainly.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, if it is the fact that large quantities of meat, fruit and vegetables in a damaged condition have within the last few days been thrown into the River Thames on the lower reaches of the river; by whose authority is this done, and up to what point in the river is it allowed?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have communicated with the Port of London Authority, who inform me that they have no knowledge of any such deposit being made. I have also made inquiry of the Medical Officer for the Port of London, with a similar result.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if he will kindly give the House the latest information with regard to the condition of affairs in Liverpool to-day?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Although the situation in the London Docks shows no deterioration, a difficulty has arisen through a claim on the part of the men at the Albert Dock that they should be engaged outside the dock gates, in order that only union hands shall be taken on. This may be productive of trouble. At Liverpool, yesterday afternoon, an attack made by a violent mob on the prison vans had to be
  1926
  repelled by force, the troops were forced to fire; but after this event of which full reports have appeared in the Press, order was quickly restored and no further disturbance occurred during the evening or the night; and this morning when the last news was received all was still quiet. The convoys of food are being got out regularly. At Manchester business is practically at a stand still, but there has been no disturbance. Two battalions and a Cavalry regiment are held in readiness to proceed on the request of the local authorities. There was some disorder at Cardiff last night, but this morning all is reported quiet.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask whether an order has been issued that in certain districts in Liverpool the people must be in their own homes by the hour of darkness, with all lights out, and on whose authority such an order has been issued?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information upon that point at all, but I certainly think the local authorities should be supported in any precautionary steps they think necessary.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House how he comes to the conclusion that a distinction can be made between union and non-union men by being taken on at the dock gate?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a technical matter. If the hon. Gentleman fully understood the position at the London docks—
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman does fully understand the position there is no need to answer the question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am asking it for the information of the House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether it is the fact that one of the men shot dead in Liverpool was shot through the head, and whether in the event of the soldiers having to be used at all they will be instructed to fire at people's legs rather than at their heads, and whether he thinks it is in the interests of peace to use the soldiers in that sort of brutal murderous manner?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know as to the facts.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman told us we had seen the news in the Press. The Press states that. I want to ask whether he thinks that is consistent with trying to get arrangements for peace. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not given notice of his question and can hardly expect a full reply. The other matter is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The slaughter of innocent people is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman would address me he would not be met in that way.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was addressing you.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have the opportunity of saying anything on this subject during the Debate on the Appropriation Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the Home Secretary has he any list of casualties which occurred to the police or military before the firing on the people?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No casualty list has yet been issued, but a number of soldiers were injured, some of them quite seriously.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On the occasion of the firing. I have no doubt there are lists of soldiers injured previously. I am not in the least blaming anybody, but I want to know, as a matter of fact, if there is any list of casualties occurring to the police and military on the occasion or at the moment of firing?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have got no information. My right hon. Friend informs me he had no information at the War Office on the subject of casualties to soldiers. As to whether there were or not I have no information.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Home Secretary say whether, in the case of one of these two men shot dead, the bullet was not fired as one of a volley, but was an isolated shooting on the part of the officer; and the poor fellow who was shot dead must have been in the front of the crowd by pressure from behind—can he say whether that statement which appears in the Press is correct?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I cannot. I have received no detailed report of what took place, and I certainly am not pre-
  1928
  pared to pass judgment on what was done under circumstances of such great difficulty.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask, seeing that he is able to say that there is no disturbance whatever in Manchester, why he should hold out a menace that the military authorities are in readiness to pounce down on them?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a request from the Lord Mayor of Manchester that in case troops are needed they should be conveniently at hand. It was in view of that I made the statement. The Lord Mayor of Manchester got through the last trouble without recourse to the military, and I should not send troops there unless he applied. If he does apply they are conveniently near.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May we assume that at the proper time full investigation will take place into the circumstances of the killing of this unfortunate man and the circumstances under which the man was acting, whether he was acting voluntarily or was simply pushed forward by the crowd?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is the whole force of the civil law, and these matters come before a coroner's jury in the ordinary course of events. Of course it will be for Parliament to consider whether or not special inquiry should be made into the case, and the conduct and origin or cause of this, but the courts of law will operate in the ordinary way.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to refuse me information when I ask him a supplementary question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman did not refuse to take notice, of the hon. Member's question, and the hon. Member admitted that he was fully acquainted with the facts.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: In view of the gravity of the question of using the military, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has directed his attention to the fact that in Germany last year a number of strikers were shot by the military, and that, as a consequence, there has been not less labour trouble in Germany, but more?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for argument.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    MONEY-LENDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Money-lenders Act, 1900," presented by Mr. TENNANT; supported by Mr. Sydney Buxton; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th October, and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to make better provision for the government of Scotland.
The Bill is brought forward at the instance of and with the support of my colleagues sitting for Scottish divisions. The question is not a new one in this House. Twenty years ago I had the honour of making a proposition that the time had then arrived when Scotland should have control of her purely domestic affairs in a Parliament sitting in Scotland. That Motion was carried by the House of Commons and was supported by the Ministry of the day. During the twenty years that have since elapsed the case which was then accepted by the House of Commons has in no way weakened. Every year has supplied fresh facts and fresh arguments in favour of the proposition. I would direct attention to the character of the present representation of Scotland. Scotland has seventy-two Members, two of whom are University Members, so that there are seventy representatives of popular constituencies. Out of those seventy Members sixty are pledged to the support of the principle embodied in this measure. If representative Government means anything at all, I think that that fact alone ought to recommend this measure to the favourable consideration of the House. Our case is briefly this. We say that it is impossible under the prevailing system for Scotland to carry into legislative effect the will of the people as expressed at the poll. We say that there is no opportunity for the will of Scotland to take legislative effect. We claim that in all matters, of purely domestic concern Scottish opinion should be predominant, but that the supremacy in Imperial matters should be retained in the Imperial Parliament. I may observe, in passing, that there is not one single item in the whole programme of Radicalism or social reform to-day which, if Scotland had had power to pass laws, would not have been carried a quarter of a century ago. There is not
1930
one item to-day which would not be carried in a short time if Scottish representatives had the power.
One word with regard to the relationship between the Scottish and the Irish claims. I need hardly say that it is not in any spirit of rivalry or in any sense of antagonism that we are bringing forward this measure. Scotland has always been loyal to the Irish demand. Scotland is loyal now, and will remain loyal until Ireland has achieved her purpose and desire. We believe that in bringing forward a measure of this kind, and in making our claim, we are strengthening the Irish position. We believe that the more the Irish demand is presented to the country as part of a general settlement on lines applicable to other portions of the United Kingdom, the stronger will be the support given by the British electors to the Irish appeal. We say further, that in the interests of the Imperial Parliament itself our measure ought to be accepted by the House. Anyone who has observed the working of this House will admit that the Parliamentary machine has broken down completely and absolutely. The work at the present time is not in any sense consistent with any reasonable idea of Parliamentary institutions. Members start sitting on Committees at eleven o'clock in the morning, and continue in attendance until two or three o'clock the next morning. It is impossible for them to give proper consideration to the work expected of them. What happened last night, to go no further back, is enough to support the proposition I am now making. Millions of money were passed without a word of consideration. The same thing happened the night before. About many Departments, not a single word of criticism has been possible during the present Session or during many previous Sessions. All these facts tend to show that the machinery is overburdened, and that it is necessary to adopt some expedient in order that the great Imperial services may be properly considered in this House. What we propose is that a portion of the burden should be taken off the Parliamentary machine, that the purely domestic matters should be discussed in the various countries concerned, and that this House should be freer to deal with entirely Imperial affairs.
The measure we propose provides that on an appointed day there shall be a legislature in Scotland consisting of His Majesty the King and a House of Repre-

1931
sentatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "No Lords?"]. There is a provision with regard to Lords, namely, that if properly elected they may sit in the legislature. We propose that the House of Representatives shall consist of 140 members; that is, roughly, double the present representation, taking out the Universities, which we do not propose should have special representation. I hope that that is not responsible for the notice in opposition to the Bill which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member opposite (Sir H. Craik), because I am sure that he would have no difficulty in finding a seat elsewhere. We provide that each constituency shall have two members, that the election shall take place on the present Parliamentary Register, that the Parliament shall be elected for five years, for the establishment of the position of Lord High Commissioner, and for the repeal of the Secretary for Scotland Act and the Provisional Orders Act. We propose to set aside the powers with which this Parliament shall be entrusted, and to reserve to the Imperial Parliament matters of purely Imperial concern. We give to the Scottish Parliament such matters as local government, public health, criminal law, administration of justice, bankruptcy, gaols and prisons, marriage and divorce, education, railways, canals, land, and other matters of purely local concern. We propose to exempt from its power all matters relating to the making of treaties and the Imperial forces, and all matters which properly belong to a purely Imperial Parliament. With regard to finance, we provide that the basis shall be the average of the last three years, and for the establishment of a Consolidated Fund for Scotland. We ask for a Commission properly to adjust the financial relations. We give supreme power to this House, but we say at the same time that the Scottish people, through their representatives, shall have power to settle Scottish questions on Scottish soil. We put forward this proposal as our method of settlement of a great national question.
Sir H. CRAIK: I beg leave to move, as an Amendment, "That such leave be given upon this day three months."
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment.
Sir H. CRAIK: Then I will move the rejection of the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can make a speech in opposition to the Bill.
Sir H. CRAIK: I do so, and for several reasons. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) may take it from me that this is not in the slightest degree a personal question, and that even if he offered me a seat in his new Parliament I should decidedly refuse it.
4.0 P.M.
I base my opposition, not on personal, but on other and, I think, much stronger grounds. I oppose the Bill because I think that this unwary and ill-considered proposal may be the beginning of a long and acrimonious contest, the end of which none of us can foresee. I think it is not only against the interests of Scotland, but contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of my countrymen. Lastly, I oppose because my experience tells me how fatal this measure would be to the smooth working of Scottish administration. No sane man who knows the history of the last two centuries can deny that the Act of Union of 1707 has been a measure of the greatest benefit both to Scotland and to England. A few years ago no man who would have been considered a reasonable politician would have advanced any other opinion. The opposite view began a few years ago to be spread by an obscure clique who sought a little notoriety by posing as the advocates of political paradox. It has been sedulously fomented by those who had their own object in view. Now it appears in this House in the guise of a grave political proposal. Scotland knows her interests too well to look at such a Bill. Such a parting of the ways could not possibly be for her benefit. Do hon. Members opposite think that young Scotsmen, with the world before them, wish to have the doors closed upon them and a spirit of hostility raised against them upon the part of the predominant partner where there are so many openings to careers? Do hon. Members think that the great commercial communities of the West of Scotland, Glasgow for instance, wish to break a hundred commercial bonds that tie them to England? There are many firms which have branches in Glasgow and Manchester. Do hon. Members mean to tell me that there is less connection between Manchester and Glasgow, where many of the business people spend half the week in one and half in the other, than there is between Glasgow and, say, the

1933
Western Hebrides? It is absolutely impossible. I would ask again: do you think that Glasgow, with its vast population and great commercial wealth, wishes to be made subject to an Edinburgh Parliament? It is perfectly true that Scottish interests are neglected, but the blame for that rests on hon. Members opposite. If they were to spend their time in bringing pressure—as they could bring it—upon the Government of the day instead of dealing out to us edifying and most orthodox sermons on the exaggerated language which they think we use with regard to the neglect of Scottish business, I think they would be doing a better work for their country. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to pause before they are guilty of the great political crime of reviving a dead and forgotten controversy, of raising new and dangerous prejudices against their fellow countrymen. If they are introducing this Bill merely in obedi-
ence to that little clique to which I have referred, which spreads its objects by strange journalistic productions distributed amongst us, then they are reducing the politics of the House of Commons to the level of comic opera. If, on the other hand, they really think they are doing a benefit to Scotland, and are carrying out the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, I consider they are guilty of a gross political error. If it is a matter of political strategy and tactics connected with a general scheme for the disruption of the Empire, then I say that those hon. Members are guilty, not merely of an absurdity, not merely of error, but of a heinous political crime against their country.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 73.

Division No. 336.]

AYES.

[4.10 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Alden, Percy

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

Millar, James Duncan

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mooney, John L.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, George Hay

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Munro, Robert

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Beale, W. P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Needham, Christopher T.

Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Neilson, Francis

Bentham, George J.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Nolan, Joseph

Booth, Frederick Handel

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brunner, John F. L.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

Bryce, John Annan

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hinds, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Doherty, Philip

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

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

Chancellor, H. G.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pirle, Duncan V.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pointer, Joseph

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pringle, William M. R.

Clough, William

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Cotton, William Francis

Jowett, Frederick William

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Crooks, William

Keating, Matthew

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Dawes, James Arthur

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

De Forest, Baron

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lansbury, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Leach, Charles

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rowlands, James

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowntree, Arnold

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lynch, A. A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Scanlan, Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Maclean, Donald

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

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Macpherson, James Ian

Shortt, Edward

Gill, Alfred Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Glanville, H. J.

M'Callum, John M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Snowden, Philip

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Simon, John E.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Wardle, G. J.

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

Tennant, Harold John

Waring, Walter

Young, William (Perth, East)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir H.

Verney, Sir H.

Wiles, Thomas

Dalziel and Mr. Munro-Ferguson.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Wilkie, Alexander

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gibbs, George Abraham

Perkins, Walter Frank

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Peto, Basil Edward

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Goldsmith, Frank

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Grant, James Augustine

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Ashley, W. W.

Gretton, John

Quilter, William Eley C.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Sanders, Robert A.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Henry Percy

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hills, John Waller

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bird, Alfred

Hohler, G. F.

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Swift, Rigby

Campion, W. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cassel, Felix

Kirkwood, John H. M.

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

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

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Valentia, Viscount

Croft, Henry Page

Mackinder, Halford J.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Wolmer, Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fell, Arthur

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

Yate, Col. C. E.

Fisher, Rt. Hon, W. Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Fleming, Valentine

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Craik and Mr. J. Gordon.

Forster, Henry William

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Watt, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Munro, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Hope, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Morton, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Mr. Barnes. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th October, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That, until the Government Orders are disposed of, so much of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) as relates to the interruption of Business at Eleven of the clock, the right of objection at that hour, and the Adjournment of the House at half-past Eleven of the clock, be suspended to-day and to-morrow."
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer intends, I believe, to make a statement about business, and this probably would be a convenient time to do so.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, today we shall take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill and of the Public Works
1936
Loans Bill, to be followed by the Committee stages of the Telephone Transfer Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Some of the smaller Orders we shall also take.
To-morrow the Committee stages of the Appropriation Bill and Public Works Loans Bill will be taken. Then we hope to conclude the Copyright Bill and take the remaining stages of the Government Bills on the Paper, with the exception of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Bill and the Pilotage Bill.
On Friday the House will meet at Twelve o'clock as usual. The first Orders will be the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill and the Public Works Loans Bill. There will then be the Adjournment Motion. Some time during the afternoon there will be a Royal Commission to give assent to the measures that have been passed.
When the House resumes on 34th October there will remain for consideration the Insurance Bill, Finance Bill, Shops Bill, Coal Mines Bill, Naval Prize Bill, Scottish Land Bill, House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, and some of the smaller measures that appear on the Paper.

1937
I hope that none of these need be regarded as acutely controversial, and that we may make considerable progress during the few weeks that we hope may be sufficient to clear off the business.
Mr. CASSEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question of the Copyright Bill being put down tomorrow. It is a measure with reference to which there are four or five pages of Amendments on the Paper, and some of these Amendments raise questions of a highly controversial character and of great importance. This Bill has only been considered in the Committee upstairs, and other Members interested in the question have had no opportunity of expressing their views upon these points. Nothing would be gained by putting the Bill down to-morrow because it could not become law before the end of the Session, so that whether the Report stage is taken tomorrow or not, the Bill will not become law any earlier. It is only fair and right that a Bill of this character should not be taken in the last days of this portion of the Session when many Members are away. I may say, personally, I have one Amendment alone which is bound to take up a considerable amount of time in discussion as it is of great importance. It deals with whether the Bill should be made retrospective in certain respects, and the Clause with which it deals affects a good many musical instruments, and the discussion of the Amendment is one that might last four or five hours. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as a matter of fairness, the Bill should not be taken to-morrow. I am not opposed to the Bill as a whole, but I think there ought to be fair opportunity for discussing this important matter, and more especially when it is borne in mind that the Bill could not possibly become law before this Adjournment.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House what business would be taken first upon the re-assembling for the Autumn Session?
Mr. PEEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to drop the Second Hague Conference Convention Bill?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have no objection whatever to the programme of the right
1938
hon. Gentleman, and I only rise to ask for some information. I want to know whether among small Bills which he proposes to take to-night he means to include the Resident Magistrates (Belfast) Bill? It is a Bill of a most contentious character, which proposes to give an Imperial officer a salary and a pension out of Imperial and local funds. I am strongly opposed to that, I do not object to his getting a pension out of an Imperial fund, but to make him an officer half paid out of Imperial funds and half paid out of local funds, is most objectionable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inform us that that Bill will not be taken to-night.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I cannot but think my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel) over-estimated the difficulties attending the discussion of the Copyright Bill. It was discussed very carefully and at great length in the Standing Committee. There were two outstanding questions of principle, but they have since narrowed down to a comparatively small compass, and I do not think they would take long. I think it would be a pity to run the risk of sending this Bill over to an Autumn Session.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I also say that I understand very large concessions have been made in connection with this Bill, and I think the hon. and learned Member's is the only outstanding point now. The Bill was very carefully considered, and there were an unusual number of sittings in the Committee upstairs. We have already had a considerable number of sittings here, and I can assure the hon. Member that the remaining discussion need not take more than an hour or an hour and a-half.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Education (Administrative Provisions) No. 2 Bill to-night or tomorrow?
Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman was asked what business will be taken on 24th October and for the early days of that week. He indicated that there would be some difficulty in making an announcement now, but I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would arrange to have a statement made in some public way at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is a very reasonable request. I cannot make the announcement now, but I hope to be able to do so to-morrow. With regard to the question of the hon. Member (Sir Philip Magnus) I understand that that Bill will be taken to-morrow, and not to-night. As to the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) we received no notice of objection to it, and we did intend to take the Bill to-night.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will you go on with it?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will communicate with the hon. Member. This is the first time we have heard of any objection to it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Several Members on your own side object to it as well as I do, because it mixes up Imperial with local funds.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will keep that in mind. We simply want to make progress with Bills of an uncontroversial character. With regard to the Copyright Bill, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his objection, especially after what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. I understand there has been an amount of compromise; at any rate, very considerable concessions have been made with a view to conciliating opposition. I do say it has conciliated the opposition altogether, but it went a long way to do so. There will be quite adequate time for discussion; the first orders are the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, not a debate able Motion, and the Public Works Loans Bill. Therefore, there will be plenty of time to-morrow to discuss any question which the hon. Member may wish to raise. I hope, therefore, that he will not press us to overload the Autumn Session with work of this kind when we can get rid of it now. I do not think it is in the interest of anybody to crowd the Autumn Session. The Second Hague Convention Bill is one of the small Bills which we intend to deal with in the Autumn Session.
Mr. PEEL: It will be dealt with in the Autumn Session?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. CASSEL: I must continue to press my opposition in regard to the Copyright Bill.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of taking the Scotch Land Bill in the first days of the Autumn Session, which would give several Members an opportunity of taking longer holidays?
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said nothing about the Borough Police (Scotland) Amendment Bill. I do not know whether this is one of the small Bills he proposes to take in the Autumn Session or before we separate now.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand it will be amongst the Bills that will be dealt with effectively in the Autumn Session. With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Price), I understand that representations have been made to the Government that it would be inconvenient to put down the Scotch Land Bill at too early a day in the Autumn Session.
Lord BALCARRES: I should like to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, with reference to a notice on the Paper standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I presume the Adjournment of the House will be moved immediately after the completion of Government business. I therefore would like to know if the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend could be moved in the event of the adjournment being carried in advance at the end of Government business. My hon. Friend considers this matter very important, and is very anxious to bring it before the House, and should the House rise early at a reasonable hour to-night will this Motion be shut out?
Mr. SPEAKER: Assuming Government business goes on beyond eleven o'clock the Government orders will then be run through, and other orders will probably be objected to in the ordinary way, and the Motion of the hon. Member for Newbury will come on, but if the Government interpose, and move the adjournment then the hon. Member will be shut out.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 75.

Division No. 338.]

AYES.

[12.15 a.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fleming, Valentine

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gardner, Ernest

Stewart, Gershom

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Baird, John Lawrence

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

Valentia, Viscount

Boyton, James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Worthington-Evans, Laming

Bridgeman, William Clive

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Burn, Col. Charles Rosdew

Peto, Basil Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Major Henderson.

Campion, William Robert

Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gretton, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

Pringle, William M. R.

Bentham, George Jackson

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Booth, Frederick Handel

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Bowerman, Charles W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brunner, John F. L.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayward, Evan

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hodge, John

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow)

Cassel, Felix

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A.

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Cave, George

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Shortt, Edward

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Daniel

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Chancellor, Henry G.

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Tennant, Harold John

Clough, William

King, Joseph

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Crooks, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, David (Montgomeryshire)

Leach, Charles

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dawes, J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Waring, Walter

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, James Ian

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Edwards, A. C. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Wiles, Thomas

Falconer, James

Muldoon, John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Munro, Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough)

Neilson, Francis

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be read a second time."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  LABOUR DISPUTES.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker. Sir, you indicated that the opportunity afforded by the Second Reading of this Bill is a suitable occasion for us to speak upon the present situation in this country. I hope that nothing I say will add to the difficulties of the Government in dealing with the situation, which is certainly sufficiently difficult; and that nothing I say will inflame passion on one side or the other. I certainly do not wish to exaggerate the gravity of the position in which we find ourselves. An unrestricted, inquisitive, energetic and highly competitive Press does sometimes exaggerate episodes which occur on one side or the other in the course of trade disputes. But when all allowance is made, the situation is sufficiently grave to make any man joining in this discussion feel the responsibility of what he is doing, and a desire to exercise all care not to make the position worse than it is. I hope that nothing I say will weaken the hands of those who are responsible for the preservation of law and order, and for the protection of life and property in these times, as in all others.
  I say it is a grave situation, and none of us can doubt it. The House has listened day after day, with eagerness and anxiety to the statements which Members of the Government have been able to make as to the progress towards settlement of the various disputes. We have seen the trade of the Metropolitan City paralysed for a time. We have seen the supplies of provisions falling far short of what was required. We have seen business and other supplies falling short and involving great hardship upon large numbers of people not directly connected in any way with the disputes which have arisen. We now see a similar state of affairs, but in far more serious form, existing in Liverpool. It has prevailed there for some days past and still prevails. We see evidences
  1944
  of unrest, and some signs of disputes breaking out, in many parts of the country. This is not a time to enter upon a full review of the proceedings of the Government in connection with the whole of these disputes. The Government themselves are entitled to the forbearance which the Home Secretary has rightly claimed for the police and other authorities. We should not expect the Government to make inquiries into particular episodes while all their energy and their time are needed to cope with the situation that still confronts them.
  But I cannot help saying the Government failed to appreciate at the outset the gravity of the symptoms. A more earnest effort on their part to protect law-abiding men in the pursuit of their lawful occupations might have averted some of the unfortunate episodes and given courage to those who desired nothing better than to pursue their daily work. I do not propose to say a word upon any of the incidents which have accompanied these disputes. As the Home Secretary has said, they will come—the most serious certainly will come—in the ordinary course before the courts of law. I think it would be rash for anybody, until the courts of law have spoken, to deal with a particular episode, or the conduct of particular individuals. I have made some complaint of the action of the Government at the beginning of the disputes. We have noticed, with satisfaction, a greater recognition of the position in the recent answers of the Home Secretary. I wish to assure the Government that we will give them every support in our power in order to maintain the law, and in order to protect law-abiding citizens, The next thing I wish to do is to express the sympathy which will be felt by nearly every man, with the authorities who have been called in to deal with the disastrous disturbances. I think there is no more distasteful duty you can ask a soldier to perform than to lake part in quelling civil riots. Every man who has talked with an officer, or soldier, on the subject, knows that this is one duty he prays to be spared and which he enters upon with reluctance, and with the gravest sense of

  1945
  the responsibility which attends his action. I think the sympathy of the whole House is with the soldiers, in the first place, and not less with the police who have been called upon to deal with these violent outbreaks and who have shown—I say this without prejudging particular incidents—a courage and fortitude under great provocation, which must excite the admiration of all. There are other people not so directly concerned in the disturbances to whom our sympathies are also due, and for whom the Government are bound to provide every protection in their power; and if these men are not fully protected it is a confession of weakness on the part of the Government, because the Government must be held responsible. I do not want to enter into the disputes which are taking place, but quite apart from the men who are engaged on one side or the other in the actual disputes an enormous amount of injury and suffering is being inflicted upon people quite unconnected with the origin of the disturbances. It falls first and foremost and with the greatest force upon small men, who are less able to protect themselves and who most require the protection of the Government. Who can read what is taking place in the city of Liverpool now and not feel that the Government have not given sufficient protection to those in the position of small shopkeepers and tradesmen to carry on their lawful business and to get the supplies on which that lawful business depends. Those men also have our sympathy, and they ought to have it, and the Government ought to make it clear that they will have the fullest support of the Government both to protect them in their own houses and to secure for them free access to the goods in which they deal.
  There is another class, and that is the workman who wishes to work, and who has a right to work. I am not here to decide whether a workman should be a trade unionist or not. If I had been asked the question a few years ago, and if I were a workman in an organised trade with a trade union open to me I should have answered without hesitation that I should have joined, and my sympathies were with those who did join. If I hesitate to express that opinion now, it is because the leaders of the trade unionist movement, by their deliberate and persistent action, have made it hard for a unionist who does not share their political views to continue to support or to join a body of that kind. I do not speak with
  1946
  hostility to trade unions, but I demand that, just as men have a right to join a trade union if they wish, they should have the right to remain out of it if they wish, and they should not be prevented from working because they do not choose to join a trade union. I think they should have the full force of the protection which the Government can bring in order to protect them while they are at work and to prevent them being driven from their work. In this connection I must make one other comment on the action of the Government. I wish to refer to the answer which the Postmaster-General gave at question time to-day. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the officials of his office, both in London and in Liverpool, had gone to the Strike Committee to ask for protection for His Majesty's mails and for the service which was required for those mails.
  The Postmaster-General said that those were not his carts for which he sought protection but the carts of the contractors to the Post Office. I say that it is not right that a Government Department should seek for itself or for its contractors protection from anybody except those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and instead of sending a representative of the Department to beg a strike committee to permit His Majesty's mails to be carried or the supplies of petrol or fodder required in connection with that carriage to be delivered, it is the bounden duty of the Government to summon to their aid whatever force is necessary and to give an escort through the streets that would have made it impossible for anybody to contemplate an attack upon it. If Government Departments are going themselves to ask for protection from the strike committee instead of getting it from the proper authorities, how can they expect that any men will be willing to refrain from these disturbances or adding to the area of unrest? How can they expect men to take a bolder course than the Government Department themselves take, or what confidence can those men place in the protection of a Government which does not protect its own servants? That is as far as I wish to go in speaking about the episodes of the strikes, and I hope we shall have an assurance from His Majesty's Ministers that such action as was taken by the Post Office will not again be repeated and that protection will be afforded alike to His Majesty's mails and His Majesty's subjects by the properly constituted authorities, and that

  1947
  they will not be left at the mercy of any committee engaged in one of these labour disputes.
  There is one other question that I want to ask, and one general reflection that I want to make before I sit down. In the statement made by the Home Secretary to-day he said very little about the railway situation. I understand that negotiations are actually proceeding to-day with the Government at this moment, and probably the Government may not be in a position to give us any further information. If they are in a position to give us any further information, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so, and I trust he will give us, in any case, an assurance that men who wish to remain at work upon our great lines of communication will have the fullest protection whatever the cost. I hope the Government will take whatever steps are required to prevent the whole trade and living of the people being placed at the mercy of a trade dispute. That leads me to the general reflection which I think must be present to all. Apart from particular instances the gravity of the present situation lies in the extent to which it has defeated the hopes we have founded on recent legislation. The provisions for the intervention of the Board of Trade were, I think, first embodied in an Act of Parliament by the late Unionist Government.
  The activity of the Board of Trade, which began very gently and very tentatively in trade disputes has largely, and I think wholesomely, developed in recent years. No one can speak on this subject without expressing the debt which the whole community owe to Mr. Askwith of the Board of Trade, for the services he has rendered to all parties in the disputes in which he has intervened. Above and beyond the parties to those disputes the nation, as a whole, owes Mr. Askwith a debt of gratitude. From that Act we hoped for great things. For a time the Act seemed to be working with great success. When the great railway dispute of 1907 was threatened the Government took a further step in advance, and as a result of the conferences which were held, proposed, and may be said to have enforced, on both parties to the dispute, the reference of questions of difference between the employers and employed on the great railways to the Conciliation Boards. I think the most prominent feature of the present unrest is the extent to which
  1948
  agreements made under the the arbitration of the Board of Trade have failed to obtain acceptance by the men after their leaders have signed them. Another feature is the attacks which have broken out in various places against the system of Conciliation Boards for which the Government are responsible. Those Conciliation Boards offered to the railway men a peaceful means of settling disputes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of shelving disputes."] They offered to the advocates of international peace a way of preserving: industrial peace in our own country and a way of averting violent actions which are only comparable to civil war in particular districts and particular trades. Those Conciliation Boards are the children of the Government and the children of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, and I should have thought there was nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial career upon which he could pride himself with better reason than the part he played in establishing those Boards.
  That being so, and these Boards having been enforced by the Government on the railway companies, it is the bounden duty of the Government to support Conciliation Boards and the method of settlement by those Boards, and to throw the whole weight of their power into the scale against, breaking away from settlements of which they themselves were the authors, and for which to that extent they ought to be the guarantors. On those points, mostly as regards the future action of the Government, and partly in regard to the past action of the Government, I have said as little as possible in view of the gravity of the situation, and I hope in what I have said that I have kept my promise and fulfilled the hope I expressed that I should not say anything that would embarrass the Government in dealing with the situation or add to the passion which has been involved in the disputes. I hope the Government will feel that the whole country are looking to them to take stern and resolute action for the maintenance of law and order, and for the protection of their own authorities, giving ample protection to them in the first place and ample protection to law-abiding citizens in the second place.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We have just listened to a very interesting and illuminating speech from the right hon. Gentleman. It is interesting mainly on account of the fact that not one single idea regarding the reasons why there is

  1949
  industrial unrest has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. It is illuminating because of the assumption from the beginning to the end that the men were wrong and the employers were right.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I made no assumption as to where the right lay in the dispute. I said I was not going to enter into that, and I did not.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point I had in my mind was this. When the right hon. Gentleman used phrases, those phrases, in nine cases out of ten, begged questions, and the questions which were begged assumed the employers were right and the men were wrong. I did not want to do it, but I may illustrate what I mean, because I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think I am unjust or unfair. When he used the expression "law and order," what did he mean? He said the Government ought to take steps to enforce law and order. Supposing the case had been made out that the breach of law and order in Liverpool was a police breach, would he support—
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh!
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Of course, it was expected the right hon. Gentleman would scoff. He always scoffs at these things. That is the reason why there is so much unrest at the present moment, and why it is so exceedingly difficult for those of us who feel so keenly in this matter to restrain ourselves this afternoon within the bounds which I think the right hon. Gentleman very, rightly and properly laid down for himself. If he and Gentlemen in the position of the right hon. Gentleman had been less scoffing during the last seven or eight years there would be far less inclination now on the part of working men to take the law into their own hands in order to try and enforce the demands they are justly and properly making against their employers. However, let us try—I am going to impose the rule upon myself—to get back to something like calmness. Calmness would be preserved here and outside if we would just sit down round a green table, put all our cards on that table, and examine what each of us has to say on behalf of the various sides we represent. I am rather surprised to find when civil war—I think that was the expression used—breaks out in Liverpool it is such a great crime in
  1950
  the opinion of hon. Members opposite, who have been telling us for so long that, in certain eventualities, it would be right to break out in Belfast.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: "Ulster will, fight."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: And, under those circumstances, be supported by all the patriotic fervour and money that the party opposite can employ. I venture to think, if they had been a little more guarded in the language they have been using in political matters recently, perhaps we would have had less bother in our industrial disputes. At any rate, people must really understand if they play with fire in one respect the chances are sparks from that fire will set things ablaze in other directions. There is no party in this House and no party in the country that has been more reckless in its language of disorder than the party opposite when discussing recent political affairs. I will not say the assumption all through, because that is a mistake, but the first assumption is that because a man goes out into the streets with his fellows and says, "I will not work," and because men band themselves together in order to make their decision not to work effective, it is wrong. We hear about the small shopkeeper not having his goods, and so on. Supposing I agree it is so. Will the right hon. Gentleman and the employers assume the responsibility which they place upon their shoulders when they come to that conclusion, and when they condemn strikes, which was really the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech? You cannot have strikes if you are going to have all these nice things he asks the Government to provide for small shopkeepers and so on.
  A strike is an industrial war, and you have to make up your mind to face it with all its advantages and disadvantages. I agree that during a strike trade is upset and poverty increased for the time being. It is made amply good later on, but for the time poverty is increased, and there is a general dislocation of trade. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that is bad. I quite agree. All my hon. Friends here have been preaching that doctrine for at least the last twenty years. The difficulty is you cannot impose peace upon men unconditionally. If peace is going to be imposed upon the workers of this country, the employers must take their share of the conditions of peace. If we are going to have trade steadily going on and industry uninterrupted, then we

  1951
  must create some machinery which will enable men who have just cause to ask that their wages should be raised and their hours of labour reduced, and which will impose conditions on unwilling employers just precisely as you have machinery for imposing the opposite conditions upon unwilling men. I wish the Government would maintain law and order. It would be a great blessing if they did maintain law and order; but one way to maintain law and order is not to allow a policeman to break a man's head and then say no inquiry is going to be made for three or four months, while the man who retaliates in hot blood is hauled up before the magistrates the next morning. That is where the difficulty comes in. I think if the Government would take up a little bit less stilted attitude in this matter of law and order, peace would be proclaimed very much better, and bad blood would settle down in a shorter time than unfortunately it is likely to do at present. I want to make a protest, as firm and as strong as I possibly can make it. No policeman has any business to baton a peaceful citizen upon the public streets in this country whether there is a strike or not. I do not care what provocation has been given. You do not justify me if I go, under very severe provocation, and strike somebody in the public street. That provocation is no justification for me when I am brought before the magistrate the next morning, and I hope we shall never have such a sense of law and order as to make that a justification. What is good enough for me is good enough for the policeman. These men have no business to say—and Ministers—and particularly Liberal Ministers—have no business to come to this House and say: "men have lost their heads, they were put in a position of very great difficulty." They struck women and children and all persons, and then, although these facts are brought before them, and although the names of the persons giving the complaints—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I never said anything remotely resembling that.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: What I say is this. These statements have been made and attested to by persons who saw the incidents. I myself have handed two batches of cases, one relating to Cardiff and the other to Poplar to my right hon.
  1952
  Friend, not anonymously or on my own, authority, but on the authority of persons for whose decency and honour we can personally vouch, and yet the reply of the Liberal custodian of civil liberty is "I am not going to make inquiries. The Chief Constable is exceedingly busy. The office is congested with work. When everything is over, and it suits me or it suits my officers, then it is just possible these breaches of the peace committed by my officers may be inquired into." The whole circumstances are such as to make the blood of anybody who has any notion of civil liberty boil with indignation. We know the position, policemen are in. I do not minimise its gravity, I do not minimise its difficulty; but there is a very great difference between that and the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken up in this respect. I have, as I say, given him notice about cases at Cardiff and at Poplar. I have in my possession at the moment attested letters written by men, the majority of whom we know personally. One of them, in this bunch alone, saw certain proceedings, and he raised them before a bench of magistrates. His name is attached, and he is prepared to give evidence. There are other cases relating to Liverpool, and one ease relating to a small place in the constituency of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Chiozza Money) where pickets have been set on by policemen.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as London is concerned, of course the Metropolitan Police are under the Home Office, but the police in Liverpool are under the charge of the Liverpool authorities, and it is there in the first instance these matters should be raised. We have no control over the exercise of the discretionary powers of the authorities who are chosen by the ratepayers to deal with the action of the police either in Cardiff or in Liverpool. I have always taken full responsibility where the Metropolitan police have been employed.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the cases at Cardiff I complain about are regarding the Metropolitan Police, and the cases in Poplar I gave are also regarding the Metropolitan Police. The appeal to maintain law and order was a general appeal. If we find, for instance, pickets are molested by police, and if we find non-unionists, who are commonly called blacklegs during a strike, are aided and abetted by the police—if, as in this case, I have before me, from Northamptonshire, pickets

  1953
  who turn out in a perfectly legal way under the Act passed by the present Government are set upon and prevented from doing their work by the police, then, whatever view may be taken of law and order and however high one may place law and order as a civic virtue, well, human nature is human nature, and certain things are bound to happen as a result, and the persons who are blameworthy when those things happen are not merely the men who are charged before the magistrates the next morning. You have to take a wide view of all these questions of civil law and order and civil proceedings and distribute your responsibility in a much broader and more generous way than the right hon. Gentleman did who preceded me. I want to say just one word about the general cause of the whole proceedings. After all, it is no use discussing this matter in a superficial way. The disputes at the docks in London, in Manchester, and in Liverpool were not created ten days or a fortnight ago. That is a profound mistake. They are the result of an accumulation of resentment that has been going on for a considerable number of years. Those of us who have been in touch with those movements know how very difficult it has been for us to control certain forces that have been showing themselves on account of that accumulation of resentment.
  The matter of Railway Conciliation Boards has been mentioned. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well those Railway Conciliation Boards were really never accepted by the trade unionists. They were forced upon them, I think, at a very unfortunate moment. A Railway Conciliation Board is not the sort of thing that the Conciliation Board of the steel trade is, for instance. There you have your trade union represented, and your organised men speaking for themselves meeting quite properly. On one side of the table you have men who can speak for capital; on the other side you have men who can speak for organised labour, and the result is that you have got comparative peace. It is where capital has frankly organised itself, and equally frankly recognised the organisation of labour, that you have the very best security for peace, and it is because the Railway Conciliation Boards have denied that from the beginning that they have been so unsatisfactory. They were bound to fail. I am sorry they have failed in this way, and even now, if any assistance from any of us can be of avail for peace, that
  1954
  assistance will be freely, frankly and ungrudgingly given. At the same time, the men's case must be kept in view. It is not going to be sacrificed. If the railway directors are wise they will just do in the ease of the four large railwaymen's unions precisely what the steel employers have done to the Steel Workers' Unions, and thereby they will very soon establish machinery that will secure peace, for a generation at any rate, on the whole of our railway systems.
  That is not all. Whoever reads the history of these Conciliation Boards must really undergo a very melancholy task. The men, time after time, have asked for these Boards to be established. They pressed for their creation; they begged and prayed the railway companies to consider the plan. The railway companies delayed. There was delay in the election of the Board; there was delay in the meeting of the Board, but there was very little delay when the arbitrator got to work, and, I must say, in justice to the arbitrator, that once he was brought in and once the Board started working the award was issued in no unreasonable time. But no sooner was the award given than sentences and phrases with double meaning, or rather with a vague meaning, were seized upon by the companies, who applied to them one meaning while the men attached to them another. But the companies refused to allow the award to go back to the arbitrator in order that he might put his meaning on his own words. That has been done at last. I really hope that fair-minded critics of the present unfortunate situation, the men who are really going to contribute something towards a solution, it may not be a solution to-day, but it is something that will contribute to the final solution, will remember the very bitter, the very unfortunate and the very discouraging experiences of those who have been honestly trying to work these Boards during the last four years.
  Take for example the Shipping Federation. I am not going to weary the House with examples one after the other. But there you get the same sort of thing; you get good men, with some self-respect, who like to square their shoulders to the world and to look their employers as independent men in the face, you have these men turned away from the dock gates because they will not submit to the conditions imposed on them by the Shipping Federation. They are members of a union and are not going to surrender their union, and they find an inferior type of man, I

  1955
  was going to say, sneaking in behind their backs, prepared to submit to any conditions in order that they may get a job. These good men form the nucleus of the trades unions, they are not perhaps the men who officer them, but they are the men who retain authority and control amongst the rank and file of the trade unionists. For years they have been becoming more and more resentful—more and more resentful towards ourselves for not doing enough for them inside this House. Everybody knows what our difficulties have been, and what the difficulties of an honest trade union leader or secretary have been. Such a man may have done his level best to keep his men under control. He has made his agreements to the best of his ability, and he has done everything he could to secure that those agreements should be kept. We all know what his difficulty has been and those difficulties have only been intensified by his experiences in connection with the operations of the Shipping Federation, of the masters in the engineering trade, as well as of the railway companies in connection with the Conciliation Boards, compelling more and more men to come to this conclusion. Just as you say that in the State that the whole of our social fabric rests on force, they feel that justice is not going to be done to them unless they are prepared to resort to force. It is a pitiable, deplorable, and lamentable conclusion. But let us trace it out to its source, and not merely apply it lightly or mournfully as our disposition inclines us to the things that have happened in the last nine or ten days. Those events are Dead Sea fruit after a long ripening period, and we who have been watching events have been telling you again and again that something like this would happen unless you were wise in time.
  There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the political action of the trade unions. Well, the political action of the trade unions is a very awkward thing. It is one of those awkward things that we are all trying to swallow in our own parties and in our own experience every day of our lives. This world was not made like a Chinese puzzle for all pieces to fit nicely into each other and then to be laid on the table while we smile at our own ingenuity in putting them together. The fact of the matter remains that when capital federated itself and when it attacked labour as a unit nobody ever blamed it for it. But then the only
  1956
  move that labour could make was to meet capital on the political field. You can argue the matter as you like, you can twine it about, you can try and persuade yourself otherwise until the Day of Judgment, but you will never be able to resist the conclusion that while you have labour combined formerly simply for industrial purposes, now if it is going to meet capital fairly and squarely and upon a common level it is bound to have its representative in this House looking after legislation. Next, we had extraordinary judgments delivered, and the effect of those judgments, whether they were good law or bad law does not matter, the effect of those judgments on the mind of the active and intelligent trade unionist was to make him come to the conclusion that it was no good appealing to the English courts. He got a judgment on his own account. He went to the best lawyers and was given certain advice, which he followed to the letter, and, when his action in following that advice was revised by our bench, he discovered that the eminent lawyers sitting on the bench denied the accuracy of the advice which he got from, equally eminent lawyers. The conclusion he has been forced to is that it is of no use appealing to our trade unions, and that he does not get fair play when he appeals to the law. He, therefore, sulks and goes into his tent. He becomes a centre of a little cave which is opposed to everybody that stands for the ordinary peaceful operation of things; he runs a discordant movement inside his political, party or inside his trade union, or he appears on the street having come to the conclusion that the hand of society is lifted up against him; and if he lifts his hand up against society he is only giving what he has already received.
  I am not defending the situation; I am sure hon. Members know perfectly well I am only describing a situation to which I think we had better apply our minds first in order that we may understand it for ourselves. This House must realise that these men read in the sensational Press, day after day, accounts of the enormous wealth of this country and of the brutal, Byzantine display of vulgar wealth which is going on in the West End—a display which makes men who do not think very much angry, and which makes men who think a little simply feel the most hearty contempt for the whole lot of them. These men are poor; they are trying to keep wives and families on 17s. or 18s. a week, and at the same time they see these

  1957
  extravagant goings on; there is this vulgar display parading itself, naked and unashamed, and when they go to the very men who are displaying this extravagance and ask for an extra shilling a week on their wages they cannot get it. They are thrown back once more into themselves, and they fall into that immoral state of mind into which all men are driven when they find there is no helping hand outside and no real comradeship in their society. Their hours of labour have been increased; their wages have been actually lowered in many cases; there have been very few cases in which they have been heightened. Yet all this time the house owner, the man who can extract rent from them, has simply been watching every change in their circumstances for the purpose of putting up the rent. During this period I have in my mind, I find that in the East End of our large cities—the places most affected by these unfortunate circumstances—Cardiff, London, Manchester, and elsewhere—house rents have gone up a substantial percentage. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have gone down."] That may have been the case in one or two districts, but on the average rents have gone up. I looked into the figures this morning before venturing to deliver myself of the statement, and the information published from London County Council sources shows that the rents have gone up. These sources may be wrong, but I quote them in order that hon. Members may check them. Rents have undoubtedly gone up in industrial quarters during the last nine or ten years. The price of food has gone up; the cost of living has gone up; and you are forcing these men to try and maintain themselves and their families in decency on a few shillings, a task which, I believe, not half a dozen men in this House have tried to do for themselves, to say nothing of the wives and families, large as the families generally are in these districts and under these circumstances.
  Our case is this. We deplore as much as you can deplore and as much as any section of this House can deplore, all this unsettlement, and more especially its later development. But what is the use of doing that alone. You have to go into the causes; you have to trace those causes right the way back, and it is the duty of leading Members of this House not merely to get up and talk about law and order, but to see whether this House cannot do something to establish something like justice, so that these people may feel that the House is their custodian, and that the
  1958
  only time when they hear themselves talked about here with enthusiasm and energy is not when they have broken some policeman's head or some policeman has broken their head. With regard to the actual cases of shooting, I read to-day in the newspapers an account, which I quote with all reserve, of the action of an officer seeing a man coming up menacingly firing first of all at him in such a way as to miss him, and then, when that did not frighten the man, deliberately shooting him in the head. If that account is true—and I want to lay the greatest emphasis on that proviso—that man ought to be tried for murder. There is absolutely nothing that can justify such an action as that. There was not a soldier injured, apparently not an officer touched. One does find it exceedingly difficult to understand the complacency of those who are responsible. Certainly law and order by all means, but law and order on both sides; protection for the men, protection for peaceful meetings, protection for foot passengers, protection for crowds which have assembled for absolutely legitimate purposes, and protection for crowds which I hope will assemble for absolutely legitimate purposes, for we are not going to allow the right of meeting or the right of discussion, or the right of user of the public roads to be upset simply because certain civil disturbances are going on which have been heightened tremendously, and made tragic by the blunders, so far as information has reached us, of those who ought to have kept the peace.
  I hope I have said nothing which will make peace difficult, but I will tell you what is the first thing which will make peace not only difficult but almost impossible, and that is that the men who feel they are in the right, and who themselves are deprecating this lawlessness, the genuine trade unionist—the one thing which will make him more bitter than ever and more opposed to reason and commonsense, and to work in harness, and under the control of the leaders, will be the sort of feeling that even here there is no case put up for him, and no statement made of the conditions under which he has had to live, and the state of mind which has been growing in him during the last six or seven years. As a matter of fact, a good, honest statement of the case for the men will do more to promote peace than all the silences and the carefully-balanced sentences which can be practised by the most skilful lawyer in this House. At any rate,

  1959
  be it perfectly well-known we stand here for the men. We are not going to agree to any proposal which will take away from the men the power to strike, unless, when that is done, the machinery is such that it will impose responsibilities upon the employers equal to the responsibilities which it imposes upon the men. So far as these disturbances are concerned, whilst we deplore the lawlessness, we are bound to say that the persons who are mainly responsible are the employers, who used their economic power in order to crush down their workmen and keep them in a low state of economic efficiency.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): It is a little difficult at this stage to contribute anything to a Debate of this kind which might not be prejudicial to the delicate negotiations which are proceeding, and that is why any Member of the Government who intervenes in the Debate must choose his words with very great care, and, above all, not even appear to indicate any conclusions on merits between the disputants, because the moment that is done the whole value of Government intervention disappears. If any word is said which indicates that we are favouring either the employers' view or the views of the employés in the dispute before we carefully inquire into them, the other party to the proceedings is entitled to say, "your intervention is valueless because you come here as a prejudiced party and as one who has already made up his mind." Therefore I shall refrain from saying anything which will in the slightest degree render more difficult the already very difficult task which has been undertaken by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, and the equally difficult and dangerous task which the Home Secretary has got in maintaining law and order during the progress of these strikes and lockouts. There are, however, just two or three quite elementary propositions which one could lay down, which would not prejudge the position. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the position is, I will not say a grave, but a serious one. There are industrial disputes in connection with some of the leading industries of this country, industries which are essential to its very life, and any dispute which affects these industries must lead to a very grave state of things. I confine myself now merely to
  1960
  indicating the general position which the Government take in reference to disputes of this kind. We accept fully the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) that it is the elementary function of the Government to protect life and property, and we shall certainly not depart in the slightest degree from that position. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that we have been tardy in discharging that function. No request has been made by any local authority to the Home Secretary for assistance to the civil power to preserve law and order in any district which has not been fully and amply honoured. I do not see what more he could have done from that point of view. The hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said, I think very properly, that the fault is not altogether with the men in this case. There has been a very good deal of loose language during the last few months with regard to the maintenance of law and order. It has been by no means confined to those engaged in these strikes. Here is the kind of language which has been used by fairly reputable journalists. Here is one which appeared in a Unionist paper on Saturday in reference to a purely political dispute:—
  "We are back in the circumstances of the seventeenth century. Are we then to appeal at once to arms? That again is a question of expediency, utterly unaffected by any consideration for the Constitution wreckers."
  That means His Majesty's Ministers for the time being.
  "Our business is to destroy, and not simply to turn out, the anarchists at present in possession of the seals of office and the King's person. In these days when the main social nexus is economic, a boycott may be a more immediately effective weapon than a direct resort to force. There is, of course, no reason why anyone should pay taxes on the fiat of a revolutionary junta posing as a constituent assembly."
  That means the House of Commons—
  "The choice of weapons is really a minor point, since a boycott could only be dealt with by force, which in turn would be forcibly resisted."
  That is not language used by strikers on Tower Hill. It is language which appears in a responsible Unionist journal, the "Saturday Review." The hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) is entitled to treat, that with scorn. He has taken a more responsible and reasonable attitude. But he must remember that it represents the views of a very considerable and powerful section in his party, not the section to which he belongs, and really supposing this sort of thing were said at a meeting on Tower Hill, "the choice of weapons is really a minor point," and suppose as the result of that there were a riot, what

  1961
  would happen? I have heard in this House within the last few weeks a direct incitement to violence by very responsible and influential persons inside the House. It is a very serious thing that anything of that kind should be said at a moment when everyone knew there was great unrest in the country, and it was with the greatest difficulty in the world that law and order could possibly be maintained. The only difference is this. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and journalists who use that language say, "If there is a law that we do not like and we cannot induce the majority of the country to agree with us in altering it, let us resort to force; the weapon which we use is quite a minor consideration." Should there be one law for Unionist Gentlemen in the House of Commons and another for poor strikers on Tower Hill? I do think to use language of that kind in present conditions is really just like striking a match when you are at a powder magazine, and no man who uses it has the slightest right to come to the Government and insist on the use of the military or police forces for the preservation of law and order. I have heard language used from the Front Bench opposite—
  Mr. FRED HALL: Limehouse.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Did I incite to force at Limehouse?
  Mr. FRED HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman will carefully read that speech he made at Limehouse—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I ask the hon. Gentleman to quote a single phrase used by me at Limehouse or anywhere else in which I incited anybody to use force or to break the law. I should regard it as a most criminal action on my part if I had done anything of the kind. I argued my point of view, and I might have used very strong language about grievances which I felt strongly, but I never used a single phrase which would incite poor people to face the perils of the law which I was not prepared to face myself. The man who brings that charge against me is uttering something which is absolutely untrue. But I have heard right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench within the last few weeks using language which was an encouragement to breaking the law. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) heard it but never repudiated it. He did not condemn his own colleagues, but he condemns the Government because they
  1962
  are not free enough in the use of the military. These men are treated as if they were all strikers. Are there not lockouts? In Liverpool there is a very considerable lockout. I still stand by the position that is laid down by the Home Secretary. It is the first business of a Government to protect life and property and to administer the law, whether in London, or Liverpool, or in Ireland, once it is adopted as an Act of Parliament, and then to do our best by constitutional means to alter it afterwards, if it requires alteration. But my hon. Friend has complained about the action of the police and the action of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think my right hon. Friend, if I may say so, has taken absolutely the only possible position he could take. Are the facts, as stated by my hon. Friend accurate as to what occurred at Liverpool? He did not on his own responsibility say so. He only quoted newspaper reports, and he condemned the Liverpool police and my right hon. Friend, and he used very passionate language in reference to something which he saw in the newspapers. When you bring serious charges of that-kind you ought to make some kind of inquiry.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I gave cases regarding Cardiff and Poplar, and mentioned persons whose names are on the Paper, and whom we know personally.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no; I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away from the point. I am speaking of Liverpool now. There is a charge there which he says is a charge of murder. That is a very serious charge to bring against an officer who was engaged in the execution of a very difficult duty, and who was acting upon the authorisation which he received from the magistrate. My hon. Friend did this merely upon a newspaper report. He had no opportunity of verifying it, and yet he used language as to a charge of murder when he himself could not verify the facts, and he worked himself into a great passion. He might consider after all that a charge of murder is a very serious charge. There are means of investigating a charge of that kind which are just as open to the strikers in Liverpool as to anyone who has been assaulted.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDindicated dissent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no use of my hon. Friend shaking his head. Exactly the same means of investigating the charge are open to the strikers as to others, whether policemen or soldiers. First of all there is the coroner's inquiry. We have no business to prejudge what will be said or done there. It is the duty of such a person as was referred to by the hon. Gentleman to give evidence. He is liable to be prosecuted like anybody else, and I say that to prejudge his case merely upon a newspaper report, for which the hon. Member himself is not responsible, is not fair. I have always been fair to the men who are strikers, and my hon. Friend ought to be fair to the police and the soldiers who had a very obnoxious duty to perform. There is nothing they dislike more. It is with the greatest reluctance they engage upon it, and they do it because it is part of their duty, and I do say that they are entitled to every fair play and consideration in a matter of that kind.
  I come now to the Poplar case. What does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say? He says that at the present moment when the whole resources of the police are concentrated upon the preservation of life and property, under very abnormal conditions, he cannot undertake to institute an exceptional inquiry before every other form of inquiry has been used. If an assault is committed upon a policeman he gets no special inquiry. All he gets is a summons for assault against the person who commits it, and the same process is open to persons who have been assaulted by the police.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: As a matter of fact, a person who was assaulted went into the police station to lodge a charge and was practically kicked out.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like more information about that. I know something of the process in these cases, and I never saw a case where any information was laid on evidence where a summons was refused for assault. At any rate, the Court is just as open to the subject as to the police. They are on quite equal terms so far as the remedies of the law are concerned. If all these have failed it would be open to him to come here and ask the Home Office for a special inquiry, but let him first exhaust the means
  1964
  which are just as open to strikers and others as to the police. That is all I have to say in regard to that matter. The second thing I have to say is that the functions of the Government are not exhausted merely when they protect life and property. A Government is responsible to see that fair play and justice are done in these disputes, as far as its powers go. I think it will be the experience of everybody that whenever there is a strike people are rather too ready to assume that the workers have no business to interrupt trade in this way. That is the first impulse of anybody outside of the industrial classes. They say, "What a worry these people are again striking." No Government could take up that position. After all the working classes want to improve the conditions of labour. They have increased their wages by a series and succession of labour struggles of more or less magnitude—labour struggles conducted through great suffering to themselves. No body of men engage light-heartedly in a strike, and they do not keep strikes going for weeks unless they are convinced honestly that they have got grievances, because the sufferings they endure are much too great.
  It is the duty of the Government to see, in so far as its powers extend—and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that its powers are quite inadequate at the present moment—that fair play is done between the contestants in these industrial struggles. It is a very difficult task. I had some years' experience at the Board of Trade, and I know how difficult it is to get at the real merits. It needs a great deal of patience, and that is why, drawing upon my experience in these matters, I should deprecate any sort of rushing into expedients which simply cause irritation, and which seem rather to be favourable to one side than the other. I agree that life and property should be protected, but when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) says that we ought instantly, when free labour comes on the scene, to rush in without appealing, to the employers to exercise patience in the matter, I do not quite accept his view there. The natural grievance of trade unionists is, as indicated by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) in the course of questions, that although these men come in to claim their right—the right of every citizen to be able to sell their labour without interference— they are always taking advantage of the increases in wages and the improvements

  1965
  in their conditions which are the result of struggles which they have done their best to thwart. That naturally causes grievance and irritation, and I do not think the Government can altogether leave out of sight that those very men will benefit by agreements which are wrung out of employers by the sufferings of others.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not deny the right to strike. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the right to work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not lay down so sweeping a proposition as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. What I do say rather, by way of appeal to employers—and I think the Government are the right men to make the appeal to them—is that they should exercise patience in the matter of introducing expedients of an irritating character, which would have the effect rather of prolonging the struggle than otherwise. I think if the right hon. Gentleman had had my experience at the Board of Trade, he would see how very important that is. I have never seen any reluctance on the part of employers generally to respond to an appeal of that kind, but sometimes you get an employer who does not respond.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not wish to put it any higher than that. Sometimes there is a kind of employer who is obstinate and stubborn, and who insists at the most irritating moment. He is generally the employer who is responsible for the prolongation of labour struggles. Some of the worst struggles I know of have been the result of action of that kind. I do not forget that it is the duty of the Government to protect life and property and freedom of labour, but I think at the same time that we are entitled to make an appeal to employers of labour to exercise patience, which in the long run will enure to their advantage and to the advantage of the community generally.
  6.0 P.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman said something about the railway struggle. I frankly regret that only twenty-four hours have been given to arrive at some kind of understanding. I cannot help thinking that it is a great mistake not to give a little longer, because it is quite impossible for anybody to be able to negotiate with
  1966
  any sort of satisfaction in the course of twenty-four hours. I do hope if I may make that appeal—having made one appeal to the employers—to the workmen that they will not carry out the threat which they issued yesterday to strike in twenty-four hours, when it would be quite impossible for the machinery of conciliation to be brought into operation at all. I would not like to say a word here which would make it more difficult for my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to effect a settlement. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester about Conciliation Boards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) suggested that I forced Conciliation Boards on the employers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said that I forced Conciliation Boards on the workmen. Well, I think that shows how very impartial the Board of Trade were on that occasion. It is perfectly true that something is given which was not asked for by the men—something which the employers were not prepared really to accept, but they did accept it. I hoped that the agreement would be worked with the same unanimity and good spirit with which it was accepted. I am expressing no opinion on that. I have heard some complaints as to the action of some of the railway companies. I think it would be very unfortunate if these Conciliation Boards did not work in the way which was intended, because it is really in the interest of the railway companies, as well as of the men, that they should be worked in the way intended when they were originally set up; but if there has been interference with the free choice of delegates, a deliberate attempt to prevent men getting on the boards, a deliberate attempt to delay the settlement of grievances and to get them away from the arbitrators, then all I can say is that the railway companies who have done that, if there are any, must accept the responsibility for what may happen. But I do still say that, if they are worked freely and fairly between the parties, there is no more effective method of settling disputes than a board of that kind where the parties meet on equal terms. I have no doubt at all that, just like any other instrument, there were defects in it, and that those defects have been revealed in the working, defects of procedure, which have perhaps led to too much delay: delay, of course, leads to irritation.

  1967
  I think, therefore, it may be very possible that there may be some amendments of procedure which may be desirable. Those I am sure can be effected once the men and the employers meet each other at the Board of Trade.
  I always regretted that the employers did not see their way to meet the men. I think it is a mistake. First of all, I have to meet the directors and managers of railway companies in one room, and then I have to go upstairs to talk to Mr. Bell, and then I have to come down and tell them what Mr. Bell has said. I have always felt that this was more or less of a farce, because they were meeting Mr. Bell indirectly; and there was never more a popular man than Mr. Bell, a more reasonable man, a fairer man, or a man capable of greater restraints. I remember absolutely ruling his great demonstration in the Albert Hall, because I said to him, "Do not say a single word that would cause any irritation or difficulty with the railway representative." There were 12,000 men there, and if he had said strong words they would have cheered him to the echo. He let down his meeting. He deliberately had a flat meeting in order to avoid giving any cause of irritation. I thought that that was a matter of first-class moral courage, and anybody who is in the habit of addressing public meetings knows what terrific restraint is required for that. And yet here is this man who has exercised all the real offices of statesmanship, a man of perfect temper and great moderation, and they would not even meet him. On all these Conciliation Boards the delegates of the men do meet the employers. All they want to be sure of is that these conciliation arrangements are worked fairly. I have just appealed to the men that they should not precipitate a struggle until at any rate there is an opportunity for the machinery to come into operation to see will something be done. It is a very serious responsibility for them to take. No strike can be conducted in the teeth of the general sentiment of the public, and if the men put themselves wrong with the general public that is the one way to cause and to ensure defeat. If they exercise restraint and patience, and show that they are willing to exhaust every means which the Government places at their disposal to discuss things fairly, and to try to come to a solution, they will be in an infinitely better position. Therefore I would appeal to them not to precipitate a
  1968
  very grave struggle which would put them in a difficulty, and put the general public in a difficulty.
  Of course, our duty is perfectly clear. We owe a duty to the public in this matter, and to protect the railways whatever the cost. The whole food supply of the public, the whole life of the community, depends upon these railway lines, but we shall also do our very best not merely to protect the public, but to protect the workmen, and see that they get fair play on these Conciliation Boards. But it will make our task very much easier if they will endeavour to comply with what must be the general sentiment of the community, and what I should have thought would be the advice of the organised representatives of labour here, that they rather should first of all see that every method of conciliation has failed before they resort to a weapon which, whatever damage it may inflict upon others, also inflicts a deep wound upon the hand that grasps it. Therefore I do make this appeal. I should be very sorry if I said anything which would in the slightest degree aggravate the situation. I have done my very best. All I say to the public generally is that there is always a tendency towards a little exaggeration in a situation like this, and though it is quite serious enough I do not think it is by any means as alarming as some of the Press would lead us to think. With all the knowledge of the facts which I have got I do not think it is an alarming situation. It is a serious situation, and will require very delicate handling and very firm handling, but above all it will require handling in such a way as to give confidence to the community that the Government mean to deal justice to both employers and employed.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has referred to some action taken by the Post Office in connection with these disputes, and has asked me to give an explanation of it, which I shall be very ready to do. In the first place, it is necessary to reduce the matter to its proper proportions. There seems to be an impression abroad that the Postmaster-General has been to the strike committee in order to get permission for the mail vans to go through the streets and carry on the postal service of the Metropolis. Nothing of the kind has occurred. Our mail vans have not been in any respect interfered with in their passage through the streets. Indeed,

  1969
  there are no mail vans in London directly belonging to the Post Office. The whole of the mail service is carried on by contractors. These contractors have not been in any way interfered with in the conduct of their business in the carrying of the mails through the streets. A difficulty arose in connection with the supply of fodder for the horses and of petrol for the motor vans. A few days ago representatives of the contractors came to see the Comptroller of the London postal district and explained to him that the supplies both of fodder and petrol were running short, and asked whether the Post Office could assist in any way. They did not ask for police protection in order to guard their vans carrying the supplies from the docks. That was not the request made to us. Had it been made to us we should have referred it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. No communication was made to the Home Secretary in the matter and the contractors did not ask us to give them forces for the purpose of getting their supplies out of the docks. They inquired whether the Post Office would use its good offices in the matter. The Carmens' Trade Union has no grievance against the Post Office. They have the full advantage of the Fair-Wages Clause, and several of their grievances which were legitimate grievances I have been able to remedy during the last year and a half; and they have no quarrel whatever with the Department. One of my officers—I was not consulted; it was considered such an obvious and natural thing to do—went to the representatives of the Carmen's Trades' Union, and pointed out that supplies were coming through for hospitals without let or hindrance and asked whether supplies could not also come through for the contractors of the fodder and petrol which they needed. The Carmen's Trades Union, after consulting the Strikes Committee, agreed that this should be done, and fodder and petrol came through for the contractors, who were able to replenish their supplies. That is the long and the short of what took place in the matter.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am very glad to be able to refer to this matter this evening, because I am, as the House will know, in a position of very serious responsibility in this matter. The scene of this struggle in Liverpool is largely in my Constituency, and the strike affects my Constituency perhaps more than that of any other Member for Liverpool. I would have held my
  1970
  peace if it had not been my duty to state the case very briefly and I hope without any rancour and certainly without any provocation. I should have been tempted under other conditions to have adverted to many matters to which now I will make only the most casual reference. This state of things in Liverpool has not unfortunately come up to-day. It has been led up to by many and various circumstances which I endeavoured at various times to mitigate and control—a thing which I failed to do. I will not make any further reference to certain episodes in this House and outside the House, but I may be taken to have some knowledge of what has taken place in Liverpool. At the present moment negotiations are going on. I most heartily wish, as everybody in the House does, that these negotiations should end in peace between the disputing parties. Therefore I feel under very strong bonds to be more than usually careful in any language which I may use.
  I have received several letters from my Constituents. I have two letters here. One is from an Englishman and the other is from an Irishman. These letters make a very strong complaint on the action of the police, especially on last Sunday. They make very strong charges against the police, and I think that these charges, perhaps, are made with a little more vehemence because the police force with which they find fault was a police force which does not belong to Liverpool itself but has been brought from elsewhere. Policemen, like other people under stress of very hard and trying conditions, when they have to pass through times of strike and riot are liable to lose their heads. I do not think it would be fair for me at this moment to read these letters to the House. The statements are ex parte; they are strong statements; they bear upon their face the evidence of being made in perfectly good faith; but I think at this moment it is better for me to postpone any discussion of any particular instances until a calmer moment has arrived, and I only mention them now for the purpose of urging upon the Government and upon the authorities in Liverpool the strong desirability of their impressing upon the police the necessity of acting with no hot-headedness and with no vindictiveness, but with as great a discrimination as the circumstances of the moment will permit between those who are really endeavouring to break the peace and innocent bystanders, and especially women and children, some of whom, I regret to say, have

  1971
  been assaulted during these disturbances. I think that word of warning is necessary. I will not say anything further at this moment, except this: I am in entire sympathy with the purposes of the dockers and with working men generally in the country. I think the time for a general advance in wages is not only due, but overdue. I do not think that any man can have read the statistics and the accounts in the newspapers of the gigantic and boundless prosperity of this country without feeling that the time has come for the working people of this land to have a larger share than they have in that prosperity. My hon. Friend opposite to-day has proved that the wages have been overtaken by the advance in the price of food, and that while there has been an extraordinary increase of wealth in the country, wages have remained stationary and the cost of food has advanced, during the last ten years. If there be any class in this community that has more urgent need than any other of an improvement of their conditions, it is the dockers of Liverpool and of other great ports of the country. Anybody who knows their lives knows that their case is one of peculiar hardship because of the low wages they receive. Anybody who passes through my Constituency will find pathetic evidence of the low standard of remuneration of these people. I have already indicated to my friends in Liverpool and the Home Secretary that any poor influence I may have in Liverpool, among my own people, that will be useful in the restoration of order, I am prepared to exercise among my own Constituents, if local opinion justifies my intervention.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish first of all to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Secretary on the Front Bench, to the fact that those who are urging and pressing for an inquiry are very much concerned to protest against the denial of it for this reason. We had, for the first time, a large pile of information, got together by very reliable witnesses, of the disturbances that took place outside this House in connection with the Women's Suffrage demonstration, and the answer we received from the Home Secretary was that the date was too far away from the occurrence to allow of an inquiry being made. The inquiry was refused, as a matter of fact, because the matter was out of date. The Home Secretary cannot now, in view of that action,
  1972
  take up another position, and ask us to postpone investigation into the particular matters to which attention is now being called. I want the House to quite understand the position that I as an individual take up in regard to this matter. I am no advocate of unarmed people throwing themselves against armed people. I said that on Tower Hill the other day, and I repeat it here. I used the argument that they had only to sit still, and that we should all very soon be brought to our senses—employers, landlords, and everybody else. There is no need in my judgment for the working men to fight at all. All that they have to do is to stop working, and then we in this House, like everybody else, will know how dependent we are on the very poorest casual labourer that there is in the land. While I believe in that, however, I still maintain that these men have a clear and indefeasible right to go on strike, to meet in the streets, and to try and persuade their fellow men and women to go on strike too. It is because there is a disposition on the part of the police in London and other places to look upon a gathering of men in London as illegal that we are raising this protest this afternoon. We desire that there should be absolute freedom of meeting for working men at all times. It is necessary for them to meet, and we want freedom to explain to non-unionists and non-strikers what the position really is.
  People talk about patience in this matter. I was very much struck by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, because I considered it a very unequal and uneven utterance. He preached patience towards the end of his observations. The first discussion which I heard when I entered this House was one on the Welsh miners' dispute, and the Home Secretary then told us that while disorder was going on no investigations could be made. Things have quieted down, but no investigation has taken place to this day. These unhappy men have had patience, they have not broken the law, and yet in this House no one troubles about them. Ten thousand, including wives and children, have been starving on the hillsides for twelve months, yet there is not one man in this House who has bothered and badgered the Government to put a stop to the starvation of these men. It is you who have taught the men to be violent, because you have never troubled about them until they become violent. Immediately they do become violent you order an inquiry into their grievances. We

  1973
  know what took place in Poplar. I marvel at the patience of men under those conditions. We are told that they should have recourse to the law. It seems to be imagined that everyone of them could employ a K.C., and that a man assaulted in the streets has nothing to do but employ a lawyer and go into the courts. I have nothing to say against the police individually. I admit their position is one of tremendous difficulty, and one that I would not like to occupy; I have the greatest sympathy with many of them in carrying out disagreeable work; but everybody in London knows that it is the most difficult thing in the world to get a conviction against a policeman. Everybody knows that due account will be taken by the magistrates of the hubbub going on, and the fact that the witnesses might not have seen everything quite clearly. But take the facts in the case of Poplar. It was in the afternoon at four o'clock, when work at the docks has ceased under ordinary conditions, that a large number of people were holding a meeting at a well-known meeting place outside the East India docks.
  The meeting was quietly breaking up and there was no disorder whatsoever, when all at once a body of police came up and charged the crowd with batons, and three patrols rode up one side of the street and down the other of the side pavement. I say that under any circumstances, even if a disturbance was taking place, there should be some inquiry as to why that happened, especially when you remember that no disturbance of any kind has taken place, and that the police simply wished to clear the crowd away from the East India Dock Road. What happened? A man was carrying his child, and was accompanied by his wife, on the footpath, He saw the patrol coming, and to prevent his wife being ridden down, he seized the bridal of the horse. He was immediately taken by the throat by a policeman, and practically hurled along the road to the police station, where he was detained a short time, and then chucked out. No charge was made against him at all. All this the Home Secretary knows. We are told to wait until an investigation takes place into the case of that man. The facts are that in Poplar police-station the man was not charged, and was liberated. Yet we are told this is a matter which we ought not to raise. I am raising it because, in common with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I
  1974
  hold that, under all circumstances, citizens have a right to the usual peaceful user of the streets, and on this occasion there was no breach of the peace whatsoever. I am ashamed of this House in regard to what has taken place in Liverpool, because I have not heard a single voice raised in sympathy here with the wives and relatives of the two men who have been shot down. They might have been dogs for all anyone has thought about them. At that table the Home Secretary poured out his sympathy with the police and the soldiers in a difficult task. What about the relatives of these two men lying dead in Liverpool? Is there no sympathy to go out to them? Are we to be told that men may be shot down simply at sight? For my part I have much more sympathy with the relatives of these men, and with the wounded people in this struggle, than I have for anybody else connected with these events, and I think this House ought to have exhibited some sympathy for the relatives of those who have been killed. I at least, speaking for myself, believe with the good Quaker, that murder is murder wheresoever and by whomsoever it is committed:—
  "He who takes a sword, and draws it,
  And goes stick a fellow through.
  Governments ain't to answer for it,
  God will send the bill to you."
  If armed soldiers in war attack people who are unarmed they are guilty of the most nefarious kind of murder that it is possible to conceive. You have only to read your newspapers to see that in this struggle in Liverpool hardly a man or a horse was injured, and the least an English gentleman should have done was to disarm the man if he was afraid he was going to assault him. I at least am not going to be any party to whitewashing anyone in any sort of way. I protest against the use of soldiers in these troubles at any time. It is not their work. If you believe in war, you should not have armed men against unarmed men. In real war the armed force that fires on unarmed people generally meets with a good deal of disgust and disapprobation. In this business the first thing that was done was to bring out the soldiers. Why is it we read in the newspapers about camps of soldiers around London? What is it for? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about his sympathy for the people, his sympathy for the poor, and the rest of it. This House is doing nothing for the poor, and the poor only get things done for them by doing them for themselves.

  1975
  What are troops being brought in for? Really to overawe strikers, and make them imagine that they must not strike but must go to work. I at least am not paying money towards the Army for this purpose, and labour disputes should be dealt with in another sort of way. Soldiers have no business in this sort of struggle, and, if I vote alone, I shall vote against military forces being brought in under such conditions. I hear well-fed men like you, well-fed as I am, talk about these men and about the things which they do and of their extravagant demands. Let the House read the settlement of the carmen. They settled at a paltry wage of 24s. or 27s. per week for seventy-two hours' labour per week. Let every Member of the House ask what this House is doing to deal with the grievances of the common people. What must have been the conditions of those men. When you talk about those men being extravagant, I say again I marvel at their moderation, and that they carry us on their backs for the paltry pittance we ladle out to them.
  The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpood (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) spoke about the casual labourer. How many times has the House heard about the casual labourer? You have in your Library here volume after volume telling you all about it. What have you done to deal with it? What have you troubled about it? There are 10,000 more men than ever could get work at the docks, and those men are locked out. You talk about strikes, but I have not heard anybody get up and denounce the employers for locking out the men over a dispute with 700 men, or denounce the shipowners who have directed it. I think the Government ought to take the business out of their hands and forbid them to lock our their men. When they are locked out, and when there is a general strike, I do not want, and I say this quite advisedly, the workmen to give in until they get real concessions from the governing classes. I want them to use their weapon of a strike, the weapon of doing nothing, just standing still, like many of us do hour after hour in our lives, until the community gets them living conditions. When I hear people talk of the starving nature that will handle this weapon of the strike, why it only means just a little bit more starving. As a Christian employer in Bermondsey said to-day when he was appealed to because of the starving, "Oh, they can but-
  1976
  ton up their buttons a little tighter." I want the workmen to button themselves up a little tighter, and I want this House to say that soldiers should not be used to coerce men, and that police and magistrates should not be used to deny the men the right of meeting, a right which our fathers won for us. I say if the Government want to put an end to this, if this House wants to put an end to it, do not go away golfing and shooting and yachting, and all that kind of thing. Let us stop here and face this problem of preventable destitution and poverty. Let us settle why it is that in the midst of wealth, unexampled in the history of the world, you have got millions of people living below the borderline of existence. Let us, instead of wanting holidays, show the poor that we care for them in a very real sense. Instead of sending soldiers and policemen to bludgeon them, let us bring in such legislation as will secure for the man who does a day's work a real living wage, and for the woman who goes to work a living wage for that day's work also.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I think the House will agree that it has benefited by the statements of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and of the last speaker. We are not always able to obtain the information that they have been able to give us, through the Press and other sources, and it is to the advantage of the House, I think, that those views should be expressed here. I venture to respond to the best of my ability to the appeal which has been made to us in the very grave words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I wish to call the attention of the House and the Home Secretary to one matter affecting the situation in London. I should like to express my gratitude as a London Member to the Home Secretary for refusing to call upon the military forces of the Crown to take part or to be brought upon the scene. I have reason to know that the Home Secretary was pressed from certain sources to use the military forces of the Crown in the dispute. I know London, perhaps not as well as some here, and having some regard for the people of London I feel a sense of gratitude that the soldiers were not brought on the scene and on to the streets of London. The reason why I feel grateful is this: in the first place, the people of London, I submit, have behaved throughout this very difficult matter with great calmness and with great patience and quietude. I also sub-

  1977
  mit that they have on the whole been controlled easily by the police. I am not one of those who would ask the Home Secretary at this moment to institute any inquiry into the action of the Metropolitan police. I would not for a moment suggest that he should do so at the present time, but what I want to say is, if he feels on the evidence he has before him and which has been brought before him by hon. Members here, and I am putting some as well, that an inquiry can be instituted into the action of the Metropolitan, police that then he will include in that inquiry not merely the action of the police in the east of London, but will also include parts of London south of the river.
  I have received information that some ill-treament was meted out to some persons, women and children on the south side of the river in that part of London known as Horsleydown. While I say that, I think there is no one here on these Benches who would fail to respond to the appeal the Government has made. We realise the gravity of the situation. We who represent Metropolitan constituencies will feel thankful that the people of London have behaved with such calmness; everyone knows the difficulties under which the people of London suffered, and one is almost astonished at the way they behaved, but it is necessary that the Metropolitan police, for whom I have a great admiration, should in all cases exercise great care in clearing the streets and carrying out their duties. And because I do not ever wish to see any of the military forces used in the streets of London, I am anxious that the Metropolitan police, whatever way you like to enforce the supervision, should be very carefully watched and should not be allowed to exceed their duty even in isolated cases. I feel, therefore, that if the Home Secretary will look very carefully into the cases which the hon. Member who last spoke has mentioned, and the cases which I am going to put before him from the south side of the river, that he will feel it will be necessary to institute some sort of inquiry into this matter. The people of London are a law-abiding, well-behaved people, and it speaks well for them that, under arduous conditions in the Port of London, they have maintained calmness and patience even during a time when speeches were made from benches in this House encouraging violence and disorder. It speaks well for them that they were not moved in any way by those words, but that they
  1978
  listened to their leaders and that in every way they have done their duty well. Therefore, when I am told of cases of women and children having ill-treatment meted out to them in the streets, I am anxious that those cases should not be overlooked. I felt it my duty, as a Member for a Constituency where one of those events took place, that the matter should be ventilated in this House. One knows perfectly well that peaceful citizens go out and take no interest or part in a dispute, and I feel confident that those people were unfairly treated, and that those cases should be looked into. I assure him, however, that while this matter is at issue, we, and I speak for myself and others who will agree with me, should not in any way press for an immediate inquiry.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am one of those who find it difficult to preserve a fine impartiality in this, particular matter. I am one of those who think that had it not been for the fact that certain strikes had occurred this discussion would not be taking place on the Appropriation Bill. I ask the House to consider what that means? You have had already a long Session. So far as wages are concerned, I have myself endeavoured to bring the subject before the House. I put a Resolution on the Paper for an early day, and I eagerly awaited the opportunity of winning a place in the ballot. I did not win the ballot. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), fortunately, gained the ballot for a private Member's evening and put down a Motion as to a minimum wage. We had a very thin House indeed, and the newspapers scarcely reported the Debate that took place. I recall these matters to the attention of the House because they are entirely typical, if the House will pardon me for saying so, of the treatment of the subject of wages by this House. I do very earnestly represent to the House that it is high time this question should have its earnest consideration. It is useless for us, quite useless it seems to me, merely to turn our attention to questions of the amelioration of the condition of the poor by first allowing the struggle to go on, and then, after certain amounts of increment have been taken off people who have more or lees earned them, to tax that increment to be given to certain of the poor. I venture to represent that it is far better surely we should turn our attention to the fundamental matter of the remuneration

  1979
  of labour, and if we do that the rest will be done unto us without further exertion on our part.
  I rejoice very frankly that some signs at last are evident that what I do not hesitate to term the underpayment of labour is receiving due attention in this country. I may add that I rejoice also that those signs are not only evident in this country, but evident in other countries also. That is a sufficient answer to those publicists who at present are telling the reading public that the British workman is driving trade abroad by what he is doing. As a matter of fact the number of strikes in Germany and the number of men involved in the strikes in Germany recently have of course largely exceeded those engaged in labour disputes in this country. I have not the exact figures for last year, but certainly not less than 400,000 persons have been engaged in labour disputes in Germany last year. I think any competent observer must agree that it is only owing to the labour disputes that have occurred in Germany in the last ten years that German workmen have been able to gain the increases in wages which they have happily gained during that period. I may give just one example. Last year about half a million, or 460,000, of the men engaged in the building trade in Germany gained increases of about 2s. 6d. per week as the result of a prolonged labour struggle. I venture to disagree with the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) when he said that the strike fell chiefly upon the poor. I think the truth lies more with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). The poor are already sufferers to such a degree that, as was well said by the employer whom the hon. Member quoted, it is only a matter of tightening the belt a little more in order to cover the extra suffering involved. In this matter as in every other we have a balance of advantages and disadvantages. We have a balance of loss and gain. We have to put against the present loss of wage for the wage-earner the permanent increase in wages which is often secured by such efforts as are being made at the present time. It requires but the smallest arithmetical calculation to find that in the case of the building trade dispute in Germany or in the case of the increases already gained in London, small as they are, the workers will gain in a very short period more than they have lost by the temporary period of dispute. I beg the
  1980
  right hon. Gentleman opposite to have regard to this consideration when next he addresses himself to the subject.
  I think the House must face very seriously the fact that, while it has been said on the part of the Government that there is no intention of interfering one way or the other, what we are really doing when we employ the military in connection with labour disputes is to intervene on behalf of the employer. We have to face that as a fact. It is useless to cover it up by any phraseology. If we call out the military it is for the purpose of overaweing the strikers, and that is an intervention on behalf of the employers. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend has issued such warnings as will at any rate secure that the soldiers concerned in this matter shall be exceedingly cautious in their proceedings. Indeed, we have some evidence, of which it is only fair to remind the House, that a magistrate actually called upon the soldiers to fire down a street where not only men but women were also present, but, to the honour of the soldier in command, that advice was resisted. The name of the magistrate has not yet been revealed to the public, but I hope it will be forthcoming. With regard to the question of railways, what are the facts? The facts are that we have just been going through a period when, according to the most authoritative sources—according to the railway shareholders' newspapers, according to "The Times," and every other authority— railways have been making bigger profits than ever before. Their dividends have been larger and their profits greater. What has been going on at the same time? Conciliation Boards have been in existence, and we may judge of the extent of their success when we find that as a result of their working, at a time when the railways are confessedly making larger profits than ever before, the men whose cases have been adjudicated upon have gained increases of something like, ½d, or 1d., or at the outside 2d. per day. The result is that when this increase is deducted from the profits, those profits are larger than ever before. Take that great authority the "Daily Mail." That paper states:—
  "The general improvement in the intrinsic value of home railway stocks really began about two years ago, when the new policy of co-operation and economy in working was inaugurated."
  The railway companies have more than offset the trifling increases in the cases which have been adjudicated on by the Concilia-

  1981
  tion Boards by the gains they have made in discharging workers and by general cooperation. That is the position with regard to the railways. I earnestly suggest that nothing can satisfy this belated demand by labour for better remuneration, but a juster wage.
  I pass on to the movement of wages in recent years. The figures need no apology. They do not rest on my authority. In recent years the Board of Trade has given much more attention to industrial statistics, and I think they deserve every credit for so doing. In regard to wages they have taken five great groups of trades in which wages can be easily tested, and worked out an index number. Taking the last fifteen years, wages have risen in those five groups of trades by about 12 per cent., but the cost of living in the same period, as measured by the retail prices of food, has risen by 18 per cent., which means that in those years the real wage of the worker has diminished. But that only partly expresses the gravity of the situation in that regard. If we take the period since 1900, a little over ten years, wages, apart from small increases, have been practically stationary. The Board of Trade index number has moved from 100 to 100.2. What is the movement of retail food prices? In the same ten years it has gone up 10 per cent. That means that the worker's sovereign has become worth only 18s. in that period. Even that does not wholly express the truth, because in those figures there are not included the railway workers and other employments where wages have been either stationary or falling. If they had been included there is no doubt whatever that, the index number would have appeared worse than I have stated. I do not claim any monopoly of sympathy with the poor. That is a claim that ought not to be made by anyone. All I want to do is to endeavour to bring the mind of the House back from the mere details of this dispute to the great underlying cause. I am convinced that unless that underlying cause is examined we shall get no further. We cannot cure strikes by bullets. That has been proved by the experience of Germany. Even the most careless reader of the newspapers must have seen that last year not two, but many, men were killed by the military in Germany. Did that stop labour disputes in that country? What is the case? Hundreds of thousands of men are involved in labour disputes in Germany at
  1982
  this moment. We cannot cure this matter by the police or by the use of the military. There is only one way to cure it, and that is by seeing to it that there is a juster reward for labour than now obtains. In no other way can we find a surcease from the troubles which so much disturb us at the present time.
  I earnestly put these considerations before the House. I represent to His Majesty's Government that something more than an attitude of impartiality in the matter of wages is required from them. No man in this House is ashamed to say that he desires better conditions of life for the poor of this country. Where is the man or the Member of the Government who is ashamed to rise in his place and make that statement? If that is true, if that is his real opinion, how can he be impartial in this matter? What other remedy is there for these evils but an increase in wages? Therefore, much as I support His Majesty's Government in their endeavours in regard to insurance legislation or labour law, I say that it is their duty to supplement those endeavours by giving closer attention to this particular subject. The House of Commons is brought face to face by these troubles outside the House with a question which should continually engage its attention. If politics has any mission at all at the beginning of the twentieth century, surely it should be specially directed to the solution of this particular problem. It is useless merely to offer measures of amelioration to people who are not justly paid for their labour. You must do something more than that. The wage has to come in. The question of wages has to be discussed on the floor of this House. I rejoice at by whatever means this discussion has arisen to-day. I hope we shall not cease discussing the question until we find some better solution than the mere application of police or military to this terrible problem.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The hon. Member opposite began his speech with a humorous touch, quite foreign to this serious Debate. He reproached this side of the House with not raising the question of the condition of the people and the amount of the wages paid to the poor. I should have thought the House was tired of that question being raised on these benches. It is the burden of song of all those who speak about Tariff Reform. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but that is the burden of their song. They

  1983
  quote the exact figures quoted by the hon. Member to show that the wage of labour, and especially of casual labour, has increased very little, if at all, and that measures ought to be taken by this House to better the condition of the people. I agree with a good deal said by the hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) and by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) as to the condition of those— and the great bulk of the casual labourers are in the category—whose wages have not risen, whilst they have had to pay a good deal more for the necessaries of life. The hon. Member for Leicester is wrong, however, in one particular. He said that in East London rents had risen in the last few years. That is not so. I appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway whether it is not notorious that in East London the number of empty houses is very large, that men can now obtain three rooms for the same rent that they paid ten years ago for two, and that the practice of key-money— which was the premium paid on entering into occupation of rooms—has practically disappeared. What it is fair to say is that rent has fallen, but it is the only thing that has fallen. The price of the necessaries of life has risen, and, therefore, the real wages of the bulk of casual labour living in East London are less than they were.
  7.0 P.M.
  But whatever our sympathy may be with men like the carmen, whose hours of labour were undoubtedly too long, and many of whose conditions were extremely hard, nothing has been gained, but much has been lost, by allowing the City of London for two or three days to become a place of anarchy—not, as Carlyle says, anarchy with a street constable, but anarchy without a street constable. I will not say anything about those who have to administer the functions of the Home Office, except that they ought to have had more foresight and to have seen that if they did not make better provision for the public safety it was inevitable that there should be scenes of gross outrage even in the City of London and in the thoroughfares approaching the City. I will ask the Home Secretary whether it is not correct that on the bridges lorries and vans were overturned and their contents scattered about, without the smallest interference on the part of the police. Carts coming out of the very heart and centre of London were overthrown. I do not say that injuries were committed on the persons of the drivers except by accident. I think that in London there has been a happy
  1984
  absence of that sort of personal outrage. But I say that to have given up the streets of London in this way to mob law is not good for the community and is very bad for the interests of labour. It teaches a bad lesson, a lesson which has to be corrected later on by the use of such power and such forces as we all in common deplore. The result has been that the lesson of successful anarchy in London was learnt too well by the north, and what happened as a consequence the House very well knows. That was a most unfortunate thing. I believe there is no mob so little disposed to violence as the Lon-don crowd, and I believe that if there had been any show of adequate force these things would not have happened. They have happened. What is called the Metropolitan Press, as well as the Press of East London, will show anybody who looks at their pages that it was, in fact, impossible to take a van or a lorry out of picketed yards while the strike lasted.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: The cinematograph shows that it was done.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: As a matter of fact, cases occurred where they could not take them out of the yards, because, although the carters, as in the case of the employés of particular firms, like Messrs. W. H. Smith and Sons, were willing to do it, violence was feared. I am not going to say in the least that that was the fault of the police. I think everybody will admit that the Metropolitan police have behaved on the whole—although there may have been occasional mistakes—with marvellous tact, and have shown great forbearance during the whole of these troubles. But it is the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who is himself responsible for London. It is not a case of the requisition of a local authority. I quite believe him in saying that he could not refuse any force asked for. The cities of the North are able to command the forces they want, because it is impossible for the Home Office—practically impossible—to refuse. Public opinion is too strong. But in London there is no local authority who has anything to say to the police.
  The Home Office is entirely and directly responsible. If there was the sin of omission on a large scale, as I venture to say there was, it is entirely owing, and must be owing, to the Home Secretary. The London police have been used far too hardly for many a long month. They were not meant to be employed as

  1985
  a movable column, nor to be sent about the country at the call of all those who thought they wanted assistance in times of difficulty. I got an answer to-day to an unstarred question, in which the right hon. Gentleman says himself that "the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force has been under special strain." Yes, but not only during the last week, but for many many months. These men have not been so-called strikebreakers, because they take neither the one side nor the other. But they have been used to deal with strikes all over the country, because the Home Secretary has had, what I do not deny is a natural and proper reluctance to send soldiers to stop these disturbances. So he has sent the Metropolitan police. I hope their services will be fairly recognised. I do not, however, think it is a question of money payment. I hope in the future they will not be used in that way. They are not too numerous for their duties at home. At the present time it is impossible not to send them away, but in any case I do not believe it to be a right principle to use them at every turn.
  Special emergencies may have justified special missions in time past, but the Home Office is not justified in turning to them in lieu of other forces, and because he does not like to introduce the military element. The men themselves have made no special complaint, but they look upon this thing as a grievance, as I can assure the Home Secretary. Though they are a very loyal force, it is not a wise nor a proper thing to use them in the way I have described. I should think, too, when he heard the Postmaster-General's confession he must have realised how inadequate the forces of London were. The Postmaster-General did what I do not think a Minister is justified in doing. He threw the blame upon a subordinate, and said the fact was that the contractors who worked for the Post Office did not approach him for police protection, but asked one of his officials and the latter made terms with the Strike Committee unknown to him. He said the matter was decided by a subordinate. This does not show a right state of discipline in the Post Office. Other public bodies in London had those in command who were responsible for deliberately refusing to petition the Strike Committee for "permits." They said they would obtain their supplies in the right way, and would apply, if necessary, for police protection. This was a case of local authorities, although that example might be
  1986
  studied with advantage by the Government. They ought not to put themselves, or ask any regular contractor to place himself in the humiliating position of having, to ask "permits" from a strike committee to do what he ought to do under the protection of officers of the Crown. I would like to draw the Home Secretary's attention to these two points: Whether the anarchy in London was justifiable, and. whether it was not a very serious thing, for the whole trade in London that lorries; and carts should be overturned in all directions without the police being able to interfere? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Yes, on the bridges coming into London. Whether, in the second place, it is advisable to continue to use the London police in the way they have been used during the last few years? If any mistakes have been committed by them, surely the irritation at the treatment to which they have been subjected, not only in London, but all over the country, is a sufficient palliative? I do not imagine there has been any dereliction of duty, and I am only putting it hypothetically in reply to the hon. Member. Surely we can feel for them just as much as for any other class?
  Mr. LANSBURY: All I said about the police was that my sympathies went out to the relatives of the dead men.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Yes; but what, about the dead policeman whose death at Liverpool is chronicled in the papers today?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have not seen that.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Does he come in for a share of the hon. Member's sympathy?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly he does; but I understood the policeman died from-natural causes.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: He died from natural causes, but in the discharge of his duty, and probably from over-exertion in dealing with the Liverpool mob. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether he can take such measures as will prevent the possibility of our city being disgraced in the way in which it was last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh"]—yes, certainly by anarchy, which was open and flagrant, and accompanied by personal violence, doing great harm to our industries and jeopardising the good name that we are proud of?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. I venture

  1987
  to suggest that it is a great mistake to use the language of exaggeration and that which goes beyond the facts. After all, there is quite sufficient material to justify the use of serious expressions. It is not true that London has been under mob law and unbridled anarchy. What did happen was that owing to a strike of the transport workers the functions of distribution were temporarily arrested. That is not a matter which it would be possible to guard against without some inconvenience. There are no arrangements which could be made, no matter how great was the number of police employed, which would enable you to safeguard every van which was distributing provisions, in every street all over London, at all hours of the day.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Were vans overturned?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I quite agree; some vans were overturned. But the importation into London of any large body of troops would not have prevented that kind of inconvenience resulting. The only thing that would have done it, and would have been done, had the dispute not been happily terminated, was to arrange for regular convoys. That was already being taken in hand by the police. The idea that it would be possible to protect every individual van moving about all parts of the Metropolis from being stopped is beyond the actual facts. But annoyance of that character does not constitute anarchy, nor does it constitute mob law. The authorities did employ forces to deal with any disorder of a serious character which showed itself in any particular place. Of course, it is not possible on an occasion like that to squander and fritter away the whole of the police force in twos and threes over the whole of the city. The force must be held in hand to deal with any serious riot or disorder if it occurred. The statement of the hon. Gentleman is entirely of an alarmist character.
  There was not at any time the danger that the forces of law and order in London would be outweighed or overborne in any way. Annoyance, inconvenience, dislocation, and unfortunate incidents undoubtedly did occur. I am afraid that it would not be possible in any circumstances wholly to prevent that. If the strike continued a regular system of convoys would have had to be organised. The police did actually during these days meet a very great number of requests for their aid.
  1988
  In some cases they offered escorts, and made all arrangements to protect convoys moving from the depot to the market. They afterwards found that the persons who had asked for protection had changed their mind and thought they would not press for it. Further orders were given to arrest all persons guilty of molesting others in the street, a number of arrests were made, and suitable punishments followed. I am bound to say, looking back on the London strike, although about seventy persons were injured, there has not been anything of that serious violence which occurred either in South Wales or at the present time is occurring at Liverpool. I think that is very much to the credit of London. I hope, therefore, hon. Members will not describe or paint in darker colours than is very well justified what actually took place in London.
  In regard to what the hon. Member has said about the Post Office applying for "permits" from strikers, that has been so thoroughly dealt with by my right hon. Friend that it does not require any remarks from me. Except to say this: that had the matter been brought to his attention I have no doubt he would have come to the Home Office and applied for protection, and the Home Office would have instantly supplied all the protection necessary to secure the mails being taken safely and expeditiously through the streets. So far as the conduct of the police is concerned, let me repeat what was so well said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the policeman is a private person. He has no right that a private person does not have, and no special law of protection. He can be summoned for assault by any person, just with as much facility as he can summon a striker or rioter for assaulting him. Besides, he has a number with which he can be identified. He has to stand the same test in the court as any other citizen. In addition to being under that ordinary restraint which we ourselves are under he is under the disciplinary charge of a Commissioner of police. If there are any complaints made to me which appear to be well founded I will have them investigated as soon as a reasonable chance and opportunity is afforded, and when matters regain their normal condition. For the rest I must refer the members of the public who feel themselves aggrieved to the courts, which are open to them. I do not know whether the House would care to have two official reports which have been received from Liverpool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,

  1989
  hear."] The first one deals with the riot on the plateau. It is from the Head Constable. I would just like the House to note how coolly and impartially it is written. This refers to the affair of Sunday:—
  "The National Transport Workers Federation had, early in the week, announced a monster demonstration of all the trades which this Federation seeks to gather into its fold. I had, after a consultation with Tom Mann agreed that I would trust him and his fellows to conduct the meeting with decorum, and that I would as far as possible, keep both police and military out of sight. It is right to say that I am sure that Mann and the others did their very best to carry out their undertaking.
  "The meeting was held in the plateau of St. George's Hal) facing the London and North Western Hotel. Inside St. George's Hall I had 100 men of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment and a large number of police, while mounted police were kept in their quarters at a quarter of a mile away. Upon the street were merely a few police to deal with ordinary matters of traffic and so on. As is usual in such cases it is absolutely impossible to say for certain how the row began, but I am inclined to describe it as follows. Next to the London and North Western Hotel is the Empire Theatre of Varieties. A cart called at the back of this theatre for scenery to be taken to a railway station. Some of the fringe of the crowd, the fringe which at this corner consisted no doubt, of the roughs from the adjoining Irish district, always ready for an opportunity to attack the police, regarded this cart as out of sympathy with the strike, attempted to overturn it. The few police who were there prevented this, but there was some disturbance, which rapidly spread to Lord Nelson Street which runs down to Lime Street, between the theatre and the London and North Western Station and Hotel. A brutal and unprovoked attack was made by the crowd upon three policemen who happened to be scattered at the bottom of Lord Nelson Street. This disturbance spread until it became necessary to call out some of the reserves from St. George's Hall.
  "The latter began to clear Lime Street, and were immediately attacked with showers of missiles which must have been brought for the purpose by the people actually forming the meeting, who, standing upon the plateau, are separated from Lime Street by a low chain and row of posts. This attack became so persistent that the police, perforce, had to turn their attention to the meeting and drive it from the plateau. A scene of great violence ensued, and it is quite possible, nay, probable, that many innocent persons received injuries. The police suffered severely. Superintendent Boulton, of the Birmingham force, was knocked down, had his leg broken, and received other injuries, and, indeed, if it had not been for the bravery of one of his men who missed his officer and turned back to his rescue, there is little doubt that the superintendent would have been killed. His rescuer also received severe injuries, and is in hospital. The number of injured altogether amounted to some hundreds. While the latter part of this was going on the Warwickshire regiment were turned out and Mr. Stuart Deacon, the stipendiary magistrate, read the Riot Act, and the plateau was finally cleared. The disorder quickly spread to the adjoining Irish quarter, and a fierce attack upon the police began, stones and bottles being thrown from the roofs of the houses, The magistrate read the Riot Act again.
  "Immediately after the dispersal of the meeting, Tom Mann and other organisers called upon me in my office from which I was directing operations, and complained at what they called unjustifiable interference with the peaceful meeting. I of course told them that, without giving expression to any opinion upon its merits, their complaints will be fully investigated."
  I do think the House will consider that a frank and straightforward statement, and I think it is greatly to the credit and character of the officer that in a moment of
  1990
  tremendous responsibility and embarrassment upon his hand that he should keep his head so well and write a report which shows that he is trying to clear a way through the difficulties without inhumanity or panic or partiality as between the different legitimate interests at issue. I have also had a short report about the incidents of yesterday from the officer commanding the troops. That is in regard to the firing. This took place yesterday.
  "Reports just received that detachment of two officers and thirty-two men of the 18th Hussars in charge of a prison van was attacked by a big crowd. Six men were unhorsed, and about twelve shots were fired by order. One civilian was killed and two were wounded. The magistrate who was present fully concurred in the action taken."
  That is the only information I have to give the House at the present time, and I think the House will feel that we must not in our Debates say anything that will attempt to prejudge matters which undoubtedly will come within the purview of the law. I am quite certain that military officers have no greater detestation and loathing than in being brought into conflict with their fellow countrymen in these scenes of riot and disorder. There is nothing they have a greater repugnance for, and I am certain the House will feel that, after all, they are men with feelings such as we all have, and I am quite certain that not a single shot was fired that did not create feelings of agony and pain to the men called upon to fire them. And after all, these matters must, under the law of the land, be the subject of judicial investigation before the Coroner, and, if necessary, afterwards; and I do not think we ought to indulge in violent language in regard to anything that has taken place at any rate until there is clear evidence that the law is not operative for the purpose of investigating these matters properly.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the state of the superintendent of police who was injured, and can he tell us what his present condition is?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not, There was a considerable amount of injury done, and there were several casualties and several of the soldiers have been hurt. With regard to the railways that matter has been disposed of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Trade are still discussing these matters with the parties concerned.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the latest report

  1991
  that the Government promised to support the railway companies against the men is true?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The Government have not promised to support the railway companies against the men nor to support the men against the railway companies, but it will be the duty of the Government in the event of the paralysis of the great railway lines upon which the life and food of the people depend, to secure to the persons engaged in working them full legal protection and to make sure that no great disaster or catastrophe overwhelms the people owing to the breakdown of the machinery by which we live from day to day. That duty is a primary and fundamental part of the duty of the Government, and I trust no one will ever suppose if the need arises that the Government would shrink from doing it.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I regret sincerely to be obliged to interfere with this interesting Debate to which we have been listening. I feel the difficulty of calling attention at this moment to one or two very important matters with reference to Ireland, and I can only say that under the present system of doing Irish business, or rather of suppressing any discussion whatever of Irish business, there is no course open to us except to avail ourselves of such inconvenient opportunities as this. In the first week of the Session, I pointed out to the Prime Minister that far and away the most important question and the question of most immediate urgency to Ireland, was the question of land purchase, and I pressed him for a day to consider this matter. The Prime Minister said that he recognised quite as strongly as myself the urgency and importance of that question, and he said that the request was a most reasonable one, and he promised to consider it. But we have now passed through a pretty long Session without that promise being fulfilled. Last night we had, I think, something like £3,000,000 of Irish Estimates rushed through without a single word of discussion. The only really effective day that was given, and the only Irish discussion that took place during the Session was one no doubt of importance, and of very considerable educational importance, but a question of not nearly so vital a character to the great masses of the Irish people as land purchase. And this I am
  1992
  entitled to say; that I am afraid it is not altogether uncharitable to at least suspect that that arrangement was made in order to prevent and to burk any discussion of this question of Land Purchase, which is an awkward topic for the seventy Gentlemen who are at present in the position to dictate the Government attitude.
  At all events, the result was that we were refused any effective opportunity whatever, except the few words we may utter to-night in protesting against what I believe to be the greatest blunder, and I had almost said the greatest crime, in the whole history of the British Government in Ireland, and that is the destruction of an Act which in five years enabled the people to get possession of half of the entire land of Ireland and which would have enabled them to get possession of the entire land of Ireland at this moment if the Purchase Act of 1903 were only given fair play. We are unable even to give any detailed proof of what I think would be very easy to prove, namely, that that repudiation by England of her solemn treaty in the Act of 1902, that frightful wrong to the people of the country was committed under the utterly unfounded impression that Land Purchase meant some crushing expense to the British Exchequer. The fact being, as I elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a question within the last two or three days, that, with the exception of the Land Purchase Aid Fund and of the cost of the huge army of new officials, the magnificent work of Land Purchase in Ireland has practically speaking, cost the British Exchequer and ratepayer nothing at all, although their expenses in other respects have been going up by leaps and bounds. What we complain of is that the Government of England has deliberately broken and deliberately repudiated their treaty to purchase out the whole land of Ireland and to find the purchase money. I am sorry to say Irish Members themselves were the first to protest against a poor, impoverished Liberal Government being asked to find the half a million or so a year that would finance the whole Land Purchase of Ireland, although the Government found no difficulty whatever in finding £40,000,000 for increased armaments. The case is even worse, because the Government did find £500,000 a year, but they used it in a wrong way, and even in a mischievous way. The Chief Secretary, I think, admitted the other day in reply to a question of mine that the cost of the Land Commissions in Ireland had

  1993
  been increased from £130,000 to £540,000. Therefore, the £500,000 a year is being spent, but I am sorry to say not in settling the Irish land question, but in keeping it open and preparing a hell upon earth for the whole of us by and by in Ireland. The other night my hon. Friends and myself were lectured by representatives of Ireland, as if Ireland were under some deep debt of gratitude to the Government and to the Treasury for raising tenant annuities, for destroying the bonus and for keeping something like 200,000 tenants out of their purchase money and keeping something like 190,000 more tenants without any chance of purchase at all outside the congested districts. Let me for a moment trouble the House with a sentence or two from a letter I received from a responsible tenant. She says:—
  "Though not knowing you personally … I appeal to you as a friend of the oppressed farmers of Ireland to tell you my case, and to ask you is there any chance of land purchase in the near future."
  After mentioning that her farm is held at a yearly rent of £130, and that there is a large family to support, she goes on to say:—
  "Seven years ago we were offered purchase and were getting fair terms enough—about 6s. in the £—but we were advised to wait and we would get better terms, and here we have waited and toiled and moiled, and we seem no nearer to purchase now than we were seven years ago, I for one am tired and sick of the struggle. I wrote to our local Member three months ago, asking if anything would be done and begging for a reply, but I have never received a line from him. I have hoped against hope. I fear our case will be one of eviction in the end. We have no energy to fight…."
  I venture to say that is the complaint of tens of thousands at the present moment outside the congested districts. Even within the congested districts, after two years of so-called compulsory powers, the Chief Secretary has confessed that not a sod of land has been purchased under these compulsory powers. In yesterday's Paper I see an unstarred reply to the effect that only three estates have been purchased in county Leitrim. The action has been so deadly slow that after two years of compulsion they have not even arrived at making a bargain for that notorious estate owned by Lord Clanricarde. We who complain of these things are found fault with by the representatives of Ireland themselves. I do not blame the Chief Secretary himself, but we will not stop protesting in spite of any attacks upon us that England solemnly promised to buy out the land of Ireland and to find the purchase money for it. It is really the business of the English Treasury to discover the
  1994
  means of raising that money—whether it should be by turning Irish Land Stock into Consols.
  There is another matter to which I am very anxious to draw attention. It is the extraordinary situation in which the finance of Home Rule is now left owing to the appointment of the secret Cabinet Committee, and owing to the decision of the Government to suspend the Budget until the Autumn Session. I hear the Chief Secretary is anxious to leave for Ireland to-night, and I shall not, therefore, attempt to discuss the question in detail. I wish to point out, however, that the Government have now deliberately made up their minds to refuse us any information regarding the secret proceedings of this Cabinet Committee. We have also lost any control of the Budget until the winter. In the meantime the Government will have to make up their minds as to what their Home Rule proposals are to be next Session. I am afraid it is only too certain that they will take advantage of the powers which this Committee gives them —and take advantage of the fatally misleading speech made by the Member for East Mayo—to assume the worst against the Irish financial position. Possibly the Committee themselves may make proposals which may be death to the Home Rule Bill. We are in this rather awkward position that, if we protest against the entire present financial relations of these two countries, and if we protest that unless that system is altered from top to bottom, any Home Rule scheme founded upon it would be one which Ireland cannot possibly bear, the majority of Ireland's representatives think it their duty, instead of criticising the Treasury, to sing anthems in praise of it. They have never an unkind word to say of the British Treasury. On the contrary, they rushed to its defence before the Secretary to the Treasury can get to the Table to defend himself.
  All their energy and their venom are reserved for my unfortunate Friend beside me (Mr. T. M. Healy). All their spleen was directed against him because he scoffed at the Government, which has raised the cost of the civil government of Ireland from four millions to nine millions —that is, the expense has more than doubled in a poor country, the population of which has been dwindling all the time. On this Committee the financial fate of Ireland depends. I know the Prime Minister has already stated that the Cabinet will in no way be bound by the decision

  1995
  of the Committee, but I would like to see the Government facing the country if, on a financial question, they discarded the advice of this Committee. The Committee has been formed without taking the advice of any representatives of Ireland. At any rate, the majority of the representatives of Ireland have repudiated any responsibility. Here is this Committee sitting in the dark and transacting most vital financial business without any Irish control, except an eminent theologian, who has, fortunately or unfortunately, become a member of it. This I will say, I regret deeply that the gentlemen who were so remorseless in making the Government toe the line in other matters, were not equally remorseless in making them toe the line on this vital financial question. I will warn the Chief Secretary there is a feeling of the deepest anxiety and alarm in Ireland as to what this secret Committee is about. There is also a feeling of the strongest indignation as to the part which has been played by those who pretend to speak for Ireland.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I share to the full with the hon. Member who has just spoken the deepest regret that the time of this House has not allowed, for the present, sufficient opportunity for discussing the position of land purchase in Ireland. I recognise the importance of the matter, and I am under the conviction that never has any Minister standing at this Table had a clearer record and a better defence of the course I, and the Government, have taken in regard to this matter. The hon. Member has not done more than open his case. It is one which requires a good deal of time, many figures, and a great deal of consideration. I am more sorry than I can say that the opportunity is not sufficient, but I have done all that an individual can to secure a day. But it is not always in that way full consideration is given to the subject. Speeches are reported and read in Ireland, although the Government may not be equally successful in obtaining the attention of this overworked and harassed House of Commons. I understand the hon. Member's point of view as being that I found the land purchase scheme in full operation and that I deliberately, and animated by malice, stuck my stick into the machine which was working exceedingly well and stopped it.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I have never made such a statement. I have said the Chief
  1996
  Secretary followed the constitutional advice of the majority of the representatives of Ireland, and that it was bad advice.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, no. I followed no man's advice in this matter at all. I was as anxious as any human being could be to continue to the full the operation of the Act. I have never denied that it was a beneficent Act, that it was a good and worthy Act, and that it worked well so long as the financial position admitted. But its financial basis was destroyed before I came upon the scene and found land purchase lying dying on the floor of this House. The only way to revive it was to tear up the Parliamentary bargain contained in it and pour in fresh wine and oil from the Treasury of the United Kingdom. I was never advised by any hon. Member opposite to fail in my efforts to get the best terms I could from the Treasury to save this beneficent Act of Parliament from complete destruction. It is all very well to say I did not get as much money as I might have done. At any rate I got as much as I possibly could, and I got a great deal. We departed from the whole basis of the Act of 1903, and the general British taxpayer assumed a responsibility which by the express provisions of that Act was cast upon the ratepayers of Ireland, and which had it been enforced against the ratepayers would have destroyed not only all the good we hoped to do, but would have destroyed with regard to £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 the position of tenants who had become under pending agreements, prospective proprietors, and who had left off paying rent and were paying interest in lieu of rent. But for the fact that the Treasury had come to some extent to their assistance they would have been relegated to their former position of tenants, and we should have got into trouble indeed. I did the best I could. I ask the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) to believe that no human being from Ireland; ever did anything more than urge me, and prompt me, and prick me, and adjure me to get the most I could. I got a great deal. I have figures, but I will not trouble the House with them.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Read them.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know the hon. and learned Member is waiting for me.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am not lying in wait.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That, after all, is only a figure of speech. You may say an hon. Member lies in wait without casting any imputation upon his veracity. We transferred £7,500,000 of excess stock from the ratepayers to the Treasury. The whole basis of the Act of 1903 was based upon a false assumption, namely, that land purchase stock would be about par. But it never was anything like par. The average was about £85, and for every £100 cash you had to issue £113 10s. of stock, and that was excess stock. The only observation which Mr. Ritchie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, made during the whole progress of the Land Bill Debates of 1903 was this pregnant one. He said:—
  "If this land purchase stock is not at par, the whole scheme breaks down."
  It has broken down, and I found myself in the position of having to finance, pending agreements, to the amount of £30,000,000. More than that, I had to induce the Treasury to take upon themselves this obligation in defiance of the Act of Parliament, and contrary to the express language of that Act, and I asked them to come in between the ratepayers of Ireland and the absolute ruin of land purchase. The hon. Gentleman says there was a bargain—a noble treaty. All I can say is the next time he attempts a bargain or a treaty, either with this Parliament or with your own, let him be careful to see that it is expressed in the words of an Act of Parliament. The treaty in this Act of Parliament was directly contrary, and it imposed upon the ratepayers the obligations which I had transferred to the Treasury.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: The Prime Minister, in a public speech, declared that no party in this House had ever dreamed of giving effect to such a liability on the part of the Irish ratepayers, and that no Cabinet would ever dream of enforcing it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: What was my position? Here was an Act of Parliament, passed with the consent and approbation of the hon. Member, which expressed that in the event of a certain state of affairs the ratepayers were to bear that burden. That was your obligation, that was your treaty of peace, and that was what I had to go upon. I had to say to the Treasury, "The ratepayers of Ireland cannot bear this, and won't bear it. This treaty of peace requires some modification because it is absurd on the face of it." It is not always
  1998
  an easy thing to get people to regard an' Act of Parliament as absurd on the face of it, especially when you ask them to assume an obligation of many millions from which they are relieved by an Act of Parliament. I had, therefore, notwithstanding the language of the Prime Minister, a preliminary difficulty with the Treasury before I got them to modify this Act of Parliament. They agreed with me that it had to be modified, and modified it accordingly was in respect of the Treasury assuming an. obligation of many millions of money before the sixty-eight and a half years are out which land purchase requires, and this is many millions over and above anything contemplated by the Act of 1903. Under the Act of 1903 it was thought the Irish land stock would be at par. So we all thought, but it never has been at par. The very first issue under the Wyndham Act was £87. It has got to £83½ or something of that kind, and therefore the whole thing was at a standstill. It is unkind and unfair to represent me, of all men, as taking upon myself to destroy land purchase. The hon. Member might do me the justice to say I revived it, not to the full extent he wished, because I could not get enough money. Do you think you could have done better and extorted more money than I did?
  You say I could have got more, but at any rate I got the most I could. I identified myself with the Irish cause and Irish people as if I was brimful of Irish blood, and I obtained terms which I think on the whole were as satisfactory as could be obtained by any British Minister under the circumstances. When the hon. Member tells me that land purchase in Ireland is dead, that really, if you will permit me to say so, is not the fact. With regard to the Congested Districts Board to which the hon. Member referred, under my Birrell Act, as it is sometimes called—although I deprecate these personal applications to an. Act of Parliament, because it was not my Act of Parliament, but one passed by this House—I got the best terms I could get. Under that Act we have largely increased the endowment of the Congested Districts Board. The hon. Member for Cork, who loves the West of Ireland from the bottom of his heart, and knows it well, must be perfectly well aware that the result of the endowment of the Congested Districts Board has been that they have only gone too fast rather than too slow. They have already taken proceedings for the purchase of 170 estates with 8,649 tenant pur-

  1999
  chasers, involving advances amounting to £1,746,000 of Three Per Cent, stock. The Congested Districts Board is meeting tomorrow, and I hope to be able to attend that meeting. We are chock-full of work, although we have not exercised our compulsory powers, and it is really because we are so full of work which we obtain by voluntary methods that we have not had yet any actual occasion to put into force our compulsory powers. With regard to the Clanricarde estate, we are in course of progress with regard to that matter. So far as the West of Ireland is concerned, land purchase has never worked owing to a variety of causes I need not now go into. All about Cork and those districts land purchase has worked wonderfully well.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must not attribute any personal causes, because it worked as well in Kerry as in Cork, and in other parts it has worked very freely and well on the whole. But in the West of Ireland it has not, and yet it was in the West of Ireland that the whole question arose which made the Land Purchase Act possible. Of all the places in the world it was that quarter where land purchase should have worked freely from the beginning. It did not do so, but it is now doing so in consequence of the provision of this much-abused Act of Parliament. I have other facts and particulars which I could give, but I do not wish to weary the House. I quite agree that land purchase outside the congested districts is not working with the same feverish haste as it did when the landlords rushed in, knowing that the bonus under the Act of 1903 would come to an end in the five years named in that Act, not by any action of mine. The time came for a reconsideration of a 12 per cent. bonus, and that led to an abnormal rush of estates into the market. If you compare the present state of land purchase with that state of affairs I daresay you will say it is going on slowly, but it has not stopped. Hundreds of estates are being dealt with, and purchase is proceeding We have advanced more for land purchase this year than ever we did before. The £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) contemplated has grown to over £8,000,000 this year. We are working the whole of the land system as rapidly and quickly as we can.
  2000
  I am satisfied an exceedingly good case can be made out both for myself and the Act, especially for myself. I regret as much as the hon. Member does that we have not had an opportunity of going into this question more fully. With regard to the secret committee as he calls it I have suffered terribly from that committee, and I deserve it. It is all my fault that when speaking to the undergraduates of the Oxford Union I should have mentioned the thing at all. It should never have teen mentioned. I said we were making inquiries into a portion of this subject, and that we had a number of distinguished persons coming into consultation to give us their aid upon certain points. I was very foolish to have made that statement, because it has been seized upon in Ireland and these innocent persons have been represented as holding in their hands the whole future of Home Rule and the financial destinies of Ireland. I agree that the financial aspect is one of the cruxes of Home Rule. I have never denied it. But the responsibility rests with the Cabinet, and the notion that we should in any way whatever do more than avail ourselves of the information, and it may be of the advice which these experts choose to render us is, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, a delusion. That idea is born in minds perhaps naturally not indisposed to suspect British Ministers, who are always supposed to be doing something marvellously clever and underhand, but we are doing no more than we are absolutely entitled to do, that is to ask the experts to give us advice upon certain points submitted to them by the Government. I ought never to have mentioned it. If I had never mentioned it we should never had had all this trouble about it, but I did mention it and I am sorry I did.
  I can assure hon. Gentlemen that some of them are distinguished accountants. The Bishop of Ross, I confess, may be a great theologian, but I have known him in other aspects of his very admirable character, and I do not think there is a man in Ireland better acquainted with the social aspects of the people or more thoroughly alive to their interests. Although some of my colleagues are surprised that a Roman Catholic bishop should be put upon a Commission of this kind it often happens that you find amongst them men who are fully a match for laymen in their great social knowledge which it might be difficult to get elsewhere. The Bishop of Ross did an ex-

  2001
  tremely patriotic thing when he consented to serve. I know he will get a good deal of abuse for It, but a more useful member of the committe it would be impossible to find. Hon. Members should drive out of their heads the idea that this committee is a star chamber of mysterious persons armed with all sorts of powers coming down and saying to Ireland, "You are only to have so much and Ireland cannot have this or that and may not be trusted with that and that the Cabinet will be paralysed by their action." We shall be nothing of the kind. We have asked for their advice. We shall consider their advice when we get it. I think we shall benefit from it by the points of view they will represent to us, and we ourselves alone shall determine and accept the responsibility of the financial proposals which it will be our duty in the next Session to make.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has assured us there is nothing in the nature of a Star Chamber or of a Secret Commission, but he has coupled that with an expression of great regret that he even blurted out the existence of it. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman tells us there is no Star Chamber sitting, but the mistake of his life was to ever let us know it was sitting.
  Mr. BIRRELL: A Star Chamber has the power of decree. This Committee has no such power.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I only adopted the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and he is himself learned in the law. The words "Star Chamber" were not my words. They were the words of the right hon. gentleman. His one regret was that he let us know of the existence of this Committee. If this Committee is really doing good work for Ireland I should like to know why we should not know of its existence. I should like to know why, on the eve of an important measure of the nature of Home Rule for Ireland, anybody should have withheld from them the fact that a learned body was called together by the Government to go into this question, especially when we remember what was the attitude of the majority of the Irish Members some ten years ago when the Tory party attempted to constitute a body of this kind for the purpose of revising the finding and the report of the Childers Commission. We all remember that Commission reported that Ireland was overcharged to the extent of some three millions of money.
  2002
  If anyone wants to know the effect produced by that at the time let him get the biography of Mr. Arnold Forster, a Conservative Gentleman, late Member for West Belfast, and for long I think Secretary of State for War in this House. They will there see the effect produced on his mind: how first he attacked the view that any such overcharge was being imposed upon Ireland, and how he admitted the fact was afterwards borne on him that this statement was well founded.
  What happened? The now Leader of the Opposition and the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), in order to see whether that report was well founded or not, endeavoured to constitute a fresh Committee, consisting largely of Members of this House, to go more thoroughly into the matter. I was myself approached, Mr. Knox was approached, and I have no doubt other Members were approached, but the Irish Members would have nothing of it. They said, "We rest our case on the impregnable rock of the Childers' Report, namely, that in the teeth of the Act of Union England has been robbing Ireland." The whole question of the Act of Union was raised by that Report, and the reason the Irish party of that day refused to make themselves parties to Mr. Balfour's attempt at revision was the strong position taken up by the Childers' Report. The Irish party were determined not to let go its grasp upon it. What has happened now? The right hon. Gentleman, in the first portion of his speech, confessed he is sorry he was unable to get more money for Land Purchase. Why? Because he was brought up against the adamantine wall of the Treasury. Does he suppose, when we are dealing with Home Rule, that this Committee which has been set up by the Treasury—
  Mr. BIRRELLIt has not been constituted by the Treasury.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I was going to say the British Government is in water-tight compartments. If you attack one branch of it that branch at once says "It is not me." The Prime Minister, I presume, is the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman confesses now that the secret committee has been constituted on the eve of an Home Rule settlement, and practically it has it in its power to do away with the effect of the Childers' Report. The first question upon which we are entitled for information I conceive is this:

  2003
  What are the terms of reference to this Committee? There is not a Royal Commission, or a Viceregal Commission, or a Departmental Commission constituted by any Government that the House of Commons was not immediately furnished with the terms of reference to that Commission. Here, however, is a body which is neither a Royal Commission, nor a Viceregal Commission, nor a Departmental Commission, but a half-hatched body sitting in secret, and not one of us who are vitally interested can even find out what are the terms of reference to it. I am told if a witness presents himself at its doors for examination and is asked what are the subjects upon which he is to be examined, and an official lets him know the terms of reference, Sir Henry Primrose, a gentleman. I believe, largely connected with the Treasury, and who is at the head of the committee, snatches the terms of reference out of his hands. What is this body doing? We are told we are too suspicious. We are the heirs of 700 years of mistrust, not altogether unfounded. We represent, it is true, suspicion, but how do you allay our suspicion? You ought to allay it by letting us know what are the terms of reference. That is the way to allay our suspicion? Let us know also what evidence this Commission is taking and to what subject are its interrogatories directed? What witnesses are they calling, and, also—and this is not beyond Ministerial competence—with what object has this Committee been constituted?
  The right hon. Gentleman has stated, and I think he was perfectly right, that finance is the crux of the Home Rule case. I quite endorse that view. We have been for 111 years under the yoke of Great Britain, having had shouldered on to us every charge which England for her own purpose undertook. When you took us over our total payments for our Government, local and Imperial, was not more than one million of money. To-day, between local and Imperial Government, the public charges in Ireland are over fifteen millions of money. Will any man tell me that we, who are anxious for the future of our country and want to take it over as a going concern, and not as a bankrupt estate, are wrong in prodding the Government, which, be it remembered, does not contain a single Irishman? You had one Irishman in the Government, the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), and you got rid of him. He was the only Member who had ever written on the financial relations of
  2004
  Great Britain and Ireland. He was not good enough for you. He had some special views on the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, and he was the only person, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, who was jettisoned out of the Government. Yet we are told we are too suspicious. That being so, I say that in regard to so important a question as that of finance we are entitled to know the terms of reference to this Committee, how it came to be constituted as it is, what are the subjects to be reported upon, and whether the evidence and the report are going to be laid before the House of Commons. I should especially like to know, with regard to this thorny question of land purchase, whether there is any effort on the part of this Committee to throw on the new Irish authority this liability from which the Treasury itself appears to-day to shrink.
  The House may be interested to know one of our reasons for suspicion of the Treasury in this matter. There were very few English Members voted against the Land Purchase Bill of 1903. Who led them into the Lobby? A gentleman named Hobhouse, the Secretary to the British Treasury. There was a little group of not more than ten or fifteen, or it may have been twenty English Members out of a House of over 400—I am speaking from, recollection after seven or eight years—and they were led into the Lobby by the present Secretary to the Treasury. Who was his chief assistant? The present Chief Liberal Whip, the Master of Elibank, who not only voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, but who also voted against the Third Reading of the Bill. Yet we are told we are too suspicious. We ought really to come down here with bated breath and whispering humbleness, and say, "You are the best people in the world. We are greatly obliged to you for running our country for seven hundred years. Will you accept some slight testimonial of our esteem?" Now what we should like to know, therefore, is whether there is any effort on the part of this secret committee to pile up information, or evidence, so-called, or whether there is anything in the form of interrogatories it puts to its witnesses or in the witnesses whom it selects which would make a case in the direction of throwing this liability and responsibility upon the new Irish authority. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That does not shake me. I would be much

  2005
  obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would say whether he has attended its meetings, whether he gets copies from day to day of its proceedings, or what that portentous shake of the head means?
  The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say we are not criticising him at all. I do not think there has ever been a Chief Secretary for whom we have had greater esteem or greater liking. I do not think we have ever had a Chief Secretary, except Lord Morley, so complete a genius or so affectionately regarded. We are not attacking him. We are attacking the Statute, and, when we make these criticisms, let the right hon. Gentleman suppose he is the mere ephemeral representative of Dublin Castle. Why, I have attacked more than twenty Chief Secretaries in my time, and I can say we have never had any personal feeling against any single one of them. The right hon. Gentleman has endeared himself to us all by going about the poor parts of the country, by being accessible, by being amenable, and by being what is called in Ireland a decent fellow. I hope he will not take me as offering any personal criticism whatever upon his character. What we are attacking is the machine. I do not blame any living Englishman for the position in which Ireland finds itself. You, as we, are the heirs of seven centuries; you cannot upset that, you can hardly overhaul all this great machinery which has come down to you. The system of Dublin Castle, for instance, has come down to you, and you are almost powerless except after long years, to apply a remedy. I am not complaining that by the movement of his magic wand the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to change the face of the country, but we are bound, as trustees of our countrymen, in season and out of season to raise this question.
  Above all, we are bound to do so as there is in regard to this question of the land a special treaty on which we have a right to depend. Let us take that treaty. What was it? If ever there was a question which moved the country and every section, Catholic and Protestant, as well as every other section, it was the question of the land. What would be said if when there was a chance of rapprochement between two sides, the rank and file of the strikers went behind the backs of their leaders to shake hands with the masters. Yet that is what has been done in. connection with this Irish land question. But it is the masters who
  2006
  have gone behind the strikers We are told of the great burden placed by the Budget on the Irish ratepayers. Let us take the meanest estimate of the amount of that Budget burden, the estimate put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) of £500,000 a year. That was treated as a mere fleabite on the backs, of the Irish people, and the Irish party, without the smallest consideration, voted it as a matter of course. If you can wring this £500,000 a year from our people for "Dreadnoughts" how much more ought you to be able to give us in return in order to make the Irish people masters of their own land. If £500,000 a year is a mere bagatelle when you put it in the shape of taxes, and when it is to be applied for the creation of armaments, for the provision of gunpowder and cannon, and for building "Dreadnoughts," how much more would it be justifiable to apply it to the settlement of this great land question.
  Let me point out this, that although my hon. Friends and myself are apparently only voicing the views of a small section of this House, the questions which are daily addressed to the right hon. Gentleman prove the urgency of our argument. From whom do those questions come, and what is the nature of the questions? They are questions coming from the accomplices of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of land purchase. What are they asking? They are asking when a drowning man will be rescued, when an asphyxiated man will get a little oxygen, when the Irish tenant is likely to be made the owner of his farm? Day by day one may take up the notice paper of this House and can find that the accomplices of the right hon. Gentlemen are imploring him to set the Land Purchase Act in operation all over the country. We on these benches do not hesitate to raise this question openly and deliberately. We do not do so by means of questions which find no echo in this House. What is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gives to these questions? It is that the matter is being inquired into. He is unable to tell his interrogators that he will be able to put the Act into operation to-morrow, next week, or next year. He is unable to say when these people will become the masters of their own holdings. I say, therefore, speaking to this House and through this House to our countrymen, the sooner the Irish people realise where they are the better. Let them realise that land purchase is dead. There was a question only to-day as to a tenant who had

  2007
  been unable to get his rent fixed for the third time, and speaking from recollection, the answer was that the application had been postponed for two years.
  I would not have the right hon. Gentleman suppose that we are pressing him unduly in this matter or that we have no consideration for his difficulties. We do consider his difficulties, but we also have to have consideration for our own position and for the position of our country. This House has just passed an Act which in my judgment in the future will make a vital change in Irish representation. It has given the Irish Members £400 a year, and next to the extension of the franchise itself, and next to the extension of local government that will have far-reaching consequences. I think that when the Irish people see their Members are to get £400 a year they will insist that they do their work, and they will only send people here who will insist on the work being done. Should we have a General Election before very long you will get an Irish party quite as effective as the Labour party itself. We are only voicing what we believe will be the universal opinion in Ireland when that nation is represented by paid Members—Members paid not by Australia, New Zealand, or the United States of America, but paid by the taxpayers themselves. The reason why we conceive this question should be raised tonight is that the Government have postponed their Budget for three or four months, and all the promises of redress on fiscal questions which were held out last year have been, put off until the autumn. During the interval the Government will be considering the question of the finances of Home Rule, and I think they are entitled to know frankly what is the opinion of some of us. My own opinion frankly with regard to Home Rule is that unless it places the Irish people in control of their finances the measure need not be brought in. I have said in Ireland, and I say now, I claim nothing like protection between the two countries. I believe protection between the two countries would be a curse to both. I seek nothing of the kind, but we do seek the right to raise our own taxes and to expend them, making a fair and reasonable contribution to that Imperial system from which Ireland undoubtedly will get, and is getting, considerable benefits.
  Whether you get that contribution in men or in money, a contribution in my
  2008
  opinion you are entitled to get. It might be more convenient for us if we had the country in our own hands to give that contribution in men; you would be better pleased with the men in your Army than by getting it in any other case. A contribution of some kind I conceive the Empire is entitled to, but, given that contribution, Ireland should be allowed within its own four seas to raise its own revenues and spend them; otherwise what good will our lives do us? What are we to tax? How are we to improve our rivers and our canals or our country or do anything else? The position is quite different from what it was in Mr. Gladstone's day. I heard with some qualms the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Dalziel) to-day bring in his Bill about Scotland, and say, after 207 years of union with this country, that Scotland has gained enormous benefits, and that he would take the Scotch contribution on the basis of the three last years. I shall be very curious to read the Bill and to see how soon it is introduced. I do not think it will be introduced before Friday next when we separate, though I hope we shall have it at all events before the recess. But in my judgment it is fairer to the English people and to the British Cabinet to let them know what the opinion of men like myself is. We may, of course, only represent an insignificant minority, but we were strong enough to kill the Councils Bill and we shall be strong enough to kill this Bill if it is not financially satisfactory to Ireland. I say that without the smallest hostility to the Government or to any human being. But in my judgment the great business of Ireland will be finance—the nurturing, the shepherding of a country long neglected and long impoverished. The finance of that country will be like a tonic medicine; control of its finance will be its main burden, and unless it gets it, I will advise the Government to keep their Bill in (heir pockets.

  COLLISION'S AT SEA.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): I wish to draw attention to the rather unsatisfactory position of the English shipowner in the event of an accident in connection with a battleship. I have recently asked one or two questions of the First Lord with reference to a collision between. His Majesty's ship "King Alfred" and a merchant steamer called the "Cheapside," which resulted in the total destruction of the merchant steamer. According to the Merchant Shipping Act the liability is

  2009
  limited to £8 a ton of the registered tonnage. When both vessels are to blame, as was the verdict in this case, the owner of the merchant vessel has to pay to the Admiralty half the actual loss of wages and provisions of officers and crew during the period of detention. The actual cost of repairs to the "King Alfred" was £313 15s. 4d. The English shipowner is debited with £1,200 for loss of the use of the vessel and with £2,554 18s. 5d., loss of time or expenses of the officers and crew during the time of detention. It is a hardship upon the English shipowner, because if he happens to get into collision with a battleship, naturally the cost of the crew and the officers is exceedingly greater than would be the case than with regard to two merchant ships.
  What I particularly wish to know is whether it is necessary to keep the whole of the officers and crew on the ship doing nothing? If, on the other hand, it is not necessary, it is not just or equitable to debit the English shipowner with the loss of time, wages and provisions. Am I to understand that no work could have been found for 590 men and thirty-two officers? I find from the reply I received that the services' of thirteen men were dispensed with. I have yet to learn why it is necessary to maintain thirty-two officers and 590 men on a battleship while she is in port undergoing repairs for three weeks. I know something about repairs to ships, and it seems rather an extraordinary thing to me that it should take twenty-one days to do repairs costing £334. I do not know whether it was found necessary that certain repairs or refitting were found to be required. If they were done during that period it is absolutely unfair that the English shipowners should be debited with the whole cost of the wages and provisions of the ship's company. If there were no repairs that had to be done, could not some service be found for them? Could not they have been put to torpedo practice or target practice, or sent on their annual leave? The Admiralty ought under any circumstances, in the event of such an accident happening, to do all they can not to penalise the English shipowners, but to do all they can to assist them, either to dispose of the crew in some way, or if they are being utilised on board for the purpose of assisting the repairs or refitting, the expenses should not rightly be charged against the English shipowner. There is another item that seems rather an ex-
  2010
  traordinary one for the loss of the use of the vessel, amounting to £1,200. I am one of those who are prepared at any cost to see the Navy carried on in a state of supremacy. If my right hon. Friend says that the charge for the loss of time should be adopted because the ship could not be at work, and because there had to be met the interest on the capital invested during that period, I accept the statement, but I should like some explanation from him on that point. I think if he would give it, it would be satisfactory to the English ship-owning fraternity.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in mentioning that he proposed to raise this question to-day. I confess that I have not had time to read the whole of the papers again in detail, as I should have liked, but, nevertheless, fortunately the point he raises is a comparatively simple one. The facts are, shortly, these. The collision between the battleship "King Alfred" and the "Cheapside" took place on 18th June, 1910. The "Cheapside" was sunk and totally lost, and thereafter in the High Court of Justice judgment was given on the basis of "both to blame." Then the Registrar assessed the damages on that basis, as he was entitled to assess them, by consent of the parties.
  Mr. FRED HALL: The Registrar did not assess the damages. He allowed damages to the amount allowed by the Admiralty.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: He went to work on the basis of the judgment, "both to blame," and allowed damages by consent of parties. The point my hon. Friend raises is the question of keeping the officers and crew on board the ship during the time the repairs were being done, and he says, "Why could not you dispense with a great many of them? If the Admiralty at that time had dispensed with them the victualling allowances and wages, would be reduced as against the damages pro tanto." The "King Alfred" was under repair three weeks, and the number of officers was thirty-two and men 590. We claimed on account of the pay and allowances £2,554 18s. 5d., and that claim was allowed in full by the Registrar.
  Mr. FRED HALL: The amount of the claim by the Admiralty was £4,700, and the amount allowed was £2,554 18s. 5d.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that what we claimed in respect of the pay and allowances of the men was not allowed? If my hon. Friend will give me the data on which he makes that statement I shall feel obliged, because I have the statement of claim before me, and it shows that we put in for the pay of officers and crew while the ship was undergoing repairs, and the amount allowed by the Registrar, to whom the claim was referred with the consent of both parties, was £2,554 18s. 5d. I think my hon. Friend is misinformed on that point. His suggestion is that we need not have kept this full crew during the time the ship was under repair. If we had reduced the number, obviously the share of the damages would be reduced to the extent of the number of men dispensed with. I would say shortly that, naturally I cannot presume to discuss this matter over the head of the finding of the court. I do not think I am competent to do that, and I shall not presume to do it; but I may point out that this ship was in commission. If she had gone into the dockyard for a large refit, it would have covered a considerable period of time. Then we should have kept a nucleus crew on board and detached part of the officers and crew to go into the depot. But this was a matter of three weeks, and I am afraid it was not practicable to dispense with the crew for that period, to find new jobs for them, and to re-assemble them at the end of the period when the repairs were made. The hon. Member suggests that they were doing nothing during that time, but that is not so. It is quite true that their ordinary duties were interfered with, but they were not entirely interrupted. Many of these men were engaged in the work of repair. The engine room artificers were so engaged, and there was a great deal of cleaning to be done as the result of the collision, which fell to the men as part of their ordinary duty, and I should think that the men on board the "King Alfred" thought it was as busy a time as any they had during the commission. It would not do to say that the men were doing nothing. Our claim was made in accordance with the rules laid down by the Treasury Solicitor, and it has been allowed by the Registrar. I am afraid I am not competent to do more than to give this explanation which, I hope, my hon. Friend will consider satisfactory.
  Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the crew were
  2012
  employed during that time assisting in the repairs, or were any other repairs done besides those represented by the £334?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is whether the men were engaged upon a refit which they would have had to do in any case. I cannot answer that question now They would be going on with their ordinary duties—their ordinary training duties and their ordinary military service, but I cannot say, looking at the character of the work they were engaged on, the claim included any amounts which were not properly charged. The best testimony I have of that is that the Registrar admitted the claim in full.

  BUSINESS or SUPPLY (SCOTTISH ESTIMATES).
  Mr. MORTON: I desire to draw attention to a matter in connection with the Post Office. I do not see the Postmaster-General at present, and of course I cannot make any statement except when he is here. In the meantime I may take this opportunity of referring to the way Supply has been managed during the past five or six years. There are some of the Scottish Votes which we have not had an opportunity of discussing in Committee since 1906. I hope the Government will take note of that in future, and arrange to give us an opportunity of discussing Scottish matters, which are not necessarily party matters, but are matters connected with the good government of Scotland. The Government now arrange the time to suit themselves. If they do not wish a Vote to come on they take care that it is not put down, and it is guillotined in due course, and there is no opportunity of discussing it in Committee. I have no wish to detain the House, but it is not my fault that I am waiting for the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will take a note of what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. MORTON: The worst of it is that I was told that before. Now I see the Postmaster-General coming in. When we had the Post Office Vote before us I raised the same question in regard to Sutherland-shire that I am going to raise now, but I got no reply at all. The Postmaster-General went away, and the Assistant Postmaster-General did not appear to know anything about it. I commented on the Estimate being completed that night—[Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at in that, and I asked that the Vote should be put down again so that we might be

  2013
  given a proper opportunity of discussing matters. But, like other Votes mentioned just now, it was duly guillotined the night before last. The first matter to which I wish to draw attention is the necessity for establishing telegraph communication between Rosehall and Elphin. An hon. Gentleman is laughing at that. If he had to live down there and go twenty miles on horseback for a doctor because there was no telegraph he would not laugh. We have been asking for this extension of the telegraph ever since I represented Suther-landshire; that is since 1906. I have perhaps 100 letters about it, but I am not going to read them all to-night. We are in this difficulty. The Postmaster-General says it will have to be carried on at a loss and if a loss does occur he says we must pay all of it. On this point I will read the last letter we have received:—
  "General Post Office,
  "London, 24th July, 1911."
  This comes from the Assistant Postmaster-General:—
  "My dear Morton,—As promised you in the House of Commons on the 18th May last, I carefully went into the subject of the telegraph extension to Elphin and elsewhere in Sutherlandshire, and I even laid the case before the Treasury and endeavoured to induce them to modify the guarantee terms which they had laid down for these extensions. The Treasury, however, decline to authorise the extension, except on condition that the guarantors bear the whole loss involved for a period of fourteen years, and I am afraid I can do no more.
  "Yours very truly,
  "CECIL NORTON."
  Therefore they are asking us, contrary to what I say is the policy of the Treasury, to stand the whole of the loss. I have made one step forward. The blame is now laid by the Postmaster-General on the Treasury. Two or three years ago I approached the Treasury, and they practically said they had nothing to do with it. The then Postmaster-General hinted strongly that he was the Treasury in those matters. When I put a question on the matter in the House of Commons, instead of the Treasury answering the question the Postmaster-General answered it. Now I have got a step forward, because this letter says distinctly that the Treasury are the wicked people.
  The Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, made on April 30th, 1906, his Budget speech, in which he said, referring to postal matters and telegraphic matters:—
  "Secondly, we have given larger postal facilities to rural districts by means of which all places in the United Kingdom shall, save in very exceptional cases, have at least three deliveries a week."
  I am not going to raise the question of three deliveries a week to-night, but there are a number of places in Sutherlandshire where they do not get them, and there are some places where up to a little while ago there was only one delivery a week, though I have got them to make it two; but I only mention that in passing as that part of the Prime Minister's promise has not been carried out, up to the present moment, in Sutherlandshire. Then he goes on to say:—
  "and in cases of guarantee being required where postal, telegraph or telephone facilities are given, the Postmaster-General shall in ordinary conditions take two-thirds of the risk."
  The Postmaster-General has no business to refuse to carry out that promise, and we ought to insist on the Treasury keeping their word with us. I know they may say there is a little loophole here about ordinary conditions. If there is any point in that in connection with this district it ought to be in favour of the district and of the Treasury taking two-thirds of the guarantee rather than otherwise. It was understood to be settled some time ago by the Government of the day and the House, that these districts were to be considered, not with regard to the profit which was made out of them, but with regard to the necessities of the case. In my opinion, the people of this district ought to have had this telegraph long ago. I can get the local authorities to guarantee one-third of the loss, but I call upon the Government and the Treasury to carry out the promise contained in the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister.
  There are some other matters to which I wish to draw attention. I am making no attack upon the Postmaster-General, but I am simply, at the request of my Constituents, which is contained in the petitions signed by many hundreds of people, endeavouring to carry out their wishes. There is the question of the postal facilities between Lairg and Lochinver. At the present moment it will astonish people in London to hear that English letters that come down to Lairg, arriving about one o'clock in the day, instead of being sent on the same afternoon to Lochinver, have to wait until ten o'clock the next morning before they go forward. We got the Postmaster-General (not the present one, but his predecessor) to improve one of those routes, with the result that they wait until the English mail train gets in at one o'clock, and they are delivered that night, and a whole day

  2015
  is saved in connection with the delivery. I quite admit that part of the road between Lairg and Lochinver is not quite safe in the winter, but I hope it will be improved by-and-by. There is no difficulty, however, at all in taking the mail through Lairg to Lochinver in the summer time at one or two o'clock, after the English mails are in. I have been writing numerous letters to the Postmaster-General and to the Deputy Postmaster-General, and I was told that that was going to be carried out. That has been lately again refused, and nothing has been done as far as that is concerned. It is one of the cases to which I wish the Postmaster-General to give his attention. In another case, as in this, which has been brought to the attention of the Post Office authorities for years, we have got nothing. It is an extraordinary thing. I do not know why it is, that we can get nothing out of the present Postmaster-General; we can get no improvements whatever of any account. Under his predecessor we got a good deal, though not all we wanted. It seems now that in the Post Office, somehow or other, they will not do anything. There are a number of other districts that have been asking for facilities in the form of motors, which would greatly improve postal deliveries in a county like Sutherlandshire. In some districts they want the motor instead of the coach which is used at present.
  9.0 P.M.
  There is no doubt at all that the introduction of motors has greatly improved the service, and will still further improve it if the Postmaster-General will endeavour to distribute the service of motors over the whole district. I know we will be told that the service does not pay. What the exact position is about the service paying does not matter to me at all, because it has nothing to do with the penny post. The principle of the penny post is that the rich and populous districts pay for the thinly populated and scattered areas, so making ends meet. That is the principle on which any post office which is started ought to be carried on. It is not necessary to say that a particular service does not pay. What I notice particularly in regard to Sutherlandshire is— and I call the attention of the Postmaster-General to it—that a reorganisation of the whole district is required. Some of the postal service in that area is carried on in the most stupid manner. You will find them bringing mails from a place far up in the
  2016
  north for a distance of, say, a 100 miles, and taking them back next day for delivery. The whole thing wants revising to bring it up to date, and I have no doubt that with better facilities the Postmaster-General will find that the service would pay better. I do not suppose that he is likely to be personally acquainted with these districts, but it is the fact that they make great use both of the telegraph and the post in connection with their business. For the last five or six years we have been trying to get these particular reforms, and I do hope that at last the Postmaster-General will do something for us. Otherwise, like my friend the late Mr. Weir, I must trouble the House with questions until some reforms are obtained. It is my duty to represent the views of my Constituents, and I must do the best I can with the Postmaster-General. It appears to be a fact that one cannot get these reforms without putting questions every other day in the House of Commons. I shall be obliged myself to take that course, and I suppose I can do it as well as anybody else. I trust that the Postmaster-General will endeavour to do something to meet us in connection with the postal service and the telegraph extensions in the Rosehall district. Outside these local matters, I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the question of the penny post between this country and France, and I ask whether anything has been done to carry that into effect. I know that we have lost a great postal reformer in Mr. Henniker Heaton, but humbler persons must keep on moving. I trust that in regard to this, as well as to the local matters that I have brought forward on behalf of my Constituents, reforms will be carried out, and that some announcement will be made by the Postmaster-General, not only in regard to them, but in reference to the question of the penny post between this country and France. I put these questions in no offensive manner, but simply because I have been requested by my Constituents, in hundreds of letters, to bring these matters not only to the attention of the Postmaster-General, but to the attention of the House of Commons.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place, in answer to my hon. Friend's last question, I have nothing to say with respect to the matter of a penny post between this country and France.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): I have no doubt the House desires to hear the right hon. Gentleman, but he has exhausted his right to speak.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I do not think any hon. Member will object to the Postmaster-General replying to the hon. Member.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think I may answer the hon. Gentleman now, and I am happy to do so. I spoke on the same Motion earlier in the afternoon. I may repeat that the attitude of this Government and the French Government is unchanged on the subject of penny postage. My hon. Friend said that he had some results with my predecessor with regard to postal facilities, but that he finds me stony hearted. He asks an explanation. The explanation is, of course, simple and obvious. My right hon. Friend my predecessor granted to the hon. Member all his reasonable requests, and then fled to another department, leaving me to bear the brunt of refusing his unreasonable requests. I am glad my hon. Friend has to-night made some definite suggestions with regard to postal matters, but I am sorry he did not give me notice that be was going to bring this matter up.
  Mr. MORTON: I sent word through the Assistant Postmaster-General and took particular care to ask him to let you know.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was informed that the hon. Member intended to bring up the question of telegraph extensions in Sutherlandshire. I was uninformed that he intended to bring up the question of postal facilities, otherwise I might have taken the opportunity of consulting the officers of the department as to the particular point he had made. He has made some suggestion as to particular matters into the details of which I cannot go now, and I can do no more than promise that those specific suggestions shall receive consideration and investigation. If it is the case that by improvement in the circulation of traffic we may be able to effect improvements in collection and deliveries no one would be more pleased than the officers of my department and myself. I will see that careful inquiry is made into the practicability of effecting improvement in postal circulation in the particular places the hon. Member mentioned. When he turns to the question of telegraph extensions my predecessor and myself for several years on every conceiv-
  2018
  able occasion have listened with much interest to the hon. Member's representations.
  Mr. MORTON: And done nothing.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: And have heard on very many occasions the quotation from the Prime Minister's speech of 1906. That quotation was to the effect that under ordinary circumstances guarantees should be accepted for telegraph facilities, the guarantors bearing one-third of the amount. But the circumstances in Sutherlandshire are not ordinary. I do not know what the density of the population is to the square mile or how many square miles there are to each individual of the population, but certainly the amount of telegraph traffic which is to be expected from the district of Sutherlandshire in which the hon. Member is specially interested is so small that no one can say that the circumstances are ordinary. The form of guarantee that would be used in any average district could not possibly be accepted in a place where the distances are so great and the likely business is so very small. The hon. Member says that the cost is a matter of indifference to him.
  Mr. MORTON: Not about that. I said it in regard to the penny post and that one district should pay for another. I did not apply that to the telegraph system, as I know it is on a different footing and there is a loss.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then I will not attempt to hold my hon. Friend to that. In any case, the cost is not a matter of indifference to the Post Office or the Treasury. There is a loss of a million per year, defrayed out of the general Post Office revenues, on the telegraphs of the country. That loss has been largely incurred by extending the telegraph system into unremunerative districts. It is to the interest of the community at large that that should be done, and that loss may be worth suffering in particular cases, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. There cannot be a telegraph run into every parish in the whole of the United Kingdom, even though there may be only one or two telegrams to be sent by individuals. You cannot, irrespective of loss, run your telegraph system into remote, thinly-populated districts without a full guarantee. My hon. Friend persuaded my hon. Friend and colleague the Assistant Postmaster-General, who perhaps may be more soft-hearted than myself, in the kindness of his heart to re-

  2019
  present the matter to the Treasury. I am not sure that I should have gone so far, but the Treasury having gone into the matter came to the concluson, which I came to some time ago, that there was no case for charging the general taxpayers of the country with this particular extension. I am, afraid, in view of the action taken by the Treasury, I cannot favour the telegraph being extended to that place. If my hon. Friend desires further inquiries into the telegraph facilities of Sutherland-shire, I would gladly have them made, but the inquiry must be in two directions. It must not only consider whether facilities are needed, but whether there are any places where the business is quite adequate to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost incurred. If my hon. Friend, as he suggests, puts me weekly questions.
  Mr. MORTON: Daily.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On this subject I may perhaps be obliged on some occasion to give him the answer that in the general interest of the community at large it is necessary to close some of the existing telegraph offices.
  Mr. MORTON: I will bring the matter up on Friday to call the attention of the Treasury to the matter.

  ROAD MOTOR SERVICES.
  Mr. CLANCY: I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will not be affrighted when I say that I want to speak a few words upon the question of the policy of the Development Commissioners, especially when I tell him that I do not intend to deal with any of the points dealt with in the discussion last evening. The particular point to which I desire to draw attention is the question of the policy of the Development Commissioners with regard to the establishment of motor services in the rural districts, not only of Ireland, but of the other parts of the United Kingdom. My justification for referring to this matter on this occasion is to be found in a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on the 6th of September, 1909. I think it is so important that really some other occasion besides this, or in addition to this, ought to be afforded for discussing this very important question. On 6th September, 1909, the Chancellor was giving an explanation as to the Development and Road Improvement Fund, and one of the points on which he dwelt with great emphasis was that of
  2020
  the improvement of transit facilities in rural districts. The passage of the Chancellor's speech, to which too much importance cannot be attached, and which forms the justification for my referring to the matter, was as follows:—
  "The landlords have not taken advantage of information of that kind. I believe gradually that confidence is given, and if there is a real systematic effort made from outside to organise co-operation, I believe this country will begin to realise that the only way of competing with other countries like Denmark and Belgium and Brittany is by such a system of co-operation coupled with great improvements in the transportation arrangements of this country. I have had to deal with these matters at the Board of Trade, and with regard to light railways, for instance, there are several parts of this country where light railways are needed, but where there is no rich man who will undertake the work. The landlords may be poor, the tenant farmers cannot find the money, and there is no great capitalist to come forward with money for the purposes of development. It is just as essential for the development of these districts as making a road. The community never ask when money is raised for a road whether it is going to pay 1, 2, 3, or 4 per cent. They see it is necessary for the opening up of that part of the country and to provide facilities there, and the same thing applies to other forms of transport that will enable people to bring their goods into the market, and for that reason—"
  This is a very important, remarkable expression—
  "I put in the forefront of the Bill the improvement of transport for the poorer and more thinly populated parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th Sept. 1909, Vol. X., cols. 968–9.]
  I am one of those who were greatly impressed by that speech, and particularly by the passage I have just quoted. It seemed to promise a development in precisely those parts of the country, especially of Ireland, where development is most seriously needed. I thought it a remarkable thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only in the Bill, but in the speech explaining the Bill, should put in the forefront, to use his own expression, the question of the improvement of transportation facilities. I have looked with some anxiety to see how that promise held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been fulfilled by the Development Commissioners. I make every allowance for a body of this kind during the first year of their existence. I know that they have to establish principles of procedure and to lay down certain rules and regulations, and that everything which one might desire cannot be accomplished at once. Nevertheless, it is a fact that nothing whatever has been done in regard to this matter. That is hardly the worst, because—as I pointed out in a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a week ago, the Commission have lately come to certain conclusions as to the policy they will pursue, particularly in regard to the establishment of motor services for

  2021
  the transportation of agricultural produce. I thought myself they would have directed their attention specially to this matter, inasmuch as it will be in the recollection of the Secretary to the Treasury that a few years ago, in the time of the late Government, a large scheme for the establishment of a motor service throughout Ireland was adumbrated by Lord Iveagh and Lord Pirie. The scheme was trumpeted abroad by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, but we have never heard anything about it since. It was an idea which commended itself to a very large section of the public, not only in Ireland, but in this country, who thought that the scheme would be equally advantageous to the remote rural districts of Great Britain. That circumstance might well have drawn the attention of the Development Commission to the question in Ireland, when they had a fund expressly for the purpose, and it might have led them to form some scheme earlier for giving effect to the undoubted intentions of the Act and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only have they not done anything, but in the opinion they have recently expressed they have taken a line calculated to put an end to all schemes of the kind in future.
  I drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the principal conditions laid down by the Commissioners, the first of those conditions being that no money was to be advanced except by way of loan. I should have thought that, having the power to advance money either by way of loan or by way of grant, or partly by way of loan and partly by way of grant, they would have borne in mind the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which distinctly contemplated the existence of places where the offer of a loan would be a mere mockery, and where only a grant would be of any use whatever. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of poor and thinly populated districts; he spoke of there being no rich men in the neighbourhood capable of advancing money for the purpose; he spoke of the ratepayers being unable to supply the money. The fact that he laid stress upon such a state of things showed that he knew there were such places in Ireland, and gave a distinct intimation that the Commissioners were to bear that circumstance in mind when they came to translate the Act into terms of pounds, shillings, and pence. But when they advise all the parties concerned that they will not make grants, and that they will advance money only by way of loan,
  2022
  they are flying in the face of that distinct intimidation, and defeating the very object and policy of the Act in regard to this particular matter. There are other conditions of a somewhat similar character. Apparently the persons who are to receive the loan are not only to repay it, but also to supply the money for the maintenance of the motor service when established. In my opinion, to tell a thinly-populated rural district of Ireland—and I know what I am talking about, because I represent a county which contains one of these districts, and my remarks will probably apply to certain parts of England as well —that they can only get a loan, that they must repay the money, and that they must maintain the service at their own cost, is to tell them that they must do without a service altogether. I tell the right hon. Gentleman to-night, and I would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was here, that to make such a proposal to them is a mere mockery, and perfectly futile. I want to make one admission, and it is also, I think, to some extent a charge against the Government, namely, that the Development Commissioners are not entirely to blame. In point of fact, the Development Fund Act is in certain extent to blame.
  Let me explain. Advances may be made by way of loan, or by way of grant, by a Government Department, or through a Government Department to some local authority, or through a Government Department to a body competent, and not formed for the purposes of profit. The way the matter works out is this: say a county council in Ireland applies for a grant or for a loan. It must repay the loan and the interest upon that loan, and not only that, but it must pay for the cost of maintenance. Not only that, but if there is a deficit in the working of the concern, it must pay for the deficit also. That might not be so very wrong if it was for the general benefit of the community. But the ridiculous thing is that they have no power to do any of these things. The county council is strictly circumscribed in regard to its rating, and in regard to its expenditure. It has no power to spend any money whatever except what it is empowered to spend by Statute, and there is no Statute empowering it either to repay this loan or to pay interest upon the loan or to pay a deficit out of the county fund or to pay anything in the shape of the maintenance of a motor service. In the same way a rural district council, which is also a local authority within the mean-

  2023
  ing of the Act, if the members ask for a loan, and if it gets a loan, has no power whatever to pay any interest upon the loan, or to pay a single penny towards the cost of the maintenance of a motor service.
  Further, to some extent the Commissioners may shelter themselves behind the defects of the Act, but it is a curious thing that the Commissioners do not avail themselves of that excuse. They simply say we will not give money except on conditions the fulfilment of which is absolutely impossible. They do not shelter themselves behind the defects of the Act. What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is— and I am sure he will convey it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that I think there ought to be some action taken: that the Chancellor especially is bound to take some action to carry out his own policy expressed in September, 1909. The Development Commission have powers of recommendation. Certain rules are made for them by the Treasury. In my opinion they are the subordinates of the Treasury, and are controlled by the Treasury. Therefore the Government cannot get out of this responsibility by merely saying that this is an independent body, with merely powers of recommendation. I believe the Speaker so ruled: that the Government are the real masters of this Development Commission.
  They have it in their power, if they like, in various ways, to compel the Commission to do what they want. It would, in my opinion, be a very dishonourable breach of a public engagement, made publicly in this House, and made as a recommendation to us to support the Bill if they do not take steps to inform the Commission, and thereby affect the policy of the Commission. To deny, in all cases and in all circumstances, the grant in the first place to these poor and somewhat thinly populated districts would be a violation of the speech and promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman also that the Act, if it is intended to work at all, must be amended in the particulars to which I have alluded. These local authorities have no powers so far as I can make out. The right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not now concerned with legislation.
  Mr. CLANCY: I quite admit that I am going somewhat beyond the strict rule, but
  2024
  I thought I might direct the attention of the Government to the fact that they have a duty to discharge in instructing the Commissioners in the proper policy which we have to pursue. So far as the establishment of motor services is concerned, at all events in Ireland, and I believe in Great Britain also, the thing is at an end, or will be at an end, unless the Government take some action to reverse the policy announced by the Development Commissioners. The matter has not been debated in the House before, but I urge the Government, even at the close of the Session—I think it my duty so to do—to look into this matter. I could quote the Chancellor himself, who put this matter in the very forefront of his speech on the Bill.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Before the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, I should like to bring forward one small matter that, either he or the Assistant Postmaster-General may be able to give an answer to. I desire to refer to the somewhat anomalous position at present occupied by the staff in the solicitor's office of the General Post Office. I understand that the solicitor is on the establishment of the Post Office and receives a salary for his services. The Treasury pay the solicitor a certain sum, out of which he has to pay the salaries of all the staff, none of whom at the present are on the Post Office establishment. The members of the staff of the solicitor's office complain, not unnaturally, at the position in which they are placed. I believe they have requested the Postmaster-General to receive a deputation in order that they might place before him their position and their grievances. The position of the staff in the solicitor's office is likely to become more anomalous than at present, provided that the transfer takes place from the National Telephone Company to the Post Office.
  I am given to understand that the solicitor and the solicitor's staff of the National Telephone Company, when transferred to the Postmaster-General's office would then be placed upon the general establishment of the Post Office. Now there are many members of the solicitor's office who have served the Post Office for periods of eight, ten, and twenty years, and it certainly would be extremely unfair if the staff of this new company were placed in a privileged position with prospects of pensions and higher salaries than those who have served so long a time in the Post Office itself. I should very much

  2025
  like to ascertain from the Secretary to the Treasury or from the Assistant Postmaster-General, whether in future the staff of the Telephone solicitor's office will be placed upon the establishment of the Post Office, so as to rank as Civil servants and to receive salaries paid from the Treasury and pensions to which other Civil servants are entitled, and also whether the staff of the Telephone Company will be placed in a superior position to that of the staff at present engaged in the solicitor's office, and to their prejudice. This important question affects the position of a pretty large number of men who have been acting as public servants for a number of years, and I shall be very glad indeed to receive a satisfactory answer as to the positions they will occupy in future after this transfer takes place.

  SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The matter to which I should like to call attention is one in reference to the item of expenditure for the Australasian and Antarctic expedition, for which a sum of £2,000 is set apart, out of the large sum of £63,000 for scientific grants. I put that Amendment down for consideration on the Committee stage, but the whole of the Vote, with a great many others, amounting to many millions, was guillotined. I put it down again on the Report stage yesterday, and again the whole of the Supplementary Vote, amounting to many millions, was guillotined. We know very well the House of Commons is supreme in the control of finance, and this is how we control it. How long Members of this House will endure that dignified position I do not know, but the time is coming, I am perfectly certain, when the constituencies will insist that their Members shall have real control over the finances of the country, not a sham control. I should like to call the attention of the House to the very generous form of this grant. It is not a large sum, but the conditions upon which it is made are extraordinary. The expenditure of this Grant-in-Aid is not to be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller or Auditor-General while no unexpended balance is to be surrendered up at the close of the financial year. There is no meanness about that; they do not ask to audit these accounts, and whatever the payee may have over he can put in his pocket.
  In the first place, I should like to know who is the payee that gets this amount of money. The time has come, I think, when the tax-payer's money should
  2026
  not be expended upon what is, after all, a private venture, namely, the struggle and seeking after kudos and glory by the first man to arrive at some spot on earth which is not the slightest use to anyone when he gets there. For seventy years the cry was the North Pole. Many and many a brave man lost his life upon that venture, and thousands and thousands of pounds were squandered on the effort to get — what? Of course, at the beginning there was some idea that when you crossed a certain ice barrier you would come upon open water, and so a North-West Passage to the other side of the world would be found. That was found to be an idle dream; and that there was no such thing. As I said, a great deal of treasure was wasted and many brave lives were lost, and, after all, it seems that it was not so difficult to find the North Pole, for in one twelve months two men discovered it—at least they said they did. All you had to do apparently was to leave camp with another man—not a white man —and go away for a few days, and then to come back with some sketches and say you had reached the North Pole. However that may be, one feels very certain that from the time these two men quarrelled as to who had reached the Pole, the Pole became a back number, and no one cares anything about it, and you could not find any one now to put up a penny to go and search for the North Pole. Because what did they find? Absolutely nothing but a bleak devastation in which no human being could exist. And so the object has changed to the South Pole. I do not object to men putting up money and to geographical societies and zoological societies putting up money to discover anything they choose. What I do object to is that the taxpayers' money should be frittered away to absolutely no public good. Of course they cover it up by calling it scientific research. Dr. Scott, I believe, with the aid of drift nets, discovered some small spiders with ten legs instead of six. What earthly use is that to anybody except the professors of morphology and its students. It would be very interesting to them, but it should be for the benefit of human happiness that we spend our money. The Secretary to the Treasury is about the hardest man to get money out of, yet there seems to be no difficulty in these cases. Somebody gets round him, and gets the money out of him for these expeditions. Let us talk seriously on the subject. I am quite sure that if there is any money for scientific research that can be spared—

  2027
  if the Secretary to the Treasury has a few thousands lying about—there is plenty of scientific research nearer home by which he might be able to do something to cure disease, stop poverty, or better the condition of the people. This would be better than spending it on these silly objects. There is one part of these expeditions which to me, and every right feeling man, is most horribly objectionable. This is the extreme cruelty which is perpetrated, and which seems to be attached to every one of these expeditions. No one can read from Nansen's book without being indignant at the terrible sufferings the poor dogs endure. They take large numbers of them, and they first of all make them drag heavy-weighted sledges across hummocky, broken ice. You would not be allowed to do that in this country, yet you subscribe money to these men who treat these dogs in this way. On these expeditions, it seems to me, they are never able to take enough food with them for themselves and these wretched dogs. What happens is this: The dogs are half-starved, and they are beaten and thrashed as long as they can make a little more effort. At last they fall down and make food for their fellow dogs. I should just like to read what Dr. Nansen says upon this. It will convince all Members that it is unwise to encourage these expeditions. He says:—
  "It was undeniable cruelty to the animals from first to last and one must often look back on it with horror. It makes me shudder even now but we beat them mercilessly with sticks when hardly able to move they stopped from sheer exhaustion. It made one's heart bleed to see them but we turned our eyes away. … One systematically kills all better feelings. When I think of all these splendid animals toiling for us as long as they could strain a muscle; when I think how they were left behind one by one on these desolate icefields, I had moments of bitter self-reproach."
  This House ought not to lend its aid to any of these expeditions where this sort of cruelty obtains. What a terrible indictment of cruelty, it seems to me, always attaches to these Arctic and Antarctic expeditions. I trust that, if the Treasury have gone so far that they cannot draw back, they will still, at least, insist upon a pledge that no cruelty such as I have described shall take place.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: There is just one subject to which I would like to call attention. It is a subject with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has most to do, and I am therefore glad that he is in the House. The subject is the grant on behalf of education in Scotland. I am sorry to find by a
  2028
  paper issued this morning that we shall have a shortage of £41,887. This is a very serious matter for education in Scotland. Every burgh, every county, is affected. Glasgow, for instance, will have a reduction of £12,000. Edinburgh has a fall of nearly £4,000, Aberdeen of £2,000, Dundee of over £2,000, and if you come to the county of Lanark there is a reduction of nearly £4,000. This reduction is a very serious matter for the Scottish people. I am quite sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to make the Insurance Bill popular in Scotland he will not do it by sacrificing education. I trust he will be able to say something regarding this reduction. I am aware that it has been brought about by a reduction in the consumption of whisky. We welcome that reduction, but it is a great pity indeed that educational grants should be dependent upon the consumption of alcohol. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.] At any rate I am quite sure, whatever the cause of the reduction may be, that it will be very bad policy indeed to allow this reduction to be made if it is to be made simply to keep the finance of the country in a satisfactory condition, in view of the increased charges of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. W. TYSON WILSON: I believe some time ago the Secretary to the Treasury had a request from the gardeners employed in Kew Gardens for an increased allowance. They have an allowance of £1 or £1 1s. a week. The Treasury said this amount is an allowance, and not a wage. The gardeners asked the Treasury to increase this, and also to pay them the full allowance when they were sick. I have also to ask the Treasury whether they will favourably consider the request of the labourers in the gardens for an increase of wages. These men are paid considerably less than the men of the Richmond District Council, and less than the wages paid by employers of labour whose men do similar work. I hope that, after all these years, we shall have, at any rate, a more favourable reply than we have had in the past, and that the claims of these men will be considered. There are other grievances in connection with the work done in the Gardens, such as Sunday labour and the hours of labour generally, which are too long, and I hope something will be done to meet these grievances. Considering the increased cost of living, I think one

  2029
  guinea per week paid to the gardeners is not sufficient for skilled workmen. I know these men are gaining experience and knowledge, but they are doing the work of skilled men for the Government, for which they ought to be paid a reasonable wage.
  10.0 P.M.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I wish, in the first place, to answer the speech made by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who raised the subject of the Development Fund, more particularly in connection with the question of transit facilities for agricultural produce. I think the hon. Member forgets the conditions under which the Development Commissioners worked, and he rather suggested that it was their duty to initiate a particular scheme for collecting produce from the more remote and inaccessible portions of Ireland and for conveying it to central markets by means of motor traffic. That is not within the power of the Development Commissioners. Their duty is to examine the schemes which are submitted to them either directly from a Government Department or which may have been transmitted to them. Their duty is to examine all such proposals and schemes, and more particularly when these schemes have connection and relation with different places which are not able of themselves, because of the limited scope of the area over which they have jurisdiction, to combine with labouring localities. It is only then that the Development Commissioners are empowered to proceed. The Development Commissioners have laid down in connection with agricultural questions in the Report presented to the House some little time ago, more particularly in relation to Ireland, definite lines to guide them in dealing with applications from Ireland. If the hon. Member will look on page 12 of the Report he will see there that they have laid down certain conditions with regard to agriculture in which they, in the first place, aim at increasing the amount and quality of agricultural produce; secondly, they aim at increasing the variety; and, thirdly, they hope to improve the efficiency of organised co-operation. If the hon. Member will refer to page 18 of the report he will see that the Department make another suggestion that £18,000 should be devoted to Ireland for the establishment and maintenance of agricultural stations for a system of general investigation and scientific research into agricul-
  2030
  ture. I have not seen any suggestion that the transport facilities asked for have been put forward as one of the first necessities in the development of agricultural facilities. I am afraid I did not catch all the hon. Member said, but if he has some definite scheme in mind in reference to some particular place or area, and if he will get that put forward by the Department concerned, which I imagine would be the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, I am sure the Development Commissioners would give to his scheme or any similar scheme the greatest possible care and attention, and although they will submit it to a keen and critical examination it will not be of a hostile but of a friendly character.
  The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) asked some questions with regard to the solicitor's staff of the Post Office. He indicated that the solicitor's staff of the Telephone Company, when transferred to the Post Office, would be placed in a better position than the existing staff of the General Post Office. He need be under no such apprehension, because the staff in the solicitor's office of the Post Office is not an established staff, and the only persons established are the solicitor and the assistant solicitor and one principal clerk. The solicitor's staff is not an established staff either in the Post Office or any other Government department. The hon. Gentleman who represents the University of London will remember that some years ago there was a general inquiry into the standing and status of the solicitor's staffs in all the various Government departments. It was held by that Committee that it was greatly to the advantage both of the department and of the solicitors that the staff in each office should be personal and that the solicitor should receive a sum for the maintenance of a clerical and legal staff, out of which he should make no profit, and which should be sufficient to pay adequate salaries to the members of the staff. That will be the position of the solicitor's staff of the Telephone Company when it is transferred to the Post Office. Of course, if they go to other departments they will be allowed to accept established posts. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) raised a question in connection with the Antarctic expedition. I may state that my hon. Friend has managed to select the one weak spot in my armour. In this matter I yielded to the importunities of the Governor-General

  2031
  and the Agent-General of Australia, who represented to me the great importance which that great colony attaches to this expedition which they have contributed very largely to, and much more largely than we have done ourselves. We have thought it right—and I think the House will agree with us—to mark our sympathy, not merely with the scientific objects which may be in view, but with the wishes and desires of that important colony.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the stipulation that there is to be no cruelty to dogs on the expedition?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot imagine men who are ready to risk their own lives in the pursuance of scientific objects—because although there may naturally be some glory attaching to the successful leader of such an expedition, I believe most of these expeditions are undertaken from a desire to promote the objects of science—will inflict unnecessary cruelty upon the dumb animals which are part and parcel of the expedition.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: It always happens though.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid there is often cruelty in many things in the world which is regrettable, but I do not myself believe persons who are engaged in these expeditions and whose very lives depend upon the good treatment of the dogs will inflict any unnecessary hardship and certainly no cruelty upon them.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: If my right hon. Friend will read Nansen he will find a very different story.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not only read Nansen, but I have heard Nansen. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh {Mr. C. E. Price) raised a question in connection with Scotch education, and I should rather like to make a very short statement upon that which, I know, is a matter of some importance to many Scotch Members. The Scotch Education Fund was practically created by the Act of 1908, and there are, I think, six direct sources of income to that fund. There is a sum of £40,000 from Customs and Excise. That is practically a fixed sum under the Excise
  2032
  Act of 1890. There is a sum of £57,000, which is called the residue of the Whisky Money, and which under the Revenue Act passed earlier in the year has now become fixed and is not a variable quantity. There is a sum of £60,000 under the Education and Local Taxation (Scotland) Act. There is a sum of £33,000, the only varying amount, which is the balance to the credit of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. There is a sum of £38,000 which is the balance of a sum paid to the Scotch Local Taxation Account as an Equivalent Grant, and finally there is a sum of £258,000 which is the general aid grant to Scotland. These sums make up a total of about £500,000, the only varying amounts being the General Aid Grant and the sum of £33,000, the balance to the credit of the Estate Duty and Local Taxation Licences Grant. It is suggested that this year that some has fallen short by a sum of £40,000 of that which it was in the previous year. That is not quite an accurate figure, though I admit it is approximately accurate. The estimated sum due in respect of the balance of the Local Taxation Account was £26,000. It has turned out to be £33,000, so there is an increment to the Fund of something like £7,000 or £8,000. There is, however, a difference this year between the amount so paid, and the amount paid last year. It is a difference as between £61,000 odd and £33,000 odd, practically a difference of about £28,000. Part of that is a real deficiency, and part of it is an apparent deficiency. That part of it which is a real deficiency consists of some £17,000 which is the result of the yield of the Estate Duty spread over the whole of the United Kingdom. The apparent difference is an amount of £11,000 which comes under the head of the Equivalent Grant. The sum of £33,000 being a residue of a sum from which the Equivalent Grant is one of the deductions, the greater the amount of the Equivalent Grant the less the amount which is carried into the Education Fund. Both of these sums go to the credit of the Scotch taxpayer, and, if he gets more under the one head, he gets less under the other. As he gets more under the Equivalent Grant, so he gets less under the Scotch Education Fund, and, while he pays less therefore in respect of his ordinary rate, he pays more in respect of his education rate. Therefore the only fluctuating grant is one of £17,000. It may go up next year just as

  2033
  it went down this year. It has fluctuated between a yield of £47,000, £33,000, £61,000, and £39,000, and, while I admit it undoubtedly causes some inconvenience at the present time, it is merely a temporary and passing inconvenience, and I am bound to say, having regard to the general interests of the taxpayers all over the country and having regard to the proportion Scotland gets of the Grant-in-Aid, I do not think we are called upon to remedy it, especially as I have pointed out it is a varying sum.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: The Grant for primary education is greater in England than in Scotland.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are a great many more people in England than in Scotland. Another question was asked by my hon. Friend one of the Members for Yorkshire with regard to Kew Gardens. I would point out to him that the persons who are employed there for a short time only, I think for not more than two years, are really in the nature of apprentices, and I would ask him to look at the conditions of employment in the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens. He will find that the persons who are employed there, precisely as these persons who are employed at Kew, have actually to pay a premium, and they get no wages. These persons who are employed at Kew get an allowance, and they have to pay no premium at all. The hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, is well acquainted with conditions of employment in other parts of the world, and knows that persons who come from Kew readily and easily command places in preference to persons trained elsewhere, and get higher wages as a result. While we do not pretend that the allowance is in any way a wage, we say it gives the recipients a decided advantage over persons of the same class working under precisely similar conditions
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow (Thursday).

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.— [Progress 11th August.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved the Second Reading of the following

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.— [Progress 11th August.]

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Superannuation of Transferred Officers.)
  In the application of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, to a transferred officer who on his transfer is appointed to a pensionable office, or is appointed to such an office subsequently to his transfer, having since the date of his transfer served continuously in the Civil Service, the following modifications shall be made in favour of the officer:—

  (1) Appointment with a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners shall not be required, notwithstanding that the appointment is not held directly from the Crown;

  (2) Continuous service with the company shall be treated as service in the office to which an officer is first transferred for the purpose of calculating the period of ten years' service required as a condition for entitling a Civil servant to a superannuation allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, and the period of five years' service required as a condition for entitling a Civil servant to a gratuity under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1909;

  (3) The conditions mentioned in the foregoing paragraph shall not apply in the case of an officer who has served continuously in the company's service from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and four, to the date of his transfer;

  (4) The superannuation allowance, which may be granted to an officer who would not be entitled to a superannuation allowance but for the foregoing provisions, shall be calculated at the same rate for each completed year of service in a pensionable office as that prescribed under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, for Civil servants who have entered the service after the passing of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and completed ten years' service in a pensionable office;

  2035

  (5) If the officer is not a contributor to the company's pension fund or has not assigned to the Postmaster-General his share in that fund, his continuous service with the company prior to the date of his transfer up to a period not exceeding two years shall be treated as service in the office to which he is first transferred;

  (6) In the case of a contributor to the company's pension fund, his service during the period of contribution and, in the case of an original member of the fund, the whole of his continuous service with the company, shall, if he assigns to the Postmaster-General his share of the fund, be treated as service in the office to which he is first transferred;

  (7) In the case of an original member of the company's pension fund to whom a superannuation allowance is granted on or after his attaining the age of sixty years, the amount of that allowance, together with the annual value, actuarily determined, of any additional allowance granted to him under sub-section (2) of section one of the Superannuation Act, 1909, shall not be less than two-thirds of the amount which he was receiving as salary on the first day of January eighteen hundred and ninety-six, together with the amount of any additional pension purchased under the terms of the deed of trust creating the company's pension fund by means of contributions made to the fund in respect of increments of salary accruing during the years eighteen hundred and ninety-six to nineteen hundred and eleven, inclusive;

  For the purposes of this section—
  "A contributor to the company's pension fund" means an officer who has contributed continuously to that fund up to the date of his transfer;
  Service with the company includes service with any other telephone company which has been amalgamated with or absorbed by the company or with any authority whose telephone undertaking or business has been taken over by the company;
  An officer shall be deemed to assign to the Postmaster-General his share of the company's pension fund if he assigns to the Postmaster-General any
  2036
  share of the fund to which he may be entitled on the fund being apportioned amongst the members thereof or otherwise wound up, or, in the case of an officer who is appointed to a pensionable office after the fund is so apportioned or otherwise wound up and has not previously assigned his share, if he pays over to the Postmaster-General the amount of his share, together with compound interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum, calculated from the date of the receipt of his share.
  This Bill was under discussion last Friday, when at the request of hon. Members in various quarters of the House I consented to move the postponement of Clause 5—the Clause which relates to the conditions of employment of the Telephone Company's staff transferred to the Post Office in the hope that in the interval an agreement might be reached on the outstanding difficulties and that thereby the Committee would be saved a prolonged Debate. I am happy to inform the Committee that such an agreement has been reached and that all outstanding questions are now satisfactorily settled between the Post Office and the Treasury on the one hand and the National Telephone Company's staff on the other. I, of course, am not to be understood as implying that the staff have got everything that they desired. At the same time they do not think it necessary to further press Amendments to the Bill. They are willing to accept Clause 5 in the form in which I have to move it. I should say, for the information of hon. Members that in this matter the outstanding points related to members of the company's staff who were pensionable under the company but who on transfer to the Post Office will fall into Post Office classes which are not on the establishment. Certain modifications will be made in the Post Office system to enable members of those branches of the Post Office staff to be established. As I pointed out on Friday it is impossible now to perfect the elaborate scheme which may be necessary in order to attain that end. With the sanction of the Treasury I am in a position to assure the National Telephone Company's staff that whatever arrangements may be made with regard to the Post Office organisation all those members of the company's staff who are pensionable, and who belong to the construction staff or to the class of contract officers or

  2037
  way-leave officers will be placed on the Post Office establishment, and those who are not pensionable will have equal chances with Post Office servants to be placed on the establishment. The solicitor's clerks if they prefer will be put into other offices in suitable cases, but they may be placed in the solicitor's department, in which case they will be unestablished, as the Post Office solicitor's clerks are unestablished. But they will receive an allowance of 5 per cent. in addition to their salaries to counterbalance the pension rights which they have under the company, but which they will not have under the Post Office. As an alternative they will be placed as clerks in other branches of the Post Office. That is an outline of the arrangement which has been arrived at, and, in consequence of that arrangement, I am able to ask the House to skip nine pages of Amendments, and to proceed to the new Clause which stands in my name, which is a redraft of the previous Clause, with a number of Amendments which previously stood in my name, and some other Amendments which have been accepted in other quarters.
  Mr. BARNES: Do I understand the Postmaster-General to tell us that the Construction Department in the Post Office will now, as a result of this arrangement, come upon the establishment as well as men who are to be transferred from the Telephone Company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The National Telephone Company's staff will not be placed in a privileged position compared with the Post Office staff, and arrangements are contemplated by which a proportion of the construction staff shall be placed upon the establishment. In the proportion so established the pensionable construction hands of the National Telephone Company's staff will be included.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire on behalf of the staff whose case I have put before the House in the last few weeks, to thank the Postmaster-General most sincerely for the concessions he has made. He has outlined those concessions, which have done away with the necessity of our moving nine pages of Amendments. I fear a very considerable number stood in my own name. The terms which were arranged between the representatives of the staff and the Postmaster-General the day before yesterday have been embodied in an exchange of letters. I do not wish to
  2038
  be exigeant in any way, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will proceed with the very difficult subject of classification as fast as possible. The staff realises that it is a difficult matter, but they feel they can leave it with very great safety in the hands of the Postmaster-General. There is a great desire on the part of all members of the telephone staff to know exactly what their position is. At the same time, may I on behalf of the staff thank those Members of the House who have supported them.
  Mr. BRADY: On behalf of the telephone staff in general, and more particularly that portion of the staff which discharges the duties of the telephone service in Ireland, I desire to thank the Postmaster-General in the name of that staff for the manner in which he has approached the consideration of the outstanding questions which have been brought to such a happy termination. I have to echo the remark made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) when he expressed the hope that the outstanding question of classification would be dealt with as satisfactorily as the other questions. I am sure the manner in which the Postmaster-General has approached these questions and the consideration and patience which he has exercised is a very good augury for the settlement of the question of classification. We recognise that this was largely a Treasury matter, and we think that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury, as well as the Postmaster-General, deserves the thanks of the staff, and, on their behalf, I thank him for the consideration with which they have been met.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: Before this Bill is passed I should like to have a word from the Postmaster-General on the question of wayleaves.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the new Clause.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I understand that there are a number of the employés of the Telephone Company who are known as contract officers. Some of them are pensionable, and some are not. I wish to know whether the whole of the contract officers are included in the scope of the Bill as pensionable officers. I wish to ask also what percentage of the Post Office construction staff will become established servants and what

  2039
  proportion of the Telephone Company's staff will become established servants. I have been requesrted by several contract officers to get the information.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I heard the Postmaster-General state that certain employés of the Telephone Company would not be put in a preferential position as compared with those in the Post Office. May I express the hope that the members of the Solicitors' Department will not be put in a worse position than those in the telephone service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They will not be in any way prejudiced. In answer to the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Tyson Wilson) I have to say that I have endeavoured to explain that the contract officers of the, company who were pensionable by the company will be put on the establishment of the Post Office. As regards the similar class in the Post Office which has not yet had its organisation fixed, the question of the percentage to become established is one that raises a large and difficult question which will take time to decide. I cannot say what percentage of the company's contract officers not we pensioned will be placed on the establishment. When they come over they will be treated just in the same way as Post Office servants, and they will have equal chances of being placed on the establishment. I have undertaken to meet the National Telephone Company's staff before the percentages are fixed and before the final organisation is worked out I will give them an opportunity of expressing their views on the question.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

Part II.
  RIGHTS OF COMPANY'S OFFICERS TO SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Superannuation of Transferred Officers.)
    In the application of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, to a transferred officer who on his transfer is appointed to a pensionable office in the Post Office, or is appointed to such an office subsequently to his transfer, having since the date of his transfer served continuously in the Post Office, the following modifications shall be made in favour of the officer:—
    2040

    (a) Appointment with a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners shall not be required, notwithstanding that the appointment is not held directly from the Crown;

    (b) If the officer has served continuously in the Company's service from the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and four to the date of his transfer, the provisions requiring ten years' service as a condition for a superannuation allowance and five years' service as a condition for a gratuity under section two of the Superannuation Act, 1909, shall not apply, and the superannuation allowance which may be granted to him shall be one-eightieth of the annual salary and emoluments of the office for each completed year of service in a pensionable office;

    (c) In the case of an officer who has contributed continuously to the Company's pension fund up to the date of his transfer, the period during which he has so contributed, and in the case of an original member of the fund, the whole of his continuous service with the Company, shall, if he assigns to the Postmaster-General the share of the fund, if any, to which he may be entitled on the fund being apportioned amongst the members thereof or otherwise wound up, be treated as service in the office to which he is first transferred:

    Provided that in the case of any original member to whom a superannuation allowance is granted on or after his attaining the age of sixty-five years, the amount of that allowance, together with the annual value, actuarially determined, of any additional allowance granted to him under Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Superannuation Act, 1909, shall not be less than two-thirds of the amount which he was receiving as salary on the first day of January eighteen hundred and ninety-six;

    (d) If the officer has been continuously in the service of the Company for a period of not less than two years up to the date of his transfer, and either has not contributed to the Company's pension fund or has not assigned as aforesaid to the Postmaster-General the share in that fund, if any, to which he may be en-

    2041
    titled on the winding up of that fund, his service with the Company for two years shall be treated as service in the office to which he is first transferred.

    Question, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: A promise was given to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and myself that this Bill would be taken in Committee at a more reasonable hour. I do not wish to press that point in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but I wish to give this notice so that I may not be held by passing the Bill this year to approve of all these expiring laws, because there are some of them to which I entertain the very strongest aversion. In order to protect any position I make this announcement at this stage.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment, read the third time, and passed.

COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Sir F. BANBURY: Some little explanation is necessary as to this Bill owing to its form. Clause I refers to certain regulations contained in a separate report dated January, 1911, of a Committee appointed in November, 1907, and apparently it gives absolute power to the Home Secretary to make any regulations provided, I presume, that they conform to that particular report. The Bill may be an extremely good one, but in its present form it is quite incomprehensible, and I would like to have some more or less lucid expla-
2042
nation as to what is going to take place. I presume the "Secretary of State" is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but it does not say so. I should like to know why the Government have not put some sort of limit to the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State. I suppose it is due to the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman, who at present fills the position of Home Secretary. I confess that I do not feel such immense confidence in him that I am prepared to give him a free hand, and we ought to have some control over his Department. These recommendations are so vague—that is to say, no indication is given as to what they are. It is entirely a question of legislation by reference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that when he was sitting below the Gangway he over and over again strongly objected to legislation by reference.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): I was not aware that any point was going to be raised in connection with the Bill, and in the unavoidable absence of the Home Secretary I propose to postpone the Bill until to-morrow evening.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have no objection to the Bill. I only want some explanation.
Mr. ALBERT SMITH: A Departmental Committee inquired into this matter, and this Bill simply incorporates the recommendations of that Committee. The whole of the employers, as well as the cotton operatives, are agreed on the Bill, which makes certain alterations which will come into full working operation next year. There is no opposition to the measure, and I hope the Committee will allow it to pass.
Lord BALCARRES: I suppose the Bill will go on now. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office is here, and he will be able to clear up these points. As the hon. Member said, this is an agreed Bill, and it is desirable that it should be passed at the earliest possible moment. We have had a hot summer, and if we have another summer like it next year, then the sooner the Bill is passed into law the better, because there would then be ample time to make these regulations, which could be properly published for the information of the parties concerned. But as the Home Office representative is here he must allow me to comment on the drafting of this Bill, because it really is very carelessly drafted. We are all agreed that the textile manufacturers are in accord as to the

2043
desirability of this Bill, but it is a very serious thing to have a Bill drafted in such a manner as to leave matters open to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The first Clause entitles the Home Office to make regulations. Naturally, one asks one's self what the procedure is to be for making these regulations. If we turn to the Memorandum you find it says that the procedure follows the procedure of the Cotton Cloth Act of 1897. That is true in one sense, but it is not very clear in another, because the Act of 1897 has been repealed. Moreover, this does not follow the real procedure of the repealed Act of 1897. That Act is now incorporated in the Act of 1901, and it has not the procedure adopted in this Bill. That Cotton Cloth Act puts upon the Home Secretary the responsibility of proceeding by Order in these matters. Here it simply says to make regulations to give effect to whatever recommendations he likes in this particular matter. Under the Cotton Cloth Act the Order had to be published and to be submitted to Parliament, and by that formality interested people were officially made aware of what those regulations were to be. There is no obligation in this Bill to take those steps, and he is left absolutely unfettered. He has not to tell employers, or operatives or the House of Commons, and for my part I would much rather those rules and regulations were made in such a manner that, either Parliament as such, or the two great branches of life which are concerned in these things should have proper opportunity of bringing the matter before the public. I think this Bill is badly drafted. I do not think it is a very wise thing to take away from Parliament the right to express its opinion about these orders and regulations. I am quite certain if the old procedure had been followed it would have been much more convenient for all parties that there should be proper statutory publication, the posting of the notices, and so forth. Mind, I do not take any objection to the Bill, but only to the form in which it is drafted, and which I think is open to objection, and as to which I think the Home Office ought rather to give more attention to the proceedings dealing with those matters than they appear to have done.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I notice that the Memorandum says that the Departmental Committee, composed of employers and employed, were unanimous, except on
2044
one point, but there appears to be nothing in the Bill or in the Memorandum to guide us as to what that particular point was. All we are told is that it was agreed to leave that to the determination of the Secretary of State. Apparently, as my Noble Friend has just said, a great deal more is left to the Secretary of State, by whom all the regulations may be made. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to inform us upon what particular point the Departmental Committee differed.
Mr. CAVE: We ought to have some answer to the points that have been raised. There are pages of recommendations of the Committee dealing with a great number of subjects, and instead of dealing with those in detail in the Bill, the Secretary of State is to make any regulations he pleases to give effect to the Report. It is an extraordinary way of legislating. I do not know whether it is intended to deal with the Report of the Poor Law Commission on the same lines, but if so we shall be saved a great deal of trouble. I do think something ought to be said as to the very pertinent observations which have been made by the Noble Lord.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I agree that something might and ought to be said, and I throw myself for a moment on the indulgence of the Committee. I have been absent from the House for some considerable time under medical orders, and, therefore, I am not fully acquainted with the details of this Bill. I understand that the Bill was entirely agreed between masters and men, and that the point on which they disagreed was left to the Home Office to settle. If hon. Members press the matter I am perfectly prepared to move to report Progress until a more satisfactory answer can be given.
Lord BALCARRES: I must protest against that course being taken. I was quite within my rights in criticising the drafting of the Bill, but I expressly said that I hoped the Government would take it to-night, because we believe that the Home Office will do exactly what both sides in the matter desire. Apart from one's interest in this particular branch of the textile trade, one is at liberty to comment upon the extraordinary way in which the Bill is drafted.
Mr. ALBERT SMITH: The Bill is a great improvement on the present position,

2045
and it was arranged that the point not agreed upon should be left entirely to the Home Office.
Mr. CAVE: I do not want to delay the Bill, but I protest against the way in which it is drafted.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment, read the third time, and passed.

LABOUR DISPUTES.
MASTER of ELIBANK: I understand that hon. Members desire to put certain questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, therefore, propose to move the adjournment of the House, and then later on, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Motion.
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. WARDLE: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first, whether he has any further information he can give to the House as to developments in connection with the threatened railway strike; and secondly, whether the following statement which has been published quietly in the Press this evening is an accurate statement of the Government's intentions and of what they have done in regard to this matter. The statement, which is given to the Press on the authority of the railway managers who have met at the Board of Trade to-day, is as follows:—
"The Government having assured the railway companies that they will give them ample protection to enable them to carry on their services, the railway companies are prepared, even in the event of a general strike, to give an effective, if a restricted, service."
I desire to ask whether that accurately represents what has taken place at the Board of Trade to-day?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has been in communication to-day with the various interests concerned—with certain representatives of the railway companies, and also with representatives of the men. An invitation has been given to the executive of the men of the various societies, which has been sitting at Liverpool to-day, to meet at the Board of Trade tomorrow, and I believe arrangements have been made for that purpose. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the various communications, it will be possible to effect a
2046
satisfactory settlement, or, at least to put things in train, with a view to arriving at a satisfactory settlement later. With regard to the statement in the Press, the position of the Government was stated by me earlier in the day.
The position of the Government is that we are bound to protect life and property. That is the first duty of a Government, and as it is applicable to other interests, I believe it is equally applicable to the railway interest. Our responsibilities, I conceive, do not end there. We also deem it our duty to do everything in our power, to exhaust every resource at our command, to see that fair play is given to both parties. It is not merely a question of the protection of life and property. We have got a duty that we owe, not merely to the men, but to the community at large, to see that they get fair play in these matters. Nothing is further from the mind of the Government than to intervene in favour of the interests of any party to the dispute. It is essential, I think, that the Government should preserve an attitude of complete impartiality in matters of this kind. The moment they departed from that attitude they would cease to have any influence in the settlement of the dispute. Were it imagined that they were biassed in favour of either party, or had made up their minds to give an undertaking that they would see one party or the other through, then I think all their influence in endeavouring to effect a settlement would be destroyed. As I once pointed out to the men when I was endeavouring to settle a strike, if it was thought that the Government, under any circumstances, were taking either side, then it would be hopeless for us to go on. Our attitude is an attitude of strict impartiality—to see fair play between the parties. We certainly do not mean to give any guarantees, to lend any countenance to the theory that we had undertaken, whatever happened, to back in advance any party to the controversy. I do not think any reasonable man would ask us to do that.
I do not know what the statement in the Press referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wardle) means. Certainly it is not a statement issued by the Government; it is not official. [A newspaper was here handed to the right hon. Gentleman.] I say, at any rate, that it is not a communication that has been sent by the Government, and I very much regret that it should have appeared. It conveys a completely wrong impression as to the posi-

2047
tion of the Government. It suggests that the Government have given some sort of undertaking. It is a very unfair thing to have done. It is a very misleading thing to put down. I object to it very much in the interests of the railway companies, the men, and the community— because it is so important that the Government's position of strict impartiality should be preserved. That rather conveys the impression that the Government have given a certain undertaking in the interests of one party without any regard whatever to the rights or wrongs of the question. That is not our position; it never has been our position and never will be to take sides.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before this communication was made to the Press, can the Chancellor inform the House whether the railway managers informed the Board of Trade that they intended to communicate it? And was this conference, held at the Board of Trade to-day, with the railway managers, a private conference, or one from which it was expected any communication would be sent to the Press?
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether he wishes to add to, or take away from, the statement made by the Home Secretary in very explicit terms this afternoon?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tells me the conference at the Board of Trade was private, just the kind of interview that takes place whenever there are disputes of this kind, and it is very important they should be kept private. It is almost impossible to conduct them unless they are quite confidential, and in my experience nothing of this kind has ever been done. In the case of previous disputes, there was no communication with the Press, except the announcement of the mere fact that representatives of the various parties visited the Board of Trade; there never was any communication of what happened. All such communications must necessarily be partial at this stage. There is always a very free interchange of views, and if observations made are partially communicated to the Press they are fatal.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Home Secretary made a statement similar in effect of that published in the Press.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I was not present, but I have made some inquiries, and I find the Home Secretary did not say anything of the kind. He did say, as I said on behalf of the Government, that protection was to be given to railway property and to the life.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And to foodstuffs?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Protection to property and to life, and seeing that the railway is not damaged or impaired necessarily involves that. Otherwise there might be great destruction to life and very great destruction to property. The same protection must be given to the railways as to any other property, but I deplore these partial communications, completely unauthorised, of private and confidential interviews which take place at the Board of Trade. They are fatal to the progress of negotiations, and I deeply deplore them.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has any recent information as to the state of things in Liverpool?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): No, Sir; there is no news from Liverpool except that the situation is quieter and more reassuring. There is some trouble apprehended in neighbouring towns, but I have not any precise figures to give the House, but in regard to Liverpool the situation, I am informed by telephone communication, was quieter throughout the day.
11.0.P.M.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I pursue one step further what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told us the Government would remain impartial between the railway companies and the men. There are many of us here who do not represent either the railway companies or the men, but who are interested in the general community. It is one thing to say you should protect life and railway property, but those of us who heard the Home Secretary make his most important statement on behalf of the Government—perhaps the most important made in connection with this matter—understood him to mean that the Government deemed it part of their duty in the interests of the community to take such steps as to see that the food of the

2049
community was preserved or safely delivered, or words to that effect. That really is the important question. The Government make a declaration on the authority of the Home Secretary that in the event of, or in consequence of, the railway workers refraining from working such part of the railways——
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion for the Adjournment now lapses (Eleven o'clock). The right hon. Gentleman can renew it.

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask the Under-Secretary for War for an explanation?
Colonel SEELY: I explained the general scope of the Bill on the Second Reading. I think the Committee understands that the Bill is to defend and protect the Red Cross emblem for the purposes for which it exists—the protection of wounded in war. The effect of the Bill has been passed by every country which has been a party to the Geneva Convention except as yet France and Turkey. The effect of it will be that it will be impossible for people to abuse the Red Cross; for instance, for ships to employ the Red Cross for transporting supplies to the enemy. It will also avoid the suspicion that the Red Cross is not always bonâ fide employed for the protection of the sick and wounded, and people will not be tempted to fire upon it to prevent themselves being deceived.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask whether under the Bill the Red Crescent is recognised?
Colonel SEELY: That is the difficulty which Turkey feels in that matter, and that question is still under consideration. This Bill deals with the Red Cross, and it is the Red Cross that will be recognised.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a Debt due to the Public
2050
Works Loan Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant Money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Leans."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Sir F. BANBURY: It is rather curious that all those remissions, with one exception, apply to Ireland. We are just now on the eve of Home Rule, and this is a very bad precedent. I only rise to call attention to the fact that this is a curious document. It is a very interesting feature with regard to certain Irish people, who appear to have had money lent them, which they have not been able to repay. I draw the attention of the Committee to the very extraordinary fact that everybody in the United Kingdom seem to be able to pay their debts except the Irish.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am going to make the hon. Baronet a firm proposition. We are willing to restore all the money he alleges we owe if England will restore all which the Commission alleges is owing to us.
Mr. MOONEY: The same question arose with regard to England and Scotland, and the hon. Baronet did not then raise this question at all.
Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PARSONAGES BILL [Lords].
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent from such part as affects Newbury of the scheme in the matter of Christ's Hospital with the foundations of John and Frances West and of Frances West in London, Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham, and elsewhere (No. 249)."

  2051
  I must apologise to the House for raising at this hour of the night a question which though it involves a principle is mainly one of local interest, but I will endeavour to state as briefly as may be the objections of my Constituents to this scheme, which deals with the administration of a gift which was largely, if not mainly, intended for the children of the poor of Newbury. We think that the Board of Education are sacrificing the interests of these children for the interests of that great corporation—Christ's Hospital. I will summarise the history of the endowment in a few words. In 1730 John West, a prominent inhabitant of Newbury, gave certain property in London in trust to the governors of Christ's Hospital to maintain and educate in their Hospital or elsewhere, along with other children, a certain number of poor boys and girls, two-thirds of whom were to come from Newbury, and it was further provided in the trust that if the Governors refused or failed to carry out its provisions, wholly or in part, the trust should go elsewhere. I draw attention to these two parts of the scheme because they support the contention of the local authority that the trust was not entirely intended for the benefit of Christ's Hospital.
  Further, from time to time, schemes have been made by the Board of Education under the Endowed Schools Act dealing with this trust. The cost of the maintenance of children has been increased to £25, £32, and now to £50, but there has been of late a very great increase in the income arising from this property owing to the fact that it consisted almost entirely of property in London. In 1905 the income from it was £4,380, now it has more than doubled. In addition to that there has been a large fund accumulated of £26,000, which is now standing to the credit of the fund, and this has rendered the scheme necessary. Provision is made in it for the education at Christ's Hospital of thirty-six children from Newbury, or some place within ten miles of the town, at the rate of £70 a year. They are to be nominated by the local authority at the age of between nine and twelve. For one-third preference is to be given to the kin of the benefactor, one-third to children who have spent two years in the elementary schools, and the other third are to be natives of Newbury or parishes contiguous thereto. A small sum is also set apart for travelling expenses, and the
  2052
  balance of the share of Newbury after the payment of £70 a head for the Newbury children goes to a residue fund, out of which are to be provided expenses for these West foundationers or apprenticeships for preparing them for a profession or trade when they leave school. There is, however, a proviso which very largely minimises the advantages which Newbury is likely to gain. It says that the minimum payment to Christ's Hospital is to be based upon a certain fixed number of places—thirty-six so far as Newbury is concerned. The result of that is that whether these places are full or not, whether you have these thirty-six children from Newbury going to Christ's Hospital or not, Christ's Hospital will get the payment for these thirty-six places. With regard to the accumulated fund, half of it is to be paid to the general fund of Christ's Hospital and the rest goes towards the residue. So far as the residue is concerned Newbury is, I am afraid, likely to come off rather badly, because there are two other towns, Reading and Twickenham, which have better advantages for their children than Newbury can have, and which participate equally.
  These are roughly the points of the new scheme. While we object to it as a whole there are parts of it which we gladly welcome as being an improvement upon the old scheme. But the people of the district for whom I speak contend that this scheme is not sufficiently favourable to Newbury children, for whom this trust was originally and largely intended. We contend that the object of the benefactor, John West, many years ago, was primarily to benefit the children of Newbury. His object was that the children there should have proper and suitable education at a time when the facilities for education were very few and far between. Though we felt that Christ's Hospital had some claim to a good deal of consideration, the interest of Christ's Hospital in the fund is, if I may say so, only contingent. The contention of the Board of Education and of Christ's Hospital, who are opposing us in this scheme, is no doubt that this fund was primarily intended for the benefit of the Hospital. If that is so I should like to ask the House why it is that the words "or elsewhere" were put in the trust deed, or why it was that provision was made for the transfer of the trust if Christ's Hospital did not properly conform to the trust set out in the deed. I would further venture to say that it cannot any-

  2053
  how be denied that the children of Newbury ought to receive full consideration at the hands of the Board of Education.
  I cannot think that the Board have properly carried out the duties which have been placed upon them under the Endowed Schools Act, which states that it shall be the duty of the Commissioners—and the Board of Education now represents the Commissioners—in every scheme which modifies any of the privileges or educational advantages to which a particular class are entitled to have due regard to the educational interests of such class of persons. I do not think that anyone, whatever they may feel about the whole of this question, would say that due consideration has been given to the children of Newbury. Let me point out that they are the children of poor parents. Under the scheme itself preference is to be given to children whose fathers are dead or incapacitated from earning a livelihood. They are children from the elementary schools taken to Christ's Hospital between the ages of nine and twelve. I ask anyone whether the interests of these children are properly considered when they are sent at that early ago to a school which has about 1,000 boys and girls. It seems to me a very strange heresy indeed, and a strange method for the Board of Education to adopt in this scheme. It is one which if introduced by any independent body would have been instantly rejected by the Board. In asking the House to refuse assent to the scheme I do not wish that Newbury should have the whole of this endowment, but I do say that if you are to consider the interests of the children you ought to give a considerable portion of that endowment to the locality in order that the money may be spent on technical and secondary schools, which would be of greater advantage to the children than would be the education provided at Christ's Hospital
  This scheme was necessitated by the enormous accretion to the increase of the endowment, which has increased from £4,300 to £9,300, yet all that Newbury gets is an addition of ten places, an increase from twenty-six to thirty-six. I would be the very last to suggest that the education given should not be the most suitable and effective possible, but when you are going to spend £70 a head on young children from elementary schools I think that it is a wasteful and extravagant scheme. When we know what an excellent education can be given in the County Council schools, or
  2054
  by schools like the Masonic School at Bushey, for £50 a head it would be far better to provide an education at a more moderate cost for a larger number of those children. The increase in the cost is not in the interests of the children of Newbury but in the interest of Christ's Hospital itself. The standard of educacation in Christ's Hospital has gone up, but the children of Newbury should not be penalised in order that the standard of Christ's Hospital should be maintained at the very high position at which it undoubtedly is at the present time.
  The proviso that Christ's Hospital is to receive payment for a fixed number of places, whether filled or not, is surely a very strange one. The Board of Education must know the difficulty which county councils often have in getting masters and mistresses to take in free scholars who are so rightly sent to the secondary schools, because they are very apt to say that free scholars are not of so high a standard as the rest of the scholars and therefore lower the standard of the school. The same thing may be said with Christ's Hospital, because when they have children taken from a limited class in a restricted area they will have greater difficulty in maintaining the standard. It is a very strange thing that in one of the draft schemes dealing with this endowment in 1908 this proviso did not appear. It was put into a later draft, and I have no doubt owing to pressure put upon the Board by Christ's Hospital. I ask the House to withhold its assent from this scheme because by doing so they will be protecting the best interests of the children of Newbury.
  Mr. GARDNER: I beg to second the Motion.
  It appears to me that the question resolves itself into one as to what is equitable as between the people of Newbury and Christ's Hospital. If this Bill is passed it certainly will be passed in the teeth of the strong opposition of the Newbury people. Several schemes have dealt with this charity since its original foundation. In the original gift it was provided that the charity was to be applied to the poor of Newbury. Although there has been so many of those schemes, I am unable to discover that any one of them diminishes the rights of those for whom the donor provided. By the scheme of 1890 there was a particular Clause which provided that no alteration with regard to the locality or those who benefited by it was to be made. The

  2055
  charge of £70 a place, whether filled or not, seems to be a very extravagant provision for the kind of scholar whom the donor intended to benefit in a country town like Newbury. The people of Newbury justly quarrel with that agreement. Beyond that they quarrel with the provision that half the accumulated fund is to go to the Corporation of Christ's Hospital.
  There is nothing in the original gift of the donor, so far as I can see, that gives Christ's Hospital any other interest in. that fund other than as trustees for a particular purpose, and not to inure to their own benefit. It is quite true that on a previous occasion an accumulated surplus was divided, but that division gave no real precedent for what is now suggested. It happened long ago, and it seemed that it was handed over because Christ's Hospital had been educating lads from Newbury at £10 a year each. It is quite clear that they lost a great deal of money by it, and they were remunerated out of the surplus fund. Since then the cost at Christ's Hospital has gone up, first to £32 and then to £50 a year, and the Hospital has taken the money whether the places were filled or not. That being so, they were amply paid for the benefit they conferred formerly. Yet the Hospital take half the surplus, and there is no reason why they should do so, unless they can show that they have lost considerably on the education of the children for a long time past. The Corporation of Christ's Hospital are the trustees of the fund, and it is an extraordinary thing that the trustees should join in a scheme out of which they are to get some benefit for themselves. In my judgment the trust money belongs to this charity alone. If this scheme is passed it will work injustice to Newbury, which is one of the principal parties to the whole business.
  Mr. GRETTON(who was indistinctly heard): I have been asked to address the House in support of the scheme as the only governor of Christ's Hospital who happens to be present here to-night. The House will recognise the great difficulty there is in getting a scheme of this kind agreed to by all the parties. The objecting party in this case is Newbury and the district immediately around, and we are interested as the great foundation of Christ's Hospital to which this charity is attached. The towns of Beading and
  2056
  Twickenham, which are interested in the scheme in the same manner as Newbury, have given their consent. The Board of Education, after prolonged examination and negotiation, have also agreed to the scheme. I am very much surprised by some of the arguments used by my hon. Friends, but I do not quarrel with the history that has been given of the foundation of this charity, except that it is quite clear that the founder of the charity was a governor of the Hospital, and that he intended that the charity should be attached to the Hospital except so far as the surplus funds. Any of the surplus funds remaining over for the applications was not to be applied for the benefit of any of the towns. The original gift provides that the surplus, if any, goes in the first place to the Clothiers Company for the purpose of providing apprenticeships, etc., and any further surplus not used by them goes to three parishes in London for the same purposes; it is quite clear that Newbury can base no claim to the surplus upon the original intention of Mr. West. Reference has been made to the word "elsewhere," but that appears to me to be a mere quibble. "Elsewhere" clearly applies to exhibitions in universities or apprenticing or educating the children when they leave Christ's Hospital in order to make further progress to equip them for life. It is quite true that the whole of this difficulty as to the application of funds has arisen from the increase of rent in certain London property which supplies the revenue. There has been an accumulation of £26,000, which is now to be disposed of, and with which the scheme proposes to deal. My hon. Friends have laid great stress on the increase in the cost of education. All education in this country has increased in cost, as is very well known to the House. The cost of education of children in Christ's Hospital is now £70, and has been so for a considerable number of years past.
  Under the scheme which now exists only £50 may be expended. Therefore every scholar who has been educated for a considerable number of years past has been educated at a loss to Christ's Hospital, and Christ's Hospital may reasonably claim some consideration and some payment out of the accumulated funds in order to recoup them for the loss which they have sustained in earlier years. The almoners of Christ's Hospital are not claiming anything for themselves. They are merely endeavouring to the best of

  2057
  their ability, with the assistance of the Board of Education, to administer the trust of which they are trustees. I put it to the House whether the education of children in a great institution like Christ's Hospital is not an immense boon and benefit to the neighbourhood to which the scholarships are attached? The education at Christ's Hospital is admitted to be one which gives the children who have the advantage of it an excellent start in life and a certain diploma which is of great value to them when they go out into the world. Objection has been raised to the admittance age. Christ's Hospital is divided into two establishments. There is a preparatory school at Hertford, where the children who pass the lower examination are educated until they can pass the higher examination and join the larger portion of the school at Horsham. Under the scheme New-bury gets ten additional places, and as Newbury has had some considerable difficulty in filling the twenty-six places already allotted, the thirty-six places will be ample for the requirements of the district. In order to extend the charity over a wider area the scheme provides that a certain district around Newbury shall be taken in, and that the children in that district shall be eligible for nomination to attend the school.
  The scheme provides that children from this locality may come to the school, where they will be clothed and educated free of all expense to their parents; it provides for their further education at universities and so forth. Great objection has been raised because Christ's Hospital claims the whole of the money. It is quite clear that under every past scheme the trust has been treated as part of the foundation of Christ's Hospital. The whole arrangements of the school have been conducted on the assumption that these places had to be provided. Recently, when the school was transferred from London to Horsham, it was held, under the best possible legal advice, that subject to the conditions of the trust the money was part of the foundation of Christ's Hospital. It really seems to me, as one of the governors of Christ's Hospital, and also as an ordinary business man, a little unfair at this time of day to come to the House and suggest that a part of the fund should be extracted and applied quite contrary to the wishes of the founders and to the provisions of the previous trust. This is not a hurried scheme. The original scheme was brought forward in
  2058
  1905, and various amendments have followed. Now all concerned practically, the Government, the Board of Education, the towns of Reading and Twickenham, and the Governors of Christ's Hospital, have arrived at a settlement. The House will be well advised not to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend, but to allow the scheme to go forward.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Motion on behalf of Newbury, for I would point out to him that if it were carried Newbury would be much worse off than actually it will be under the scheme as it has been drafted. Under the scheme as it has been drafted Newbury has no less than thirty-six places in Christ's Hospital, giving them something like £2,520 per annum. If the Motion were carried that would revert to £1,300, and Newbury would be actually £1,200 a year worse off. Even if the allowance were made on the £70 basis they would be £700 worse off. Moreover, it would be deprived of exhibitions to the value of £800 which now appear for the first time. I should like to emphasise the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He has an intimate connection with the governing body of Christ's Hospital. This is by no means a new or a hurried scheme. Negotiations have been going on ever since 1905. The scheme was then published for two months. Many objections were heard. The scheme was revised in 1908, and again, after further objections, in 1910. It was finally settled in June of this year. Every one of the parties concerned has been heard, and now, the final scheme having been settled, Newbury's is the solitary objection. The position of Newbury is in no way exceptional. It is in exactly the same position that Reading was. Reading's objections have all been withdrawn. Newbury's objections are the only ones that remain. In very long and very complicated trust transactions of this kind I think that an agreement, if it has been accepted by practically all the parties concerned, shows at all events that the scheme is not an unjust one. I will point out in a few moments that Newbury has no ground for complaint.
  The hon. Gentleman took the point that the money of this trust might be used at Christ's Hospital "or elsewhere." He has there, I think, been making, quite unintentionally, an unfair use of the words "or elsewhere." The Clause reads,

  2059
  "admit into Christ's Hospital and maintain and educate therein 'or elsewhere' … together with the other children… belonging to the said Hospital." There are only two possible interpretations of that, the one given by the hon. Member for Rutland and the one that to me seems perfectly fair which refers to the fact of their education in Christ's Hospital in the City of London, or some other place, with the remainder of the children. That does not mean they are to be scattered outside Christ's Hospital altogether.
  The main objection the hon. Member takes is not that Newbury only gets thirty-six places, but that Newbury does not get hard cash. There is no provision for that, and never has been. No one of the trustee governors of this charity has ever been allowed to give hard cash for the assistance of secondary schools or otherwise.
  Mr. MOUNT: That was not my complaint. My objection was there was no guarantee that the children would be taken: that was my objection.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that is the objection of the hon. Member I do not think it is a good one or that he is on good ground, because Christ's Hospital gives thirty-six places for Newbury, and the difficulty is that Newbury children do not come forward. The next point was, I think, that about the accumulated fund. Great care is taken as to the way that is dealt with. Christ's Hospital governors were entitled to the whole of £26,000, and I think they have behaved generously in agreeing to a scheme which will allow half of the £26,000 not to go into the general funds of the Hospital, to which it might well go, but to go for exhibitions which will benefit the children of Newbury along with the other children dealt with under the scheme. Under Clause 1 of the principal scheme of 1890 the endowments of Christ's Hospital, including West's gifts, are dealt with, and I think it was under Clause 92 that the West fund was to be administered, as nearly as possible as formerly, until a further scheme was made under the Endowed Schools Act. Under the scheme of 1897 it was provided under Clause 3 there should always be on the foundation of Christ's Hospital twenty-six children selected by the Council. The effect is, any income not applicable for the Newbury foundationers is brought under the operation of the
  2060
  principal scheme. The almoners of Christ's Hospital were entitled to the whole, amounting to £26,000, and a good arrangement seems to me to have been made by the governors, which provides that half of that sum should go to the endowment of exhibitions and so forth. I cannot hope to make a complicated question of this kind clear in the course of a few minutes, but I believe the local grants are perfectly secure, and I am advised that there is not the least doubt about the right of Christ's Hospital to the whole of the amount, and I think they acted liberally and generously in agreeing to a scheme which is fair to all parties. I think the hon. Member, having made his protest, should now be satisfied.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I would like to say a word in support of my hon. Friends. I think it is quite clear that Newbury, Reading, and Twickenham were to have the opportunity of sending the best of their boys to get the advantages of the education at Christ's Hospital, and that Christ's Hospital was to get the best Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham could give. That was what one would be glad to see take place. But Newbury is given thirty - six places and the boys are to be chosen, by examination, between the ages of nine to eleven to fill those places. The boys are to be chosen from an ordinary elementary school. It seems the result will be that you will, either by admitting boys with inferior education lower the standard of Christ's Hospital or put undue strain upon the children to qualify, or the grant will be nugatory and the places will not be filled up. I take it that Newbury wishes that some of the money should be spent in preparing some of the children. Newbury would be better off with fewer places and with some money spent in elementary or higher education which might enable the children to be so prepared as to fill such places as remained, so as to get the advantage of the education at Christ's Hospital. You have merely to put your money where it is wanted to improve the supply of children. This seems to me a defect of the school. It multiplies scholarships without taking care that the children who come forward for the scholarships are sufficiently prepared to occupy the places open to them. The places are not filled, the money goes elsewhere, and the objects of the benefactor are not satisfied. The money is not put in the right place. It

  2061
  is not used to improve the supply of children. In that way neither the other places nor Christ's Hospital get the benefit which the founders of this charity intended. It does seem to me that the accumulation has been arrived at because places which should have been filled have not been filled. Surely the schools are entitled to share equally. Instead of Newbury getting one-third of a half of £26,000, Newbury is entitled to share equally with Reading, Twickenham, and Christ's Hospital. If the money is to be divided, it should be divided amongst all. That seems to me to be a fair division of the money. This scheme is not a logical one from an educational point of view, because the money is not spent to the advantage of education. It is because I do not think the division of this accumulated sum is fair that I am prepared to support my hon. Friends if they think it necessary to go to a Division.
  Major HENDERSON: I cannot understand how it can be contended that Mr. West, a governor of Christ's Hospital, had the interests of that Hospital chiefly at heart when we know that throughout the western part of Berkshire his kith and kin had been his first thought. I think I may safely say that four people out of every ten in this particular part of Berkshire claim kinship to Mr. West, and to use this money for Christ's Hospital would not be using it in the interests of the West family. The kin of Mr. West has not progressed in the way Mr. West did, and that fact will be clearly brought home when I state that in this parish of 200 inhabitants three out of five old age pensioners claim kinship to Mr. West and get extra gratuities in consequence. Mr. West's intention was to benefit those who came after him. The local education authority of Berkshire does not favour the scheme, and they think the Board of Education is acting in a high-handed manner in doing this over the heads of the local education authority. If that was the sole reason it would be quite good enough to induce me to support the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PETO: It is only necessary for me in supporting my hon. Friend to simply deal with one main question. It has been said that this is not only a question of local interest, but it contains a great principle. I would like hon. Members to consider this question before they finally
  2062
  decide. If the income derived from this charity, instead of having doubled in the course of the last few years, it had decreased by 50 per cent., does any hon. Member suppose that we should have had the Board of Education coming forward with a brand new scheme to benefit the kith and kin of John and Frances West or the poor children of Newbury? It is only because the whole income has doubled in a very few years that we are to have a brand new scheme, and those of us in the Newbury district are told we are being treated generously because we are offered 30 per cent. more of educational advantage in, return for 100 per cent. more income to Christ's Hospital. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) said John West was a governor of Christ's Hospital. He argued from that he had quite as much interest in benefiting Christ's Hospital as in benefiting his own kin coming after him.
  Perhaps I am a little overstating the hon. Member's argument, but, as I read this, Christ's Hospital is merely the vehicle for carrying out this charity. The intention of the benefactor was to educate poor children, particularly those of his own kin, in the towns of Newbury, Twickenham, and Reading. That being so, I believe a scheme that provided a more appropriate education would be infinitely better than one which threw into the general fund of Christ's Hospital all the surplus from this great accretion of capital that has taken place. Why was Christ's Hospital named? The hon. Member for Rutland says because, among other reasons, John West was a governor of the Hospital; but I also say it is perfectly obvious he wanted to give the best education to the children who were to come after him, and he naturally named Christ's Hospital, which provided the best education of which he knew at that time. If the Board of Education wished to truly carry out the object of this benefaction, they would be infinitely better advised to provide some more suitable education for the people for whom the benefit was intended. I have great pleasure in supporting this Motion, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent from such part as affects Newbury of the scheme in the matter of Christ's Hospital with the foundations of John and Frances West

  2063
  and of Frances West in London, Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham, and elsewhere (No. 249)."
  And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-one minutes after Twelve a.m., Thursday, 17th August.

  Inhabited House Duty.
  Inhabited House Duty.
  Works of Art (Reproductions for Local Museums).
  Works of Art (Reproductions for Local Museums).
  Excise Officers.
  Excise Officers.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  King's Scholarship Examination (Ireland).
  King's Scholarship Examination (Ireland).
  Fair Rent Applications (Queen's County)
  Fair Rent Applications (Queen's County)
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (County Kerry).
  Reinstatement Applications (County Kerry).
  County Kerry Magistracy.
  County Kerry Magistracy.
  Police Protection (County Kerry).
  Police Protection (County Kerry).
  Breakwater, Newbridge, County Donegal.
  Breakwater, Newbridge, County Donegal.
  District Magistrates (Bengal).
  District Magistrates (Bengal).
LABOUR DISPUTES.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Home Rule.
  Home Rule.
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Coffee Imported.
  Coffee Imported.
  Evening Postal Service (Ballysteen and Askeaton, County Limerick).
  Evening Postal Service (Ballysteen and Askeaton, County Limerick).
  Lancashire Fisheries Committee.
  Lancashire Fisheries Committee.
  Board of Agriculture Grants.
  Board of Agriculture Grants.
  Patent Appeals.
  Patent Appeals.
KELSO WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Kelso Water—Was presented by the Lord Pentland (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 179.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
WELLPARK (GLASGOW) CHURCH AND PARISH QUOAD SACRA ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow. (No. 180.)
NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, 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, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed.
    PARTICK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
WATSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I need preface the Motion that this Bill be read a second time with very few words. This Bill is an old friend, or an old enemy, of your Lordships. It was in substance first introduced by the late Lord Davey. It passed this House twice, I think, substantially in the form in which it now and it has passed the House of Commons three times; but such is the inexorable difficulty in passing comparatively small Bills through Parliament under our present congestion of work that the Bill has hitherto escaped becoming an Act of Parliament. Last year it very nearly did so, but there was a difficulty with regard to Clause 3 between the building societies and the Incorporated Law Society. I considered the matter and found that there was some ground for complaint. The parties have now, however, agreed, and one of the most distinguished Judges on the Bench whom I asked to look into this difficult and complicated point has thoroughly approved, and I also approve of this clause. That is the only change in substance in the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is a simplifying and consolidating Bill dealing with the pensions of Governors, and in spite of the rather misleading short title of the Bill it would apply practically to ex-Governors of Crown Colonies and only in rare cases to ex-Governors of Dominions. Your Lordships will find in Clause 1 the qualifications that a Governor has to possess for a pension. I may mention that we have somewhat shortened the qualifying period, bringing it down to ten years. Clause 2 gives the method by which the pension is to be assessed. With regard to that, I may say that there has been a slight revision of the present classification of the various classes of Governorships. Hitherto they have been classified by the amount of the salary, but now we take into consideration certain other things, particularly the difficulties and responsibilities and also the climate of the place. I think that the alteration proposed is a considerable improvement on the present system. Clause 2 shows how the pension is assessed, and your Lordships will see that it is by that method assessed directly on the actual work that has been done, the actual posts that have been filled, in these different classes of Governorships. That is not taken into account under the present system except very indirectly, because the pension is assessed entirely from the highest post that the Governor may have held. You might have one man who had spent the whole of his eighteen qualifying years in the most important Governorships in Class 1 and another man who had been fourteen years out of the eighteen in unimportant Governorships and only four years in Class 1 Governorships; yet at the end of that time both men would be drawing the same pension. Under this Bill that cannot be done, because each Governorship that has been filled by the Governor is taken into account in assessing his pension. We have raised the maximum of the salary from £1,000 to £1,300, which brings Governorships on a par with other important offices held under the State to which these Governorships are comparable. It is not by any means every Governor who will draw the full £1,300, and although
1124
Governors will be very much better treated under this Bill than they are at the present time, it is not computed that it will entail a very large increased charge on public funds. In fact, on the total amount which is charged to public funds for this purpose—something between £11,000 and £12,000—it is thought that there will only be an increase of 5 per cent. as a result of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a. and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a simple Bill which bears quite plainly on the face of it both its objects and what are likely to be its results. Your Lordships will see that in the first clause power is taken to increase the number of Judges of the High Court in India. There has been within the last few years a very great increase in the number of cases which have been tried at Calcutta, so large that it is necessary to increase the number of Judges, there being a large number of arrears. Power is taken at the same time to increase the number of Judges in the other High Courts, not confining themselves under this Bill to the one particular case I have mentioned. In the same way and looking forward, the Government of India are anxious to take power to establish additional High Courts when it should seem to them desirable. The third clause gives power to appoint temporary Judges, with regard to which there is at the present moment some difficulty. Additional Judges cannot be appointed without being counted amongst those who are already members of the Court. This Bill met in another place with nothing but commendation and praise, and therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, this Bill is an extension of the Labourers Act of 1906. The object of it is to extend the financial scope of that Act and to facilitate its working. I hope no complaint will be made that this Bill was only circulated to your Lordships yesterday, because it is in the same form in which it was introduced in the House of Commons on February 16 this year, and it comes to your Lordships' House unamended. It is a Bill upon which no Division was taken. I do not think I need say very much about the Bill, because the provisions of the Act of 1906 are well known to most of your Lordships. You will remember that that Act was for the purpose of building cottages in Ireland for labourers and for providing allotments, and a grant-in-aid was given to the local authorities to help them to repay the loans. I think by general consent that Act has conferred immense benefit on the working and agricultural classes in Ireland. The number of cottages built since the passing of the Act of 1906 is very much greater per annum. Whereas previous to that date only 21,000 cottages had been erected, or at the rate of 1,000 a year, since that Act 12,862 cottages have been built, which, of course, in four and a-half years gives a very much larger proportion.
The reason for the introduction of this Bill is that the funds available under the Act of 1906 are not sufficient to meet the demand for housing in rural districts. There are at the present moment schemes proposed by rural districts for the erection of 3,550 additional cottages and the acquisition of 1,116 plots of land for labourers at an estimated cost, of £679,000. This cannot be done unless an additional capital sum is authorised. The finance of the Act of 1906 was to advance £4,250,000 to the local authorities from the Land Commission at the ordinary annuity of 3¼ per cent, spread over a period of sixty-eight and a-half years. The advantage of that over the previous Acts, starting with the Act of 1883, was that the annuity which the local authorities had to pay for the loan was very much reduced. Whereas it used to stand at about 4½ per cent., the effect of patting the loan on the basis I have described was to relieve the
1126
local authorities to the extent of 1¼ per cent. But the Act went further than that, as your Lordships will remember. It saddled the local authorities with 64 per cent, of the annual annuities, 36 per cent, being undertaken by the Government—that is to say, 16 per cent, was charged on the Labourers' Cottages Fund and 20 per cent, came out of the Ireland Development Grant.
The demand now is for a further increase of capital to enable these schemes to be carried through; but it will be observed that further capital cannot be granted unless further provision is made for carrying out that part of the guaranteed grant-in-aid to the local authorities on the basis of the previous Acts. With a view of meeting this, in Clause 1 of the Bill your Lordships will see that certain sums are set aside for the purpose of increasing the annual grant under the Labourers' Cottages Fund, and money is taken from the dormant portion of the Suitors' Fund in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland to the extent of £36,000 in cash and £30,000 in Consols. This transfer from the Suitors' Fund to the Local Government Board in Ireland is to be invested by them, and the income arising therefrom is added to the Fund which already exists under the name of the Labourers' Cottages Fund. If there should be a deficiency in the Suitors' Fund in the Supreme Court as the result of this transfer, that deficiency will be met out of the Consolidated Fund, but of course it is not expected that there ever will be a deficiency. The cash balance at the Bank of Ireland, out of which the £36,000 cash is taken, stands at £110,000, so that a large balance is left there. The Suitors' Account No. 1, out of which £20,000 in Consols is taken, has a sum of £34,000 in Consols; and the Unclaimed Order and Residue Account, out of which £10,000 is taken, stands at £15,000. Consequently, in spite of this depletion, large balances remain under all those heads.
The second clause extends the capital sum which may be loaned for this purpose from £4,250,000 to £5,250,000, with a proviso that should any deficiency arise, with regard to the contribution of 16 per cent, made by the Government under the Labourers' Cottages Fund, that deficiency shall be borne by the rates—that is to say, the 16 per cent, might conceivably be reduced to, say, 15 per cent. That, of course, is not anticipated, but this

1127
provision has had to be inserted in case of such a deficiency arising. Clause 3 increases the Development Grant—which. as I have mentioned, is responsible for 20 per cent. of the annual annuities—from £28,000 to £34,000 a year, and thus throws an additional charge of £6,000 a year on the Exchequer. That is the only additional charge which the taxpayer will bear in connection with this Bill. Clause 4 deals with the power of investment; Clause 5 with the right of removing insanitary houses; Clause 6 with the payment of purchase money and compensation into Court, and Clause 7 with matters connected with the evidence of Local Government Board inspectors.
The main provisions of this Bill are financial, and it is nothing more than an extension of the previous Act so that rural districts in Ireland will have an additional £1,000,000 which they can borrow for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages. This is a Bill which raised no controversy in the other House. The original Act is generally regarded to have benefited the rural population of Ireland to an incalculable extent, and I believe there is a general feeling, which I hope your Lordships will share, that this work should be continued and extended.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the principal provisions of this Bill, as the noble Lord has told us, deal with matters connected with the finance of the Labourers Acts, and, so far as I was able to follow him, they seem to be unobjectionable nor were they provisions with which this House would naturally much concern itself. But the noble Lord passed over without any explanation at all one clause in the Bill which does seem to require a little elucidation. I refer to Clause 5, which permits the demolition, upon an Order from the Local Government Board, of any dwelling-house certified to be insanitary, provided suitable accommodation has been obtained or is obtainable by the inmate of the house elsewhere. It is no doubt the case that there are still a great number of extremely bad houses in Ireland, but, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the number of those houses is diminishing at a very great. rate. I looked before I came to the House at the statistics, and I find these remarkable
1128
figures. Whereas in 1871 there were in Ireland no fewer than 227,000 houses of the fourth class—fourth class houses, I understand, are mud cabins with one window—the number had fallen by the year 1901 to less than 10,000. I mention that because it shows, I think, that by a natural and most satisfactory process the number of these houses is diminishing, whereas a corresponding increase in the better class of houses is noticeable in the same statistics.
What I want to ask is this. Where a labourer's house is found to be unfit for human habitation it may be almost summarily demolished provided it is shown that suitable accommodation is available for the inhabitant of that house elsewhere. You may say that if an Englishman's house is his castle an Irishman's cabin is not less his castle, and he might have a very great objection to the demolition of his house, even if it was a very bad one, if the accommodation offered him was not in an equally convenient place. Suppose his work lies in the neighbourhood, it would not in the least comfort him to have his house knocked down and to be told that he must go and inhabit a better house in another place. I should like the noble Lord to tell us what is really the change in the law which this clause makes. The same question is dealt, with in Section 17 Of the Act of 1885, and it would be interesting to know, for it does not appear at first sight, what really is the change which it is desired to effect by means of this fifth clause.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I did not mean to slur over this point, and I have great pleasure in telling the noble Marquess exactly what is effected by this clause. May I say first of all, that if the noble Marquess will look at Clause 5, subsection (1), he will observe that no house can be demolished unless an inspector of the Local Government Board is satisfied that "suitable house accommodation is obtainable elsewhere." It is only in those conditions that, the demolition of a house can be ordered under this clause, and that itself, I think, is sufficient protection against any ruthless destruction of Irishmen's cabins.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is the noble Lord satisfied that the word "suitable" covers the situation of the alternative house?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I feel pretty clear that that is the intention of the wording. The present situation is this. Under Section 17 of the Labourers Act, 1885, it is provided that if the inspector of the Local Government Board, at a local inquiry as to an improvement scheme, finds a house occupied by a labourer to be unfit for habitation he may report it to the Local Government Board. It then becomes the duty of the sanitary authority, when they have provided other house accommodation for the occupant, to serve notice on the owner prohibiting the unfit house being used as a dwelling-house, and if the owner disobeys the order a further order may be made to prevent the house being used as a dwelling-house or requiring its demolition; but it has in practice been found impossible to prevent those houses remaining standing and being occupied, and it is desirable to give additional powers to local authorities with regard to this class of property. Otherwise the provisions of the Act of 1906 would be very largely destroyed. It is now proposed that, on the report of the inspector, the Local Government Board may direct the district council to require the owner to demolish the house without option, and if the owner makes default the authority are in a position to carry out the work of demolition themselves and to recover the cost from the owner. There is a precedent for this to be found in the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, in the Working Classes Act, 1903, and in the Housing Act, 1890. In those cases power is granted to a local authority to recover costs from the owner for work which they have carried out for him in default of his doing it himself. So we are proceeding on precedents already recognised, and it is hoped that by the strengthening of the hands of the local authorities in respect of the demolition of this unsatisfactory class of property the real intention of these and preceding Acts may be carried out.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think it
1130
irrelevant or audacious on my part. if I venture to take this occasion to offer a slight addition to the account which was given by the noble and learned Viscount the Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of this Bill as to the basis on which the appellate jurisdiction of this House rests. The noble Viscount said—
"By a process analogous to the process by which the House of Commons secured control of finance at the expense of this House, only put into force in a still more drastic fashion, this House has gradually acquired complete control of the appellate administration of justice. That is the case in regard to the United Kingdom."
Later the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said—
"This House, having borrowed from the Crown the authority which is still called the decision of the King in Parliament, decides all appeals from the United Kingdom."
I conceive that that is a sufficiently accurate description of what happened up to forty years ago, but neither noble and learned Lord mentioned that in 1873 this House passed the Supreme Court of Judicature Act by which the whole of its appellate jurisdiction was abolished. Parliament, having made that enactment. thought better of it; the operation of the Act was deferred, and eventually in 1876 the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was passed by which the appellate jurisdiction of this House was revived under improved conditions and with certain amendments. In those circumstances I do not think that the jurisdiction of this House eau be correctly described as borrowed from the Crown. I submit that it has been conferred by Statute.
There is one other point which is, perhaps, worth mentioning in view of the discussion which took place on the Second Reading of this Bill. By Section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act it is enacted that an appeal shall not be heard and determined unless there are present at such hearing not less than three Lords of Appeal, but the Act contains nothing which would prevent any lay Lord from exercising the right of sitting and hearing the appeal and taking part in the decision. I presume that there was a reason for that. It was probably in order to allow Peers specially qualified to sit occasionally as assessors. But, whatever the reason may have been it has never caused any inconvenience, because as a matter of fact no lay Lord ever does exercise the right. In these circumstances

1131
it was quite incorrect for Mr. John Burns to have said that this House is not satisfied with being the highest Court of Appeal. The real fact is that this House, having the right to be the highest Court of Appeal, scrupulously abstains from acting in that way, and leaves it to the Judges. That is not a matter which it is very easy to bring home to the great mass of the electors. I think the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack mistook their attitude of mind when he said that this House is charged with taking a part in unpopular judgments. It is not supposed that this House declares the law; it is supposed that by some unicameral method it makes the law, and the legislative and judicial functions of the House are confused. I believe the late Lord Selborne, on the Second Reading of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, called attention to the possibility that this might happen. It undoubtedly has happened, and I think it is well worth consideration in what way the impression can be removed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): It is quite true, as my noble friend has said, that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1873 gave statutory recognition to the judicial functions of this House. In what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I was referring to the origin of that jurisdiction, which any of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will find set out in Mr. Pike's History of the House of Lords. It is a very old jurisdiction, and how it got transferred from the King in his curia to the King in his Parliament and then to this House is a matter which is buried in considerable historical obscurity. But. there it is. It is quite true that the jurisdiction on the appellate side is a totally different thing from the legislative jurisdiction, and any confusion there has been in the minds of people between the two has arisen from ignorance. Whether hereafter it may be possible to set the seal on the propositions of, this Bill by transferring the jurisdiction to a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire is a different question. That, as I said before, seems to me to be the reasonable and natural outcome of the situation. This Bill only deals with the substance and paves the way for Parliament, if hereafter it should think fit, to take that course.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Amendment standing in my name is a purely formal one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after ("Ordinary") insert ("(with such salary as in this Act provided)").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with your permission I wish to make an explanation. My attention has been called to the fact that in describing this Bill to your Lordships yesterday I used words which were not strictly accurate. What I said was that this Bill was introduced by Mr. Haves Fisher in another place, and that after consideration this Bill, together with the Bill of the Government, was referred to a Standing Committee. What I ought to have said was that this Bill was introduced by Captain Jessel in another place, although the Second Reading was moved by Mr. Haves Fisher. I have been requested to make that correction.
Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have several Amendments to move at this stage. This Bill was brought in by Lord Avebury, and the purpose of it is to provide that certain corporations which now, under the Public Trustee Act, are licensed to act as custodian trustees should be at liberty to act as trustees at large and also to make charges. I informed Lord Avebury that it was necessary that I should consider the Bill. As soon as I had time I did so, and I have been in communication with those very influential

1133
people in the City of London who are moving to allow the great banks to take this position and they have consented to the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name.
The purpose and substance of these Amendments is two-fold. In the first place, I do not think that because a corporation is licensed under the Public Trustee Act to become a custodian trustee it would therefore be right to allow it, merely, at the motion of, for instance, an existing trustee or one of the beneficiaries, to take the position of trustee absolutely and to be at liberty to make charges for the care of the trust. Therefore I have provided in these Amendments that they cannot do so in any particular case except by leave of a Judge, which is very easily and cheaply obtained in Chambers. If the Judge gives his permission in a particular case he will be satisfied, no doubt, of the solvency of the trustees and of the propriety of allowing this to be done.
The second Amendment is this. As your Lordships are aware, the Public Trustee has the Treasury at his back. If he commits a breach of trust the Treasury has to act. In the ease of many of these corporations which are licensed to be custodian trustees, their wealth may be sufficient to be an adequate guarantee, but it is very undesirable that because they are licensed to act as custodian trustees people should be left under the belief that in trusting them they have the public guarantee of the Treasury at their back. Therefore I propose to insert a proviso to the effect that every prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document issued by or on behalf of a licensed corporation and relating to the undertaking of trusts shall, if such prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document contains any reference to the Public Trustee or to the Public Trustee Act, 1906, contain a separate and distinct statement that no liability attaches to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of any act or omission of the licensed corporation.
I confess that, although one is very anxious to yield to the opinion of men like Lord Avebury and other great authorities, it is not without sonic degree of misgiving that, even with these Amendments, I contemplate the departure from
1134
the wholesome rule that a trustee cannot make a profit out of his trust. However, that is the purpose of the Bill. The Amendments safeguard the matter in the way I have described. Discretion is left to the Judge, and I hope that that safeguard may prove satisfactory.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, clause 1, line 12, after ("that") insert ("a corporate trustee shall not be entitled to act under this section as a new or additional trustee unless appointed to act as such by the Court; provided also that").
Page 2, clause 1, line 10, after ("liberty") insert ("if authorised by the creator of the trust or by the Court").
Page 3, clause 3, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
Page 4, clause 5, lines 32, 33, leave out ("any other licensed corporation") and insert ("a trustee").
Page 4, clause 5, line 39, leave out ("trust property") and insert ("retiring corporation").
Page 4, clause 5, line 40, leave out ("its") and insert ("his").
Page 5, after clause 5, insert a new clause:—
"Every prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document issued by or on behalf of a licensed corporation and relating to the undertaking of trusts shall, if such prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document contains any reference to the Public Trustee or to the Public Trustee Act, 1906, contain a separate and distinct statement that no liability attaches to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect. of any act or omission of the licensed corporation."
Page 5, clause 6, leave out lines 12, 13, 14, and 15, and in line 16 leave out ("custodian trustee and which").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: I understand that the noble and learned Earl has communicated all these Amendments to Lord Avebury and to Lord Goschen, both of whom are unfortunately ill, and that they have agreed to the Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 181.)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 182.)
LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to Lunacy in Scotland—Was presented by The Lord Pentland; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 183.)

THE LABOUR DISPUTES.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Viscount opposite a Question of which I have given him private notice. I am sure all of us must have read with the gravest concern and apprehension the reports in the newspapers to-day with regard to the state of things in the industrial market. We read not only of serious events which have taken place, but of not less serious events which appear to be impending unless the spirit of conciliation fortunately comes over those most concerned. I would venture to ask the noble Viscount whether he can tell us anything of interest either as to the facts or as to the precautions which His Majesty's Government are disposed to take in the event of the aspect of the case becoming more serious. The noble Viscount will understand that at such a moment I should not think of pressing him to give to the House any information which it might be in the public interest not to give, and it is with that limitation that I put the Question.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I may say this. About the question of the railway companies it is not desirable that I should say anything. The Board of Trade is engaged in conference with those concerned and has been busy all day; indeed, it has been so from early morning to midnight for some few days in dealing with this question. What the outcome may be we cannot tell. As regards the general situation in the London docks, all I can say is that the situation to-day is no worse. There is a good deal of business going on. There has arisen, unfortunately, a difficulty over the claim of the men employed at the Albert Dock to be engaged at the gates. The object of that is obviously that only union men shall be engaged, and over that friction has arisen and controversy is
1136
proceeding. Passing to Liverpool, your Lordships were informed by the newspapers of what happened yesterday, and the accounts are substantially correct. A violent attack was made on the prison vans and had to be repelled by force. The troops were used and firing took place, and unfortunately life was lost; but no further disturbance occurred during the evening, and this morning, according to a telegram which I have had, all has remained still quiet. Convoys of food are being got out regularly. If violence of that kind—utterly unreasonable, turbulent violence—is repeated the policy of the Government is to put it down and to use all the force necessary for the purpose, and the disposition of both police and troops ought to be adequate for the purpose. As regards Manchester, business is practically at a standstill there, although there is no disturbance. Two battalions of Infantry and a Cavalry regiment are at hand and ready to be moved in if it should prove necessary. I trust that it will not prove necessary, for the use of military force is to be deplored if it can be avoided. At the same time, with scenes such as we have witnessed there may be no other way. As regards other places, at Cardiff last night there was a disturbance, but this morning all was reported quiet. These are the salient features of to-day's situation. We are watching very closely what is going on, and we are in constant communication with all parts of the country where disturbance is apprehended, and all precautions that we can take are being taken; but it is well, I think, to say no more about details which change from hour to hour.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.