Sitting of 14 December 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES, 1911.
Copy presented of Statement of the Rates of Import Duties levied in European countries, Egypt, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, and Persia upon the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th April; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
Copy presented of Second Annual Report of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
Copy presented of Account of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
Account presented of all Deposits received and repaid by the Board of Trade on account of Seamen's Savings Banks under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, during the year ended 20th November, 1910, and of the interest thereon; Statement showing the number and amount of Seamen's Money Orders issued and paid at Ports in the United Kingdom and at Ports Abroad from 1855 to 31st March,
2498
1911; also Statement showing the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages, Home and Foreign, from 1878 to 31st March, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL AND BUNTINGFORD UNION ASSOCIATION.
Copy presented of Report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Mr. A. W. Watson, F.I.A., Actuary [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (BATTLE PRACTICE).
Copy presented of Result of Battle Practice in His Majesty's Fleet, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (GUNNERY).
Copy presented of Result of Test of Gunlayers with Heavy Guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GENERAL POST OFFICE.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Standing Committee on Boy Labour in the Post Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Report of the Military Manœuvres Commission, August 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Revised Schemes made by the Army Council for the Establishment and Constitution of Territorial Force Associations [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF DEVON).
Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.
RAILWAYS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Return ordered, "showing, so far as the particulars can be obtained, (a) in what Foreign Countries and British Possessions the Railways have been in whole or part either built or acquired by the Government; (b) the cost of building or acquisition of such Government Railways and, in the latter case, the date and terms of purchase; (c) the financial results in each case, showing, inter alia, the revenues, working expenses, net loss or profit, and what amounts of capital, if any, have been repaid out of revenue (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 331, of Session 1907, bringing its information up to date as nearly as may be)."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing, as regards Public Civil Departments in Scotland and Ireland, and Departments stationed in England which deal wholly with Scottish or Irish Affairs, the number of established and unestablished officials employed on the 31st day of March, 1911, together with the number of such officials in receipt of salaries of £160 per annum or more, with a note showing what Departments are partially engaged in Scottish or Irish affairs by means of officials having their headquarters in England."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Koweit and Mohammerah.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether every agreement, treaty, and undertaking between this country and any other country is now public property; and, if so, whether the Sheikhs of Koweit and Mohammerah are included in the term other country, or not?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first question is in the negative. The answer to the second is that the status of Koweit and Mohammerah is exceptional. Agreements made with them were not contemplated as coming under the head of treaties made
  2500
  between His Majesty's Government and other Foreign Governments to which the previous statements made in the House applied.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there are other secret treaties besides the secret treaty recently disclosed between this country and France?
  Sir E. GREY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean between this country and France?
  Mr. MacNEILL: Between this country and any other country. We know about France.
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir; there are other engagements that have not been published.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether any steps are being taken to communicate our engagements with the Sheikhs of Koweit and Mohammerah to other Powers?
  Sir E. GREY: We have been in communication with regard to one of the subjects with the Turkish Government in order that we may, if possible, come to an understanding in connection with the Baghdad Railway.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the decisions and preparations for the effective occupation of Tripolitania and Cirenaica by Italy were taken with the full knowledge and consent of all the chief States of Europe; and whether the British Government had taken note of it?
  Sir E. GREY: As has been already stated in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Bradford on November 22nd, and in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo on November 2nd, and to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on October 26th, the first communication of an intention to occupy Tripoli that His Majesty's Government received was the declaration of war of September 30th. His Majesty's Government at once expressed the intention of issuing a declaration of neutrality. It is probable that a similar notification was addressed to the other Powers, but the consent of His Majesty's Government was, of course, neither asked nor given to such a declaration. It equally goes without saying that the Italian Government did not communicate their military preparations to His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. D. MASON: May I ask how he can reconcile that reply with the statement presented by the former Premier of Italy to the British Press that the British. Government had been informed of its intentions, and made a note of them?
  Sir E. GREY: I should be glad if the hon. Member would give me that reference, as it is hard to say without the text.
  Mr. D. MASON: I shall be very glad to do so now.

  Field of Waterloo (Panorama).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a panorama is being erected on the battlefield of Waterloo, on a site leased from the Belgium Government and adjoining the Lion Mound; whether the 5½ acres on which this mound was erected was bought by the Allies and afterwards transferred to the Belgian nation; and, if so, whether he will give the conditions on which such transfer took place, and can state in what agreement they were embodied?
  Sir E. GREY: A search has been made in the archives, but I have been unable to discover any information respecting the site in question. A report will be called for from His Majesty's Minister at Brussels.

  Portuguese Tariff.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that edge-tools imported into Portugal from Germany are subject to a duty of 20 reis per 100 kilos, whereas the like imports from the United Kingdom are subject to a duty of 60 reis per 100 kilos; and whether it is possible to effect any improvement in the terms of admission for these British imports into Portugal?
  Sir E. GREY: The rates of duty are 20 reis and 60 reis per kilo respectively, not per 100 kilos. The question of concluding a commercial treaty between Great Britain and Portugal is still under consideration.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Portugal has such a treaty with Germany?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if we have the benefit of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause?
  Sir E. GREY: We have not got the Most-Favoured-Nation treaty with Portugal. We are at present discussing the question of a commercial treaty.

  Arrest of Mr. Bertrand Stewart.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any further particulars of the charges made against Mr. Bertrand Stewart, the London solicitor who was arrested at Hamburg for espionage several months ago; and, if he has not been tried, at what date it is expected that he will be tried?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information beyond that contained in my reply to the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division on August 10th with regard to the charges against Mr. Stewart. I understand that there has been a preliminary examination into the case, but that the trial will not take place before the beginning of next year.

  Albania.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information to the effect that this year thirty-six Albanians were imprisoned at Koritza for about four months without being accused of any specific crime; and whether he will call for Consular Reports upon the present state of Albania?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the negative. With regard to the second, such reports are regularly furnished, and it is unlikely that any essential fact has been omitted from them. It therefore seems unnecessary to call for further reports. I will, however, inquire whether anything is known of the alleged incident, and inform the hon. Member.

  European Turkey.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the autumn of 1910 the British Consul at Uskub submitted to the Ambassador at Constantinople a report on the subject of the cruelty with which the disarmament of the Christians was carried out by the Turkish Government; whether similar reports were furnished by other Consuls; and whether he would lay these reports before the House?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received no such report from Uskub, but reports of the

  2503
  nature indicated were received from other places. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by laying reports at the present time.
  Mr. H. LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is a very long time since we have had any papers regarding European Turkey, and is it not really time the House should get some information on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I know it is a long time since reports have been published, but I cannot say that under present circumstances the publication of reports would have any good effect.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has official information showing that on the 27th September the village of Yénidge-Vardan was surrounded by soldiers and an order given to the inhabitants to deliver up their arms; that for four days no persons were allowed to leave their houses even to obtain food or water; that between 200 and 300 persons were arrested and imprisoned and beaten on the feet; and that the chief Bulgarian priest was so cruelly beaten that his arms were broken and that he had to be carried to the Governor's office upon a mattress, and subsequently died of the effects; and whether he will have the reports of British Consuls on these and other outrages in the villages of the same case published and laid upon the Table of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on the subject. I will ask for a report and consider it, but no useful purpose would be served by laying papers at present.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made with the negotiations between the Congested Districts Board and Sir Morgan O'Connell for the purchase of his estate near Mastergeehy?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This property will be inspected, a valuation made, and a decision arrived at by the Congested Districts Board regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will grant the Return in the terms of the Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
  2504
  [Mr. Horner,—Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1870 to 1908,—Return giving for the several Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1870 to 1908, and for each year since they came into force, particulars under the following heads: (1) number of applications; (2) number granted; (3) number outstanding at the end of the year; (4) area applied for; (5) area vested; (6) area agreed to be sold but not vested; (7) Poor Law valuation of area applied for; (8) Poor Law valuation of area vested; (9) Poor Law valuation of area agreed to be sold but not vested; (10) purchase-money for lands vested; (11) purchase-money for lands sold but not vested; (12) value of annuities for lands vested; and (13) value of annuities for lands sold but not vested; also the total area. Poor Law valuation, purchase-money, and annuities (a) of lands vested, and (b) of lands sold but not vested; and (c) the area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase-money of lands on 30th November, 1911, in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts.]
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am communicating with the hon. and learned Member on the subject.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Alicia Conway and Maguire, county Leitrim, petitioned the Congested Districts Board to purchase the estate; and whether, having regard to the fact that the tenants, who are all living on uneconomic holdings, are now deprived of the grazing rights of the adjoining mountain and compelled to pay arrears of rent of old standing, the Congested Districts Board will intervene with a view of bringing about a satisfactory sale of the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have been approached on behalf of the tenants to purchase this estate. The Board are in correspondence with the vendor's solicitor, and are not at present in a position to make any statement in the matter.

  Barrow Drainage.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that an application was made to the Treasury on behalf of the Barrow Drainage Committee for a grant from the Development Fund for the purpose of executing certain drainage works in the valley of the Barrow; whether plans and specifications

  2505
  were lodged with the Treasury in connection with the said application; whether the Treasury recognised the Barrow Drainage Committee as an association within the meaning of the Development Funds Act; whether this application was sent by the Treasury to the Irish Board of Works for investigation and report; whether, acting on the report of the Irish Board of Works, the Development Fund Commissioners have refused to make the grant practically promised by the Treasury; whether an application was made to the Development Commissioners for a copy of the Report by the Irish Board of Works and refused; and whether he will have a copy of the said Report furnished to the Barrow Drainage Committee for the purpose of investigation and trying whether the objections raised by the Irish Board of Works can be removed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It is quite incorrect to say that a grant from the Development Fund was practically promised by the Treasury to the Barrow Drainage Committee. The Treasury has no power to sanction an advance from the fund unless it is recommended by the Development Commission. I cannot undertake to communicate to applicants the reports of Government Departments upon their applications; but the letter from the Treasury communicating the decision upon the application of the Barrow Drainage Committee will contain a summary of the reasons given by the Development Commission for their recommendation.

  Appointment of Magistrates (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of magistrates appointed in Ireland for the year 1905 and for each of the following years up to and including 1910?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of magistrates appointed in Ireland in the years 1905 to 1910 inclusive, was 190, 399, 373, 351, 258, and 317 respectively.

  Suitors' Fund (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked what was the amount of the deficiency ascertained to exist in the Suitors' Fund in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, as the result of the withdrawals from the fund for the purposes of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1908, and The Labourers Act, 1911?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There has been no deficiency in the fund, and any possibility of a deficiency has been removed.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Why was it necessary to have recourse to the Consolidated Fund?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well of the conditions of the Bill under which any deficiency, if there was one, was to be removed by the Treasury. No actual deficiency has occurred, but an anticipated deficiency appeared possible, but any possibility of a deficiency has been removed.

  Liscannor Harbour.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that, in consequence of the notice of the Board of Works regarding Liscannor Harbour, £10,000 worth of stone was lying on the quay in default of a vessel to convey it to England, and over 200 workmen had been thrown out of employment; and whether he proposed to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of Public Works inform me that the harbour bottom is now as safe as it has ever been, and cannot be made safer by any reasonable expenditure of money. As stated in reply to the hon. Member's question on the 9th November, a vessel belonging to the quarry owners entered the harbour, landed a cargo, and left on the 27th October. It is, therefore, not understood why this accumulation of stone is allowed to continue.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that as a consequence of the action of the Board of Works—they have spent £1,500, they have done no good, they have posted a notice that the harbour is unsafe, they have frightened off vessels which were in the habit of calling there——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is developing into a speech.

  India Office Appointments.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the post of Secretary to the Judicial Committee in the India Office, recently held by Sir Robert Risley, had been filled by the appointment of Mr. Seton, an official of the India Office of sixteen years' standing, who had never been in India; whether, by this appointment, there remained only one

  2507
  secretary to a committee in the India Office who had had personal experience of India; and whether it was intended to deprive members of the Indian Civil Service of their prospects of appointment to such posts, for which they had qualified by long service in an unhealthy climate and under severe conditions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Mr. Seton has been appointed as Secretary to the Judicial and Public Department of the India Office because, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, he is in every way qualified to fill that responsible position. I trust that this answer will satisfy any doubts which the hon. Member may have, and that it unnecessary for me to go in detail into the question.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think it would be highly prejudicial to the public interest if either branch of the Service were considered to have a vested interest in any particular appointments.

  Bank of Bombay (Auditors).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that at the recent annual meeting of the Bank of Bombay, or Presidency Bank, a Parsee gentleman, with the slightest qualification as an accountant and no professional training, was elected as auditor; and whether he would impose upon the Presidency Banks the obligation of their audit being conducted by chartered accountants?
  Mr. MONTAGU: At the last annual meeting of the bank, held in August last, the existing auditors, one of whom was a Parsee gentleman, were re-elected. It is not proposed to interfere with the action of the shareholders in re-electing him.

  Durbar Declaration.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was in a position to state the names of such political prisoners, if any, as were to be released in accordance with the Coronation Durbar declaration of His Majesty the King?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The case of each prisoner whose crime may be considered to have a political motive has been
  2508
  considered on its merits with a view to the exercise of as much clemency as a regard for public safety and tranquillity permits. Although I am not in a position to give names, out of 220 prisoners coming in this category clemency, either by release or remission, has been shown to 183.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is Mr. B. G. Tilak among those to whom clemency is to be extended?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am not in a position to say.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the popular education for which the Government of India proposed to set aside fifty lakhs to commemorate the Durbar was synonymous with or would include technical education?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The term includes technical education.

  Dominions and Crown Colonies (Reciprocal Trade).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether any correspondence had recently taken place between the Colonial Office and any of the self-governing Dominions with any reference to the establishment of reciprocal trade relations between the Dominions and any of the Crown Colonies; and, if so, what attitude had been adopted by the Colonial Office towards these negotiations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Correspondence has recently taken place with the Dominion of Canada on the subject of the proposals for reciprocal trade relations with the West Indian Colonies, contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Relations between Canada and the West Indies. The Colonial Office has so far had no occasion to adopt any attitude in regard to these proposals. It has been left to the Government of the Dominion of Canada and to the Legislatures of the West Indian Colonies concerned to decide whether the recommendations of the Royal Commission shall be accepted or rejected so far as they are concerned.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether any communications had passed recently between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific and the Colonial Office on the other with reference to the establishment of reciprocal trade relations between Australia

  2509
  and New Zealand and Fiji; and, if so, what attitude had been adopted by the Colonial Office in the matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information as to any communications having passed in regard to establishing reciprocal trade relations between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand, and Fiji on the other.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand did approach the High Commissioner for the West Pacific with reference to reciprocal trade relations between Fiji and Australia and New Zealand, but the Colonial Office refused to allow the negotiations?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think so. I shall be glad to get the information for the hon. Member.

  Telegraphic Communications (Underground Wires).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General if he had received from the Dundee Chamber of Commerce a letter complaining of the inconvenience and loss to business occasioned to the city and district by the interruption of telegraphic communications during the recent storms; and if he could now state when the conditional promise of last year to have the underground wires carried on to Dundee and the north would be carried into effect, this work being now the more pressing in view of his intimation of the experiments he proposed initiating between London and Aberdeen?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have received the letter from the Dundee Chamber of Commerce to which the hon. Member refers, and I am considering the best means of guarding against further interruption in telegraphic communication.

  Post Office Servants (Women Clerks).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Postmaster-General whether a comprehensive scheme for reducing the salaries and prospects of women clerks in the Money Order Department had been authorised; and, if so, whether he would explain why this had been done, in view of the Postmaster-General's own repeated statements that he was unable to interfere with the specific recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants which reported in 1907, and which fixed the salaries for the class of work now done by women clerks;
  2510
  and whether, in view of the promise of the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry next Session, he would consider the advisability of withdrawing the scheme?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not proposed to interfere with the scales of pay recommended by the Select Committee, but under a scheme for the revision of the staff of the Money Order Department certain elementary duties will be transferred from women clerks to a new class of female assistant clerks, whose scale of pay is fixed in relation to the value of those duties.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Is it a fact, as stated in the Press, that a tentative scheme has been authorised this week in the Money Order Department, by which persons of one grade are being taught a class of work proper to a higher grade, without any prospect of receiving the salary of that grade?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The work is really not proper to a higher grade. From time to time the kinds of work being done in the Post Office are reviewed, and it is sometimes found that through an oversight very elementary duties are being performed by people in receipt of salaries far above the value of that work. It has been found to be so in the Money Order Department. I have inspected this work myself. It is work of a most elementary character, and the class of officers who were performing it is of too high a status for work of that character. That is why a new class has been introduced to deal with this very elementary work.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Cheap labour.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that under the Hobhouse Report the salaries of these clerks were raised from £55 to £65; and, that being so, is it quite fair that, within four years of that increase being granted, a step should be taken which practically nullifies it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not nullified at all. The clerks will continue to receive that increase. It is only a very small number of the women clerks class whose work is being affected at all. A small group of clerks are being employed on certain items of work which are of a much more elementary character than the average work of the women clerks class. They are doing work which in a commercial firm would probably be done by boys. In this case it is being given to a new class.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Are not these assistant clerks being paid lower wages for working longer hours, and do they not get shorter holidays than the others?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know about hours and holidays; I should like notice of that question. Certainly the wage is lower.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the girl clerks have been accustomed to do the elementary work just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and then gradually rising to the position of women clerks? Under the new scheme, will not that be absolutely impossible?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman, answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no necessity. The matter could be referred to the Select Committee.
  Mr. ALDEN: Will it lead to a decrease in the number of women clerks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not of existing clerks; they will all be retained in the service; but the number to be taken on in the future will be somewhat diminished. Some of the work done by women clerks is more proper to assistant clerks. It is a process that is constantly going on in the Post Office.

  Census.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked when the detail figures of the Census for each county would be issued, distinguishing the separate parishes; and whether it would be possible to expedite the issue for the county of Warwick, in view of the recent alterations in the boundaries of that county?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The revised population figures, distinguishing the separate civil parishes for the whole country, will be published in two volumes, showing respectively the constituent parishes of each administrative area, and of each Poor Law and Registration area. It is hoped that these volumes will be issued about the middle of next year. I am sending the hon. Member a note of the unrevised populations of the areas added to the county of Warwick.

  Middlesbrough Postal Case.
  Colonel CHALONERasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of J. F. Abraham, who was charged on 5th December, before the stipendiary magistrate in Middlesbrough, with having forged the name of a depositor in the Savings Bank and obtaining on various dates sums amounting to £90, the property of the depositor; and whether, having regard to the manner in which these sums were obtained, he will take steps to protect the public in the future from fraud?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that a man named James Frederick Abrams is being prosecuted at my instance for obtaining certain money from the account of a deceased depositor by forgery. He has just been committed for trial. As the proceedings are still pending, it is not expedient that I should discuss the facts. But if the hon. Member will be so good as to communicate with me and explain the points to which he wishes to draw my attention, I will give them consideration.

  Portsmouth Postmen.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain postmen at Portsmouth have not yet received the increments duo to them in the early part of this year; whether he is aware that no replies have been received to applications for these increments; and whether, in view of the fact that these men are all of the highest character, he will cause their increments to be granted forthwith?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will make inquiry and communicate with the Noble Lord.

  Far East Press Correspondence.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Eastern Extension (Australasia) Company only accept Press correspondence from duly authorised representatives, and decline to accept at Press rates prepaid messages handed in and intended solely for publication in the columns of the Far East newspapers; and seeing that the British Post Office will accept at Press rates from any member of the public prepaid messages handed In which are obviously intended for publication in the newspapers, will he state the reason for this

  2513
  difference in policy between the practice at home and the practice of the cable companies referred to; and, seeing that this regulation is calculated to be a bar to the diffusion of intelligence which is of value to the community, whether he will make representations to the cable companies for an alteration in their regulations?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. It is in conformity with the regulations of the International Telegraph Convention, which require that foreign Press telegrams shall only be accepted on presentation of a special form of authority to identify the sender as the accredited correspondent of the newspaper to which the telegram is addressed, or subject to some other means of control. The regulation is regarded as being necessary to prevent the abuse of the reduced rates allowed in the case of Press telegrams to places abroad, as it is often impossible to tell by inspection whether a telegram is a Press telegram or a private telegram. In the Inland service the circumstances are different. It is comparatively easy to determine whether the messages comply with the conditions under which they are accepted for transmission at the Inland Press rate. I do not see my way to make representations to the cable companies on the subject.

  Commissioner of Customs and Excise (Mr. G. E. P. Murray).
  Mr. GREENEasked the Prime Minister what examination, on entry into the Civil Service, was passed by Mr. G. E. P. Murray, who has been appointed a Commissioner of Customs and Excise; if he did not pass any examination, by what means he entered the service, and what were his educational qualifications; what is his total length of service; what is his age; what positions has he held in the Civil Service, and on what dates was he appointed to them; what salary he is now receiving, and what will he receive under his new appointment; and what are his special qualifications for such appointment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In July, 1903, on the nomination of the Government of that day, Mr. Murray, who was educated at Eton and Oxford, entered the Civil Service without examination as a Temporary Examiner in the Education Office. His total length of service is about eight and a-half years; his age is thirty-one. He was appointed a Temporary
  2514
  Examiner on 27th July, 1903, a Junior Examiner on 1st January, 1904, and from 21st December, 1905, to 30th September, 1909, served as Private Secretary to the Lord President of the Council and to the President of the Board of Education. On 1st October, 1909, he was appointed to the office he now holds of Deputy-Accountant-General and Deputy-Chief Clerk of the Board of Education. His existing salary is £750 per annum, on a scale of £700, rising by annual increments of £25 to £850; his salary as a Commissioner of Customs and Excise will be £1,200 a year; his special qualification for the latter appointment is the financial ability which he has shown.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will Mr. Murray now begin to qualify for a pension?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He has been qualifying for a pension for many years.
  Mr. McNEILL: Was he not originally appointed by a Conservative Government, without any question of qualifications?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He was appointed in 1903.
  Mr. McNEILL: Yes, by a Conservative Government!
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is not that of itself enough to throw doubt on his qualifications?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is rather hard on the gentleman.

  House of Commons (Attendance at Prayers).
  Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose an Amendment to the Standing Orders providing that attendance at prayers shall be wholly disassociated from the securing of any purely temporal advantage such as a favourable seat in the House, and that the right to select a seat for the day should be made dependent on fulfilling some wholly secular condition?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter is regulated by Standing Orders, and no change could be carried out without the assent of the House. I shall, of course, be glad to consider the wishes of Members, but so far I have received no suggestion from my hon. Friend or from any other quarter as to the nature of the secular test which should be substituted for the religious test of which he complains.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that prayers have any spiritual effect upon the minds of Members of this House?

  Finance Bill (Late Sittings).
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the late sittings of the House of Commons on the Committee stage of this year's Finance Bill; and if, in arranging the business for next year, he can promise that the Budget shall be brought in during the month of April and passed before any adjournment of the House takes place in August, as was the invariable practice of the last twenty years prior to 1909?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be found possible next year for the Budget to be brought in and discussed under normal conditions.

  County Court Judges (Pensions).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce another County Court Bill at an early date giving County Court judges the right to a pension after twenty years' service, as well as the right to have a deputy paid by the Treasury in case of the judge's illness?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, and I am informed by him that the answer is in the affirmative.

  Factories and Workshops (Non-Fatal Accidents).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of non-fatal accidents in factories and workshops during the period, January to October, inclusive, for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911; and the number of non-fatal accidents in foundries for the same periods?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of nonfatal accidents in factories and workshops and other places under the Acts reported during the period, January to October inclusive, was 96,603 in 1909; 106,154 in 1910; and 121,505 in 1911. Separate figures for foundries are not available before 1910, nor can they be given for a part only of the year. For the whole of 1910 the number of reported non-fatal accidents in foundries was 20,452, out
  2516
  of a total of 128,470, for all places under the Acts.
  Mr. CLYNES: Do the employers in sending the account of these accidents give an account of the causes?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to answer that question without notice.

  Factory Inspectorate.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now inform the House what steps have been taken or are in contemplation to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Accidents dealing with the reorganisation of the factory inspectorate; and whether any modification has been made in the double system of entry to the rank of inspector and in the direction of assimilating the duties of existing grades of the inspectorate?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope to be able to meet the recommendations of the Committee on those points in which they were unanimous; but on the question of the system of entry to the inspectorate they were almost equally divided. To accept the recommendation of the majority that there should be only one mode of entry and only one class of inspectors would entail the exclusion from the inspectorate of one of the two classes of men who are needed for the work of the Department, either the workmen with practical experience and training in factories and workshops, from whom the present grade of assistants is recruited, or those men who, by their special qualifications and scientific or technical training, attain the necessary standard for the higher appointments. For this reason it is not proposed to alter the present system of entry to the inspectorate, but proposals are now under consideration for employing selected assistants on some of the duties hitherto exclusively performed by the inspectors, which will enable the former to obtain wider experience, and I hope enable those of them who show sufficient ability to earn promotion to the higher grade.

  Woolcombing Regulations and Anthrax.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many persons have lost their lives from anthrax contracted at the works of Messrs. Campbell and Harrison, woolcombers, Shipley, a branch of Woolcombers, Limited, since 1st January, 1900?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number is sixteen.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary if he will say how many cases of internal anthrax have occurred during the ten years commencing 1st January, 1900, in establishments where the woolcombing regulations are in force, and how many of these were fatal?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of reported cases of internal anthrax in woolcombing establishments during the ten years 1901 to 1910 was eighteen, of which seventeen were fatal.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary whether he will state how many cases of internal anthrax occurred among wool-sorters during the ten years immediately preceding the one in which the wool-sorters' regulations, issued in 1897, were put into force, and how many were fatal, and the number of cases of internal anthrax among woolsorters during the last ten years, and how many of these were fatal?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of reported cases of internal anthrax among woolsorters during the ten years 1901 to 1910 was five, of which all were fatal. One case, which was also fatal, has occurred during the present year. The figures for the ten years preceding the special rules cannot be given as the obligation to notify cases was not imposed until 1896. I am advised, however, that such evidence as there is points to the greater prevalence of the disease then than now.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under proper conditions, which are possible, the mortality from anthrax should be reduced to nil?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that every precaution that can be taken is taken now; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Home Office what the proper precautions should be. I shall be very glad to consider them.
  Mr. LYNCH: In other countries it has been so reduced.

  Bradford Explosion.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the report of an explosion which occurred in Bradford on the 1st instant, as a result of which two men were killed, a number of other persons were injured, and in addition a quantity of valuable machinery was destroyed and substantial
  2518
  stone buildings wrecked; and if, having regard to the widespread belief in Bradford that the explosion was caused by some dangerous liquid or substance disposed of as refuse in the Bradford Beck, and to prevent the possibility of other similar occurrences in future, he will institute an inquiry to discover the cause of the explosion and who is responsible?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to this accident. According to the information which I have received, the accident is not one in regard to which I have any statutory power to take action, either under the Explosives Act or under the Factory Act. I am informed by the Coroner that it is anticipated the facts will be fully gone into at the adjourned inquest, and I have told him that, if after hearing the evidence he should consider the attendance of an officer of the Explosives Department of the Home Office desirable arrangements will be made for that purpose.

  Jury System (Select Committee).
  Mr. RAYMOND GREENEasked the Prime Minister whether the reference to the Select Committee to inquire into the existing jury system covers the question of the payment of common jurors; and, if not, whether he could see his way to extend the reference in order to include that matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the question of the payment of jurors comes under heading (d) in the terms of reference to the Committee.

  Elementary Education (Jersey).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Privy Council has had under consideration new provisions for elementary education passed by the States General of Jersey; whether the Privy Council has given approval to any new provisions in Jersey affecting religious instruction; and, if so, whether the religious freedom of all sections of the community has been safeguarded so as to preclude the schools and the teaching profession being made a close preserve for certain religious denominations?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The amended Act of the States dealing with elementary education is under consideration, but has not yet been approved by the King in Council. The principle mentioned by my hon. Friend is not likely to be overlooked.

  House of Lords.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the House of Lords can no longer refer back any measure for the judgment of the people, he can now say when he will bring in a Bill for a reformed Second Chamber with power to prevent Bills being passed into law against the will of the people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous declarations on this subject. I cannot at present name any exact date for the introduction of a Bill.
  Mr. HUNT: May we conclude that the Government puts no limit to the time during which a Minister is to be free to force a Bill so unpopular as the Insurance Bill through Parliament against the will of the people?
  Mr. WATTasked on what dates the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill were sent up to the House of Lords within the meaning of the Parliament Act; and will it be possible to prolong the Session so that one month may elapse from the date of sending up these Bills to the end of the Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill was sent to the House of Lords on the 29th of November, and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill on the 20th of November. As I have already said, there is no intention of prolonging the Session, unless the House of Lords desire it.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the mouth's notice is required after the first passage of a Bill through the House of Commons or the third passage under the Parliament Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is required in the three.
  Mr. KING: Does the Prime Minister regard the fate of the Naval Prize Bill with equanimity?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the question.

  Sheriffs Principal.
  Captain WARINGasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the importance attached to the office of sheriff principal, he will consider the advisability of issuing an administrative order disallowing sheriffs principal from practising at the
  2520
  Bar, in order that their whole time may be devoted to the efficient performance of their duties?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
  Captain WARING: Why are sheriffs exempt, while the disability is placed upon sheriff substitutes?
  Mr. URE: The change suggested would involve a very serious charge on public funds.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the wisdom of permitting solicitors to be appointed to these positions the same as solicitors are permitted to be appointed to the position of sheriff substitutes?
  Mr. URE: No. I do not think so.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware that, according to the recent Report prepared for the Scottish Local Government Board upon the housing accommodation available for workers employed at Rosyth, overcrowding prevails to a considerable extent in the houses occupied by the workmen, and difficulty is encountered by married men in securing suitable lodgings; and whether, in view of the fact that in the near future the numbers of workmen employed are likely to be increased, the Scottish Local Government Board intend to take immediate steps to insist on more convenient and healthy accommodation being provided for the men engaged on this national work?
  Mr. URE: While the Report in question does indicate that overcrowding occurs it does not indicate that overcrowding occurs to such an extent as to constitute a contravention of the Public Health Act. The Local Government Board, however, are anxiously considering the whole question of housing at Rosyth, and if they can see their way to any effective action in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend they will not fail to exercise their powers.
  Mr. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman drawn the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, particularly the new First Lord, to the matter; perhaps the new one might get something done, though we could get nothing from the old one?
  Mr. URE: The attention of the contractor was drawn to it; he is responsible.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state when the Rosyth Dockyard will be completed and ready for use; and whether all the contracts for the whole of the work have been let?
  Mr. FELLalso asked at what date it is anticipated the docks at Rosyth will be ready to receive battleships of the "Dreadnought" type?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The contract date for completion of the engineering works now in hand is 30th September, 1916. It is hoped that this date may be anticipated, and the Admiralty are offering a large bonus for earlier completion. But it is not possible to say at present how much acceleration will be achieved. Much supplementary work will remain to be done after the main contract is completed, and contracts for such work have not been made at present.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Have all the tenders for the completion of the work been received?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Tenders have not been received for this supplementary work.

  Irish Railways (Staffing and Charges).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at Maryborough station, Great Southern and Western Railway, there is an average weekly discharge of seventy five wagons with a tonnage of 675 tons, and that the goods store staff who have to handle this weight of goods consists of two men, assisted occasionally by three men of the passenger platform staff for about two hours; whether he is aware that the directors have refused to provide a lifting crane, although frequently requested to do so, and that packages ten hundredweights and over have to be shifted and loaded by hand causing danger to the men employed; and whether steps will be taken to have provided at this and other stations on the Great Southern and Western Railway a lifting crane, sufficient help, and proper facilities for the handling of goods?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have invited the observations of the railway company upon this
  2522
  question, and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of their reply.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked whether he is aware that the signalling staff and other grades of employés in the service of the Great Southern and Western Railway, Ireland, have been reduced, and that at some stations on this railway boys are now employed in lieu of men; will he state how many signal cabins have been removed, and whether the block signal system has been discontinued over a portion of this railway; whether he will explain how under present arrangements sufficient precautions are taken for the safety of the travelling public; and, seeing that there is a delay in forwarding goods, causing loss and inconvenience to the public, whether steps will be taken to have the transit of goods carried out in a proper manner and in reasonable time?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned, but, if the hon. Member will furnish me with specific information respecting alterations made in the signalling arrangements on this railway, or regarding delay in the transit of goods, I will consider whether I could usefully communicate with the railway company.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether, seeing that the Board some years ago fixed a scale of charges for Irish railways, and that several railway companies in the North of Ireland have now given notice that they intend to increase those charges, he will say whether this is the result of the pooling system upon which the Irish railway companies have agreed?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Such recent increases in the rates on Irish traffic as have been notified to the Board of Trade were due, I understand, to increased charges either for cartage or for conveyance by sea. The rates for conveyance by rail would not appear to have been increased in these instances, and they could not in any case be raised beyond the statutory maxima for Irish railways fixed by Act of Parliament in 1892.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: What is the cause of the rise on the Irish railways when they are only paying 12s. to 14s. a week to their servants?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer I gave was that in this case there appeared to be no increase of rates.

  Development Fund and Drainage (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked whether any grants have been made from the Development Fund for the purpose of land drainage; whether he is aware that an application by the Barrow drainage committee has been refused, one of the reasons given being that there was no money available for the purpose; and whether steps will be taken to reserve some of the funds under the control of the Development Commissioners for the purpose of land drainage, in accordance with the objects specified in the Development Fund Act to which money provided under the Act was to be applied?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the attitude of the Development Commissioners. They are aware that land drainage is one of the purposes for which the Development Fund can be applied, and are prepared to recommend such application in suitable cases.

  Telephone Transfer.
  Mr. CLYNESasked whether consideration has been given to communications from local authorities in Manchester and elsewhere asking for an equivalent contribution for the loss of rateable value arising from the transfer to the Post Office of the National Telephone Company's undertaking; and whether it is proposed to take steps to see that no township shall suffer loss as a result of the change?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I fear I can add nothing to the answer I save to the hon. Member for St. Albans on 29th November.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether, when the basis of the compensation is being fixed, due regard will be had to the representations of the local authorities?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That question cannot arise until we are taking over the telephone property, which will not take place for a year.

  Kingstown Harbour (Superintendent of Works).
  Mr. COTTONasked whether it is in tended to abolish the post of superintendent of works at Kingstown Harbour, which has been vacant some months; and, if not, will he state the reasons for the delay in filling the post?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is not intended to abolish permanently the post of superintendent of Works at Kingstown Harbour, but before making a new appointment it is considered desirable that an experienced engineer should examine into the workshops and staff. In the meantime, one of the assistant engineers of the Board of Works is temporarily discharging the duties of the post.

  Proposed School, Five Acres, Coleford (Commissioners of Woods and Forests).
  Mr. WEBBasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the demand by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for 30s. per perch for land for erecting a new school at Five Acres, near Coleford, Gloucestershire; and whether he will endeavour to obtain some reduction of this charge?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The price asked by the Commissioners of Woods is considered to be the fair market value of the land required for the school, and is at the same rate per perch as that recently paid on a scale of other land close by.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of £240 per acre is far in excess of what is being paid for similar property to private landowners in the district, and whether for purposes of public utility the Crown cannot make gifts in such cases as other landowners do?
  Mr. KING: Is not this figure a great deal less than the Duke of Northumberland charged in similar circumstances?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know what the Duke of Northumberland charged. My information is that this is at the same rate as all other lands close by.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Would the Commissioners of Woods and Forests be prepared to submit the question of price to arbitration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must have notice of a question like that.

  Conviction of Old Age Pensioner.
  Mr. HODGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case at Luton where an old man named Amos Burgess, in receipt of an old age pension, was sent to prison for seven days with hard labour without the option of a fine for an alleged theft of coal valued at six-pence;

  2525
  whether he is aware that the man stated that he found the coal on his allotment and was about to remove it when the constable appeared; whether he is also aware that the constable has been unable to discover the owner of the coal; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he can take any action that will prevent the man in question being deprived of his pension?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in regard to this case on Tuesday last. I will send him a copy.

  Blasphemy.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the late Mr. Justice Stephen, in his Digest of the Criminal Law, gives two alternative versions of the law of blasphemy, each supported by high authority, and expressing the opinion that it would be desirable that the question should be settled by Parliament; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation in accordance with such opinion?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any difference of opinion on this question existing between persons of authority at the present time such as Mr. Justice Stephen referred to in his Digest of the Criminal Law published more than thirty years ago, but as a case of blasphemy is now pending before the Court of Criminal Appeal, I can say nothing as to the desirability of amending the law.

  Flogging.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether, under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. 4, c 83, s. 10, justices in quarter sessions have the power of sentencing adult offenders to be flogged for comparatively trivial offences, and that both the instrument by which such flogging is to be administered and the number of strokes that are to be given are left entirely in the discretion of such justices; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to amend the law in such cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is true that this enactment, like very many others, vests magistrates with powers so wide that if they were used inconsiderately and without due discrimination great hardships might be caused. The fact that the maximum penalty to which particular
  2526
  offenders may become liable under Statute is often inappropriate for any but a small proportion of such offenders, is not of itself, I think, a reason for an Amendment of the Statute, and I am satisfied that the power given to magistrates at quarter sessions by the Vagrancy Act is not in practice abused by them. Of 1,620 persons sentenced as incorrigible rogues by quarter sessions during the last three years, only seven have been ordered to be whipped.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Is it not the case that an adult found wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence, after two previous convictions, may be sentenced to be flogged?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, he might be, but as a fact he is not.

  Cammell, Laird and Company.
  Sir WALTER MENZIEShad the following question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of men employed, the total number of accidents, and the number of fatal accidents in the works of Cammell, Laird and Company, Limited, Birkenhead, John Brown and Company, Limited, Glasgow, and Armstrong, Mitchell and Company, Limited, Newcastle-on-Tyne, respectively?
  In postponing this question now I beg to give notice I shall ask it to-morrow, and I have permission to modify it in order to obtain statistics for the last two years.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: May I ask a supplementary question in connection with this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, Sir; the question has not been asked.

  Condition of London Streets.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether, during wet weather, many of the London streets are in a greasy condition; whether he is aware that motor omnibuses racing along the greasy roads and passing other vehicles on the same side of the road are constantly side-slipping; whether he will state to the House if these motor omnibuses are permitted to race round curves from one street into another; and, if not, whether he will take steps to put a stop to these practices in the interests of cyclists and other persons who wish to use the roads?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is undoubtedly the case that during wet weather many of the

  2527
  London streets are in a greasy condition, and that at such times motor vehicles are liable to skid; although this liability is being steadily reduced by modern improvements. The racing of motor omnibuses in the streets of London is forbidden, and the police are instructed to prevent as far as possible the reckless or dangerous driving of any vehicles.

  Customs Port Clerks.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether the employment of Customs port clerks, second class, has hitherto been on the basis of a seven-hour day, with payment for overtime attendance at rates varying from 9d. to 2s. 6d. per hour, according to salary; whether it is proposed to increase their liability of attendance to 48 hours per week, and to offer as compensation an allowance of £3; and, if so, whether, having regard to the fact that such allowance is equivalent only to overtime pay at the rate of 2½d. per hour for the increased liability of attendance, any Customs port clerk who so desires will be permitted to forego the proposed allowance, and to continue on his present seven-hour day basis?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of this question is in the affirmative, and to the third is in the negative. The calculation of 2½d. an hour is based upon an erroneous assumption. The allowance of £3 a year represents the average overtime pay throughout the class under the old system.

  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  Mr. GLADSTONEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the character of the Report that the Assistant Registrar of Scotland, appointed to investigate the affairs of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, on the application of 500 members of the above society, has submitted; whether he is aware that since the Report has been delivered to the board of management and delegates of the society they have held three adjourned meetings and by vote and resolutions condemned the impartial findings of the inspector, and also passed a resolution commending the manager and the management; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the mismanagement of the society's affairs as disclosed in the inspector's Report, and thereby to stop the abuse and waste of the members' funds?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the character of the Report of the Assistant Registrar, which I understand is now under the consideration of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Chief Registrar informs me that when he has had time to consider the Report, he will place himself again in communication with me with a view to considering what steps, if any, are desirable or possible in the circumstances.

  Naval Shipwrights.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether any petition has been received from the naval shipwrights, and, if so, whether the petition is being inquired into and at what stage it has arrived; whether he can see his way to do away with the nomination for boy artificers and let them be passed in by competitive examination; whether he is aware that under the present system the medical examination for entry is made after the civil examination; and whether he is aware that sometimes three months elapse after the civil examination before the result of the medical examination is known, and candidates thus lose other opportunities of employment?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Board has been petitioned on behalf of the shipwright class. The questions raised have been reported upon by a Departmental Committee, and their Report is now before the Board. It appears that the matter requires longer and more careful investigation than was anticipated, and the Admiralty is not yet in a position to give a decision. Boy artificers are now entered (1) by open competition conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners; (2) by limited competition amongst candidates recommended by certain education authorities. A small number are also selected from boys nominated by Commanders-in-Chief on account of service claims. These are required to pass a qualifying examination in the subjects laid down for competitive candidates. It is not proposed to vary this system. In accordance with the usual practice, the medical examination takes place after the result of the literary examination is known. The open competition is held in May, and the result is known about July. The limited competition is held in October, and the result known in November. In both cases arrangements for the medical examination are commenced immediately the result is known.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the result will be known?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot say.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman is answering all the other questions addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty and has not answered mine?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will have a little patience he will get an answer.

  Floating Docks (East Coast).
  Mr. FELLasked how many floating docks for service on the East Coast are under construction or contract; and if, in addition to the floating dock to be moored in the Medway, it is proposed to place floating docks in the Tyne and in Cromarty Firth?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Three floating docks are under construction for service on the East Coast—namely: One for battleships, to be stationed in the Medway; one for destroyers, to be stationed at Harwich; and one for submarines, to be stationed at Dover. I am informed that it is not proposed at present to place floating docks in the Tyne or in Cromarty Firth.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that the only floating dock on the East Coast available for "Dreadnoughts" in 1916 will be the one in the Medway?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot add to my answer.

  Council School, Coleford (Gloucestershire).
  Mr. WEBBasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Crown is asking 30s. a perch for land required by the Gloucestershire Education Committee for the purpose of erecting a council school at Five Acres, near Coleford, Gloucestershire; and whether, in view of the fact that the education committee and the local managers consider the price excessive and likely to influence the price asked in future by private owners for land for school buildings, he will use his influence with the Crown authorities towards securing a lower price?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): I am afraid that this is not a matter in which I could properly intervene.

  Technical Education in Evening Schools.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction that exists amongst those who have to carry out the provisions of the Education Act, and the tremendous friction at the present moment between the local and central authorities in the question of technical education in evening schools, the Government will consider the desirableness of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the grievances of the school teachers?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not acknowledge the existence of the friction to which the Noble Lord refers to in his question. I received a Deputation the day before yesterday from the National Union of Teachers on the subject of technical education in evening schools, and I hope the discussion will have removed any cause for misunderstanding. I see no reason for the appointment of any Commission.
  Mr. KING: Is it because of this matter that a new permanent secretary to the Board of Education has been appointed with such extreme haste?
  Mr. PEASE: No, Sir; that appointment has nothing to do with the matter.

  House of Commons Dining-rooms and Passages.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the process of cleaning and scraping the varnish off the oak panelling and carving, which has been successfully carried out in the dining-rooms and passages, will be continued in all parts of the building, more especially in the Chamber itself?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): This is a matter which has not escaped attention; and the work is being carried out as opportunities and funds permit.

  House of Commons (Annunciators).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked (1) of how many persons the staff operating the annunciators in this House is comprised; and what provision is made in the case of prolonged sittings of the House for relief of that staff so as to ensure that the operation of the annunciators may be constantly efficient; (2) whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists as to the manner in which the annunciators in the various rooms attached to this House are operated, both in regard to the delay in announcing new subjects of discussion and

  2531
  in the omission from time to time to make announcement that a new subject of discussion has arisen; and whether he will take such steps as will enable Members to engage themselves outside the Chamber without imperilling Motions standing in their names?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The maintenance, working and control of these annunciators are not matters for the Office of Works. The service is one which falls on the Vote of the Serjeant-at-Arms.
  Mr. ASHLEY: To whom are we to address questions with regard to the unsatisfactory working of the annunciators?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: To the Treasury.

  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the officials who distributed Form IV. were paid a commission on the distribution and a further commission on the form being returned filled up; and, if so, will he state the amount of commission so paid?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The officers who distributed Form IV. in England and Wales were paid for the work at the rate of 2d. for each hereditament. A further payment of 2d. or 3½d. per hereditament (according to the character of the work), was made for the collection of the completed forms.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the total sum expended in commission? I have asked for it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see anything in the question about the actual amount. I will give it to the hon. Member if he desires to have it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is there.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    FOREIGS AMBASSADORS AND MINISTERS.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether Foreign Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to and resident in this country, and employing British subjects as domestic servants, will be expected to pay the ordinary employer's contribution; and, if not, in what way will such servants be able to maintain their insurance under the Bill and to avoid arrears?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Accredited Ambassadors and Ministers of Foreign States resident in this country could not be sued for the recovery of contributions payable under the Bill in respect of their servants, just as they cannot be sued for wages. I have no doubt, however, that in most cases the servants' insurance will be properly maintained.

    BRITISH WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY (CIRCULAR TO EMPLOYÉS).
    Mr. CLYNESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to a circular issued to employés of the British Westinghouse Electric Company, Manchester, and signed by foremen of various departments, recommending their workmen to organise a branch of an approved society, and advising them not to promise to join any other society; whether such action on the part of large firms was contemplated under the National Insurance Bill; and whether, as such action is prejudicial to the interests of workmen, friendly societies, and trade unions, he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The interests of workmen who wish to belong to friendly societies and trade unions are sufficiently protected by Clause 24 of the Bill.

    INSPECTORSHIP APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked if appointments to inspectorships and other offices under the National Insurance Bill will be made by nomination alone or as the result of Civil Service examinations?
    Sir F. CAWLEYalso asked where, when, and to whom applications for situations under the National Insurance Bill are to be made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am laying a White Paper upon the subject, and an announcement will be made in the Press.
    Mr. KING: In view of the great number of applications being received by everybody, may I ask whether a special copy of this answer will be sent to every Member of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope a copy of the White Paper will be sent to every hon. Member of the House very soon.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: When will the White Paper be sent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it will be in the hands of hon. Members either to-night or to-morrow morning.

    EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. DAWESasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say what will be done with the contributions paid by and in respect of an employed contributor under the National Insurance Bill who, at the date of his entry into insurance, is receiving a salary of less than £160 a year, but in three years, owing to annual increments, will receive a salary of over £160 a year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The balance, if any, of the contributions in question will fall into the general fund of the society.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether any powers exist in the National Insurance Bill enabling the Insurance Commissioners to delegate their powers in matters of detail?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir, there are such provisions where necessary, as for instance in Clauses 2 (2), 65 (ii.) and 66(3).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: When may we expect the rules and regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners to be laid on the Table of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I feel certain the Insurance Commissioners will not frame their rules and regulations until the Advisory Committees have been appointed and until they have had an opportunity of consulting the representatives of all the interests concerned.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will there be an opportunity of examining and discussing them some time before the Bill comes into operation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes; ample opportunity, I should say.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Scotch and the Welsh Commissioners before the House rises?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

    CIVIL SERVANTS AND POLITICS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was with his permission that a chief inspector of factories joined in signing a letter on a controversial political question, namely, the Insurance Bill, which appeared in "The Times" newspaper on the 6th instant; and whether such action
    2534
    is contrary to the rules of the Civil Service?
    Mr. McKENNA: It was not with my sanction or knowledge that the inspector in question signed the letter which appeared in "The Times" on the 6th instant. She explains that she signed the letter in her private capacity only, and that the description of her official position was added without her knowledge. It is an established rule, however, of the Civil Service that its members take no public part in regard to the political questions of the day, and I have received an assurance from the inspector which appears to me satisfactory as regards her future action.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the auxiliaries to the position of domestic servants under the National Insurance Bill, he will state to the House what will be the exact position, both as to wages and sick pay, of a servant who is taken ill if her illness permits her to be removed to her own home or to a hospital, and if her illness is such that she remains in the house of her employer but is unable to do her work?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In the cases mentioned, provided that the hospital is supported by voluntary subscriptions, sickness benefit will be payable. When the servant stays in the house of her employer or goes home it will be payable to the servant. In the case of the hospital, it will be paid to her dependents, if she has any, or, if she has none, to the hospital, if an agreement has been made by her society for the purpose. The servant's right to wages is not affected by the Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what really is their right?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that is a question of law which it would not be proper for me to discuss in answer to a question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the Attorney-General be likely to be here to answer that question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would not answer a question of that sort.

  Super-tax.
  Colonel BAGOTasked whether, seeing that Super-tax is leviable on moneys paid to Government as Succession Duty, he will explain why this tax is levied on moneys which have never been received?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The liability to Super-tax depends on the extent of the total income of the person to be charged, estimated in the same manner as for exemptions and abatements under the Income Tax Acts. Succession Duty is a capital charge not admissible as a deduction in arriving at the amount of such income.

  Road Improvement Fund.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the amount of Petrol Tax paid by the London omnibus companies in the last year for which information is available, and the amount contributed out of the Road Improvement Fund in respect of the improvement of roads in the county of London?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's question is not available. As regards the latter part, no grants have been made in respect of the improvement of roads in the county of London except for the purpose of certain tests of road materials. The amount available for London has for the present been set aside with the object of assisting the construction of new approach roads, for which plans and estimates are in the course of preparation.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Is it not a fact that in a Report issued by the Board of Trade just recently the amount was given that was supposed to be collected by the London motor omnibus companies on account of the petrol used by them?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must ask for notice of that. I have not seen it.

  Customs (Examining Officers).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the first-class examining officers of Customs have been reduced in status to the subordinate grade, notwithstanding the fact that their appeal against this unanticipated result is at present under consideration and the decision still pending; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see no sufficient reason for departing from the recommendation
  2536
  of the Hobhouse Committee on the point referred to in the question. I do not think that the officers suffer any loss of dignity by the change.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether certain officers of Customs who failed to qualify for promotion during the last few years are, as a result of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, receiving additions of salary which places them in a position financially superior to several of their seniors who have passed successfully a severe departmental examination lasting three days, including a practical test before superior officials; and whether he can make any inquiry into this matter with a view to its rectification?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply just given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Warrington on this subject.

  Woolwich Arsenal (Iron and Steel Castings).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what amount of iron and steel castings were obtained from private contractors for Woolwich Arsenal during the six months ending 30th June, 1911, and also for the corresponding periods for 1909 and 1910; whether such castings could have been made in the foundries of the Department; and, if so, will he state the reasons that induced the Department to give the work to the private contractors?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The figures for iron and steel castings obtained from private contractors and for those produced in the Arsenal were as follows:—

  Trade.

  Ordnance Factories.

  1909

  101 tons

  …

  2,425 tons

  1910

  294 tons

  …

  2,314 tons

  1911

  168 tons

  …

  2,072 tons

  The foundries of the Royal Arsenal were fully occupied during the periods in question, and the castings given to the trade could not have been made in them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department did not promise to give a larger proportion of these orders than that to private contractors?
  Colonel SEELY: I must ask for notice of questions as to promises given.

  Industrial Disturbances (Llanelly).
  Mr. HODGEasked whether any and, if so, what punishment was meted out to the soldier who refused to shoot at the people when ordered on the occasion of the recent industrial disturbances at Llanelly?
  Colonel SEELY: No soldier refused to shoot on the occasion in question.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether any punishment has been meted out to Major Stewart, who ordered the men to shoot?
  Colonel SEELY: That does not arise out of the question. I am asked what punishment was meted out to the soldier who refused to shoot, and I say there was no such soldier.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I want to know what punishment is to be meted out to the man who ordered the soldiers to shoot?

  3rd Dragoon Guards and Grenadier Guards (Bands).
  Mr. HODGEasked whether the bands of the 3rd Dragoon Guards and the Grenadier Guards recently fulfilled a month's engagement at Brighton; whether the men concerned were on furlough; what is the length of furlough allowed per annum; and who performed the duties of these men while they were away?
  Colonel SEELY: Inquiries are being made into these cases. As regards furlough, under paragraph 1297 King's Regulations, furloughs are granted at the discretion of the commanding officer.

  Army Aeroplanes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many of the twelve effective aeroplanes owned by the British Army can fly sixty miles per hour without the aid of a following wind; and how many are of the old box-kite type of biplane which are unsafe in a strong wind?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is two, to the second, none.

  Army (Labourers' Wages).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the labourers employed at His Majesty's gun-wharf at Portsmouth received an addition to their pay of 1s. a week from the 1st April, 1911; whether labourers employed in the third and sixth divisional ammunition
  2538
  columns have not received this addition; whether the reason is that these men belong to the Army Reserve; and, seeing that the men think that they are paying a penalty for their service to the State, whether he will take their case into favourable consideration?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): No general increase in the wages of unskilled labourers at Portsmouth has been made from the 1st April last, but the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief was authorised to grant increases at his discretion up to one shiling a week for work requiring some degree of skill, experience or responsibility. I do not know whether it is the fact that no labourer employed with these ammunition columns received any increase: but the fact that these men belong to the Army Reserve would not be taken into account in fixing their wages.

  Captain Bryce Wilson.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why, in the case of Captain Bryce Wilson, who had nineteen years of regular service in his own regiment with continuously good reports, and only a few months under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, D.S.O., on account of whose adverse confidential report he was turned out of his regiment, an inquiry or court-martial was not granted to Captain Bryce Wilson, whilst in the case of Lieutenant Woods, who had only seven years' service, an inquiry was granted; (2) whether in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for War is not reported in Hansard to have answered any questions at all asked by Major Adam about Captain Bryce Wilson's case on 27th June, 1910, as he stated to be the case, he can now say why the adverse confidential report sent in by Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, D.S.O., in October, 1906, was not showrn to Captain Wilson till 17th December; whether this is against the. Army regulations; and why was an inquiry or court-martial not granted to Captain Bryce Wilson according to Section 42 of the Army Act; (3) whether the Prime Minister of New Zealand stated that he was unable to consider Captain Bryce Wilson's application for a military post in New Zealand until his character was publicly cleared; whether in view of the fact that it was stated officially that there was nothing against the characters of the five officers turned out of the 5th Lancers, of whom

  2539
  Captain Bryce Wilson was one, he can state officially that there Is nothing against Captain Wilson's character; and, if not, will he say why he will not do so; (4) whether as in the case of Captain Bryce Wilson, any colonel of a regiment can cause an officer to be turned out of his regiment because he had reasons for not desiring his presence there; and whether the fact that the major-general to whom, in Captain Bryce Wilson's ease, the adverse Report was sent added as an objection to Captain Bryce Wilson that his nickname was Flash was considered injurious to his character by the Army Council; (5) whether the adverse confidential report on Captain Bryce Wilson was sent to him in an ordinary official envelope not marked private, and was consequently opened by the office sergeant-major; and whether any inquiries were made as to this occurrence; and (6) whether a commanding officer is entitled to state in an adverse confidential report of an officer that he had reasons for not desiring his presence in the regiment without stating to the officer what the reasons were; and is a commanding officer entitled to make an adverse confidential report of an officer, stating that he has not a good influence in the regiment, without giving any reasons for that statement?
  Colonel SEELY: The case of this officer was fully dealt with in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex on the 30th July, 1908, and in the Debate—Army Estimates, Report of Supply, 27th June—which took place on the 13th July, 1910. I cannot undertake to recommend the Secretary of State to reopen the case.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at all events nothing was said about the injury this officer suffered through not being allowed to be employed in England? Cannot the War Office do anything to clear his character?
  Colonel SEELY: I think the case had the fullest investigation at the time, and quite recently, and I do not think any useful purpose will be served by reopening it.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the case was not tried at the time?
  Colonel SEELY: I said it was fully considered.
  Mr. HUNT: What was considered?
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Labour Exchanges are still open?

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a Report of the meeting of the Brussels Sugar Convention held last Friday; if so, whether permission was given to Russia to export an additional 500,000 tons of sugar westwards; whether any conditions were attached to the concession; whether the export of this sugar can take place immediately, or if it will be necessary for the decision to be ratified by the Governments of the respective countries who are parties to the Convention; and, if so, what delay such ratification may involve?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Sugar Commission, which has been sitting at Brussels, has been adjourned until 29tn January, when the matters referred to in the question will come up for further discussion. In any further negotiations that may take place His Majstey's Government will not commit themselves to remain a party to the Convention beyond the present limit of time, but will keep a free hand until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of reviewing the result of the adjourned negotiations. I hope, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend will postpone the discussion of the question until we know what takes place on 29th January. I will give him full facilities.
  Mr. LOUGH: I shall be very glad to do so, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer he has given.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: May I ask whether the facilities promised to the right hon. Gentleman will be extended to all other Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

  Destroyers (1909–10 Programme).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many destroyers of the 1909–10 programme were completed within the limit of time imposed by the contracts, and how many exceeded that limit; whether the destroyer "Fury," which was due for completion in April last, has yet been handed over by the contractors; if so, on what date; and what was the reason for the delay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Twenty torpedo-boat destroyers were included in the 1009–10 programme, of which fifteen were delivered before the contract date, and four after the contract date. The "Fury" has not yet been delivered owing to delays caused by labour troubles and an accidental fire. It must be regarded as satisfactory that of these twenty boats all, with the exception of the "Fury," have in the aggregate been delivered before the contract date for completion.
  Mr. ASHLEY: What penalty will be imposed upon the contractors who are building the vessel, in view of the fact that eight months' delay on an eighteen months' contract is very excessive?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no reference to any penalty in the question.

  Circuits of County Court Judges.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Attorney-General whether extensive alterations in the circuits of County Court judges are now being, or have lately, been made; whether the County Court Rules Committee, the Law Society, or any representative body were consulted before such alterations were decided on; and, if not, why not; whether such alterations, if made, are the result of the Lord Chancellor's expectation of the passing of the now withdrawn County Courts Bill; and can he now give full particulars of any alterations made and the date upon which they will be operative?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.

S.S. "DELHI" (WRECK).
Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice—whether he can state to the House any of the circumstances attending the loss of the "Delhi," more particularly with regard to the gallant action of the French seamen on that occasion?
The PRIME MINISTER: The only information we have is as follows, from the Admiral Commanding the Fifth Cruiser Squadron to Vice-Admiral Jellicoe, Commander-in-Chief:—
"The women on the ship—"
that is the "Delhi"—
"have all been landed. The Princess Royal and patty are safe. All those remaining on board are perfectly safe for the night."
2542
That telegram does not give any information with regard to the action of the French seamen. I am quite sure the House will be glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging the extraordinary gallantry shown by the seamen of the French Navy, and of expressing our most sincere regret at the loss of life which has occurred, and our sincere condolences with those who have suffered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make a statement about business?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to be able to conclude all our business in time to have the Prorogation on Saturday. After the Foreign Office Debate is concluded to-day, we shall take the next two Orders on the Paper—the Telephone Transfer Amendment Bill and the Maritime Conventions Bill. We shall also take the Resolutions on the Paper dealing with the two mail contracts. Thereafter, we hope we shall be able to take the Lords Amendment to the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. We do not intend to proceed further this Session with the Merchant Shipping (Certificates) Bill, the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill, and the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. With regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, I understand that last night considerable feeling was expressed by hon. Members that at this time of the Session a measure of this nature should not be pressed without fuller opportunities for discussion. Under these circumstances—the time remaining at our disposal being so short—we shall not proceed further with this Bill. But we shall reintroduce it, and, I hope, pass it. To-morrow, after the discussion on the appointment of magistrates, we shall take certain Amendments to Bills coming from the Lords. On Saturday it will be necessary to have an early Sitting for the final disposal of Bills coming from the Lords. This will be at eleven o'clock, and there will be a sitting later on for the Prorogation. For the general convenience of the House, I may say we propose that the House shall prorogue until the 14th February.

BUNTINGFORD FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to

2543
circulate the paper drawn up by Mr. Watson with regard to the funds of the Buntingford Friendly Association?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not acquainted with the matter. Perhaps the Noble Lord will repeat his question tomorrow.

FOREIGN POLICY.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [27 th November], "That the Foreign Policy of His Majesty's Government be now considered."—[Sir Edward Grey.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: The discussion of Foreign Affairs is always a delicate and responsible task. It is perhaps more so to-day because we do so little of it. If we talked more openly about our relations with foreign nations, perhaps what our foreign policy would lose in mystery it might gain in ease. Statesmen and Members of Parliament of a previous generation did not hesitate to discuss openly, both in this House and in their constituencies, this class of political problem with much frankness and freedom. We have rather drifted, I think by our own fault, or rather the fault of us on the Back Benches, into general acceptance of the view that foreign affairs are a kind of holy enclosure, in which only the diplomatic hierarchs may enter, and from which the profane are solemnly warned away. It is a recent development, brought about by our own fault, and one, I think, of doubtful benefit. This does not mean, of course, that actual negotiations with foreign Powers, of grave import and far-reaching con sequences, might profitably be conducted in the full blaze of daily publicity. The complaint of secrecy under such circumstances is wholly unreasonable. The Government could not even buy a piece of land if it were compelled to negotiate in public, and, to compare small but important things with great, such negotiations as have recently been carried to a successful issue by the Board of Trade between the railway companies and the representatives of the railway men could not possibly have been carried to that successful issue if every detail of them had been made public. Still less
  2544
  does it mean the ingenious suggestion I saw made by an hon. Member of this House that the Foreign Office should issue a weekly bulletin on its relations with foreign Powers—I suppose every Saturday. The Foreign Office acts on the responsibility of the Government. When the country and this House have given their confidence to the Government they entrust to it, among other things, the direction and control of our relations with foreign nations, and safeguarding our interests in foreign affairs. Their control, as I understand it, is limited to general principles and to criticism of the result, and if the result of those negotiations does not meet with the approval of the House and the country, then the only alternative is for them to secure another Government whose conduct would meet with approval. Nobody who has ever had even a glimpse behind the scenes in foreign affairs could suppose the Government could take this House into its confidence at every stage of its negotiations with a foreign Power. This reservation only applies to details of negotiations while in progress. When the result, for good or for ill, is reached, settled, and signed, then I believe it is strictly constitutional that the Government should take the country fully into its confidence, and a demand that the Government should lay Papers on the Table is a legitimate and proper course for this House to take. I trust, therefore, that the Government, without unavoidable delay, will lay Papers on the Table concerning the negotiations with foreign Powers which have recently come to a conclusion. It is stated that the French Government is about to issue a Yellow Book containing some four hundred documents. I trust that our own Government will follow a similar policy and enable us to judge on the course of those negotiations in which we claim so vital an interest.
  We much appreciate the willingness and generosity with which the Prime Minister has met our request for an opportunity for a full discussion on Foreign Affairs, and I do not think he has any reason to regret his action. We have tapped the barometer a good deal, and I may say that the tapping of the barometer is a scientifically justifiable thing, for without it you cannot get a correct reading. When it has any result at all, it can only be to show a higher glass. It has been so in this case. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary—in spite of his humorous protests at

  2545
  Plymouth, I submit that that is the correct and time-honoured short title of his office—and of the German Chancellor, have cleaned the slate, if they have not written anything new upon it. Our friendship with France emerges stronger from the strain to which it has been subjected. Our relations with Germany may now become anything that the two nations may desire to make them, and we are relieved from the loose talk of imminent war. If the situation in Persia is not free from grave anxiety, it is at least less alarming than it was, and we may before this Debate is concluded, have from the Foreign Secretary, in the statement which we understand he proposes to make, some assurance that there is a prospect of a solution not repugnant to our national sentiment. Nothing would be gained, I think, by discussing in detail Persian affairs an hour or two before we are in possession of the new facts.
  4.0 P.M.
  Moreover, the feeling of this country on the matter has become sufficiently clear. We rejoiced in the Anglo-Russian Agreement of four years ago, because it put an end to a long period of covert and overt hostility between us and Russia; because it ended permanently the question of Afghanistan, which was an ever-recurring occasion of dispute and danger; and because it guaranteed, as we thought, the independence of Persia on lines which, if not wholly satisfactory, were probably the best that could be secured. It has been, therefore, with universal distress that this country has witnessed action by Russia which certainly appears to threaten the independence of the Persian nation, and to evoke dangerous unrest in that part of the Mahomedan world in which we are so deeply concerned. Persia, we know, is in a state of political and administrative chaos. It is even difficult to see how she can evolve a stable government of her own without foreign political aid. Meanwhile British trade—and I may add especially Lancashire trade—is suffering severely. We wholly fail to understand the motives of Russian action, or how it can be reconciled with her treaty obligations, and we shall warmly welcome a statement of our attitude from the Foreign Secretary, so far as that can properly be made to us, and we earnestly hope he may be able to tell us that the Russian assurances, to the effect that her armed occupation of Persia is temporary, and that she strictly adheres to the terms of the Anglo-Russian agreement, which
  2546
  have reached us from unofficial sources, accurately represent the Russian official view. One other observation only I will make about Persia. It is this. It is obviously an extremely difficult and delicate question; possibly the most difficult and delicate question which the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal with during his tenure of office. I do not understand the attitude of those critics of the Foreign Secretary who have blamed him on the one hand for his willingness to go great lengths in support of one agreement to which we were parties, and on the other hand censure him for not instantly declaring his readiness to go to great lengths in defence of another agreement. The right hon. Gentleman might be excused for thinking that to such critics nothing he could do would be right. If they mean that the Government should at once have declared that it would regard the presence of Russian troops in Persia as a casus belli, they should say so. If they do not mean that, then it is only fair they should remember that our diplomacy has contributed to a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of one grave international situation, and they should be willing to believe, in the absence of facts to the contrary, that the Government is doing its utmost, in the same spirit, to secure an identical solution in the other case. Still less do I understand the action of hon. Gentleman in this House, and gentlemen outside, in cabling to the President of the United States urging him to take action in direct conflict with the policy of our own Government. I cannot help thinking that President Taft, from that message, must have had a curious notion of our British political system.
  But all matters of foreign politics are relatively unimportant beside the matter of our relations with the German Empire. On that everything else depends—our social welfare at home and our commerce abroad. Given friendly relations with Germany, there is hardly anything else in the world to cause us anxiety. A war with Germany would plunge both nations into a gulf whose depth no man knows, and of which no man can say how or when we should emerge from it. Happily, all immediate danger is over, and we start with a clean slate, with nothing in the nature of secret treaties written on the dark side of it. The policy and the action of the Government have, as I have said, largely contributed to a solution which appears fairly to have met the demands of both France and Germany and has kept

  2547
  peace in the world, and it would be only a very grudging spirit which caused us to fail to recognise and appreciate that fact. For my own part, I do not see what other course of action the Government could have pursued. It is true that the Anglo-French Declaration of 1904 professed to safeguard the authority of the Sultan of Morocco, and that the Act of Algeciras two years later reaffirmed the Sultan's sovereignty and declared the principle of the independence of his Empire. But whether we like it or not, there are greater forces in the world than the declarations of great Powers. Morocco is far from being the only example of that. In 1902 we ourselves and Japan mutually recognised the independence and territorial integrity of Korea. Eight years later Japan annexed it. All Europe once guaranteed the integrity of Turkey, and has been looking on at its gradual dismemberment ever since. There are other examples. Morocco is only the latest. Indeed, in view of the lessons of history, I can imagine a country surrounded by great Powers saying to them, "Do anything with me that you will except one thing. In Heaven's name, do not make a treaty guaranteeing my independence!"
  Be that as it may, an independent Morocco has gone, and, for my own part, I am thankful. For generations the hideous anarchy and savage misgovernment of a fertile land lying at our very doors were a disgrace to Europe, and I am amazed that the long catalogue of Moroccan horrors and crimes appears to be so completely forgotten. That Morocco should now come under the good government of the country which has transformed the pirate State of Algiers into the French department of to-day is a gain to humanity, and we need shed no tears over the loss of a freedom to rob, to mutilate and to slay. A peaceful solution has been reached, and no possible good purpose can be served by raking over the hot ashes of an extinct controversy. But if the future is to be different from the past, it is imperative for us to try to understand how Germany regards our attitude—to put ourselves in the other man's place, which is always supposed to be a very difficult thing for an Englishman to do. The first fact we must recognise is a very unpleasant one, namely, that public opinion in Germany is to-day more hostile to us than it has ever been before. Sir Frank Lascelles, recently the British Ambassador in Berlin, has said that Anglo-German
  2548
  relations are worse to-day than he has ever known them. To take one other example among many, a well-known German publicist, Herr Stoffers, who has been for years one of the most prominent and staunch supporters of Anglo-German friendship, wrote these words a month ago:—
  "You know that for years and years I worked hard for the promotion of goodwill and friendship between the two nations.… It is with the greatest regret that I have resolved to give up all further endeavours to promote that end, as of no avail.… Your interference has alienated our two peoples to a degree which, in my eyes, has overstepped the danger zone. The estrangement is irreparable."
  We have hardly a friend left among the public men of Germany.
  Mr. C. PARKER: The Social Democrats.
  Mr. POINTER: May I rise to point out to the hon. Member that Herr Stoffers has gone back upon that statement, and has said that he was suffering at the time from a little temporary despair, and that nothing in the nature of the abandonment of his good efforts would take place.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for interrupting me. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard with the greatest satisfaction in this House. But it at any rate leaves my point largely unimpaired, that Herr Stoffers and many another German did hold that feeling of temporary despair. Even the German Chancellor himself, the tone of whose speeches about this matter I feel sure every Englishman who has read them must warmly appreciate, has said:—
  "We are living now in an atmosphere of passion such as we have perhaps never before experienced in Germany."
  I think we may say it is fortunate for the world that Germany had a strong Emperor and a strong Government, otherwise, because of that wave of popular passion and temporary despair, war might have been sweeping over Europe to-day. This is a most grave situation, even making all allowance for the fact, as the German Chancellor himself added, that a good deal of this passion has been brought to boiling point in Germany for party purposes. To what is such a situation due? To answer this question correctly seems to me to be the first step towards improving that situation. I have spent happy and profitable years in Germany. Perhaps as no one else has done so, I may venture for a moment to try to answer that question in some degree. A French pessimist writer once explained his own unhappiness by the remark, "I came too late

  2549
  into a world too old." The uneasiness of Germany is fundamentally due to a somewhat similar cause. She entered the world as a great and united nation, conscious of her own strength, proud of the proof she had just given of it, so late as to find almost all the best parts of the earth's surface already appropriated by other nations. That is due to no unfriendly influence on our part, but I think we, who have so large a place in the world, can at any rate sympathise with that feeling. Again, Germany is keenly and somewhat bitterly conscious of the fact that whereas since 1870 France has acquired an African Empire, she, the victor, had till now only secured a Colonial foothold here and there of no great value. Again, Germany considers that as, with the mightiest army the world has ever seen, she has not for forty years fired a shot in anger, whilst almost every other great nation has waged war, she has given solid proof of her love of peace, and she deeply regrets being regarded as a Power which is ever ready on slight provocation, or none, to draw the sword against its neighbour. To come down to the controversy of last summer, Germany felt affronted more than most of us imagine by learning, as she believed she did, by such utterances as the curious excursion into naval strategy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Faber), that we were actually making preparations to attack her immediately by land and sea. An eminent German whose name, were I at liberty to give it, would carry great weight in this House, said to me only a short time ago, "In England nobody except your army knows what war is. We Germans still remember it, and for us war means that every able-bodied man must be ready to fight, and that there will, in the end, be a death or a cripple in almost every family. It is no light thing to us Germans to be threatened with war, and it will be long before we can forget it." Again, Germany takes it ill that we deliberately left her out of account when we agreed with France about Morocco, but that we menaced her publicly when she proposed to discuss Morocco with France. Proof of the first part she finds in Lord Lansdowne's covering letter in forwarding the Anglo-French Agreement of 1904 to the British Ambassador in Paris. Lord Lansdowne said:—
  "His Majesty's Government have readily admitted that if any Power is to have a predominant influence in Morocco, that Power is France."
  Proof of the second part Germany finds, of course, in the speech of the Chancellor
  2550
  of the Exchequer. I wish to make my position perfectly plain. I am not criticising the policy of the British Government. I have already said that in my opinion the Government could not, under all the circumstances, have acted otherwise than as they did. I am only trying, however imperfectly, to set out the German point of view. Further, Germany was the more surprised at our attitude, because she considered that her action was in our commercial interest no less than hers. Again, she points to the facts for her justification. Under the Agreement of 1904 the open door in Morocco was secured for us for only thirty years. By the Franco-German Agreement it is secured for Germany and for ourselves for ever. In every German colony we trade freely. In every French colony our commerce is largely excluded by heavy duties. I am informed, I made inquiries on the point yesterday, and though speaking not with absolute certainty, I believe it to be correct, that a British ship which goes to Hamburg can proceed to German West Africa. A British ship which touches at Marseilles cannot go on to Algiers. Everyone in this country rejoices in the entente, with France, and nobody more than I. It has become a settled part of our policy, and none of us wish to see it weakened. But its existence affords no reason why we should be blind to these other considerations. Finally, Germany is acutely conscious of the economic fact that she must expand or contract in power and wealth—expand in the sense of finding raw materials for her manufactures and markets for her finished goods. There is every reason, it seems to me, on the chess-board of Europe why Germany will not go to war for territorial expansion in Europe, and there is little prospect of her gaining anything by war outside Europe that she could not gain by peaceful diplomacy, provided always that no other great Power blocks the way. But if, wherever Germany might commercially expand, she runs up against some political reason for her exclusion, then, I believe, she will certainly fight, and it is to fight successfully under such circumstances that Germany is building her fleet.
  Such, however imperfectly put, are some of the feelings regarding ourselves and our policy which are universally prevalent in Germany to-day. Is there anything in them, I will not say to provoke war, but even to justify hostility between the two countries? We are bound to have Gentian commercial competition, and we, as the greatest commercial competitors in the

  2551
  world, have no ground whatever to resent it. To be quite frank, may we not say that if we were in Germany's place we should probably have precisely the same feeling that she has to-day? And if there is thus nothing inherently unreasonable or unjust in Germany's attitude, surely it does not bar our way to better relations with her. Of course, I know well there is ground for corresponding complaint on our part. We have had reason to resent her diplomatic action. We had grave reason at the time of the South African War, and we have had other reasons since. We have had reason to regret frequently the use that the German Foreign Office makes of the unofficial German Press. We may just as well speak frankly about these matters. Only within the last few days some German authority has been publishing to the German Press highly coloured accounts of what took place in the secret trial of alleged British spies in Germany, accounts calculated to inflame German opinion against this country. Of course, as Lord Morley said in another place, we are bound to take into consideration the rapid and vast growth of the German navy in our considerations of German policy. But neither is there here anything to bar the way to better things.
  It is useless and undignified to keep on complaining that Germany has increased her navy. Germany is a great and independent Power and she will build just as many ships as she thinks necessary in her national interest. That is her affair, not ours. Our affair is to take good care that we build just as many ships as are necessary in our national interest, and, as an undefeated fleet is the condition of our very existence, it is a matter of sheer necessity that our ships should be greater in number and in power than the ships of Germany. Germany is a sensible nation. She must appreciate that point of view precisely as well as we do, and, as a brilliant friend of mine remarked to me a little while ago, Germany is the last nation in the world which ought to be affronted by candour, as it is certainly the last nation to be deceived by cant. I have never thought it a useful or a sensible policy to propose to Germany that we should both reduce our naval programmes, on the condition that our Fleet remains permanently much stronger than that of Germany. The only way by which we can lead Germany to take the step which will relieve both nations of the burden of ever-growing
  2552
  armaments is to convince her that our Fleet will never be used to prevent her expansion in any direction which is compatible with British interests and British honour. When Germany believes that, she will save herself and us many millions of pounds a year, but not till then, and I am sorry to say I greatly fear that time has not yet come.
  In talking of Germany it is very easy, too easy, to be effusive about her, to dwell with enthusiasm upon the wealth of her literature, which has affected the taste and the knowledge of every educated person for a century, and the achievements of her science which touches every commercial process in the world, to envy her education and admire her social organisation, to wonder at her amazing progress. But the time is past when such observations as those will affect our political relations with her. We know well that there is in this country no feeling of hostility towards Germany. The German Emperor has only to appear in the streets of London to know it too. We know that, apart from imports of crude, raw material, like cotton, we do more trade with Germany, and she with us, than cither does with any other Power. We know that the entire British commercial community would warmly welcome improved relations with Germany. We are fully alive to the countless ties of interest and sympathy that unite the two people. But it can serve little purpose to-day to utter vague phrases of that kind, however true. The situation has got beyond what the Chinese call good words. It has got beyond exhibitions and tours and deputations. If there are to be better relations, as we all most earnestly desire, it can only be on the basis of frank speech, and, in view of all that has happened, I think we might, have the courage to be the first to speak frankly. The German Chancellor said, a week ago, that
  "the actual development of good relations between our two countries will keep pace with the common desire for peace and friendship only in so far as the British Government is ready to give positive expression in its policy to its anxiety for such relations."
  Very well; let us give such positive expression. It will probably be charged against us we are yielding to pressure from Germany. Never mind. Let us have the courage, if necessary, to incur that sneer. Let us invite Germany to say, not in obscure metaphors, but in plain words, what it is that she wants and where we stand in the way—what precisely is the place in the sun from which she is excluded by our action? Of one thing, at

  2553
  any rate, she may be certain, and that is that any Government which did not regard with complacency, and even with goodwill, the expansion of Germany in any direction not threatening a vital British interest, would not have the support of the people of this country behind them. And as soon, as Germany has realised this, then the time will come for her and for us to remember, amid all the efforts and proposals to-day to substitute arbitration for war, that the first man to put forth a reasoned plea for that noble end was a German—the philosopher Kant in his tract entitled "Towards Eternal Peace."
  There must be peace between us and Germany. War with her, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition so well said, is not inevitable; but can only be the outcome of human folly. Why, war for a generation was said to be "inevitable" between us and France; war for a generation was "inevitable" between us and Russia. We were to have war about Merv, Penjdeh, Fashoda, Siam, Newfoundland, and Venezuela. We look back and smile to-day at all these "inevitable" struggles of the past, and so we must be able to look back in the future in the same spirit to the "inevitable" war with Germany. As we have settled our difficulties with France and Russia, so diplomacy and goodwill should be able also to settle our difficulties with Germany.
  Something bigger than diplomacy has already made one alliance between the two nations, namely, the imperative need of both that no open market shall be closed and that every new market shall be open. What folly of either country to attempt to cripple its only ally in securing this condition which is essential to its own prosperity! Our Protectionists are wise to be conscriptionists also, for a system of preferential tariffs throughout the British Empire would be more likely than anything else to cause Germany to draw the sword. Can it be the last word of civilisation that both nations have educated the masses of their people only to hurl them at each other's throats? Cobden once said that bad law comes first to the home of the working man, and so it is true that the spectre of war knocks first and loudest and last at the door of the little home. Germany has for years met her annual deficit by loans. The past political crisis was nearly a financial crisis for her also. She has descended so far as to tax matches and electric lamps. Our own Budgets depend upon
  2554
  peace, and upon our Budgets depends our social welfare.
  There must be peace between us, for, in the memorable words of the Foreign Secretary, the cost of war, or even the preparation for war, will, if unchecked, submerge civilisation. Amid our own unparalleled prosperity, one person in every forty is a pauper, and one person in every sixteen lives in an overcrowded tenement. In our elementary schools, to use the official words, there is "a formidable category of disease and defect." The feeble-minded are allowed to poison our national blood. Urgent problems of education, housing, unemployment, and the Poor Law cry aloud for solution, and the national conscience is awake to the cry. But to deal with these evils will make great demands upon the national wealth, and we cannot deal with them and have war, or even an armed peace, as at present. The cost of a few destroyers a year would solve the problem of the feeble-minded. The cost of a cruiser a year would enable us to deal with our outcast class. The cost of a "Dreadnought" a year would soon pull down our slums. Unless we come to' an agreement with Germany, in a year or two we shall be spending £1,000,000 a week on our Navy alone. We are very near to that now. In a war with Germany—which would not be a duel, but, as the German Chancellor said the other day, probably a world war—£1,000,000,000 would be cast into the sea, and whichever nation was called victor, neither would regain in a century the opportunities it had flung away.
  We are looking to-day at another nation, towards which our sentiments transcend mere friendship, pouring out its gallant manhood and its treasure for a possession of doubtful value—a place which is geographically part of the Sahara desert, whose trade routes have been diverted, and whose natural products have been superseded; and our fear, based upon our affection and upon nothing else, is that its hard won and honoured strength among the nations as a civilised and civilising Power of the world, may be drained away, like the Empire of its great ancestors, in those African sands. But we may take precisely the same lesson to ourselves. Unless there is peace between the Governments of Germany and Britain, if this insensate rivalry is pursued to the end, then the best hopes and the highest ideals of our common civilisation will disappear in the waters of the North Sea. "Nothing seems

  2555
  to me worth doing"—and the words will appeal with peculiar force to the Prime Minister, for they are the words of Jowett, of Balliol:—
  "Nothing seems to me worth doing or leaving undone in foreign politics which does not prevent war."
  It may be that war will be forced upon us. But let us at least do all that men may do honourably to avoid it. The Prime Minister expressed more than the mind of the Government when he said that our national friendships are not of an exclusive or jealous character. I am sure it is the earnest intention and desire of the whole nation that its forces in foreign affairs should be directed in that spirit and to that end.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I have listened very attentively to the most interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Norman), and with a very great deal of it I am in hearty, sympathy. I was very glad to hear him say that for his part he strongly supported the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because I have always considered that all questions of foreign policy, and, indeed, all questions in which the Navy and Army are concerned, should be regarded as national, and totally devoid of party. I think that in the very difficult position the right hon. Gentleman was in when the slightest want of tact, the slightest want of firmness, and the slightest want of clearness, in the late crisis, might have brought about war, it was deplorable that there was anybody to find fault with what he did on that occasion. He did three things. He secured British interests, he maintained the treaties with foreign Powers, and he did more than that—he secured the peace of Europe. The hon. Gentleman opposite has clearly brought before the House our relative ideas as to Germany. There can be no doubt that it is better to be frank. There is a feeling in Germany of a very acute nature. I might say that the people are nearly at white heat. Why are they in that position? It is because, with regard to the conversations Germany had with Prance, we had to maintain the policy of looking after our own selfish interests. I am entirely in accord with the hon. Member when he says that there is plenty of room for Germany and for us as two great Empires in the world. I am entirely in accord with him that it would be very wrong for us in any way to interfere with the legitimate expansion of a great
  2556
  Empire like Germany, and I am also in accord with him when he says that we should be open, fair, and frank in our statements as to what we consider imperative to maintain British interests abroad. We should also do as the hon. Gentleman suggested—make it perfectly clear that our life depends upon command of the sea. There is no arrogance in that. There is no boast in that. There is no man in the whole of this country, no matter what his party, who can deny that that is a fact. But we can say that without being rude to Germany. We can make out what is necessary for the defence of the Empire as a whole without bringing in Germany at all. I object to these standards that are being laid down in regard to the building of fleets. These methods are irritating. We should make out—and it is perfectly possible to make out—what is necessary all round for our defence, and merely make public that we consider that necessary for our defence without these irritating comparisons being brought out as to what other countries are doing.
  The hon. Gentleman said, clearly and plainly, that what Germany does is Germany's affair, and has nothing whatever to do with us. But our affair is to see that whatever she or any other nation builds, we are never in a comparative position of inferiority with regard to the defence of our Empire as a whole. I do believe it is possible that we can come to some big, bold and clear understanding with Germany as to what we consider necessary for our Imperial defence, independent of what she considers necessary for her interests. I agree with the hon. Member again that war between these two countries would be criminal. It would put back the whole civilisation of the world for a decade. [An HON. MEMBER: "More than that."] My hon. Friend says "More than that," and I agree with him. But what are we going to gain by that? Is there not room for both to live and to have regard to our respective interests without going at each other's throats? I calculated it out once, and brought it before this House, that I believe that if this country went to war with Germany and won, still it would cost us some £1,200,000,000 sterling, and I base my calculations not only on what it would cost us intrinsically for arms, ammunition, ships, and guns, but also on the question of the rate of insurance being prohibitive and our securities going down to zero, at the time when we want them high. Any-

  2557
  thing that a man can do in this country to stop war he should. But he must never forget the Imperial interests, the safety and honour of his country, which can be attended to without any of those comparisons at all with other countries. They have got the right to carry, out what proceedings they like.
  I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to in some way describe to us what he considers will be necessary for our defence as an Empire as a whole, and leave Germany out of it altogether. Let Germany pursue that policy which she considers right. Whilst speaking on the question of foreign policy, and without making anything in the nature of an attack, we may ask the question—and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not answer it if it unduly hampers him in any way whatever. But there is a danger ahead. It would be very serious for this country if, during the wars or rumours of wars which are going on at present, the great Mahomedan faith should think we deserted them or did not respect them, or in any way did not sympathise with them in the troubles and the trials they are enduring. I hope the Foreign Secretary will clearly make it public that, though we may not be in a position to interfere—and I hope we shall not interfere—our sympathy with those great nations and that faith is not being ruined. If once they think that, and once there was that breach, it is impossible to say what would happen in our Empire. We are the greatest Mahomedan nation in the world, or the nation to which most Mahomedans owe allegiance. If there is anything in the nature of unrest or doubt of the old British raj, the least we should have to send to India would be 50,000 men, and the least we should have to send to Egypt would be 20,000 men. That is a point of military expediency. But even to do that would at once put into the minds of the Mahomedans that we were sending these men to keep them in order and overrule them. The question is very difficult and will require great tact, but I do not think there is any harm in some of us mentioning that this fact does exist, and our desire that this great fighting race, which at the present moment, both in India and anywhere else, we find good friends, and a most chivalrous lot of people, and depending on us to a great extent, should not for one moment think that we have deserted them in any way in their wars with the different countries by which they are at present attacked.
  2558
  With regard to France, we are glad to say that we are good friends, and I hope that we shall remain so, but I do not see why, as long as we lay down distinctly what our policy is with regard to the defence of the whole Empire, we should not be friends with all the other nations, adopting a dignified note, and a chivalrous line, without any swaggering, any arrogance or any of those sentences such as irritate nations, such as I noticed in one of the papers the other day—a deplorable remark about Germany, stating that the German Army was inferior to what it was in the old days, and that if it went into action it would have its officers with revolvers behind the men driving them into action. In the first place it is untrue, and even if it was true it was a monstrous thing to say about that nation. Where would we be if the German Press said that our Navy had deteriorated, that the men were cowards, and that the officers had to go behind them with revolvers to make them fight? Why it would make us feel just as the Germans do at present. The fault has not been all on one side. We have been wrong let us say, Germany has been wrong let us say; but let us, if we can, get rid of these irritations, stick to our defence, and try to bring these two nations together for the future. There is plenty of room in the world for both to encircle and expand, and it is the duty of everyone in this House, no matter what party he belongs to, to endeavour to bring about that state of affairs.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: During the course of this Debate there have been, especially from hon. Members around me, some more or less well-grounded complaints as to lack of opportunities of informing this House and of considering the general lines of our foreign policy. I am very much disposed to agree with the view which has been expressed, with the greatest moderation that a little amplitude of our powers in respect of foreign policy, a little reversion to the old Parliamentary constitutional practice, might be resorted to by the Foreign Office at the present time. But I think it would be highly ungenerous of us, though we may make these observations, not to recognise that during a period of great anxiety in Europe, and I might say even beyond the confines of Europe, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been able, without any injury to our prestige or any impairment of our material resources, to maintain unbroken the peace of this

  2559
  Empire; and that I think is no light tribute to pay the right hon. Gentleman. I have been for many years past in a very humble way a student of the foreign history of this country and I have listened to this Debate, so far as it has progressed to-night and on the last occasion, with a feeling, which I think was shared by all here, of great satisfaction. Almost every speaker on both sides of this House has declared his strong desire that good relationship should continue to subsist between Great Britain and the German Empire.
  Fine words butter no parsnips. These benevolent expressions require to be fortified by diplomatic action. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), and if I may venture to find a fault with it it would be to say that perhaps it was a little too pessimistic in tone. I do not pretend to have the same opportunities which he has enjoyed of conversations with the people of Germany, but such little as I have enjoyed and do enjoy confirm me in the belief that the German people, the German proletariat, as they have sometimes been called, are not animated with any feeling of animosity or resentment towards this country, and that the feeling of the German middle classes and the German working classes is one of anxious desire to maintain and consolidate friendship with this country. I pass from these general observations to what I conceive to be the real crux of the situation. I do not want to go back to the time of the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein, but during the last Administration, and, I am sorry to say, to a large extent during the present Administration, the attitude of the Foreign Office to the German Empire has been—I will not say one of marked unfriendliness—but one of a lack of conciliation; and if you want to see a tribute to that you can read it in the speeches of the German Chancellor and of the late German Colonial Secretary, and you can read not in what is called the yellow Press, but in the higher class publications of Germany. Look at it historically for one moment. I do not want to go back more than a decade. Not very long ago the German Emperor and the German Government, as is well known, were supporting the laying of a line of railway—I think it was called the Anatolian line—to Bagdad. At first that project met with a cordial welcome from the British Foreign Office. At first the English Government—it
  2560
  was the late Government—gave it its cordial approbation. To my mind, and that of many who are entitled to speak with far greater authority than I am, that railway, which would have its ultimate result probably in a connection between Turkey and India, would have been of stragetic value to Great Britain. It would have been a check in all probability upon what is now the obvious intention, veiled though it may be, of Russia—which had been shut out from the Mediterranean and from Manchuria—to get access, despite our attempted line—a mere imaginary line—of demarcation, to the Persian Gulf. But our Government suddenly turned round on that scheme. Germany is persevering in her project, and Germany is still carrying it out without any assistance from England and in spite of the disapprobation of England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] And I have no hesitation in saying that that attitude and that action on the part of Great Britain produced resentment against the German Government and the German people. I am not speaking now without ability to refer to authority in support of what I say.
  5.0 P.M.
  Now I turn to the Moroccan incident. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would for one moment suggest that Germany ever had any territorial designs upon Morocco. There is not a scrap of evidence in support of that idea. All the evidence is to the contrary. If you go back to the year 1880, speaking from memory, there was a distinct assertion on the part of Prince Bismarck that, so far as Germany was concerned, she was desirious that the Republic of France should have a free hand in Morocco. At that time Germany entertained no territorial designs in respect of Morocco. But let us pass on from that phase of the case. Nothing of moment occurred unless I mention en passant the Anglo-Turkish Agreement of 1887. I do not know what took place with respect to that Convention, or what passed between the Foreign Office and the other Powers. The Convention turned out abortive; but there is some reason to believe that during 1887 there was at any rate something in the nature of intercommunication between the Powers with reference to Morocco. At that time we merely sought to secure the neutralisation of Egyptian territory. During that Convention it was recognised, unless one is altogether incorrectly informed, that France should have a free sphere of action,

  2561
  not recorded in writing but generally recognised, and that the intention expressed by Prince Bismarck should be fulfilled and France given a free hand in Morocco. What took place after that? In 1904 we entered into a Convention with France, whereby we purported, in consideration of our having a free hand in Egypt, that France should have a free hand in Morocco. I really do not see where the consideration passed from France to us. Long anterior to that France had given up all idea of dual control in Egypt. When the Convention of 1887 turned out to be abortive, she recognised the position of England. I do not mean to say that she ever saved to herself resumption of the right to insist on intervention in Egypt, and really she did give up the right.
  There was no reason under the sun, because France was no party to the treaties made at that time, why we should have imposed upon ourselves the embarrassing obligation of taking the part of alliance with France in respect of our territorial occupation. From the subterranean passages of diplomacy there has not yet emerged, as far as one can see, any reason for any such undertaking to be given to France. Then what took place? I do not refer to the German Emperor's visit to Tangiers, which was a dramatic incident. The next cardinal point was the Algeciras Treaty in which we definitely committed ourselves to the principle that there was to be no territorial annexation by France. France was not to take up a territorial position of sovereignty, or quasi sovereignty in Morocco. In 1909, Germany recognised France's freedom in Morocco, and con-jointed with her and the other Powers so far as commercial intercourse was concerned. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this? Can it be disputed that France did assert territorial sovereignty. Can it be disputed that she did by overt acts of sovereign power attempt to assert territorial interest in Morocco? I do not think that can be disputed. What was the result? Germany, by the Algeciras Treaty, had secured to her free access for commercial purposes to Morocco. Germany, in view of France having taken up a position of quasi sovereignty in Morocco, took a certain step. I do not say it was a wise step; if I may respectfully say so, it was an unwise step to send a warship or a gunboat, or whatever it was, to Agadir. In view of what seemed a ludicrous proceeding, but was a dramatic
  2562
  proceeding, undoubtedly a provocative proceeding, but not a provocative proceeding to us, but a provocative proceeding to France, I ask what should have been the course of English diplomacy then?
  We know that in the early days of July a communication was made by the German Government to our Foreign Office. We know that the matter was allowed to remain sub silentio for a period of two or three weeks, and then, coincident and contemporaneous with a conversation, I believe a formal conversation, between our Foreign Office and the German representatives, a speech was made at the Mansion House which I do not think anybody can deny was calculated to have a provocative tendency. I do not want to exaggerate in any way the effect of that speech, but this is what I want to ask, Why, instead of having resort to what I may call retaliatory and provocative measures, was it not possible for our Foreign Office to have said, "We understand your motives; we do not pay regard to flamboyant speeches of individuals or dramatic incidents. We know your intention is not to form a naval base. Obviously it was never the intention to take territorial possession of Southern Morocco. All we believe you desire is to secure the open door in Morocco, and we will help you to that end." I cannot see—and I say it with great respect and great humility—that there was any overt act. The form in which Germany asserted her desire was unwise, was imprudent, but I cannot see that there was any serious diplomatic act on the part of Germany which need have afforded the slightest uneasiness to the people of this country. All I have risen for in this Debate is to say one word, which I believe will be echoed upon the benches opposite and on this side of the House, as to the old traditional policy of distrust which shows itself in so many forms. Is it Tariff Reform—I only mention it by way of illustration—then it is Germany against which the assault is made, although the German tariffs are much lower than British tariffs. It is against that kind of feeling that I protest.
  I believe our alliance with the Teutonic people, the people allied to us by race and by religion, to be the true principle of British foreign policy. Although nobody would at all wish to depreciate the advantages of an alliance with the French Republic, at the same time, the whole course of history, from the time of the Tudors to the present time, points to the fact that our true interests are associated with the

  2563
  Teutonic races of central Europe. Certainly, if one looks to the protection of our Indian Empire, one may say, and may well say, that if aggression may come from certain quarters—if not immediate and direct it will be mediate and indirect—help would be afforded by an alliance and by cordial friendship between Great Britain and Germany. Something has been said about shipbuilding. Whatever may be the reason of that, Germany has no desire for territorial acquisition. Her population is not a colonising population, and I think I am not wrong in saying that over 40 per cent. of the German population are a rural population. German manufacturers find plenty of room for people displaced from the rural districts. Emigration from Germany has decreased, and not increased in recent years. There is no reason whatever to suppose that Germany has any ambition, so far as her fleet is concerned, for a multiplication of naval bases, which would be a disaster to her. She wishes to keep her fleet at home, not for offensive, but for defensive purposes. The policy of provocation which has been pursued for many years past by the Government towards Germany is a policy which is calculated to promote the building of ships and to bring about that very calamity which it is most wished to avoid.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: I rise with very great diffidence to address the House on this question after so many experts have discussed it. I possibly can claim one advantage over hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Persian question in that I have had the advantage of being wrecked in the Persian Gulf, and of recovering from typhoid on the Pearl Islands of the Persian Gulf. In those circumstances one had, of course, a certain amount of time to turn one's attention to local affairs. Of course, it is not necessary to go to the Persian Gulf to know what is done there. We have done a very great deal. We have spent a great deal of money; we have sacrificed a number of lives, we have made the high seas safe, and I think we have set up a standard of positive justice. But there are still one or two things which we have not done. We have never made our position in the Persian Gulf really clear. Our position has always been indefinite in regard to the islands of Bahrein and Muharrak. That is not a good thing for us and not a good thing for the inhabitants of Bahrein, and it is not a good thing for
  2564
  the people of the Turkish Empire. In regard to these two islands on the west coast, the Sublime Porte has claimed them as an integral part of the Ottoman dominions, but it was insisted by the Government of Teheran that they belonged to Persia. The people of those islands are very versatile, and, in fact, there has been such a confusion of thought in the past as to the status of those islands that one chief, to be on the safe side, flew the British, Ottoman, Persian and Arab flags. His Majesty's Government, while deposing one ruler and setting up another, has not taken the requisite steps to regularise such action. I will not weary the House with the long and turbulent history of the islands. It is sufficient to say that in 1860 we deposed Sheikh Mohammed, and that at the desire of the inhabitants, Her Majesty's Government made Sheikh Isa Ben Ali their ruler. We have recognised, and we have limited, his power, and in 1902 we acknowledged his son, Sheikh Hamid, as his successor. When we come to the people, I may say that their case is not one that is very difficult to dispose of. They are poor people, and all they want—Arab and Persian—is to live in quiet and in peace under whoever the ruler of the island may be. It is one of the very few places where politics are absolutely unknown, and the only form of electioneering they have ever had has been the occasional assassinations of the ruling house. It may be said that this question of Bahrein is not a question of the first importance, but I would maintain this, that a little thorn may produce a very great wound, and that in the case of two countries like England and Turkey the fewer causes of friction you have the better it is both from commercial and Imperial standpoints. I may pass from an indecisive policy at that very remote and extreme end of the Ottoman Empire and I will come back to the decisive policy at the capital, Constantinople, in the government of the Ottoman Empire, and as I rather regret the indecision of the policy in the Persian Gulf, so I am bound to confess it is very difficult entirely to give one's sympathy to the policy of decision with regard to the Ottoman Government at Constantinople, because that policy of indecision, I believe, has been on the whole a regrettable policy.
  If I may, I should like very briefly to refer the House to a few of the events of the last three years. It was in 1908 that Turkey made her own Revolution. That was a Revolution that all men had desired,

  2565
  but that no man had dared to prophecy. It was really one of the great events of the world, and I am not quite sure that even now the full significance of it is understood in this country. The forces that opposed it were very vast. Suddenly in one day it was good-bye to the Arabian Nights, and you had the county council with you. True, the county council was rather a cumbrous machine, but still it was an instrument modern and ready to accommodate itself to modern conditions. But in that whole Revolution I do not think we quite realised how the Middle Ages were fighting with modern times. It was 1908 that was opposing 1500, or perhaps rather earlier. I remember that friends of mine in Constantinople in those days saw one procession that was led by a camel, and at the tail-end of it there went a taxi-cab. When that Revolution occurred, it and the reformed Turkey was welcomed by England as it deserved to be. But the Revolution had not occurred very long when Turkey was punished for having reformed herself by having two great provinces taken from her, and I think from that time onwards I am not exaggerating when I say that the attitude of this Government to a reformed Turkey—if it was not aggressively unsympathetic, was stonily indifferent. That, I think, is the impression of the majority of Englishmen who have lived in Turkey for some time.
  It was quite inevitable that the Young Turks should make mistakes when they came into power. It was absolutely to be expected. You cannot create a Constitution in one day, and if you do create a Constitution in a day, you cannot adhere to it, and it was asking very much from men, perhaps, who had not had a great deal of education, but who were patriots, it was asking very much from revolutionaries that they should not only create one miracle, but that they should go on creating miracles every day. It was asking a great deal from revolutionaries, not only that they should overturn by a bloodless revolution, an ancient tyranny, but also that they should be experts in the manipulation of diplomatic and constitutional red tape. From the very beginning I think that it was recognised that the constitution of Turkey was a very great experiment. It was not only a very great experiment, but it was a fine experiment, and an experiment that certainly deserved more sympathy than it got from a Liberal Government. Of course, I know there are many ways of looking at this experiment. I confess my own way is to look at it from
  2566
  the point of view of British interests. This is an argument one constantly heard out in Turkey. Everything was in a state of flux, nothing was certain. It would have been a very great mistake, it was said, for any country that had the vast and complicated interests that we have in the Ottoman Dominions to take any side very definitely. Exactly, and on that point I am in perfect agreement, but this does seem to me to be the case, too. It may be foolish to rush into an unwise friendship, and it may be wrong to rush into a precipitate cordiality, but it is even more wrong, and I think even more disastrous, to rush into an unwise coldness and precipitate unkindness.
  I should like those hon. Members who take opposite views to compare the present day with the day of the ex-Sultan Abdul Hamid. However preponderating in that time our commerce may have been, it is absolutely notorious as to the way in which the interest of Great Britain and Great Britain herself was treated by the Sublime Porte. There was a very acute feeling of dislike for the ex-Sultan Abdul Hamid and his policy in this country, and the ex-Sultan Abdul Hamid, with a sincerity that was very rare in his character, entirely reciprocated that dislike to Great Britain. Two things that we have to bear in mind are that the old Government, where it was possible, thwarted our interests, and the new Government, which came under reform, came relying on the friendship of Great Britain, the greatest of Liberal Powers; and the two things we have to compare are our treatment under the old unreformed Government and our treatment under the new and reformed Government, ab initio, when that Government started. I think that that question answers itself, and I will not labour it any further; but I will say this, that there are again two ways of looking at this question of the constitutional experiment. There are the ways of looking at it from the point of view of success and from the point of view of failure. If it had succeeded, I think, that surely it would have been worth our while, we who have interests in that country that could be almost indefinitely expanded, to have bound ourselves, if not with ties, at all events with professions of friendship for Turkey. Or, again, supposing it had failed, still, I think, that without doing any injury to British interests, without hurting Turkey, without risking anything in Europe, we might have acted by our principles, and have done our best by the men who were engaged in

  2567
  a very great enterprise. I think that all those efforts would have been worth our while for principle, and I think that all those efforts would have been worth our while for interest. It would have been worth our while to overlook the unusual diplomacy of the Secret Committee. It would have been worth our while to have condoned the blunders we expected they would make, and which they did make.
  But I think that perhaps one of the most unfortunate things that could be said about our policy is this, that, supposing the constitution of Turkey had broken down, and it looked as if it would break down, not once, but very often, it would have been possible to say, and there would have been many people to say it, that it had broken down through British lack of sympathy and through British misunderstanding. I should like to give the House just one small experience of my own, that was half-comic and half-tragic, after the declaration of the constitution. I was going through the streets of Constantinople, and I saw a crowd of men cheering. I went up to ask why they were cheering. I found that they were all buying buttons from a man, and the man who was selling the buttons was crying out, "All these buttons are made in England," and the crowd, because at that moment Great Britain stood absolutely first in the estimation of Turkey, was cheering and spending its money in buying up the whole of the stock-in-trade of the man. That is not the kind of thing which you would find inspiring and actuating the Mussulman to-day in Constantinople, but I believe that that spirit might be revived. The opportunity has not yet come, but there are those who believe that it will come before long.
  That brings me to one of the last points I would like to make to-night, and that is as to the war between Italy and Turkey, and I should like to repeat what other hon. Members have said, and that is that it would be a disaster and a calamity that one could hardly contemplate if this country lost its old traditional friendship with Italy. I think it is not a calamity that any of us need contemplate for a moment, but, all the same, the situation is about as serious as any situation can be. You have a war that is hateful to Europe and odious to Asia. You have a war that might inflame the Balkan Peninsula from end to end. You have a war that might indeed in Turkey cause the death of thousands of the poor Italian
  2568
  population who inhabit that country, and I think it is to be written down and said to the credit of the Turks that not an Italian has been touched since that war began. You have all those things. You have a hundred possibilities, so horrible that one can hardly think of them, and in it all you have only two things that are absolutely certain, and that is that Italy is not going to retire from the province of Tripoli, and that the Turks, however much they may want to, cannot at the present moment face the humiliation of making peace. They cannot do it for this reason, that they have to consider the feelings of the Arab population of the Yemen and of Syria, and even in Mesopotamia, and peace at present would mean half a dozen wars as far as Turkey is concerned. Still, one may ask oneself is there any method, any possibility of obtaining peace? At the present moment I think that there are very few people who would be so audacious as to say that there is. But there are a great number of people who believe it might occur, and before long. If Italy is left in possession of Tripoli and Turkey could retire with honour from the fray, then there might be a chance of bringing peace about. But bringing peace about if, as I say, Turkey could retire with honour, and to retire with honour she must have gained something from the struggle.
  What is there that she could gain? It seems to me that there is one thing which perhaps she might gain, and it is this, if Europe would consent to give to Turkey what every other civilised Power in the world has got, the right of manipulating and of readjusting her own tariff, then Turkey would not have struggled entirely in vain through this war. The position is absolutely different from that of any other Power except, I think, China—though I may be wrong as to that. She cannot alter her tariff without the consent of Europe. Of course, a certain amount—a normal 11 per cent. of her tariff—is hypothecated to certain purposes. That could not be touched. But it seems to me that, supposing that possibility arose and the Foreign Secretary would act as the champion of peace, his advocacy would surely have weight with some of the friendly Powers in Europe. It is widely believed that those Powers which are governed by other considerations are not entirely averse, perhaps for other motives, to such a policy. Finally, I would appeal, as far as possible, for a very cordial consideration of the whole Turkish question by His

  2569
  Majesty's Government. I would appeal for that cordial consideration not only from motives of generosity and chivalry, not only from motives of principle, but because His Majesty King George V. rules over millions of Mussulman subjects whose spiritual allegiance turns towards the Sultan of Turkey. The cordiality of our relations with Turkey must always be a matter of the deepest and gravest concern to these people. I thank the House very much indeed for the kindly indulgence it has given to the very maiden effort of a new Member.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: The extremely brilliant speech to which we have just listened will, I am sure, mark the beginning of a great reputation and a great career in this House. The hon. Gentleman has, if I may say so, not only made that certain, but he has already by his speech performed a great public service in directing the attention of the House to a corner of Europe which, although not very long ago the centre of all political interest, has within recent years become somewhat obscure and forgotten. I must, however, attack the problem of Turkish affairs from a rather different angle and from a different point of view from that of the hon. Gentleman. I must begin by commenting on almost the concluding words of the speech to which we have just listened. It is quite true that His Majesty the King reigns over many millions of Mahomedan subjects, and that in that sense this country is a great Mahomedan power. But I trust that we shall never forget that which was remembered by a statesman of old, that although this is a great Mahomedan power, it is also a great Christian country—a country which both naturally and by actual treaty obligations owes certain duties to the Christian subjects of the Turkish Empire. We have had a very long silence on the subject of Turkish affairs, so far as any official publications and official declarations are concerned. I had occasion to ask the Foreign Secretary a question today with regard to certain matters, in reference to most of which he was not able to state that he had any official information, and in reference to others of which he stated that he had official information contained in Consular reports, but that he did not think it was in the public interest that those papers should be published. I do not think that that is an attitude on the part of the Foreign Office in which this House ought to acquiesce.
  It is now some years since we had any official Blue Books on the subject of South-East
  2570
  Europe. As far as I can ascertain, the last Blue Book was in April, 1908. What does that mean? It means that ever since the new Constitution was established in Turkey, ever since the Revolution in 1908, this House, and the country, have had no official information whatsoever as to how, in practice, the new regime is working out, or with regard to the reforms with which the new rulers of Turkey were very lavish at the beginning of their regime. That attitude of silence and reserve is not at all unnatural. We all, no matter to what party or to what school of thought we belong, desire that the new rulers of Turkey should have a fair field for what everybody recognises was a very difficult task indeed. One desires to give every credit for the very real advance which has been made in the way of greater public order, and in certain other directions over a great part of the Empire. But I think we can push this complacency much too far. I do not think that actions which would have brought down universal condemnation had they occurred during the time of the late Sultan Abdul Hamid, can be allowed to pass in a conspiracy of silence, because the persons responsible happen to call themselves the Liberal or Progressive party. There are many signs that all is not well in European Turkey. The reason why all is not well must be very clear. With all their virtues—and undoubtedly the Young Turkish regime has had many virtues—there is one thing which must have struck people from the beginning as being an essential vice in the mind of the new rulers: I mean, a certain sectarianism narrowly understood. It is quite true that at the beginning of things the Turks on the Committee of Union and Progress had for their colleagues a number, I do not know that they were very many, but at any rate a certain number, of non-Mussulmans, and no doubt the influence of these non-Mussulmans counted for something in the earlier months. One is dependent upon private reports and statements in the Press, because we have no other sources of information, but if those reports are true these elements have now almost entirely disappeared. The policy of those who are dominating Turkey appears to be to suppress, as far as lies in their power, all those evidences of special nationality of separate race, and of separate religion, which are to be found in different parts of European Turkey.
  It seems to me that that is a policy with which His Majesty's Government ought not to sympathise, both on humanitarian

  2571
  grounds and upon national grounds; and I think also on grounds of public policy, because it is a policy which is bound sooner or later to bring about a great catastrophe. See what has happened in Albania. I would suggest to my colleagues that there is a special reason why we should take an interest in the people of Albania. I have it on very high authority that the Albanians have a certain resemblance to the Irish. I have heard the story that when the late Sir Nicholas O'Connor, who was then British Ambassador in Constantinople was about to go on leave, he had an audience with His Majesty the late Sultan, who asked him if he was going to Ireland during the holidays. Sir Nicholas O'Connor replied, "No, Sir; I do not think so. The fact of the matter is, there has been a great deal of trouble in Ireland lately; there has been a lot of cattle-driving." The Sultan asked what cattle-driving might be, and when Sir Nicholas had explained, the Sultan said, "Ah, as I understand, it really amounts to this. It is a question of cattle or men. I préfer men. I have never been able to understand why the English Government could not get on with their Irish subjects, because they seem to be exactly like my Albanian people. I would not quarrel with my Albanians for anything." In that matter the late Sultan seems to me to have been a wiser man than the present rulers of Turkey, because they have certainly driven a great part of that population, which was one of the strongest pillars of the Sultan's power, into actual revolt in some districts, and into a certain sullen mutiny everywhere else. They have done that, I understand, in pursuance of the same motive of policy to which I have referred, that impatience of special privileges and of special nationalities which has been, I think, the vice of the whole Young Turkish regime. It will be said that they have come forward as a civilising agency, and that the Albanians are a difficult people. I have no doubt they are. I have already said that they are very like the Irish. We are told that they wish to build roads and schools. That sounds very plausible indeed. The question is, for what purpose are the roads and schools intended? If the roads were intended to bring about the complete obliteration, as far as it is possible, of the Albanians as a people, and if it were intended to use the schools in order to suppress the Albanian language, I do not
  2572
  know that it is a policy which, however specious it may be, should engage the sympathy of this House. We in Ireland know a policy with regard to schools that is not very different from that, and we can well understand why it is that such unrest should have come about in Albania.
  Then take the case of Macedonia. You have very nearly the same state of affairs. Unfortunately, here, as in Albania, since the withdrawal of the foreign gendarmerie officers, and in the absence of the publication of any Consular reports, we are dependent—it is frankly admitted that it is not our fault—upon private information and upon statements made in the Press. Fortunately, we have very full and interesting information sent us by the foreign correspondents of "The Times" newspaper, and from those reports one can gather that there exists a state of things which is very serious indeed and exceedingly perilous to the peace of Europe. Let us see what it is. At the time of the granting of a Constitution there was an almost complete cessation of the activities of the Bulgarian and other bands operating in Macedonia. The leaders of these bands co-operated to a very large extent with the Young Turkish party in establishing the revolutionary Government, and for a very considerable period Macedonia remained quiet. What happened next? In the first place, unless my information is entirely wrong—I have had it from Constantinople—whilst the elections were going on the Young Turkish party showed themselves in the matter of electoral manipulation not nearly such children as the hon. Member who spoke last would have led us to believe. I understand that they showed themselves extraordinary adepts in the way of manipulating constituencies and electoral returns. The consequence was that although the Constitution gave to the non-Mussulmans subject to the Porte equal privileges, in practice, as I believe in the case in certain American negro states, it was exceedingly difficult for the Christian population to make any effective use of the political rights which were supposed to be bestowed upon them. Partly for that reason, and in view of the general disappointment, you have undoubtedly had things going from bad to worse until the present year—at least, that is what appears from the reports we have had—you have had a great revival of the activity of the bands. You have had a new, or at all events I believe, comparatively new, organisation by—I do not like to say the Government—but certainly

  2573
  by people in authority, of Turkish bands acting against the Bulgarians and hill risings.
  You have had a search, or a pretended search, for arms, carried out in many villages. I gave some instances at Question Time on information supplied to me. These searches have been carried out in many instances with horrors, tortures, floggings, murder, and bastinadoing of a character certainly not less terrible than anything which can be set down to the discredit of the old regime. You have taxation considerably increased, unless I am much mistaken, in order to maintain much greater armed forces, and you have had, as a result of all this, what perhaps is the most extraordinary thing of all, for the first time, the union of Greeks and Bulgarians in common defence against a Government which is being held up by Europe, and which I am bound to say is regarded as a Government of reform. These things, taken together, I think the House must recognise, constitute a very serious state of affairs indeed. What is to be done? I quite agree that in the present state of Europe it would be futile to call for European intervention. I do not suppose that anybody would dream of anything of the kind. But surely this state of things does call for a ceaseless vigilance on the part of the British Foreign Office. If there is any fault to be found with the Foreign Office it is not to be found in this, that it has been too unfriendly and too uncritical of the present ruler of Turkey! I think, however, while we wish the Turks well on the whole, we can carry complacency of that sort a great deal too far.
  The Foreign Secretary has told us that while it is for the Foreign Office to exercise vigilance, that we in this House and in the country have no right to have placed in our hands the official information which is in the hands of His Majesty's Government. I know the Foreign Secretary has said, and will probably say again, that it is not in the public interest that this should be done. Of course, that is a plea which is very difficult to resist, but I am bound for my own part to say that I think that that policy of secrecy with regard to affairs of this sort can be, and is being, carried a great deal too far. We have an absolute right no longer to be dependent either upon private information or statements in the Press. We have a right to be informed officially of the true state of affairs in regard to matters which may, and do, involve things of enormous importance to us, which may easily involve,
  2574
  according as they are determined one way or another, peace or war—it may be a great European war! On the other hand—and this ought never to be forgotten—we have got very solemn treaty obligations. These are no mere formal timings, but are obligations in return for which this country has beforehand received certain very valuable concessions and privileges. Therefore I do press upon the Foreign Office that they ought to take the House into their confidence, and particularly that they ought to publish the Consular reports regarding both Macedonia and Albania which at present are withheld, and which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted he has got. We have a right to have these documents in order that we may really—otherwise I quite agree we cannot—be able to form a sound judgment on matters which are of such enormous importance to us, whether taken from the point of view of British material interests, or from the higher and broader standpoint of the general interests and the rights of humanity.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: Before turning to foreign affairs, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for South Somerset (Mr. Aubrey Herbert) will not consider it impertinent on the part of an old schoolfellow to congratulate him on the interesting speech which he has delivered this afternoon. I think he and I both made our maiden speeches at the Oxford Union the same day, and I can say for myself that it is a great pleasure to see him here in this perhaps rather nobler assembly. I feel sure what I say will be re-echoed by all those who heard him speak this afternoon. This is the first time on which I have ventured to intrude in a Debate upon foreign affairs. I do so on this occasion because I have a certain personal acquaintance with one area which has been under discussion. That area is Persia. I shall confine myself entirely to that particular subject. It was my fortune in 1903, by the courtesy of Lord Curzon, to pay a visit to the Persian Gulf. Afterwards I journeyed through Persia. I trust no one will imagine for this reason that I shall claim any authority to dispute with those who, though they have not been in Persia, have very possibly made a greater study of conditions there than I have been able to do. I know the value of a personal visit is very often held too high, and a good many persons, when they visit a certain foreign country, consider themselves able to correct the men on the

  2575
  spot or to argue with those who have made a very much wider study of the matter than they themselves have done.
  I do not wish, and I hope the House will not in any way say I have attempted, to place myself in this category. But I think there is a value in personal acquaintance with foreign lands, for when discussion comes on one is able to see more vividly the events which happen there, to absorb more easily the news which appears in the Press, to retain more tenaciously the facts that have happened in the past, and generally perhaps one may be able to see at once in detail, and with a proper perspective the events which happen. I enter into this Debate with something of mingled feelings. Anyone who has visited Russia as I have, and made the acquaintance of the Russian people, must have conceived a great affection for that people. Another thing: it must be realised that the Russian people themselves, whatever their Government may do, have nothing but affection for the people of this country. They may perhaps occasionally distrust our policy, but they do not distrust our people. I visited Russia at a time when the relations between Britain and Russia might be said to be somewhat strained. I refer to the period of the Russia-Japanese war. I found even then that an Englishman was received everywhere with courtesy, kindness, and even affection. It is not easy perhaps to have any malevolent feelings for people who have entertained you when you have been amongst them.
  But the Persian question is of vital interest to ourselves and Persia, and no affection for a country, or a people such as I have described, should ever cloud the reason when a point so vital is involved. This question of Persia is one that is vital to Persia, in the first place because I think it is clearly obvious that the very existence of Persia as a nation is concerned in it. With the question of Persia as a nation are also concerned, I think, our sympathies and honour; our sympathies because we have always had a sympathy for those who like ourselves have a considerable spirit of nationality. I think it would ill become our Foreign Office, certainly a Liberal Foreign Office, to do anything to stifle or overthrow the spirit of nationality in a nation such as Persia. The history of our own nation, the history, and especially perhaps the policy of my own party would strongly urge us not to take that course.
  2576
  I believe the hon. Member who has just sat down would say, at all events, that we desire to see the principle of nationality developed most fully; and the Prime Minister only last night speaking to a gathering of my fellow countrymen, dilated on the advantages to be derived from a strong spirit of nationality. In this connection, perhaps, I might be forgiven for saying that I feel it is a little unfortunate that during recent years circumstances may have given the impression that in some cases, although we ourselves have done nothing to infringe on the spirit of another nation's nationality, we have been too ready in the matter of holding the clothes, while some big nation has pummelled some little State until they did not possess the same spirit of nationality as they possessed before. In this case of Persia I venture to say our honour is concerned in maintaining the integrity and independence of Persia as a nation. In a Supplementary Declaration which was given by the British Minister at Teheran in September, 1907, the following words occurred:—
  "The object of the two Powers—Russia and England—in making tills Agreement"—
  that is the Anglo-Russian Agreement—
  "is not in any way to attack, but rather to assure for ever the independence of Persia. Not only do they not wish to have at hand any excuse for intervention, but their object in these friendly negotiations was not to allow one another to intervene on the pretext of safeguarding their own interests."
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Where is that from?
  Mr. MORRELL: I shall be very happy to produce the original document in Persian for anyone who wants to see it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: This is a declaration which binds us and binds our honour. Not only is it for the sake of Persia that we should regard jealously the independence of that country, but, in my opinion, it is also to our interest to do so. It is almost vital to our interests to see to it that Persia retains a very vigorous independence. In the first place let us think what must happen if Persia does not retain her independence. There are only two courses: absorption or partition. If Persia is absorbed by Russia entirely—which I think is a proposition inconceivable to an English Foreign Office—or if, sooner or later, there comes about the partition of Persia between Russia and England, sooner or later that means an English land frontier co-terminus with a Russia land frontier. Anyone who has

  2577
  thought of a land frontier in time of war at such a distance co-terminus with the land frontier of one of the great European Powers, must think that it would be a grave mistake. In the second place it would not only affect the actual frontier of the territory. It would affect something which I may describe as sentiment, but which I think plays a powerful part in our future and prospects. The infringement of Persian nationality would be most keenly felt by the great Mahomedan people throughout the world. Our Mahomedan subjects all over the world—in fact, I may say almost all our native subjects all over the world—are looking with very great interest indeed to the experiment which is being tried in Persia of constitutional government; and whatever our views about constitutional government as applied to native races may be, I think we must admit that any stifling or interfering with the experiment would have a very ill effect upon the affection entertained for us by natives throughout our Empire.
  There is another element in this question. Nobody can deny that if there was to be any partition of Persia, Germany would not stand by without protest of some kind. Indeed, I think, if anything were done, or if any steps were taken to infringe the independence of Persia to advance our interests or Russian interests, Germany would consider herself involved, and I cannot see what the ultimate consequences would be to European politics.
  The question that conies forward now is what is to be done in this rather intricate and difficult position. We are confronted at once with one difficulty. The situation we are discussing is not only delicate, but is at the present moment very obscure. Indeed, in my opinion, the object of this Debate will be very largely to elicit information as to the actual position in Persia and the position we have taken up with regard to the relationship between Persia and Russia. There is another purpose that will be served, and that is a very definite purpose, and it is to ask His Majesty's Government to stand firm by two principles: first, the principle of the independence and integrity of Persia; and, secondly, the principle that constitutional government in Persia shall be given a fair chance. The institution of constitutional government in Persia is, no doubt, an exceedingly difficult task; and it is not our business to make it more difficult. On the other hand, I think it is our business to see that every opportunity and support
  2578
  is given to the Persians to bring their experiment to a successful conclusion. Coming again to the same document to which I referred before, we indicated, as one of the parties to the Anglo-Russian Agreement, that:—
  "Neither of the two Powers seeks anything from Persia, so that Persia can concentrate all her energies on the settlement of her internal affairs. This Convention between the two European Powers winch have the greatest interests in Persia, based as it is on guarantees of her independence and integrity, can only serve to further and promote Persian interests, for henceforth Persia, aided and assisted by these two powerful neighbouring States, can employ all her powers to internal reform."
  I think that is a fair statement if it is kept, and I trust it will be kept. It is no doubt a difficult operation to introduce constitutional government into a land like Persia, and no one who has not been there can realise how difficult it is. Many people have asked me, not knowing the condition of Persia, what railways there are there to-day. They do not realise the circumstances of Persia or the difficulties you would have in introducing such a thing as constitutional government. Those who have been there can, I think, realise the difficulties. They have seen the corruption and the lawlessness and what I might almost describe as the savagery of the nation. When I went there I found the Shah never had been in the south; the taxes were all farmed and corruption was rampant and open. The police force was nothing more or less than a body of licensed robbers. You had to pay the police or let them rob you in order to avoid being robbed by anybody else. The offences and the penalties were alike barbarous. You might see hands and ears cut off, or men blown from cannons, and such penalties exist to-day. All this shows what an extremely difficult matter it is to hasten the steps of Persia towards constitutional government. You cannot expect Rome to be built in a day. It is impossible. But it is most necessary that we should encourage the development of constitutional government. One of the advantages would be that henceforth Russia, for instance, would' have to deal not with the Shah, but with the people. It was very much easier to deal with the Shah than with the people in such a way as Russia perhaps would like to deal.
  If you have a steady and vigorous constitutional element in any nation it is not so easy to bribe and corrupt and mislead it in such circumstances. It is easier to corrupt one man than many men, and you may be sure among the constitutional

  2579
  element you will find some who will stand up for their own nation. Therefore from that point of view it is important that Persia should develop a constitutional system of government. As I have said, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 declared that one of the objects of that Convention was to press forward constitutional government. I was one who did not altogether agree with that Convention itself. In the first place, I never could see any great argument in favour of spheres of influence in Persia. I would prefer to see Persia independent without any spheres of influence. I think we receded perhaps rather too far from the line indicated by Sir Mortimer Durand as the line of British and Russian influence, and that we receded from that line with some sacrifice to commercial and strategic conditions. But as the Convention when made declared that one of its objects for which it was made was to help the independence and constitutional development of the position in Persia, let us then see that the Convention is strictly and properly observed. I really believe there is a fear in this country lest while the letter of the Convention may be observed, the spirit of it may be infringed, and I do not think it can be better described than it was described by Lord Curzon in a dispatch in 1899. He said then:—
  "Within the limits of a nominally still existing integrity and independence so many encroachments are possible that, by almost imperceptible degrees, they pass into the realm of constitutional fiction, where they may continue to provide an excuse for the speculations of the jurist long after they have been contemptuously ignored by statesmen."
  I think that describes somewhat accurately the feeling that is abroad in this country with regard to Persia, and I think it is that feeling which has provoked this Debate upon Persia, and aroused feeling amongst Members of this House. I think those taking part in this Debate are not moved in any way by animosity towards the Government or their policy. I think most sincerely that the Government's desire and policy are the same as the desire and policy of Members of this House, and I think, in conclusion, we may hope we shall not encumber, but rather strengthen, the hands of the Government by showing that there is a real feeling and demand that the independence and integrity of Persia should be fully and strictly maintained.
  Mr. BAIRD: When listening to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir Henry Norman) and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Morrell), I
  2580
  could not help asking myself the question whether the present international situation is not sufficiently difficult already without being further complicated, and whether the interesting proposal put forward by the hon. Member (Sir Henry Norman)) could possibly fail to increase the difficulties which are already sufficiently great for any Foreign Secretary. These two speeches seem to be devoted mainly to showing what a magnificent country Germany was, and what splendid people the Germans are. It is rather a pity the Germans do not reciprocate that sentiment towards ourselves. Nothing is more interesting than to compare the two speeches made by the two hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred and the speeches delivered only the other day in the Reichstag. I do not think it is desirable to dwell upon that, especially as I am one who does not wish to accentuate the not very cordial relations subsisting at present. There is this, perhaps, to be said in that regard. A General Election is pending, and at such moments advanced views are advocated by people of more or less responsibility. We saw the Lord Advocate on a number of occasions in this country advocating advanced views, and I think we can discount nine-tenths of what is said about the English people in Germany by attributing it largely to the exigencies of the local situation. That does not alter the fact that if a man loses his temper and says very disagreeable things about you you ought not to endeavour to deal with him until he has recovered his temper and come back to a sane state of mind again. This is not the moment to deal with such speeches. Later on these gentlemen will come to their senses, and then it will be a good day for us and them. If there is to be an understanding with Germany arranged upon conditions such as were adumbrated by the hon. Member (Sir Henry Norman) so that we were to tie ourselves with regard to any policy we may choose to carry out within the British Empire such an understanding would not be acceptable to this country.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I am not really aware, of any circumstance in which I suggested our policy should tie our hands.
  Mr. BAIRD: The portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I am dealing was that in which he said that preferential treatment demanded by our Colonies would be something which would induce the Germans to draw the sword. I take it we are entitled to give preferential

  2581
  treatment to our Colonies whether Germany liked it or not, and if an understanding with Germany could only be arrived at by asking Germany's leave as to the relations which we intend to have with our Colonies then I am not for an understanding with Germany.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I never suggested that.
  Mr. BAIRD: I think the hon. Member certainly did say that preferential tariffs with our Colonies might produce relations which might lead Germany to go elsewhere.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I never suggested that our policy should be tied in any way. I only expressed my own opinion that a system of preferential tariffs throughout the Empire would probably be more likely to affect Germany in a certain way than anything else.
  Mr. BAIRD: I do not think there is any difference between my representation of the hon. Gentleman's statement and what he now says. I should not like it to be supposed that I am not anxious that our relations with Germany should be improved, but I think it is time that Germany made a shift in that direction, and that when Germany shows any inclination to reciprocate it will be time enough to discuss an understanding with her. At the present time she does not appear to be in the frame of mind to discuss any question at all, and perhaps she will be better when she has got the General Election over. We have heard to-night a lot about Germany and very little about France or Russia. For good or for evil we have thrown in our lot with France and Russia. It is obvious that we cannot take up an isolated position, and we must have an understanding with one of the group of Powers which hold the balance of power. We cannot stand outside one or the other, and our action cannot be independent of the action of the other Powers. You cannot get away from that fact. Of course, it is perfectly impossible that we should have at our disposal the information which the Foreign Secretary has got, a good deal of which he is bound to keep confidential, and without that information we cannot form a correct view of our relations with foreign countries. Not only is it impossible for us to form a sufficiently accurate view of the relations between our own and foreign countries, but we know nothing about the relations between foreign countries themselves, and therefore
  2582
  our action and policy is bound to depend on our relations between different foreign countries just as much as upon the relations between foreign countries themselves.
  While sympathising with the desire of hon. Members to possess more information I do not see how, with safety to the State, it is possible to give the information which they desire. When one has heard the speeches made with regard to foreign affairs dealing with some particular part of the world, one has had the feeling that it is something like a man trying to mend a watch with a pickaxe. Why it is claimed that more information should be given to hon. Members of this House I cannot understand. Reference was made in the last Debate to the Committee system which exists in France, and I think it was referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester. The functions of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Chamber of Deputies are, as far as I know, confined to finance, and I do not see how, in the sense desired by hon. Members, we could have more information in some form or other. We cannot have any more information than the Foreign Secretary in his discretion feels it possible to give in the interests of the country, and to that extent I cannot associate myself with the desire of hon. Members who spoke in the last Debate, expressing the hope that some means would be found for setting up a Committee to deal with foreign affairs. But why should a Committee of this House be privileged over other Members in the matter of foreign affairs? I do not think this House will be prepared to hand over any responsibility of that kind or allow any Committee to see confidential documents which the rest of the House would not have access to.
  With regard to the interesting question at present before us, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can give us a certain amount of information on one or two points. I realise how unwise it is to touch upon the subject of Persia where events are occurring about which naturally we cannot have full knowledge, but which cannot possibly fail to affect very largely important British interests in Northern Persia. Whether our arrangement with the Russian Government is a good or a bad one, this is not the moment to discuss it. It is an arrangement we entered into, and one under which we have to act, although undoubtedly we gain by having an agreement of some sort. I know the view is widely held that we might have made a better bargain, but we have got

  2583
  this bargain with Russia with regard to Persia. Events have occurred in Persia, in that particular sphere where we agreed to leave Russia a free hand, and what concerns us seems to me to be that we have large interests in Northern Persia, and our action must be such as to ensure that those interests will be safeguarded. The interests of Persia are exceedingly important, but I have often wondered what action hon. Members think the British Government or the Russian Government could take with a view to securing the integrity and independence of a country which is obviously tumbling to pieces. What do hon. Members expect the Government to do? Do they expect us to fight Russia for the purpose of leaving Persia to stew in its own juice? Do they expect the British Government to take a hand in the occupation of Persia? It is a very easy thing to make patriotic and sentimental speeches about this unfortunate country, but it is desirable that some practical and concrete suggestion should be made with regard to the action which might be taken in this matter, otherwise you do nothing except irritate the Persians and the Russians, and you do no good to ourselves or anybody else. Talk of that kind on this subject, does not advance matters one inch. No doubt the Foreign Secretary will find it convenient to give us a statement in regard to Persia, and perhaps he will let us know what has happened.
  The outstanding features seem to be this. The Russians have given us to understand that they have no intention of a permanent occupation of Persia, and it would be perfectly unjustifiable and utterly wrong for us to doubt the word of a nation with whom we have a treaty, and, therefore, it is useless to pursue that topic any further. Perhaps, as a non-official Member, whose words have no importance outside this country, it may be fair to say that common sense would seem to indicate that that would be the line of action Russia would take. Russia, like ourselves, has got as much territory as she desires. She has got a vast connection of subject races of different religions, and she has no desire to add to them or to add to the number of square miles of territory over which she rules. We have not only this assurance from Russia, but common sense would indicate that the policy of a temporary occupation of Persia by Russian troops is one which is likely to be the policy which common sense would dictate
  2584
  to Russia. There is another question in connection with this Persian affair, and that is the question of the Baghdad Railway, about which we have heard nothing since the month of March. At that time an agreement had been completed by the Baghdad Railway Company with the Turkish Government in accordance with which, if I remember rightly, the company gave up its right to any concession for the construction of that part of the line which connects the Persian Gulf with Baghdad, and in return we received a concession to make a line from Alexandretta to the main line, and the concession for the construction of the line from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf was to be given to a new company to be formed. Our interests lie in the southern part of the railway, not only in the main branch, but, also, we have a very important interest over that part of the line which will run from Sadijeh to Khanikin. In view of the fact that Russia is now taking this very prominent part in the affairs of Northern Persia and the necessity of safeguarding to the full our commercial interests with Northern Persia, and the fact that our trade up to Sadijeh into Russia by Kermanshah is ten times larger than the trade of any other country, I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us some news with regard to the progress of negotiations respecting the Baghdad Railway.
  With regard to the Sadijeh to Khanikin section from Baghdad to the Gulf, I wish to ask a question. I should not like to leave any doubt in the minds of hon. Members whose speeches I have criticised with regard to the reasons for differing with them in regard to the attitude which they have adopted towards Germany. We cannot have it both ways. We have to stick to our friends, and nothing is more remarkable than the speech of the hon. Member for Durham when he said that the territorial aspirations or the territorial position of France in Morocco was no concern of ours. Common sense and common honesty would require us to tell the French that we would see them through the difficulty to the utmost of our power. I do not see how you can treat foreign affairs honourably any different to the manner in which you would treat a matter of honour that applies to private affairs, and unless that view was adopted we fall into the position into which we fell in the '90's, with which hon. Members are familiar. The idea seems to be that, instead of sticking to a bargain, we should be prepared to give up that bargain the

  2585
  moment it becomes inconvenient. Under the late Foreign Secretary and the present Foreign Secretary that is a policy which has not been pursued, and that is greatly to the credit and honour of this country. I hope that whatever friendship may be formed—and indeed it is desirable that we should have many—they will not be formed at the cost and expense of the friends we already possess.
  Baron de FOREST: I find myself in the same position as the hon. Member for South Somerset, inasmuch as I am making my maiden speech in this House. Therefore I should like to ask the indulgence of the House if I treat the very serious matter with which we are concerned in a, manner perhaps slightly different from the line which has been adopted by previous speakers. If I do so, I can assure the House that it is only because I firmly believe that as long as these questions of national or international interests are misunderstood, as they are in a great many cases, so long will war between nations be very difficult to prevent. It is perfectly obvious, from the speech which we heard three weeks ago from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that this country and Europe were brought, in the course of last summer, on the verge of a war, or, if not on verge of a war actually, at least on the verge of a very strained diplomatic situation which might very easily have led to war, and they were brought to that stage by a struggle between the Governments of France and Germany for political predominance in Morocco. It is perfectly plain—I think the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes), who spoke on the occasion of the first Debate on Foreign Affairs, said the same thing from the opposite benches—that at any moment last summer this country might have found itself drifting into war for a purpose and for a cause which not many people in a thousand would have understood, though thousands, and even millions, of people would have been mobilised to slaughter each other in this and other countries. It seems to me no attempt had been made, either in this country or, as a matter of fact, in other countries, to make it clear what the interests were they were called upon to defend.
  There was one sentence in the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs opened the Debate which I think has not received as much attention as it deserves,
  2586
  either from himself or from hon. Members who have followed since. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman said that a few years hence he thought the estimated balance of gains and losses to France and Germany, as a result of these negotiations, would appear in the minds of diplomatists as a matter of very small importance. I go further, and I think I can say that even to-day, in the minds of a great many people, not only in France and in Germany, but in this country as well, this balance of gains and losses appears to be a matter of considerably small importance. I do not think we quite realise how different is the standard of value of the diplomatic world and that of the great mass of the people. I do not wish to say anything against any particular diplomatist, but I am simply giving an opinion on the matter in general. By habit and by tradition the diplomatist is accustomed to look upon himself as perpetually engaged in a species of contest with the diplomatists of other nations, and it is essentially, if I may call it so, as a game of skill in many cases, that these matters are regarded by some of the persons who are engaged in them. They look to the immediate issue and the next move in the game, and that issue assumes in their minds an importance derived, not from the principles involved in the issue, but from the mere fact that it is an issue. Success in the game becomes an all important matter, and unfortunately, when the game fails as often it does fail, and each side has stale-mated the other side and matters have come to a deadlock between the two countries, well then the financial resources and unfortunately the lives of the people are called upon to achieve a success which the diplomatic methods have failed to secure. Every Member who is in touch with his constituency must realise—I think I may say Members on both sides realise it, concluding from the friendly speech towards Germany which the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) delivered—the growing impatience with which the people at large are beginning to regard this state of things. The democracies are protesting against being made the pawn of the diplomatists, and I think they will soon demand, if they are to continue to run the danger of disastrous wars and to bear the burden of equally disastrous armed peace, that they shall do so only for the sake of some real advantage. They are beginning, I think in all countries, to question if these

  2587
  matters upon which the contests of the Chancellories of Europe are waged have really the importance which is ascribed to them. They are asking whether victory in these contests profits the nation at all, whether a defeat is in fact an actual loss, and if it all be not for profit but for the mere love of contest whether the game is worth the candle at all.
  Take the case of France and Germany in these Morocco negotiations. The result is that France has acquired that political dominance in Morocco which she desired, and Germany has received in compensation certain districts in Central Africa called the French Congo. These are the gains and the losses which in the language of diplomacy are supposed evenly to balance one another. But the question I find uppermost in the minds of my constituents, and which I find uppermost in the minds of a great many persons of every class of the community to whom I spoke last autumn on the Continent, is not whether these gains and losses balance each other, but whether they are in any true sense gains or losses at all. What is the benefit, I have been asked, that the French people are going to receive from the political predominance of France in Morocco, and what is the benefit which the German people at large are going to receive from the extension of German control to the Congo? I admit that the political control of France in Morocco will strengthen and consolidate the military power of France in Northern Africa. It will certainly give France important strategic points of advantage, and it will prevent Germany from occupying those same points. It will, in a word, certainly increase the military strength of the French Republic. But that seems scarcely a gain in itself. We do not to-day regard military strength as worth possessing merely for its own sake, and that a nation should use its military strength merely to gain further military strength, and so on indefinitely, and for no other reason, seems to me a very absurd proposition. If military power can only serve to acquire more military power, it is useless, and not worth exercising. If it has any value at all it must be as a means to an end.
  And so, to explain the only conceivable causes which can drive nations to war against one another, we have to turn to those great economic advantages of which we hear so much, and to those economic interests which the people of all countries
  2588
  are supposed to obtain when their Government extends the area of its territory. There is a vague idea in the minds of many men—and I dare say in the minds of many hon. Members of this Houses—that the acquisition of fresh territory by the State is in itself an addition to the wealth of the citizens of that nation. We say that the French own Algiers, and that Germany, for instance, owns the Cameroons; but, under a system of private property, the great mass of the French people or of the German people have no share or property in those territories. Either the ownership of land and property in those countries remains in the hands of those who possessed it before the political change took place or the new conditions are utilised to secure the transference of property into the hands of other individuals or of groups of individuals. There is no doubt, for instance, that in the case of Morocco concessions will be granted to French syndicates, and that in the case of the Congo, which has passed now under German control, concessions will be granted in the main in the future to German firms; but these syndicates and these firms are in no way the whole or any appreciable portion of the French and of the German people. It is on the face of it preposterous that the prosperity of a whole nation should be imperilled for the sake of a few concessionaires. It is preposterous, and it would be perfectly impossible in any country were it not for the belief which is assiduously circulated and generally accepted, that in some strange manner the interests of a French firm or syndicate are inextricably interwoven with the interests of the whole of the French people, or that a gain to a French concessionaire in some fashion involves a gain to the whole of the French nation.
  What are the facts? The nationality of the members of these firms or of these concessionaires may be French or German, but the capital invested in the concessions is entirely international. Their capital is invested not in France or Germany particularly, but in the industries of the world. Not only that, but these concessionaires are financed in nearly every case by banks, and these banks, whether they be French or German in name, are, by virtue of their daily operations, of an absolutely international and cosmopolitan character. If these concessions become companies their shares can be purchased by any individual of any nationality, and he becomes a part owner of the concession. Does any

  2589
  hon. Member think that if I desired to interest myself in any one of these concessions and to advance the necessary capital my participation would be rejected because I am neither a Frenchman nor a German? Of course it would not, and if it were so, if the French or the German Government had made a provision that no one, except a Frenchman or a German, should become a partner I could, through the good offices of a French or German bank, secure participation in the scheme. Any hon. Member could do that. In short these concessionaires do not as is generally believed belong to any particular nationality. They are entirely international and cosmopolitan; they are concerned with the whole world. In no way does their gain particularly affect the citizens of any one country.
  It is said that the object of foreign Governments in seeking to annex fresh territory is not only to enable their country to acquire these concessions, but that it is also because they desire to extend their trade and to extend the area over which their citizens may have the power to buy and sell freely. If that is so, if these Governments really believe that the interests of their fellow citizens would be forwarded, as indeed they would be forwarded, by an extension of the area over which they will be free to buy and sell why do they not abolish their tariff and thereby permit their country to exchange goods freely, not only over a limited area, but over the whole world? They could easily do it. Why do they not? It is, I am afraid, the case of the concession over again. They are not merely seeking the interests of their people, because if they were they would be seeking a universal extension of trade; they are only seeking to acquire a few more privileges for some favoured individuals. These privileges can only be maintained in a very limited area by a sort of monopoly which can be secured through the agency of a Government which can be influenced by those interests. I think the secret of the whole matter is this international desire to extend territory at the expense of other nations. In every country the machinery of the State, the naval and military powers of the State, are employed to secure privileges which are beneficial only to a few, and which in the majority of cases are actually harmful to most of the people, and have to be maintained, first by their money, and then by their lives in the last resort. Everywhere, if you erect privileges, you necessarily create a cause of strife. The interests of the
  2590
  privileged citizens of one nation clash with the interests of the privileged citizens of another. At once there is an appeal to national prejudice. Each nation is persuaded that its national interests are in danger, and the masses of the people of the two nations, who have really no interest in the quarrel, are hurled at each other's throats for the sake of men they have less in common with than they have with one another, and who only try to exploit them in war as in many cases they exploit them in peace.
  A great many people in the constituencies outside and in Europe generally are beginning to realise that this is so. They are beginning to see that these international differences are not between nation and nation, but are between individuals who are only using the nations for their own ends. Certainly outside in the constituencies more people are beginning to realise this than many hon. Members think. In the course of a journey on the Continent recently I found, amongst all classes with whom I spoke, the same unanswerable why? I can assure hon. Members I have myself witnessed in Austria popular rioting caused by the severity of the tariff. I saw in Vienna crowds, including women and children, trampled upon by the cavalry because they were daring to protest against a policy which hon. Members opposite would like to introduce into this country. This is a hopeful sign, paradoxical as it may appear to be. It is a sign of revolt among the people against Protection all over the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Canada?"]; I have not been there recently, but I dare say, if the tariffs were as severe there as in Austria and Germany, the same popular revolt would take place.
  Before I conclude, I would direct a humble but most earnest appeal to right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench. I think it is really necessary that action should be taken in this matter. Some Government must take the first step, and of all Governments in the world is there any Government so fitted to take the first step as our own Free Trade Government? We on this side are Free Traders, and the very essence of our belief and the very foundation of our policy necessitates the realisation of the fact that there are between consumers and distributors, between producers and workers in all countries, not divergencies of interests, but an absolute community of interests. We repudiate privileges and the seekers of privileges. We adapt our fiscal

  2591
  policy to the needs of the many and not of a few. We certainly do not intend to plunge into an international quarrel. But now in our foreign policy we do plunge into the game of the concessionaires and of the privilege seekers. We talk the language and use the methods of diplomacy that is entirely foreign to our principles. We boast that our foreign policy is the same as that of the party whose political programme is based on false economic rules and opinions which are entirely opposed to our own, and we so manage our affairs that, as hon. Members know, we are considered in every country in the world to be not the friends of peace but the very reverse. But it is the very opposite. It is an absurdity and against our principles altogether. I would suggest that our course is clear, and that we do not base our foreign policy on the assumption which Protectionist Governments accept, and which we by the very force of being Free Traders should repudiate. We ought to appeal to the people themselves. If the people were taken more into the confidence of the Government they would not be willing much longer to set aside their interests for the sake of a few individuals who happen to be of the same nationality. If the cards were laid on the table I am perfectly certain that this game of international conflict would come to an end, and it is high time that it did. It is much too risky and expensive a game to play to-day. It may win a few privileges here, and it may gain a few concessions there, but it is a game at which the people stand to lose the whole time.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I think every Gentleman in the House at the present-moment may congratulate himself on having listened to the speech just delivered. It is the product of a highly gifted and richly stored mind, and, better still, it is full of human sympathy and human kindness. It is almost an impertinence on my part to offer my felicities to the hon. Member, but I think it may be taken as a strong expression from an Irishman that passages in that speech would do no discredit to the best passages of Edmund Burke. I can, in a very much humbler way, but endeavour to emphasise what the hon. Member has said by concrete instances, and by a very short statement of what must be known to everyone who is conversant with public affairs, but what
  2592
  is sometimes not quite realised. I do not like to write to the Press, or for the magazines, or to speak on the platforms strong views which I do not put forward in the House. I say in the plainest possible terms that after an experience of twenty-five years in this House, and with some little knowledge of political affairs, and some considerable study of political history, that Parliament qua Parliament might as well not exist so far as foreign affairs and foreign relations are concerned under the present system. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary will not accuse me of it, but before I proceed I must take care to say that I am in no way making a personal attack upon him. I regard him as the very best Foreign Secretary who has ever filled that position.
  But having regard to the statement recently made, what are we to say in reference to the manner in which foreign affairs under the best and most high-minded statesman of this country are conducted? The hon. Gentleman (Baron de Forest) spoke with a very natural horror at the idea that we were drifting into war last July. He might have said that we were drifting into war quite unknown to ourselves—war with all its horrible responsibilities, war which brings misery and sorrow to every household, war which gives such overwhelming anxiety to all whose friends are in it, as we have all felt in former years—and yet we were going there completely unknown to ourselves, even while Parliament was sitting. Why was not Parliament told? Why were not the people given some stake in the interests affecting themselves? Are they to be treated like children? Are they to be told, without knowledge, what is good for them or not? I say that the occurrences of the 21st July of this year were an object lesson of the futility of the Debates on foreign matters until we have the cards in our hands and until we know where we are. The Foreign Secretary, if the matter were not too serious to be amused over it, might have regarded as intellectual exercises the speeches of hon. Gentlemen on both sides who have spoken on the relations between this country and Persia, between Persia and Russia, and between Great Britain and Germany. They are in the dark; they know nothing whatever about these matters. Until what I have described as the cult of mystery is abolished in the Foreign Office really we are being led blindfold.

  2593
  Sometimes I think you English people are not so nimble as you might be. You take things too much as they are. You do not inquire whether they are right or wrong. Let me put this to you. According to theory the slightest railway or turnpike Bill may be investigated in every line and syllable by this House, but treaties involving the greatest international obligations—I care not much for them—and treaties involving precious human lives can be signed, sealed and delivered, yet the people who are responsible for them know nothing whatever about them. They are kept in leading strings by superior persons. You would not endure that for a moment in regard to some petty Bill. Why do you endure it in matters which affect your children's children from one generation to another. Let us consider how matters go. My idea is this; that there is a continuity of foreign policy and that foreign policy is deposited in the breasts of a certain distinct caste of statesmen like the Egyptian priests. I remember the late Leader of the Opposition making a strong attack on the Radical party opposite. He had something unpleasant to say about every member of the Cabinet, but he excepted the Foreign Secretary, because the Foreign Secretary was carrying out the policy of Lord Lansdowne, and because there should be no discussion on these things. They were too high and mighty altogether for the poor ordinary man. I do not think so, and I do not believe the people of England think so. I do not think the representatives of the people are just to themselves, or to their constituencies, if they do not see that at least we know, if this country is to go to war, the why and the wherefore of it, and also if this country is to sign treaties.
  I ventured at Question Time to-day to put a question as to whether there had been any other secret treaty with France. The Foreign Secretary said there was none. I ventured on a disorderly question, which Mr. Speaker, in his kindness, did not pull me up for. If it was a disorderly question it was an extremely effective one. I thought I would have a shot at the right hon. Gentleman at random. I asked him if there were other secret treaties. He said, "Yes." Why should there be any secret treaties? Why should we be kept in the dark in matters affecting the armaments of Europe or the destinies of our people? It must be realised in all its breadth and depth that we are powerless in regard to foreign policy. Lord Palmerston, one of the
  2594
  greatest Foreign Ministers of the last century, got up in the House of Commons on 11th July, 1857, and said, in relation to some Persian matter:—
  "I shall never accept it as part of the Constitution that Parliament should be consulted as to the making of peace or as to the declaration of war. That is a high prerogative."
  It is a high prerogative, exercised by the Crown, on the advice of Ministers responsible to the House of Commons. But those Ministers must tell us why they exercise it, and must give, except in cases of the greatest emergency, a succinct reason for their action. Let us consider how affairs go at the Foreign Office. Can you believe it, that the right hon. Gentleman has been Foreign Secretary for a longer period in the House of Commons than any other Foreign Secretary for over 111 years! Every one of the Foreign Secretaries, with his exception, for over half a century, has been a Member of the House of Lords. Why? I suggest that it was in order to take foreign policy out of the purview of the House of Commons. Can it be believed, that from 1853 until December, 1905, when the right hon. Gentleman became Foreign Secretary, there was not, except for an interval of four years in all that long time, a Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons! Who were the two Foreign Secretaries in the House of Commons? There was Lord John Russell, a son of a duke, who was Foreign Secretary here from 1857 to 1859, and then he went to the House of Lords and took the Foreign Secretaryship along with him. Then there was Lord Stanley, the eldest son of and heir to the Prime Minister, Lord Derby. He remained with us as Foreign Secretary from 1866 to 1868, and then he ascended upwards and took the Foreign Secretaryship along with him.
  I have never been in a Cabinet, but I have been twenty-five years in the House of Commons, and I know as well what goes on in the Cabinet as some of the Members. Let us take a Foreign Office Debate on a serious question. Twenty jaded men come in with their own Departmental labours and worries on their shoulders. The Foreign Secretary states his views, and the Prime Minister endorses them, and that is a Cabinet Council on foreign affairs. Lord Palmerston, when Foreign Secretary, ignored both the Prime Minister and the authority of the Crown, but under the late Tory regime there was no check on the Foreign Minister, because the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were one and indivisible, the great

  2595
  Lord Salisbury himself. One of my earliest recollections of Parliament was hearing Mr. Gladstone, in 1877, from that Table denouncing the fact that the whole foreign policy of the country was vested in one man. Let us consider how during that regime we regarded foreign affairs in this House. The whole scheme was to keep us from knowledge of affairs affecting us in international policy. There were consequently none of the three Under-Secretaries to Lord Salisbury who was not the son of a peer or the eldest son of a peer. We had Mr. Curzon, we had Mr. St. John Brodrick, and then we had the eldest son of the late Lord Salisbury himself. So that the father was in the House of Lords, the son was in the House of Commons, and the foreign policy was in the breasts of these two great statesmen. Then, for fear there should rise up any persons like my hon. Friends opposite, with an improper and vulgar desire for information, what was done? The three Under-Secretaries were told that so far as supplementary questions on foreign policy were concerned they were not even to have the gift of a child. They were to stand there mute. Why a telephone would have done the thing as well. In February, 1901, a Motion was made for the Adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss a question of public importance, namely, the refusal of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs—the present Lord Salisbury—to answer supplementary questions on foreign affairs. Why was all this? Because they distrusted the people, and because the concessionaires were abroad. I would not expend one drop of the blood of the humblest drummer-boy for the benefit of concessionaires.
  Let me come to the question of treaties. We have been discussing at great length the Russian Treaty of 1907. In 1907 the Russian Treaty was made three days after the House of Commons rose. Why? In order not to give us an opportunity of discussing it. The Japanese Treaty was made on 12th August, 1905. The House of Commons rose on 11th August, 1905, so that the Japanese Treaty should not be within their purview at all, but should be the product of the great Lord Lansdowne alone. Its great author retired after his prolonged mental exertion for a rest cure. Parliament was immediately prorogued. It never met again. It was dissolved. I am not preaching any new gospel—it has always been my gospel—but I am building
  2596
  on another man's foundation. I put a Motion on the Paper of the House, but it was a copy of a Motion which was debated in this House on March 19th, 1886. It was proposed by Mr. Rylands that all treaties should, before their ratification, be laid before Parliament for their assent or refusal. The Motion was debated well and thoroughly. It was lost by the narrow majority of only four votes, and amongst those who voted for it was Mr. John Bright and likewise the right hon. Gentleman the present Father of the House and the present Leader of the Irish party. Mr. Bryce, then Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, remembered the Motion well and remembered its significance, for in his great book, written in 1886, which Mr. Speaker Peel said was the most delightful treatise he had ever read, the "American Commonwealth," he speaks of the power of the American Commonwealth through their Senate—there must be for the ratification of a treaty by the Senate a majority of two-thirds of the members—with every approval, and then he recollects what occurred in 1886, and he says: "When the time comes, as it probably will, for taking into account the almost unlimited power of the executive in foreign treaties, the American example may well be the subject of reflection and meditation for us." This Japanese Treaty that we spoke about was renewed on 13th July last for ten years, but was considerably modified. It was not shown to the House of Commons until it had been ratified. The reason for its renewal was alleged to be that it was absolutely necessary to have such a modification of the Japanese Treaty in order to get the Anglo-American Alliance ratified and in order to have it on a proper and satisfactory basis. The Japanese Treaty was not shown to us, but the Anglo-American Alliance was, and we were allowed to debate it. Why? Because the same treaty had to be debated in the American Senate and it could not be kept from us by the wise and prudent men on the Treasury Bench.
  The right hon. Gentleman will say—it is a good debating point but no real point—that if a Minister was strong enough or perverse enough or wicked enough to go against the sense of the people, he could be dismissed from office, or that supplies could be stopped. As regards the dismissal from office, with the strong party discipline and the affection that we have for the right hon. Gentleman, because the personal factor is very strong, it would be quite useless to attempt it. As regards

  2597
  the stoppage of supplies, Disraeli laid it down most distinctly, first of all in 1854 at the time of the Crimean War and afterwards in 1864, when this country seemed to be on the brink of war in reference to the Schleswig-Holstein business, that the prerogative of war and the prerogative of making peace were the prerogatives of the Crown. The prerogative of the Crown was a real prerogative and the question of making treaties, of making war and declaring peace, was vested in the Crown, but after the war was over then perhaps they could discuss the conduct of a Minister. Professor Fawcett said, in December, 1878, in reference to the Afghan War, that he would have given anything to have had Parliament assembled before the war began, but that after the war commenced no matter what he thought of it, he could not, as an Englishman, vote for the stoppage of supplies which would have caused disaster to the gallant fellows fighting in the field for a cause of which they were utterly ignorant. Therefore stoppage of supplies and censure on a Ministry is all moonshine. It cannot be done and no one would do it if he could.
  This policy of secrecy in the Cabinet is bad for Cabinet Ministers themselves. An instance of it occurred in Lord Salisbury's own Cabinet. Lord Carnarvon and Lord Derby both left the Cabinet because they said they could not, as English gentlemen, participate in a secret raid. They were not allowed for long to give their revelations, but they were able to make explanations to the House, and they drew from Lord Salisbury a very discouraging comparison between them and Titus Oates in giving what he called instalment revelations. This policy of secrecy is bad for the country, it is bad for the honour of the country, and it is bad for the personality of the Foreign Secretary. What must Lord Salisbury's position have been in reference to secret treaties when on 27th May, 1878, in the House of Lords, he got up as Foreign Secretary and denied the very existence of a memorandum which he had to confess the existence of three days afterwards? Therefore, there is no use in secrecy. It is bad for the man and bad for the country. In families they pre generally on bad terms who keep secrets from each other. It is better to have a straightforward, honourable policy—good for the country and good for oneself—than all this hugger mugger policy of mystery and secrecy, so to speak, with such great and mighty issues at stake. I thank the House for hearing me. I do not know how
  2598
  far I am in these matters as a voice crying in the wilderness, but from my heart of hearts I will ask hon. Gentlemen to press in season and out of season for an open and straightforward foreign policy, and that, above all, no Treaty should be recognised without the distinct sanction of the representatives of the people, voicing their feelings and being able to stand or fall by them.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I must ask the indulgence of the House, because I have already exhausted my right of speaking in this Debate. I have been appealed to so often to give information on certain points—and it has been indeed promised to the House that some information should be given about Persia—that I hope the House will give me its indulgence while I make the statement which has been promised. I would ask the House, first of all, in discussing the Persian question, to bear in mind that there is in it much more than the Persian question. It is quite possible, if the Persian question is mismanaged or rashly handled by those who are most concerned with it, either by the Russian Government or by ourselves, that the Persian question may disappear and larger issues of policy may obscure it altogether. It is from that point of view, if the discussion is to be really useful, that the Persian question must be discussed. I do not say it is the only point of view, but a most important point of view which must not be left out of account; and if that point of view is borne in mind the Anglo-Russian Agreement will be put in a proper light. It is being used for the purpose of Debate sometimes now for purposes for which it was never intended. The Anglo-Russian Agreement was, in the first place, an expression of a change of policy. It used to be supposed that the policy of this country and the policy of Russia were opposed to each other—that we opposed the extension of Russian influence or interests everywhere, with the result that Russian and British diplomacy was in opposition everywhere, and the question was constantly recurring between the two countries as to whether their diplomatic opposition might not some day become something more serious.
  Now we want to get rid of that, and to substitute for that attitude of mind the attitude of mind that if relations of confidence and friendship were established between the two countries it would be to the mutual advantage of each of them, and

  2599
  enable them to overcome those occasions of friction between them which, neighbours as they are in Asia, were bound otherwise from time to time to arise. That is how the Anglo-Russian Agreement came into existence. It was never intended by the Anglo-Russian Agreement to destroy or diminish Russian influence in any part of Asia where it had already been obtained. The object of the Anglo-Russian Agreement was not to thrust Russia back, and, of course, not to deprive ourselves of any influence we had at the time in Asia, but to make sure that whatever influence either of us possessed in Asia should never be used to disturb the frontiers of the other country. Russian influence when the Anglo-Russian Agreement was made was already predominant in the north of Persia. The Anglo-Russian Agreement was not intended, and if it had been intended, would have been absolutely useless to destroy that influence which already existed. It was intended to secure that Russian influence in the north of Persia should not be used, as it might have been used, to push railways or concessions, or in any way to disturb our interests. In the same way we, by the Anglo-Russian Agreement, intended to guarantee to the Russian Government that we would not pursue a frontier policy in Asia which would be adverse to their frontier interests. We made a declaration of policy after the Anglo-Russian Agreement was made, the object of which was to assure Persia that it was not the intention of the Anglo-Russian Agreement to threaten Persian independence or to embark on any policy which would partition Persia.
  We made that declaration to Persia, because previously there was some reason to suppose that the prevailing feeling in Persia was that its independence and integrity depended upon playing one Power off against another. It was entirely a false idea, because the rivalry of the two Powers was the most dangerous thing for Persia, and it had the further disadvantage of being disagreeable to each other. Certainly by the Anglo-Russian agreement we did not intend to impair the integrity of Persia, and it was no part of the intention to do that, and we made that declaration to the Persian Government. But that is not the declaration which has been quoted in this House. The declaration quoted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ponsonby), seemed to me to be a quotation from something I
  2600
  have never seen. It seemed to imply that we had stated that by the Anglo-Russian Agreement we had undertaken the responsibility of protecting the independence and integrity of Persia. That is not what we said officially to the Persian Government. That will be found from the Blue Book published officially to the House. What we said was that the two Governments mutually agree and testify that they sincerely desire not only permanently to establish equal advantage to the industry and commerce of all nations, but also the pacific development of the country. The fundamental principle in view was that the independence and integrity of Persia should be absolutely respected.
  Mr. PONSONBY: The document quoted by my right hon. Friend just now was a communiqué sent by the British Minister at Teheran to the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have here a letter from the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs, giving a copy in Persian of the document, and stating that the translation in question is perfectly accurate.
  Sir E. GREY: My hon. Friend must supply me with that document. I sent specific instructions that an official communication should be made to the Persian Government, and it has been published. If my hon. Friend will supply me with a copy of the document he has quoted, I will make inquiries as to exactly what it is. I did not intend the Anglo-Russian Agreement to be any extension of our responsibility. By the Anglo-Russian Agreement we have undertaken to guarantee the independence and integrity of Persia, but it did not mean that we were substituting the Caucasus for the Indian frontier. I would not have committed myself to that enormous extension of responsibility, which, I think, would have been disastrous. The object of the agreement was not to interfere with Persian independence, and the hopes we founded upon it were that it would remove the danger to that independence by removing the rivalry between Great Britain and Russia. What has been the course of events since? The Shah's Government in Persia went from bad to worse. A state of chaos arose and there were risings against the Shah's Government. Trade was blocked in the north, and some years ago Russia sent troops to Tabriz to protect their trade interests and to protect Russian interests against disorder.
  It is admitted by anybody who followed that particular sending of Russian troops

  2601
  into Persia at that time, that they did not send them to interfere with the internal politics of Persia. As a matter of fact though that was not intended, the incidental effect of the Russian troops was that the Nationalist cause at Tabriz, which was at that moment in very sore straits, was relieved. The Russians did not send their troops to interfere in the Nationalist cause. Upon that followed a little time afterwards the deposition and expulsion of the Shah. Again, the Russians did not interfere in the internal affairs of Persia. The Shah had been, or was supposed to be, governing in their interest. They had their Russian officers at Teheran in the employment of the Persian Government, which had been the case before the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and continued since. If they had interfered or lifted a finger and used their influence at Teheran, the Shah would never have been expelled. They did not, and they let the Shah be expelled. They played perfectly fair with the Anglo-Russian Agreement in all that, and certainly, looking back to these days, when there was every incentive to interfere, I am quite convinced that, but for the agreement, there would have been much more interference than there was. The effect of the Anglo-Russian Agreement was not to stimulate interference, but to discourage and restrain it.
  Since the expulsion of the Shah matters have been exceedingly difficult, and often very unsatisfactory. Lord Morley, speaking in another place the other day, spoke of the difficulties of the Constitutional Government in Persia, and the comparative want of success that had attended it. There have been times, no doubt, when the Nationalists made things exceedingly difficult for the Persian Government—sometimes almost impossible—and more and more in recent years there has been a sort of chaos in Persia, and undoubtedly after the time the Shah was expelled there has been constant friction with Russia, which has culminated in the present crisis. I am not in a position, and I do not think it is necessary for me, to go into the merits of all the particular disputes which have arisen between the Russian and the Persian Governments. We cannot investigate all of them. So long as British interests are not concerned in them, it is almost impossible, and if it were possible I do not know that it would be wise, for us to attempt to pass an opinion upon their merits. What we are concerned with now is the present crisis in Persia, and the three demands which Russia has actually
  2602
  put forward to the Persian Government in an ultimatum, and what our own position should be in respect of them. I will take the demands one by one. The first demand of the Russian Government is that Mr. Shuster, the Financial Adviser to the Persian Government, should be withdrawn. We have said that we cannot object to that demand, and I will explain to the House why.
  A short time ago, to take only a most recent instance, I received news by telegram that Mr. Shuster had appointed three British officials in Persia as Treasury officials in important places. One was at Shiraz, one at Ispahan, and one was at Tabriz. Shiraz, of course, is outside the Russian sphere, and there could be no objection to that. Ispahan is just inside the Russian sphere, and I do not think the appointment of an official there would be acceptable to the Russian Government. But Tabriz is close to the Russian frontier, and as soon as I heard of that, and before the Russian Government had said a word about it, and for all I know before they knew of it, I telegraphed to our Minister at Teheran, and pointed out to him that this sort of thing would not do, that it was absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and that it would have been contrary to it if we ourselves had instigated those appointments. It was absolutely certain that Russia would object to the appointment of a British official at Tabriz, as we ourselves would have objected to the appointment of a Russian official in a corresponding position. I thought it would not do, and I telegraphed on 6th November to our Minister at Teheran that the appointment of Mr. Lecoffre would surely be displeasing to the Russian Government, and would cause much annoyance to the Government, who might possibly take strong measures to defend their interests. He was told that he should point out to Mr. Shuster the probable consequences if he continued to provoke Russia, and strongly advise him to conciliate the Russian Legation. He was further told that it should be made clear to him that the Russian Government could employ means for the protection of their own interests, which he would be unable to withstand. The appointment of British subjects to administrative posts in the North of Persia was certain to provoke measures by Russia to protect their own interests, and those measures we cannot deprecate consistently with the Anglo-Russian Agreement. That telegram was sent before we

  2603
  heard anything from the Russian Government at all. It produced no effect whatever. It was met by a non possumus. In face of that, however great Mr. Shuster's abilities, however good his intentions, it is impossible for us to object to the Russian demands which have been put forward concerning him. I quite admit his ability and his good intentions, but you cannot have the spirit or intention of the Anglo-Russian Agreement upset and two great nations embroiled by the action of any individual, however well-intentioned. What advice I could give to avoid this I gave at the earliest possible moment. That advice having failed, I of course have been absolutely powerless to support Mr. Shuster's action. Had I supported him, I should have been supporting him in the appointment of British officials in the Russian sphere, and I should, at any rate, have been breaking the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  The second Russian demand is that the Persian Government should in its appointment of foreign advisers consult the British and Russian Legations. These demands are put forward on the responsibility of the Russian Government, but to this second demand we certainly cannot object. It is represented as a great interference with the independence of Persia. Of course it is not an interference with the independence of Persia as it would be an interference with the independence of Persia if the Russian Government were saying that the appointment of Persian officials to the Persian Government must receive the consent of the British and foreign Governments. It does not touch the appointment of Persian officials; it does touch, no doubt, the appointment of foreign officials. Persia is weak and disorganised, and the very fact that she requires foreign advisers shows that her independence is not that same independence which can do without leaning on someone else. She wants foreign advisers because she is weak and disorganised, but with foreign advisers there must always come foreign influence. It happens, of course, to be Russia that is complaining of the appointment of British officials in the Russian sphere. It might have been ourselves who had to complain of the appointment of foreign subjects, of Russia or some great Power, close to the Indian frontier, or the appointment of Russian subjects, we will say, in the southern or the Gulf ports. I think it is
  2604
  absolutely essential, after what has happened, that the Persian Government, having a perfectly free hand in regard to the appointments of Persians, in the formation of their own Government, should, if they mean to apply for foreign advisers from outside, at any rate consult the British and Russian Legations beforehand to avoid the recurrence of what has lately taken place. But I do say this also, that as foreign advisers are necessary to Persia, neither the British nor the Russian Government ought to put any undue obstacles in the way of Persia obtaining foreign advice which would be efficient and capable. That, I think, follows.
  The third Russian demand is that Persia should pay an indemnity. With regard to that I have to observe that at the present moment Persia cannot pay anything, and I do not suppose for a moment that the Russian Government is going to push for prompt payment. But if prompt payment is not pushed for, it is very undesirable that there should be a hanging obligation round the neck of Persia, which would remain like a lever which could be used at any moment. The second thing I have to remark about an indemnity is this, that if Persia is called upon to pay an indemnity to Russia at the present moment it must be adverse to British trade interests. British trade interests have suffered in the South of Persia because the roads have been disturbed and blocked. The roads have been disturbed because there is no proper force to protect them. I trust that a force will be created under the Swedish officers or others who are now in Persia, but you cannot have a force created, or, at any rate, you cannot have it maintained, without money. Persia is very short of money. She cannot at present pay a Russian indemnity or any sort of indemnity without the chances being very seriously impaired of producing order on the southern roads, which is essential to our trade. I have brought these considerations to the notice of the Russian Government. Having put forward their demands, they will insist on those demands being conceded, either in actual practice or in principle; but with regard to the indemnity I have put forward these considerations, and I think it is not impossible that this difficulty will be got over if the Russian demands are complied with in principle, and when they are assured that there is a Persian Government that will not disregard British and special interests in those parts of Persia which specially concern each of us.

  2605
  As to the future. Of course, no protest can be made until this crisis is over, and the crisis will not be over until the Russian demands have been met. When that is over what should our policy be? It must be a constructive policy with regard to Persia. The appointment of foreign advisers must be facilitated, if the Persian Government wishes for it, where they are necessary. Police and gendarmerie must be facilitated, and, of course, a loan is most important, on proper terms, to the Persian Government. When talking of the independence of Persia people must bear in mind how much the independence of Persia is hampered already by the loans she has previously made. She is not free to borrow as a country which has made no loans hitherto is free. A great many of her best securities are pledged to the Russian or British banks already, and it is absolutely necessary that she should consult the creditors she has already when she is making fresh loans, and that their interests should be safeguarded. But I do hold that it ought to be a cardinal point in the policy of the British and Russian Governments, I do not say actually to lend money themselves to Persia, but to make it easy for Persia to obtain loans. Without that there cannot be any progress.
  I have one more point. The return of the ex-Shah would undoubtedly be very prejudicial to the progress of Persia. In the first place, it would give rise to apprehensions that he would pursue a vindictive policy against those who had originally expelled him; and, in the next place, as regards ourselves, I do not think that it would be consistent with our dignity to recognise the ex-Shah if he regained the Throne just after he has disregarded the warnings given to him not to return to Persia. I will tell the House exactly how I have put this to the Russian Government. I put before them these six points. I have said:—
  "1. I recognise that the outcome of the present situation must be to secure a Persian Government that will not disregard the special interests of Great Britain and Russia respectively, and will conform to the principles of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  "2. The restoration of the ex-Shah cannot be essential to this object. It will give rise to the apprehension of vindictive measures on his part against those in Persia, who were instrumental in expelling him, and it would not be consistent with our dignity to recognise him now after his recent disregard of warnings given by both Governments not to return. I trust, therefore, the Russian Government will not add to the embarrassments of the situation by allowing his restoration to be the outcome of the present crisis.
  "3. It is most important that Mr. Shuster shall be succeeded without delay by some foreign financial adviser who is acceptable to both Great Britain and Russia.
  2606
  "4. The British and Russian Governments should, when the Russian demands have been conceded, co-operate in facilitating measures such as a loan necessary to prevent chaos and to enable the Persian Government to restore order.
  "5. The exaction of an indemnity by Russia would materially interfere with this object, and I trust the Russian Government will, after the crisis is over, find some way of avoiding this difficulty.
  "6. It is understood that military measures and the occupation of Persian territory by Russia now in progress, are provisional and not permanent and will cease when the Russian demands have been complied with and order in Northern Persia is re-established."
  I give that to the House as what we have put before the Russian Government as our view. I would like to give to the House what we may take the Russian view to be generally. I take it from what has been published semi-officially in St. Petersburg, because it agrees entirely with the communications I have had with the Russian Government, and it is the most convenient form in which to read it to the House:
  "The Russian troops which are now being concentrated at Kazvin, will not advance until after a lapse of eight days, unless extraordinary events should force the Russian Minister to order them to proceed to Teheran earlier. Russia dispatched these troops only owing to the force of circumstances and, of course, as she has frequently declared without the least intention of violating the integrity or independence of Persia. As soon as Russia's demands have been complied with, the further stay of Russian troops at Kazvin will become superfluous unless attacks should be made upon Russians, or more serious disturbances or other complications should occur. Russian policy in Persia must continue to be based on full agreement and co-operation with Great Britain on the lines and principles of the Anglo-Russian understanding of 1907. Only the maintenance of this understanding will render possible the peaceful and regular development of Persia, so important for the economic and political interests of the two neighbouring States as well as for the establishment of permanent order in Persia itself."
  With regard to the ex-Shah the Russian Government have told us:
  "The Imperial Government having repeatedly declared that military measures to which it has been forced to have recourse in Persia, have absolutely no connection with Mohammad Ali Shas' aspirations to the Persian Throne, desires to confirm that declaration in the most categorical manner. It would not on any account wish that the intention could possibly be attributed to it of imposing a Sovereign on Persia, and of acting contrary to the principle of non-intervention in the struggle between the ex-Shah and the Persian Government, a principle which it had proclaimed from the beginning. The Russian Government consequently declares that if the ex-Shah were now to take advantage of the presence in Persia of the Russian expeditionary corps to realise his designs, the Russian Government would not recognise him as Sovereign in the country without a previous arrangement with His Majesty's Government."
  8.0 P.M.
  These, at any rate, provide lines of general policy on which I trust we may be able to co-operate in future, because it is essential that the Persian Government should be put on its feet and maintained there. If that cannot be done you will have continual chaos in Persia. Chaos brings outside interference, interference

  2607
  brings, and sooner or later, very difficult political questions. If Russian frontier and commercial interests in one part and British frontier and commercial interests in another cannot be preserved by Persian authority under the Persian Government, they must either be preserved by Russia or Great Britain respectively, for themselves, or be sacrificed altogether. Either alternative would be most disagreeable and most undesirable, and apart from that we have to bear in mind that Persia is a Mahomedan country neighbouring India, and the last thing we wish to do is to pursue or to be parties to a policy in the neighbourhood of India that would be or have the appearance of being harsh and aggressive towards a Mahomedan country. That interest we have in the matter as well. The only chance, I will not say the only chance, but what is essential to the realisation of the Persian Government keeping order in Persia, and helping it to that end, is undoubtedly co-operation between Russia and England. If they fall apart, if the Persians were put into the position of playing one off against the other, it would be the most fatal thing that could happen to Persia. I think I have said enough to the House to make it clear that, if it is to be co-operation on our part, it must be co-operation on some such policy as I have put forward. We could not co-operate in any harsh or aggressive policy aimed at the destruction of Persian independence. If we co-operate it must be on a constructive policy after the present crisis is over; it must be aimed at putting the Persian house in order in such a way that order may be preserved by the Persian Government in Persia, and that the present occupation, whether by British troops or Russian, may be only temporary. It is our hope that some such policy as that will be made successful. But it is essential that the present crisis should be got over first, and that it should be recognised frankly that Persian independence and Persian Government must be one which takes due account, as the British and Russian Governments themselves take due account, of their respective interests in certain parts of Persia, and that the Persian Government should do all in its power to carry out the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, by ensuring that those interests, Russian or British, which those two countries have respectively undertaken not to
  2608
  injure themselves, should not suffer at the hands of the Persian Government either.
  I admit the situation is difficult. I do not want to conceal from the House any real difficulties there are, but I do believe that a policy such as I have indicated is the only wise policy for Persia. We have been in close communication with the Persian Government. We do not find in them any difference of view as to what the policy should be after the present crisis is over; and it shall be our object and our ceaseless endeavour to secure that both Governments shall co-operate in a policy which will really be favourable to the Persian Government. So much about Persia. I do not know that I can say much about the other subjects which have been referred to in the Debate. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir Henry Norman) introduced the Debate in a speech with the tone of which I think no one can find fault, and which showed a real desire, while upholding the British view, also to understand the views of other Powers. He appealed to me for Papers to be laid on the Moroccan question. I dealt very fully with the Moroccan question the other day. Nothing that I said has been challenged, and nothing has been contradicted. It is therefore unnecessary, as far as my statement of the other day is concerned, that I should lay Papers to support what is unchallenged. The history of what passed is there to be read by everybody who wishes to know it; it is on the Records of the House, and can be seen by everybody who wishes to read it. As to the publication of Papers, the hon. Member said that the French Government were going to have a large publication of Papers. I daresay that will be so; I do not know, but very likely it is so. Of course we must wait to see what Papers are published by the two Governments who are the principals in this matter before we publish any Papers of ours. So far as I am aware the German Government have not published Papers, but the German Foreign Secretary published a statement which, of course, is the counterpart of the speech I made the other day, and that has been before the House. Certainly, in a matter of this kind, we ought to see what Papers those who are principally concerned in the matter publish before we publish Papers which might possibly add to their difficulties, however interesting they might be to the House.
  I would make this further comment on the publication of more Papers. The German Chancellor spoke of the clean slate. I have not the actual words here, as I had

  2609
  not intended to refer to Morocco to-night. But he referred to the clean slate on which there should be lair writing. If I published a great many Papers dealing with those controversial matters of the last two months, is it not possible that we would be taken as beginning to cover the slate with writing relating to past events instead of beginning afresh. Of course, it may be desirable and necessary to publish Papers, but before I commit myself to the publication of any Papers, I think it is worth bearing those considerations in mind. The hon. Member who opened the Debate spoke of the great discouragement felt by the people, both in Germany and here, who are well disposed, and who desire good relations between the two countries. I would do anything I could to remove that discouragement. The hon. Member said the feeling in Germany was not good at the present time. It may be that we must wait for a little time until the atmosphere is more favourable. But, on the other hand, remember that the Moroccan question is out of the way, and, after what the German Chancellor said in his first speech, and what I said in my speech, I say again—if I am to repeat anything I said the other day—that the Moroccan question, if it be settled, ought to smooth the path of diplomacy in the future, and France and Germany having settled the Moroccan question for themselves, we shall be only too delighted to take advantage of anything that smooth path has made possible. This I say also, as I said in my previous speech, and as the Prime Minister said in his speech, that whatever difficulties occur, jealousy of German expansion is not our motive.
  I have been asked various questions on various subjects. The hon. Member opposite asked me about the Baghdad Railway. That depends on negotiations with the Turkish Government. Proposals of ours are before the Turkish Government, but as recent events have not been very favourable to the conduct of negotiations there they remain at the present moment. Our proposals are under consideration. One feature of the Debate has been of an interesting character, because of the first speeches which have been made by more than one Member. The hon. Member behind me (Baron de Forest) made a very interesting first speech. He covered a large part of the human field, and I can only say that if he can succeed in affecting public opinion in the direction which he hopes, he will have done a great deal to make Governments
  2610
  and diplomatists less powerless than they are at the present moment. He seemed to think that diplomacy was at fault. I am not sure that it is not public opinion which is more at fault very often than diplomacy. The hon. Member opposite, the Member for South Somerset (Mr. Aubrey Herbert), contributed a most original and interesting speech as his first effort, and it pleased the House. I will only say about it that it is really not right to state that we were unfriendly to the new regime in Turkey. We did all we could to show friendliness. That was our desire. The hon. Member himself answered by anticipation the hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. H. Law), who asked for the publication of Papers about events in Turkey. It is quite true that there has been no publication of Papers since the new regime came into power. If we had published Papers about events in Macedonia and Albania at the beginning of the new regime we should have been told that we were not giving the new regime a chance. To publish them at the present moment, while war is going on between Turkey and Italy, would undoubtedly be taken as reflecting upon one of the belligerents. I do not for a moment wish to withhold information from the House, but I cannot publish Papers at the present moment without it being supposed that they were published for a purpose. Here are two countries at war; you publish Papers reflecting on the internal administration of one of them, and can it be supposed that, with those two countries at war, it will not be taken, not in this House, but outside, as meaning that you are taking sides.
  There is really no object in publishing Papers unless the state of things is such as to demand and require interference, and unless you must interfere. If we and other great Powers of Europe are not going to intervene in Turkish internal affairs, then the publication of Papers may be a provocation, and will be absolutely useless. It is not that I have any desire to withhold information from the House that I deprecate the publication of Papers; it is because it would undoubtedly be taken that they are published with a purpose, and the effect would only be provocative, irritating, and, it might be thought at the present time, almost unfair to a country which is in great difficulties. There is one thing more for comment in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), and that is the subject of secrecy. This

  2611
  is an age of inventions, and perhaps some day something will be invented by which it is possible to publish Papers in the House of Commons which shall not be known elsewhere. I can assure the House that the motive for secrecy in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred is not to withhold information from the House, but is the difficulty of giving information to the House without giving it to the world at large; and the knowledge we give to the world at large may cause difficulties abroad which are unnecessary. The hon. Member for South Donegal really does not do me justice in what he has repeated again and again to the House. He talks about the Anglo-Russian Agreement having been signed three days after Parliament rose. I have given the history of it before. I should like to give it again, but once a thing which is inaccurate in a statement has taken the floor it holds it against the truth for ever after. We had been carrying on negotiations for a long time with Russia. I saw the end of Parliament approaching, and I did my utmost to hurry the negotiations in order that the Agreement might be concluded and laid before Parliament before it rose. We got nearer and nearer to the end of the Session, to the time when Parliament would rise, and I got more and more anxious to conclude it. As far as my recollection goes back, we were within a fortnight or so of the end of Parliament, and that even if the agreement was signed it would certainly not be published until a copy of it had been communicated to the Persian Government. I was told that that must take wrecks, and as a matter of fact, although the hon. Member says it was signed a few days after Parliament concluded, I think he will find it was not published until weeks afterwards.
  Mr. MacNEILL: 22nd August.
  Sir E. GREY: It was not published then.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I think it was.
  Sir E. GREY: My recollection is that it was published later, but that it was signed soon after. Now, if I had said we will not sign this until we publish it, which would be some weeks after, I should not have been exposed to these complaints, but I was not clever, and I signed the thing at the earliest possible date it could be concluded, knowing that it could not be published for some weeks, and that the actual time of signing it was a matter of
  2612
  indifference compared with the time of publication. As regards the practice in the House, I have never deprecated discussion in the House. That does not arise from any want of good will on my part, but from the difficulty of House of Commons procedure. Certainly this Government have not been less free in information than its predecessors. The hon. Member has admitted that Lord Cranborne in his time did not answer any supplementary questions. I wonder if the House realises how embarrassing it is sometimes to answer supplementary questions on foreign affairs. It is easy enough, but, as the House knows, everyone of those answers given from this bench by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is liable to be reported in foreign newspapers and taken there as the deliberate, considered utterance of the British Government, not as something forced from him by question in the House, not as something given impromptu, but as something which was the deliberate, considered and designed utterance of the British Government. It is not surprising that some years ago it was found when there had been a difficulty abroad, although I was not in office at the time, I believe the reason was answers given to supplementary questions, quite natural and harmless in this House, but which gave rise to some misunderstanding abroad. I believe that was the reason why the House was asked to discontinue supplementary questions.
  We have never asked the House not to put supplementary questions. I think anyone will find that in the last six years more supplementary questions on foreign affairs have been answered than ever before in the history of the House. And that foreign policy is secret as far as the Government is concerned, and that it is something which is carried on in the dark not only as regards the House but as regards the Cabinet; that is what the hon. Member said, and that is absolutely untrue. The hon. Member said that he had not been in the Cabinet, and that is very obvious I should think. The foreign policy of the Foreign Office is the one Department about the main procedure of which the Cabinet is kept daily informed, and I can only say this, that if I was as well informed about the business of the Departments of all my colleagues as they are about mine, I should be a great deal wiser than I am. I make those comments on what the hon. Member for South Donegal said, but which I frankly say he said

  2613
  in the most courteous way to mo personally, and in a way which was interesting to the House. I would ask the House to believe that we really do not oppose or desire to stop discussion in the House of Commons, and if there is difficulty in communicating information it is that in foreign affairs you have to consider the effect of what might be published in other countries, how it might be taken, and how it might be understood. And also in a great many cases we are dealing with matters in which we are only one party, and matters which may have been communicated confidentially to us by other Governments, and that were we to embark on a procedure of as much publicity as the hon. Member for South Donegal desires I think we should soon land ourselves in this position, that other Governments would cease to have negotiations with us, and we should have very little to communicate.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having interrupted him just now about the statement which was quoted by my hon. Friend. I did so because, in reply to a question on the 5th December, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said with regard to communications, "there is nothing of the kind which we know of." I was afraid this particular statement, which has been quoted very frequently both in letters and in articles, might be considered a purely verbal statement which could not be authenticated. On making a more close investigation I find that it was a communication from the British Minister to the Persian Foreign Office, and that the translation which has been quoted is perfectly accurate. It is important because it really does show, unless it is capable of other interpretation, the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement. I listened with very great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman stated with regard to the present situation in Persia, and I must say that I heard several points with considerable disappointment. The spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement affects not only our relations with Russia, but also our relations with Persia, and in speaking of the spirit of the Agreement we always seem to be taking into account what Russia thinks and disregarding what Persia feels. For instance, with regard to the question of indemnity, which has been one of the demands of the Russian Government, we are considering our own interests, and as to how they would be damaged in Southern Persia, but I do not
  2614
  think we consider sufficiently what a preposterous demand it is for Russia to make when the pretext for issuing the ultimatum which Russia has issued is so very slender.
  I do not wish to base any of my arguments in regard to Persia on the repudiation of the Anglo-Russian Convention. That exists, and it must be adhered to, but it is to the keeping of the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and adhering to the letter of that engagement, that I think we ought to pay more attention. The Russian Government have on several occasions and repeatedly declared that they wished to respect the integrity of the independence of Persia, not only in the Preamble of the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907, but in the undertakings in July of 1909, when the ex-Shah had been deposed, the Russian Government stated that the fact that a refuge had been accorded to the ex-Shah in no way interfered with their pledge of non-intervention in the internal affairs of Persia. The Russian Government's circular telegram of 3rd July was to this effect:—
  "The Imperial Government, on consideration of the position of affairs has come to the conclusion that the principle of absolute non-interference in the internal affairs of Persia and in the conflict between the Shah and the Persian people must be made now as formerly the basis of its policy in Persia."
  Reading these assurances of the Russian Government and placing them in contrast to their actions of late, it makes one suspicious as to their intentions in the future. They have given further assurances, but I think we may reasonably doubt whether they intend to carry them out or whether they are able to carry them out. We must remember that when the first ultimatum was issued it was against the wishes of their own accredited representative in Teheran. The Russian Minister did not advise that course being taken, but he was over-ruled, we are told, by the Consul-General in Teheran. We see, therefore, that the Russian Government have not the possible means of carrying out their intentions, even if their intentions are good. But it has been all along the traditional policy of Russia to sow discord in her own territory in order that she may have an opportunity of stepping in when government becomes impossible. What I think the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account sufficiently is the fact that Persia is trying to work out her salvation. We expect Persia, an Oriental nation to which parliamentary government is quite strange, to work out a satisfactory form of government in a very

  2615
  few years. It is most unreasonable. Not only is it unreasonable, but we are making her task quite impossible by standing guard over her, and by submitting to the Russian interventions whenever Russia thinks fit to intervene in the internal affairs of Persia. Our attitude in Persia is being regarded throughout this country as weak and undignified. We are playing second fiddle to Russia; we are, in diplomatic language, à la remorque of Russia, that is to say, Russia has us in tow, and we seem to be disinclined to assert our own opinion or to assist in any way to carry out in what we believe to be its true spirit, the Anglo-Russian Convention. We have some small crumb of comfort in the fact that we are not to consent to any idea of re-establishing the ex-Shah on the Throne of Persia. But our attitude towards the indemnity seems to me to be very weak. I should have thought that we ought to have protested most strongly against the Russian demand for an indemnity at the present time.
  With regard to Mr. Shuster's dismissal, there again I consider that we have adopted a very weak attitude. We have considered Russian ideas; we have considered Russian opinion; we have entirely disregarded the needs of Persia. Everyone will admit that if Mr. Shuster had been allowed a free hand—he is a singularly capable man—he could have placed the Persian finances on a sound footing in a very short time. But he was hampered and interfered with from the first, and, although he may not have been accustomed to diplomatic methods, it was, I consider, a weakness on our part that we did not for the sake of Persia and for the sake of the rehabilitation of Persian finances insist on the maintenance of Mr. Shuster at Teheran. I only hope for the sake of Persia that we shall find a capable and suitable financial adviser who will be able to help Persia in her difficulties. I should like to say a few words about the policy which lies underneath our attitude in Persia. We find ourselves in Persia submitting tamely to the dictation of the Russian Government. The man in the street sees Russian troops being poured into Persia, and understands that we make no protest. He sees Italy seize Tripoli at forty-eight hours' notice, and we make no protest. He hears of French troops entering Fez, and we make no protest. But immediately a German man-of-war goes to
  2616
  Agadir we are told that we are on the eve of a very great crisis.
  What is the policy which makes us act in this peculiar and illogical way? It has an explanation. In all these matters there is one governing principle at the bottom of the whole of our foreign policy, namely, the principle of the balance of power. This principle of the balance of power means a continual adjusting of the scales of the balance, a perpetual interference, the making of ententes and alliances, the watch-of the bargain, always watching to see that our scale of the balance is not tilted up too much. It means a constant tension throughout Europe and throughout the world. It means the rousing of suspicion and jealousy in other countries. This policy of the balance of power is at the root of all our difficulties, and until this policy is gradually abandoned it is hopeless to think that we can get on better terms with Germany. Germany will be placed in the opposite scale, of the balance. We have become accustomed to Naval Debates in this House in which, ship by ship, we hear of the adjusting of the balance of our Fleet against the German Fleet. When we entered upon the entente with France the policy was popular in this country, but when that entente was made too ostentatious it was bound to arouse suspicion and jealousy in other parts of Europe. From that moment that entente with France became a danger rather than an advantage. Since then we have had, roughly speaking, a Triple Entente against the Triple Alliance in the two opposing scales of the balance. Our constant interference in European politics is simply due to the fact that we have to be adjusting those scales. I think the preferable policy is the one which was adopted by Lord Salisbury, the policy of the concert of Europe. That policy, as Lord Salisbury admitted, was rather negative—was slow. He likened it to a steam roller. It effected very little, but it had this advantage: that we were not always in this state of tension. We were not always finding that the balances had to be corrected. If we intervened anywhere, it was with the formal consent of all the other great Powers. If, again, we abstained from intervention, it was with the consent of all the great Powers. I do not see why that state of affairs should not again come to pass. I sincerely hope that a good understanding with Germany may generally lead to a good understanding with the other European Powers. The

  2617
  expressions which have been uttered in this House in all parts are most encouraging, and ought to be a demonstration to Germany showing the very good feeling towards her that exists in this country. So long as we pursue the policy of the balance of power; so long as we are always thinking of other people in the opposite scale of the balance; so long as we feel obliged to interfere, not in our own interests, but in the interest of other nations—and generally the material and financial interests of other nations—so long shall we find it impossible to create a really peaceful atmosphere in Europe, and in the world.
  I should just like to say a word on the subject of secrecy in Foreign Affairs. One always feels—I always feel—when talking about foreign politics or putting a question on them as if I was committing a very fearful indiscretion. I always feel it is improper. I quite understand why, because I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said at the end of his speech, that nothing could be so embarrassing as a supplementary question upon foreign affairs for the Foreign Minister. I think questions on foreign affairs are a most unsatisfactory way of elucidating information. But it is our only weapon, and we must continue to use it. We tap the source frequently, but we tap it because we are not practically certain that there is not something wrong with the mechanism. We are not sure that the whole motive underlying our foreign politics is one of which we approve. This idea of getting rid of secrecy in foreign affairs is, I think, one that ought to be considered a little more seriously. I have studied a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal has written on the subject, which has been a special hobby of his for many years, and it presents itself to me now in a rather fresh aspect.
  We find that oven in the last thirty years the countries of the world have been drawn very much more closely together. The means of communication, the electric telegraph, travelling, all bind countries together commercially, socially, and financially that these foreign questions affect so many countries and can, and do, affect the people of those countries. At the same time countries, and specially this country, is under a very democratic form of Government. It appears to me that as our Government gets more democratic it will become more
  2618
  and more embarrassing for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his control of foreign relations. That is a difficulty which has been foreseen would arise when that Debate took place in 1886, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal referred, on a Motion, which was a very strong one, and which was only lost by four votes. Mr. Gladstone spoke on this occasion, and he spoke quite sympathetically, although he said that he must oppose such a Motion. He said:
  "The present system cannot possibly be defended as an ideal system. That is to say, we cannot say that in any instance the maximum of security is afforded to a country against its doing wrong or being betrayed into acts which, whether right or wrong, or acts of which it has no cognisance, and on which it has had no opportunity of bringing its judgment."
  Constitutional writers have also foreseen this difficulty. Mr. Bagehot says in his book:
  "A great deal of the reticence of diplomacy, I think history shows had better be spoken up. The worst families are those in which the members never speak their minds to one another."
  We have arrived at this point: this secrecy has become a danger. Secrecy cannot be maintained under modern conditions. It is impossible. It was all very well in the old days when there was not the means of communication that there are now. It was then really possible to maintain secrecy in diplomacy. Then negotiations could be carried on with safety and the outside world left completely in the dark. Secrecy is impossible nowadays. There are leakages in every Chancellery and in the Press bureaus of every capital in Europe. It is these rumours by which we hear only half or a quarter of the truth that make the countries feel uncomfortable. They feel they have a right to know more. I cannot help feeling that there might be opportunities for allowing the country to know more of our foreign policy. I am glad of these two days' Debate on foreign affairs because they will form a precedent which I hope we shall follow in the future. The Motion that is now before the House and the country is one which we shall be able to copy in future years. I hope if any considerable number of Members make a representation to the Foreign Secretary that it is their desire to discuss foreign affairs, that he will do his best to give us the time. Certainly if Members of the House desire to discuss foreign affairs it is the Foreign Secretary himself who should wish to inform us about them.
  It is not only interrogatories, it is information that we want, when we are completely

  2619
  in the dark as to what is happening. We have been accused of wanting to see the cards that the Foreign Secretary holds in his hands. I have never desired anything of the sort. I know perfectly well that foreign affairs must be conducted to a large extent in secret, and that there must be a certain amount of private intercourse between Ministers and Governments, otherwise negotiations would be made impossible. We do not ask to see the cards that the right hon. Gentleman has in his hand. He is playing a game that entails a very high stake, and it is the people of this country who have to pay, if he makes a bad move with their money and their lives. Surely it is not too much to ask that they should know what game it is he is playing; not what his cards are. It seems to me reasonable enough to ask that, and I feel sure that there is nobody, no Minister, no one in this House, who could, were he open and frank with the country, command greater confidence than the present head of the Foreign Office. So long, however, as the country is kept in the dark the people will be suspicious. I know from letters I have received, and from meetings I have addressed, that they feel very strongly on this point at the present time.
  If they are fully informed, and if they realise that our real interests are at stake—that national honour is being attacked, or that some real act of aggression against British possessions is contemplated in any way—no one would doubt for a moment that the people would stand shoulder to shoulder to defend their country's welfare. But if it is a matter of some partition of territory in Central Africa, or if it is some financial interest that does not directly concern us, or the tone of some diplomacy which has not been correct, or if it is a matter of some private injury because of some diplomatic tiff, then I feel perfectly certain the people of this country would not consent to plunge themselves into a war which would be as futile as it would cruel and ineffective. That is why I believe this matter of giving opportunity for informing the people, so that the Executive of the day may be kept in accord and in sympathy with the actual source from which they derive their power, I believe that is one which must come more and more to the front. In time to come, when this House has been relieved of the great excess of business which now overloads it, we shall have further opportunities for discussing these important national and
  2620
  Imperial matters, and those of us who have urged upon the Government and the House that view will not be found to have been very far wrong.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am sorry that the only criticism of foreign policy to-night from Radicals comes at the dinner-hour, when there is not much chance of making any impression. It has been said that the greatest disaster to a Liberal foreign policy is the presence of a Liberal Ministry in power, because then there is nobody to criticise the policy of the Front Bench from a Liberal point of view. But, however much we may be certain that it is a disaster to the Liberal foreign policy that a Liberal Government should be in power, I am inclined to think there is a worse disaster, and that is to have the present Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for of all the Members of the Cabinet is there one whom we would less like to tackle than the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to differ from in any possible way? A man who ought to pose as a Machiavelli gets up and tells us in the House that he is not clever. He is a man who was only once in a passion, and that occasion was when he turned round upon us Radicals and, like some Sphinx lashing its tail, called us to task for asking him inconvenient questions at inconvenient times. It is inconvenient to have to attack the Foreign Secretary, but it is necessary that we should say something, because the foreign policy of the Government is not a Liberal foreign policy. It is not merely a continuation, but it is an accentuation of the foreign policy of our predecessors. We have this question of the balance of power raised to a sort of fetish which the whole of the Foreign Office staff and the Foreign Secretary as well worship, and our foreign policy seems to feed the balance of the scales with slices of the Congo or of Morocco. When it is not a question of the balance of power the one other thing that seems to affect our Foreign Office policy is that of material British interest. The pursuit of these two aims—balance of power in Europe and material British interest—was not the Liberal foreign policy, and never has been the Liberal foreign policy until now. It is entirely antagonistic to the tradition of Canning and Palmerston and Gladstone. When the people of this country sent this Government to power in 1906 and again in 1910 it was with the idea of having the old Gladstonian and

  2621
  Palmerstonian traditions carried out in Liberal foreign policy as well as in Liberal domestic policy.
  We do not always want to be interfering in petty details, in tapping the barometer on every particular question to see whether the Foreign Office is moving upon Liberal lines. We know that interference like that would only give annoyance to the Foreign Office, to the Foreign Secretary, and probably annoyance also to foreign countries. But we do think we have a genuine right to say to Liberal Ministers, we expect broad Liberal principles to be followed, and if the Foreign Minister cannot follow those broad Liberal principles then he should explain to us as often as possible why it is he has to take up a different line, and how far he is trying to pursue Liberal lines and not the old Conservative line. I am perfectly certain I speak not only for Liberals, but for a large number of Conservatives, when I say that the majority of Englishmen place the moral results of our foreign policy above the material results, and that they are more anxious for justice between foreign nations and the freedom of foreign nations than they are for commercial treaties or extra concessions in Africa or Asia or Arabia. I am quite certain the British people would rather have the influence of the British Foreign Office directed towards the extension of justice than the extension of territory. This being, as I think it is, the universal opinion of Liberals throughout the country, and the opinion of all that is best in the Conservatism of the country as well, I think it right to ask the Government what they have done in this direction. How have they influenced politics in any corner of the world on Liberal lines? How have they increased the ideas of justice between man and man? How have they increased the principles of freedom among the peoples of the world?
  If you look to any part of the world where there have been difficulties in the last six years I think you will find it difficult to lay your finger upon one spot and say, "Here the influence of England was influence in a Liberal direction." Since this Government has come into power a revolution has taken place in Turkey. Every man with a spark of Liberalism in his breast, everyone with a trace of the Gladstonian or Palmerstonian principles in his mind saw in that the signs of a bright future for Turkey. The revolution in Constantinople took place. The counter
  2622
  revolution and the counter counter revolution took place. When the last revolution took place, and when Abdul Hamid was turned out, to the inordinate joy of every humanitarian throughout the world, the heroes of the hour were the Young Turks, and they were heroes with the British people. Who backed them against Abdul Hamid? There was no race so popular in Turkey as the British race. English influence there was so great that when the Ambassador drove to open the Turkish Chamber he was greeted with cheers throughout the whole length of Constantinople. At that time British influence was such that we could, if we had taken the slightest trouble, have directed the Young Turk party along the line of progress and the path of justice and freedom for the subject races of Turkey. We threw the opportunity away, and now the influence of England with the Young Turks is nothing, and the influence of Germany has been put in its place, and who is to blame? Why, the Foreign Office of England and their staff. When the troubles in Albania came along we saw England impotent, and the Albanians were treated very much as the Armenians were treated ten or fifteen years ago. In Turkey we have done nothing, and we have not influenced politics there one whit in a Liberal direction. If we look at Russia we see the same thing. What have we done for Finland? Finland has lost its autonomy again, and Russia has encroached again upon that autonomy. English influence may have been exercised, but it has done nothing.
  If we look to Italy we see the same thing. The Italian people have made a wanton attack upon another portion of Turkish territory which unfortunately sets a precedent which will cause infinite misgivings in the minds of all the small kingdoms and infinite temptation to those big kingdoms and empires anxious to grab more land. Was English influence of any avail to prevent the war between Italy and Turkey? Was English influence exerted? We do not know. We only see the result, and we see that English influence was not used with any effect. Look at Morocco. We have done nothing to prevent France going to Fez and the financial interests of France making war on another quarter of Islam. In the Belgian Congo we have had no result, and now in Persia we see the British influence has not effected anything whatever in a Liberalising direction. If England has had any influence at all in any of these

  2623
  cases in any quarter of the world, obviously that influence has failed. You may have a perfectly good reason why it should fail. It may have been perfectly impossible to persuade the Young Turks to be liberal, or prevent Russia attacking Persia, or prevent the Persian Government from dissolving into anarchy. It may have been impossible to stop Italy entering upon a land-grabbing war, or prevent France going to Fez, or Russia doing away with autonomy of Finland. What we want to know in regard to these matters is, did the Foreign Office, England, or the English Government make any effort to prevent things going from bad to worse? We are quite willing to accept the position that they were not able to do anything, but we have a horrid suspicion that they did not try, and that they do not believe in a Liberal foreign policy. You cannot point to one spot from China to Peru where the influence of the Liberal Government has made anything better or influenced things in the slightest degree in a Liberal direction.
  9.0 P.M.
  That is not the only charge. You cannot point to a single Liberal Government in the past which has not done something in this direction. If you go back to the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1892 or 1880, or to Palmerston and Gladstone in 1860 to 1872, in every case you find the influence of the Government directed towards freedom, and you find on the map of Europe some recording testimony of their work for freedom and liberty and justice. It is only in the case of this Government that you cannot point to anything, except it may be some slight amelioration in the condition of the natives in the centre of Peru. The fact of the matter is, and it has been made ever so much more clear to us, that the Foreign Office itself and the whole traditions of the Foreign Office and its staff are far too aristocratic in tone and illiberal in principle. They are not in touch or in sympathy with Liberalism, they do not want what we want, and therefore we do not get the foreign policy we want. The fact that you have to be worth £400 a year before you can get a position in the Foreign Office, that you have to assure the Government that you have a private income of £400, makes it sure that you are only drawing from the aristocratic and the rich class which is predominantly Conservative in tone. Naturally you have throughout the whole of this particular
  2624
  Government Department Conservative sympathies which are directed towards perpetuating the old ideas of foreign policy of the previous Conservative Government, and I do not see how there is any hope of the Liberal Governments making the foreign policy liberal as long as they allow the Conservative tendencies of the Foreign Office staff to remain unchanged. It is notorious that there is a very large anti-German feeling in the Foreign Office. The supposed interview between the "Neue Freie Presse" and Sir Fairfax Cartwright did more than anything else to make German feeling bitter against England. We have now been informed that that interview was not a real interview with Sir Fairfax Cartwright. If that is so, good; but how is it that Sir Fairfax Cartwright now finds himself at Vienna? He is a man of notorious anti-German views, who was objected to when he was proposed as Ambassador to Berlin because of his strong anti-German views. Vienna is not the place where you want a man with views anything but friendly to the German Empire and to the German people, of which so large a part live in Austria.
  The fact is our Ambassadors conceive themselves only as accredited to the Sovereigns and not as accredited to the peoples in whose countries they live. They only come in touch with the ruling and dominating class. It would be an enormous advantage if they would get in touch with all classes. What has made Germany so powerful in Constantinople is the fact that the German Ambassador has the Young Turks to dinner once a week; he gets in touch with them that way. He is on terms of friendship with them, they come to him in their difficulties, and he advises them. That is a very good way of getting influence in Turkey. It seems to me even in a place like Berlin our Embassy might get into closer touch with the Radicals and the Social Democrats in that country. After all, the best friends of England in Germany are the Radicals and even the Social Democrats. They are the people who stuck by us even in this last tiff. They know, as the working classes in this country know, that there is no real difference between the working classes in any country, that they have their own enemy, and that there are no international jealousies as far as they are concerned. Those are the people with whom I would have our Embassies get into touch. I wonder if Bebel has ever dined at our

  2625
  Ambassador's table or even if our Ambassador would be permitted to invite him.
  The other day there was a cartoon in "Punch" showing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs seated at a table with cards in his hand, and interfering Radicals looking over his shoulder, and he is supposed to say, "How do you expect I can play the game successfully if I show my cards?" I think that cartoon accurately illustrates the Foreign Office view of diplomacy. They think they are playing a game with cards at which nobody is allowed to look. The game they are playing is a very silly game; it is, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Baron de Forest) showed, simply a game of concession hunters and land grabbers. Russia wants concessions in the North and England in the South of Persia, and the one thing on which the Liberal Government rebelled was the question of Russian concessions in the South of Persia. It is all a question of concession hunters, and not of the peoples at, all. We are tired of that sort of game, and the people of the country are getting tired of it. It is a game which it is not worth anybody's while to play any more, especially now you are getting a little dangerous and near to real war. It is all very well to paint the map of Africa red or blue as long as it does not do any damage or make anybody angry or lead to differences, but, when you are getting into difficulties it is another matter, and it is about time the people of England and Germany insist upon knowing what it is these diplomatists are playing at. They are playing, not a national game, but merely a plutocratic financial game. It is a game, not of national honour, but of national dishonour.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Plunder.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, plunder. The foreign policy of the future is bound, I think, to be conducted on different lines. Internationalism is spreading rapidly, not only the internationalism of capital but the internationalism of labour. Wherever Labour parties are strong, there you have the strongest possible bond of unity between the peoples and the strongest possible opposition to these petty quarrels of petty diplomatists. Finance is becoming international too, and finance also as it becomes international is the strongest bond in favour of peace. We were told, I do not know with what authority, that at the worst moment of tension, between
  2626
  Germany and France and England, and when they were all going to fight in September, what stopped the war and the war feeling and what showed diplomatists they could not go on, was the fact that there was a run on the German Savings Bank, and £11,000,000 withdrawn in one day. We are no longer agricultural countries dependent upon agriculture, which requires little credit and less capital. We are vast organised industrial countries built up by and dependent entirely upon credit. If you shut up national credit and private credit at the same time, the whole of your economic edifice comes crumbling to the ground, and if there is one thing absolutely certain to shatter private credit in this country it is any war between civilised countries. A slump on the Stock Exchange and an increase in the Bank rate would ensue. There would be the collapse of some bank and the suspension of the Bank Charter Act. All those things coming one after another would destroy the whole basis of industry in this country. You would have hundreds of thousands out of work, food rioting, and murder, and I think the financiers, with their international-interests and their money in every capital and every land, will be about the first to realise the enormous dangers which they as well as other people, the common people who would starve, will run if war comes about; and I think these two influences more than anything else, the internationalism of capital and the internationalism of labour, will do more even than we can do in this House, to drive our diplomatists, to drive even the diplomacy of the Liberal Government, on to more Liberal lines in the future.
  Mr. BARTON: It is certainly difficult to attempt to criticise a speech which one has so recently heard and which one has had no opportunity of reading, but I must say that the speech of the Foreign Secretary has left me with a feeling of complete disappointment. I understood the Anglo-Russian Agreement was indeed a guarantee of the integrity and the independence of Persia. I venture to think that ninety-nine men out of every hundred in this country thought the same thing, and in order to reassure myself I have since the speech referred to the treaty, which reads thus:—
  "The Governments of Great Britain and Russia, having mutually engaged to respect the integrity and the independence of Persia, and sincerely desiring the preservation of order throughout the country, as well as the establishment of equal advantages for the trade and industry of all other nations …"

  2627
  I venture to say that was regarded by the ordinary man as intended to be a guarantee of the nationality of Persia. We all admit that the situation was one of peculiar difficulty. There you had a weak State, with internal disturbances and financial complications, situated between two great Powers. It was inevitable that there should be intervention by one of them, and, under these circumstances, we believe both States were really desirous of maintaining the independence of Persia, and agreed together to do what they could towards that end. I want to say one word tbout Persia in connection with its trade relations, which are of considerable importance to us in Lancashire—of far greater importance than the Board of Trade would indicate—to anyone who did not understand the nature of the trade, because, in point of fact, the larger portion of the English trade with Persia does not go direct to Persia. It goes by way of Turkey, and it appears in our Board of Trade Returns as being British trade. That part of the trade, which is the largest portion, is mainly for the centre and North of Persia, which are within the Russian sphere of influence. What we fear, and fear very strongly, is that Russian domination in Persia will, in the end, mean the loss of that trade. It is possible some arrangement may be made in the nature of an open door, such as has been made in connection with Morocco; but when you have a manufacturing country like Russia in such close proximity as it is to Persia, whatever fiscal arrangements you make it may be taken for granted that the effect of Russian domination in Persia will be that the trade will be captured entirely by Russian traders.
  It so happens that the desirability of maintaining the nationality of Persia coincides with the trade interests of this country. I feel exceedingly anxious about the position as revealed to us to-night. What does it mean? There are three leading points affecting Persian nationality. In the first place, we apparently agree to concur in the dismissal of Mr. Shuster. In the second place, there is a complete abrogation of anything in the nature of Persian independence, for the official Persian financial adviser is only to be appointed if first agreed upon by Russia and Great Britain. In the third place, the question of an indemnity was only deferred. It seems to me that all this can only be regarded as a complete triumph for Russia, and I cannot help wondering
  2628
  that that should be so. I cannot dissociate it from our general foreign policy as it appears to me at the present time. I should like to refer to the speech made by the Foreign Secretary recently in this House. I must frankly confess that, after careful consideration of that speech, I was left—and I speak as a Liberal—in a state of perplexity and disappointment. The two points that stood out most clearly were: firstly, that we had abandoned the former policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other European countries, a policy which the Secretary of State defined as a policy of splendid isolation; and, in the second place, it was made quite clear that we had formed friendships and associations with other European Powers, and that no other friendships could be formed which would in any way interfere with them. With whom are those special Friendships? In the first place, take France. Surely we must ask ourselves what are the commitments of our friends, what are their obligations, and to what extent does our friendship involve using these commitments and obligations? So far as France is concerned—and we need have no hesitation in saying it, because it appears in one of the dispatches which form part of the literature of our recent complications—in one of those dispatches Germany said that although the Moroccan complications had removed one of the difficulties with the French people, it could not be hoped that cordial relations were possible even after that difficulty was removed. It seems clear that friendship with France must inevitably carry with it difficulty in forming friendships with Germany.
  Then take our other friend, Russia. We must admit that there is much in her present condition and recent policy which is totally alien to the Liberal policy of this country, so I feel very strongly that the policy of the Government at this present time is not a policy which commends itself to me as a Liberal. I feel, too, very strongly that the splendid isolation of which the Foreign Secretary spoke was, after all, a mere catchword. There never was any such policy pursued in this country. There was a policy of non-intervention, but that was at a time when England was freer to stretch out a helping hand to the oppressed, when it was freer to take an independent course in any of the complications with which it might be surrounded. If we are to have special friends, I am desirous that amongst those the great German Empire

  2629
  should be included. They are nearest to us in kindred, their thoughts, their literature, their life generally is nearer to that of our country than those of any other Continental power. Our trade relations are close and intimate. In connection with that I noticed some Bills of Exchange the other day proceeding in the first place from India for raw cotton supplied from India to Germany. Germany was unable to give to India what she wanted in its fullest extent, in return for her raw cotton, and, therefore, sent these Bills to us in Manchester and we 6upplied to India, in Germany's discharge, a supply of finished cotton goods. In return for that, Germany supplies to Manchester and Lancashire supplies of sugar and other food materials. Our trade relations are of the closest and of the most beneficial kind, and I do say that any policy which fails to cordially invite the friendship of Germany is a policy of which I am sincerely apprehensive. We have heard something about a clean slate. I want to see something written on that slate, and that something a clear and unqualified indication of German friendship. If the assurances that we have—and I take the assurances that we have as being entirely reliable—that these other friendships are not exclusive in their nature, then I think the time is now ripe to lay aside this old diplomatic attitude, to take occasion by the hand and to make it felt that throughout Europe we are desirous of seeking peace and pursuing it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The most experienced Member of this House could not rise to speak on some of the aspects of the questions which have arisen in the course of this Debate without a feeling of great responsibility. There is one school of writers and publicists who, whilst with entire freedom giving expression to their own views, always urge that it is an embarrassment to the Government of the day if we seek to examine the principles which have inspired our relations with other countries—a school of writers who do not hesitate themselves to give expression to views which are repugnant to very many of us. In connection with this question of responsibility, I desire to say this, that to those people the proper time for considering principles of foreign policy never does arise, and although I am conscious of the responsibility attaching to every word which is spoken in this House, yet I also rise to speak with confidence, because I desire only to appeal to principles of
  2630
  international co-operation and understanding. Therefore nothing that I can say could embarrass any party or any persons, except those who are hostile to such principles.
  I think that the plea of secrecy and the plea of reserve in regard to foreign affairs is carried too far. I was struck by the speech that was delivered at an earlier period of this sitting by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird). I regret that he is not in his place. So far as I understood his remarks, he seems to consider that foreign policy is a matter of so much difficulty and delicacy that none but the professional diplomatists could grapple with it. I remember that a little time ago the same hon. Member went so far as to criticise the present Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was then sitting on these Back Benches, because he had ventured to speak upon a subject of which he was a master, the subject of our policy in Egypt. I was at some loss to understand the attitude taken by the hon. Member for Rugby both to-day and on the former occasion until I remembered that the hon. Member was himself once attached to one of our Embassies. Therefore I take it—I speak without any desire of giving offence—that he spoke with the reserve proper to the expert who felt what a pity it was that the House of Commons should venture to express an opinion in matters which were only the business of the expert. I am glad to feel from the great majority of the speeches that have been delivered to-night that the House generally does not take that view, and I am myself glad of the opportunity to inquire into the causes of the strained relations which have so long unhappily existed between this country and Germany, relations so strained that there has grown up a school of thought in this country which has publicly, on many occasions, proclaimed that war between the two countries is sooner or later inevitable.
  I do not believe in this inevitable war. I remember that before this language was used with regard to Germany, the same kind of language was held with regard to other countries. If the House will pardon a personal reminiscence, one of the earliest recollections I have as a small schoolboy of one of my masters is the fact that he used to tell us, day after day, that we were on the brink of war with Russia, and that the sooner it came the better, because Russia was getting stronger every day. He used to make our blood curdle by reminding us that no sooner in this

  2631
  inevitable war had we defeated one huge battalion than another would be ready to take its place. I come to more recent years. I want to ask this House to remember the kind of relations which existed between this country and France. I hasten to say that in referring to the policy then urged with regard to France and the relations which then existed I am only filled with joy to think that happy relations exist to-day. It will be seen later that I in no way intend to belittle the friendly relations which now happily exist; indeed, if such were my view I should not choose this day to express it, when we all feel deeply the splendid heroism shown by the French sailors on behalf of our own people. But I want the House to remember the kind of feeling that did exist between this country and France for the decade previous to the French Agreement. I will not quote the more sensational Press of that time, but I want to show the public feeling that existed and the official feeling that existed by referring very briefly to the words of "The Times" during that period. I take, for instance, this extract. In January, 1896, "The Times" wrote:—
  "It is, unfortunately, the fact that there exists between ourselves and our French neighbours a considerable number of differences; the history, the traditions and the sentiments of the two people make them, to a great extent, inevitable."
  And this is the theme recurring in almost every issue of the paper at times. We have frequently fierce protests being made against any curtailment of our own ship-building policy in view of the closeness of the French nation. In November, 1898, "The Times" wrote:—
  "We are not ignorant that preparations, both naval and military, are going on in France. We prefer to draw our own inference, and the inference from the silence and preparations of the French Government is that we ought to be prepared for whatever can happen."
  But more than this, whilst these attacks were going on towards France, other sentiments were again being expressed with regard to Germany. I quote, for instance, this extract from "The Times" of November 18th, 1898, which was with special reference to a speech which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), whose absence from this House we all deplore:—
  "Another idea, of which Mr. Chamberlain has been the apostle, is that in spite of keen commercial rivalry and of differences of national temper, fundamental interests and general similarity of aim and ideals ought to place England and Germany side by side in the secular movement of humanity. It is satisfactory to note that the German Press begins to acknowledge that there is something in this ideal. As a matter of
  2632
  fact, we have no standing disputes with Germany, nor is there any reason why the interests of the two countries should clash with Europe."
  Then there is this significant passage:—
  "In the Colonial field we have not to complain of a policy of pin-pricks on the part of Germany, whose policy is always more positive and more obviously based upon the legitimate pursuit of solid interests than that of France. We want a measure of masculine friendship based upon mutual respect and proceeding upon the lines of mutual interest and community of aims."
  This was the spirit of the official and public attitude towards France right up to the eve of the French Agreement. Public feeling responded to this official need, and went so far that we had warlike threats to France cheered by the multitude at public meetings. The situation with regard to France was changed, and very happily changed in a moment by the Anglo-French Agreement, and I, for one, rejoice with all my heart that the relations between the two countries are so friendly and cordial. But I want to ask whether we are content to transfer the enmity exhibited in some quarters towards France to Germany, and are we content for the relations to-day between Germany and England to be similar to the relations which we brought to an end by means of the agreement with France. There is no reason to substitute enmity with Germany because we are now at peace and on terms of friendship with France, yet the fact has emerged—it is common ground to everybody in this nation—that we have been during the last summer perilously near to war. The point I desire to emphasise is that we have been so near to war without there having been any opportunity for public opinion to assert itself or to approve or to disapprove of the policy of our own country, and the policy of Germany which led us nearly to an outbreak of hostilities.
  This raises the question with regard to Parliamentary control over foreign affairs. There is very much misunderstanding with regard to our demand in this matter. No one suggests that we are asking that all the delicate details of diplomacy should be conducted in public. We are agreed with those who point out that that is impossible, and, were it possible, would be absurd. What we say is that the House of Commons and the nation should be made acquainted with the broad principles which actuate our foreign policy, and should have an opportunity of criticising and of controlling those broad principles of international policy. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Grey) referred in a recent speech to the diplomatic barometer, and urged us not to tap it too frequently. I

  2633
  do not think this House at all events attempts frequently to tap the political barometer. It is not that we are anxious to tap it, but we are sometimes anxious that the Government itself should tap it, or at least should ascertain something of the broad feeling in the nation generally, and it should not only be content to be guided by the atmosphere between narrow, official and diplomatic circles. I say that for this reason. The late crisis is now a thing of the past. I think it is not unreasonable that we feel some uneasiness lest when the next matter of difference between this country and Germany arises we may have to pass through a similar crisis. All that I have desired to say in this Debate is to lead up to the expression of this hope that the policy of this nation will be so ordered that we may look forward to the adjustment of potential difficulties without the fear that any acute crisis will arise. I had the privilege of being in Berlin shortly after the Moroccan matter had led to the acute crisis. I had the privilege of meeting representative men in many spheres of life and thought, and although I found most passionate feeling existing in all circles., even in circles the most consistently friendly to this country, I did not find and lack of friendship, any hatred, any enmity to this country. I rather found passionate feeling and indignation that they and their ideals should be so constantly and entirely misunderstood by this nation, and I think it is important to notice the distinction. I submit that we have made a considerable step towards a better understanding when we have realised the fact that the German nation believes itself to be misunderstood and misrepresented by this nation. One of the greatest Members of this House once described war as being a combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature is capable. If that great statesman were describing war to-day he would have to add something to this definition, for these words were uttered some sixty years ago. To-day he would have to remind us that in a European war between two such Powers as England and Germany the cost to the victor would be as great as the cost to the vanquished, and he would have to say more than that. He would have to remind us that in the presence of such an upheaval as a European war would mean new forces would arise which would cause, whatever the result of the war, such a rearrangement of
  2634
  society as we have little, if any, conception of to-day. I believe myself when I consider the degradation, suffering and misery that would be brought upon the democracies of Europe by such a war that this would be the result. We must remember that to-day, with the democracies organised, and properly organised as they are, we could scarcely expect them to remain passive under such sufferings, and to bear such sufferings if they believed that they were brought upon them by the foolishness of their rulers. I venture to say, therefore, that there would be many landmarks removed before we came to the end of the struggle.
  It is when I think of the immensity of the problem, and of its issues that I feel justification for rising in this House and pleading that every possible resource of statesmanship may be applied to the cause of international understandings. There are many hopeful features in the present situation. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs has reminded us that the crisis of the summer is past, and that we have a clean slate. There are other satisfactory features in the international situation. There are the frank and candid assurances of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he desires this understanding with Germany, that whilst we shall be loyal to France and to our friendship with France, there is nothing in that friendship which makes friendship with Germany either undesirable or impossible. I value these assurances which come from the right hon. Gentleman in his great position with so much weight, and equally do I value the spirit shown and the assurances given by the German Chancellor in his speeches to the Reichstag—speeches which were delivered under circumstances of almost unique difficulty. I am grateful for the spirit shown in those speeches. Equally hopeful is it to remember that the people of this nation are also entirely friendly in sentiment to the people of Germany as I believe the people of Germany are entirely friendly to this nation. I will, therefore, say that what is now needed is surely that the forces on the side of international understanding should be developed and strengthened. Every candid, warm, and generous speech which is made by a Minister of the Crown in public is a great asset to the cause of international understanding, and every time the sensational Yellow Press of our times on both sides is restrained or its influence undermined by the spread of truth there is a great gain to the cause of international

  2635
  understanding. Every step that is taken to make our own policy so clear that it can be understood by our own people and by the people of Germany to be a policy not in opposition to their interest, but recognising frankly the interests of the German nation, is a great step in the cause of international peace. By these means, if pursued with all sincerity, we may look forward to the dawn of an ampler day when this great mist will have receded from our view, when the concert of Europe will have become a living reality, and when, instead of contemplating European nations drawing swords against each other, they will stand firmly knit together in defence of a common faith and a common civilisation.
  Mr. JOHN LYTTELTON: There is much to be said upon that great subject to which so many of the speeches to-night have been devoted, and I think it must have struck anybody who has been listening to the majority of these speeches that there does exist on both sides of this House a very great and unanimous opinion in regard to our future relationship with Germany and the status upon which that relationship rests. There were indeed certain speeches—I can call to mind two—from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House which were devoted more to criticising the past diplomatic action of the Government rather than, in my opinion, going to the whole root of the differences that have arisen. It is not direct diplomatic action that leads to quarrels and leads to war, and this misunderstanding that unfortunately now exists between the people of this country and the people of Germany rests far back and far beyond those points in the diplomatic action of this Government to which particular attention has been drawn. We must go back to public opinion, and it is to public opinion and the action of the people of this country that you must look to find a real reason for these misunderstandings. Not to-day, most certainly not to-day. But no one who studies those memoirs and letters of Sir Robert Morier can fail to find the starting-point of German antagonistic feeling towards this country in the Franco-German War, particularly after Sedan and the Prussian advance on Paris. English opinion was thrown entirely into the scale against Prussia, when Prussia had almost a right to expect that we should support her, or, if not support her, at any rate remain strictly neutral. From that day to this
  2636
  the misunderstanding has gradually increased, and it has gradually come to the point when undoubtedly a great menace to the peace of the world has existed. We have now got to find some means by which this position can be entirely reversed. We have got to find some way of educating the public opinion of this country in order that a war between these two countries shall be looked upon not as a possibility, but as an absolute impossibility.
  10.0 P.M.
  To do that I press for the need of some great organisation. We have had certain organised action in the past, particularly with regard to the limitation of armaments. I submit that really the limitation of the armaments of the world does not go down to the root of the questions. It does not reach the foundation upon which quarrels rest. It is not soldiers, guns, or ships, which make international quarrels, but the injustice, the greed, the selfishness, the ambition, and above all the ignorance of mankind, which set armies and navies in motion. If we could tomorrow destroy every ship and dissolve every army corps, it would not and could not insure peace between these two countries, or between any two countries. Rather I should be inclined to think that the opposite would happen, because then humanity would not be trained. We would not have in our armies and navies men of the highest intelligence, still more men of the highest character, trained in those forces. We must look beyond armies and navies, and look to the cause of quarrels in order to look with hope into a future that shall make these quarrels impossible. But I recognise that it can be only in the evolution of education that you can make quarrels between great nations absolutely a thing of the past. It must necessarily be so, because deep down in the hearts of humanity lies the inclination to fight.
  In past days—and it may be again in the future we shall find it so—tyranny and oppression were upheld and maintained by force, and it is only by force that such tyranny and such oppression can be abolished. But when we have reached a time in the civilisation of this country when that force shall not be needed to abolish oppression and tyranny, then we shall have advanced in the education of the people, the people of this country and the peoples of the world, towards at any rate some great step in the cause of universal peace. The first step

  2637
  towards individual agreement is individual confidence, and in the same way the first step in international agreement is international confidence. Ignorance of the motives, ideals, and purposes of those with whom we have to deal is the author not only of armies and navies, but of wars and battles. I urge and press for some organised body, some organised force and feeling that shall stimulate the people of this country into taking some definite action to guide the Government into the most complex paths of international relationship. I may mention the delegation of the Labour party sent to Germany. Anything in that direction which furthers the cause of an understanding between these two Powers, which makes these two great Powers understand one another better, each movement in that direction in its turn serves the purpose not only of showing that the more the people of this country could go across to Germany, and the more we could welcome the German people here, the better would it be for the establishment of good relations between the two nations. The whole of the existing misunderstanding is founded on the lack of knowledge among the two great peoples of each other. It is not easy to advocate a cause of this kind. It is not easy to clearly point out the means by which the goal can be attained. It is most difficult to indicate the course which the Government might possibly take. But I would make three suggestions to them to help on this cause. One suggestion is that they should encourage organised effort in this direction by every means in their power, and that they should take up again the old practice of making public speeches to great audiences in the country, purely and simply on foreign affairs. That used to be done, particularly in the great days of Mr. Gladstone, and I think that the democracy would rather appreciate it if that practice were revived, by whatever Government was in office. It would be of the greatest benefit to this country, and would go far to remove misunderstanding if the Government discouraged the publication of a certain class of Press articles which are not founded on any public opinion in this country, and which can do nothing but harass and embarrass the Government of the day from whichever side it may be drawn.
  I said that this line of action is not an easy one to advocate. We can almost see how it may be misrepresented in certain quarters. We can almost be certain it will
  2638
  be said that our action will be liable to be regarded as being founded upon fear, or that it may be so misunderstood in Germany itself, that it may be taken there purely and simply as fear of the increasing strength of that country. There are certain organs in the Press that would not be above embarrassing the cause which we advocate by such an argument. But we have got to face that possibility, and, after all, if we allowed that possibility to have any constricting influence upon our efforts, we should merely be allowing them to manacle the freedom of our action by the fetters of cowardice as to what other people might think. There are difficulties and there are dangers in this policy which I advocate. There is the danger of over-estimating the value of peace conferences such as have been held in the past. I do not wish in any way to deprecate the value of such conferences, but I cannot help thinking that a conference such as that which has been held can only mould and form public opinion in this country without having any possibility of leading it. These conferences have their value, but far more value will come from such an organised effort as I have referred to, led by people of authority in this country, and backed up by the whole democracy. We have got to form a true judgment of cause and effect, and there is nothing more difficult to accomplish than that in connection with this very complex problem. But this cause to organise peace is worthy of our race, and worthy of its highest representatives. Let us hope that this country may go forward in this effort, not only with true enthusiasm, but with true judgment, that it may preserve the true perspective and realise that the causes of war lie far back of armies and navies in the fundamental qualities of human nature, and that such organised effort will have force and value in proportion as those who direct it preserve a true vision and a serene judgment.
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire, if I may, to make a few observations upon the interesting speech we heard from the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the Persian question is part of a larger question, and, of course, there is no other way to account for the action of the Government except on that supposition. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be the first to admit that no consideration of that kind would weigh for a moment if it was clear that by the action we are taking we are in any way

  2639
  breaking our engagements with the other Powers and with Persia, or acting in any way dishonourably to the good name of this country, and more especially towards our Mahomedan fellow subjects. The Secretary of State assured us of his anxiety to co-operate with Russia in securing Persian independence and giving them fair play. I must say the events of the last few weeks are rather calculated to cause among the Persian people a good deal of doubt as to his ability to carry out the intentions which he has expressed. He has dealt in his speech only with the actual demands which have been made by Russia upon the Persian Government, and he has given us reasons for the attitude which has been taken by His Majesty's Government in regard to those demands. I want to carry the House still further back to the circumstances out of which this crisis arose. I want to go back to 11th November, when the Russian Government presented what has been called the first ultimatum. At that time there was a dispute between the Russian and Persian Governments with regard to the property of a certain Prince Shua-es-Sultaneh under the protection of Russia. The Russian Government insisted that the Persian Government should withdraw their gendarmes, and should apologise at once to the Russian Legation on pain of the instant introduction of Russian troops. What did the Persian Government do? Remembering the engagements of this country, remembering the declarations which were made over and over again that Persia was to have fair play, they appealed through their Parliament and through their Foreign Minister to the British Government for advice. They gave that advice. They advised them, on 20th November, to comply absolutely with the demands which Russia had made. On 24th November, four days after that advice had been given, the Persian Government did comply with those demands. They complied with the demands, rightly or wrongly that was the impression they had got, that if they did so the Russian troops would be withdrawn. The British Government, I was told by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in answer to a question, did not give any specific assurances, but they undoubtedly led the Persian Government to believe that if the advice was followed the Russian troops would be withdrawn. The correspondent of "The Times," in a report on 24th November, in relating how the Persian
  2640
  Government did comply with the demands of Russia, stated:—
  "Mr. Cairns, Director of Taxation, last night with drew Mr. Shuster's gendarmes and handed Shua-es-Sultaneh's property over to officials of the Foreign Office, who were later relieved by the Persian Cossacks. Simultaneously Vossuk-ed-Dowleh, Persian Foreign Minister, went to the "Russian Legation—"
  He said:
  "I come to apologise on behalf of the Persian Government for the unmannerliness of officials towards the Russian Consul-General."
  Then "The Times" correspondent went on to say:
  "Sir George Barclay, British Minister, assisted the reconciliation—"
  He assumed that the whole thing was over, and the Governments reconciled.
  "by convincing the Persians that the Russian troops would be withdrawn if an acceptable apology were tendered."
  I want the House to consider what was the position of the Persian people then. They had done exactly what the British Government advised them to do. They had done so, it is quite true, three or four days late according to the view taken by the Foreign Office, but they had carried out those demands within four days of receiving the advice to do so from the Foreign Office. They had been told, or they had been led to believe, that if they did so the Russian troops would be withdrawn, and so, on 24th November, five days after, they received another ultimatum, the second ultimatum, with still more peremptory terms and forty-eight hours' time for compliance, demanding the instant dismissal of Mr. Shuster, demanding a veto on all future appointments, and the payment of an indemnity.
  What, again, did the Persian Government do. They did not say, "We refuse to discuss these matters." What they said was, and I hope my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, "This is altogether unreasonable within the time." They asked for time. I asked a question on this point some days ago:
  "Whether the Persian Government stated that they were willing to discuss the terms of the second ultimatum if reasonable time were given."
  and the answer which I got was—
  "The reply to the third question is that the Persian Government replied in this sense."
  I want the House to consider what is the position now. Here the Persian Government were faced with a new demand, which they no doubt thought was an unjust one. They said, "We are willing to have an investigation; we are willing to consider the position of Mr. Shuster, but we ask that time shall be given for reasonable

  2641
  investigation." They appealed to the British Government, I understand, to make some representations to Russia to that effect. What is the answer of the British Governments? How did we treat the extremity this people to whom we were bound by such long ties of friendship and alliance, with Russian troops advancing upon their capital? We said to the Russians, "Go on; we make no objection to the first two of your demands." We said to the Persian Government, "It is all your own fault, because you would employ British subjects in Northern Persia." That, put briefly, was the attitude taken up by the British Government. We cannot say it is one that fills any Englishman who considers it with pride in the honour of his country. We have been told over and over again that it is all the fault of Mr. Shuster, that he has made things impossible. That has been repeated to-day. When it comes to driving out a man, instantly dismissing him at the point of the bayonet, with the approval of the British Government, I should like to know what exactly are the crimes alleged against Mr. Shuster? What is his fault? What has he done? We are told that he has not called at the Russian Legation as often as he ought to have done. Beyond that, what is the exact charge? The charge as stated to-day by the Secretary of State is that he appointed Mr. Leppoc to a position in Northern Persia, to be a collector at Tabriz. What sort of a charge is that?
  One might have thought that Mr. Shuster had summoned Mr. Leppoc all the way from England to take charge of the finances at Tabriz. Nothing of the sort. Mr. Leppoc had been employed for years by the Persian Government. He was well recognised as a public servant. All that Mr. Shuster had done—this is the beginning and the end of his offence as publicly narrated; there may be other things which have not been told—was that he transferred Mr. Leppoc, who happened to be a British subject, from one place to another, both in Northern Persia, both in the sphere of Russian influence. Because of that the Persian Capital is to be invaded with our consent; Russian troops are to advance upon Teheran. I must say that a poorer excuse than that for taking away the independence—for that is what it comes to—of a people to whom we are bound was never put forward in this House. Mr. Shuster is an able and honest politician. It would be well if there were more able and honest politicians in the world.
  2642
  The world would be a far better place than it is. He has the confidence of the Persian Parliament and of the Persian people. They are prepared to face this thing, and stand by him, for they recognise that in the seven months he has been in Persia he has done the best he could for the Persian people, whom he was there to serve. How far are we going in our efforts to drive out Mr. Shuster? Supposing the Medjliss persists in standing by Mr. Shuster and refuse to send him away, and supposing the Russian troops advance upon Teheran, and that they persist in destroying the Medjliss and the Constitution in order to get rid of Mr. Shuster—are we still to give our approval to the Russian Government under those circumstances? I would like to know what is involved in this policy?
  With regard to the second demand in this ultimatum, we are told it is nothing to put a veto upon the appointment of foreign advisers, because that has been done in practice before. But there is all the difference in the world between suggesting to the Persian Government that they of their own freewill should come and consult Britain or Russia before making an appointment as they have hitherto done and insisting that no foreign adviser shall be appointed unless the Persian Government get the absolute and formal consent of Great Britain and Russia. Obviously that limits enormously the choice of the Persian Parliament, and makes it exceedingly difficult for them to carry out those internal reforms which we are always protesting we wish to see them do. With regard to the indemnity, we have put forward certain considerations before the Russian Government, but I am not aware that we have asked that the demand for the indemnity shall be withdrawn. The indemnity cannot be paid, because there is no cash to pay it. But everyone knows what a demand for indemnity means. It means that we are to have more concessions, and more concession hunting.
  If that is the sort of policy that we are now giving the approval of the British Government to, I do not think it is any wonder that we have indignant protests from Mussulman countries. From Calcutta, Bombay, Constantinople, Egypt, and other places, resolutions are arriving against the course the Government have taken. Some of us think that the most serious part of the affair is the effect that is being made in India by the action of His Majesty's Government in participating—for that is really what is

  2643
  happening—in an attack on Persian independence. There was a mass meeting held at Bombay in one of the principal mosques there at which a resolution was passed, recording the sense of indignation, alarm, and surprise, of those present at the Russian occupation of Persian territory, and the advance of their troops upon Teheran. That meeting begged "respectfully to ask the British Foreign Office to reconsider the situation, and use their influence in preserving the principle of the integrity of Persia and preventing the Russian advance." I might read numbers of other telegrams, and other protests that we have received at the Persian Committee from India, Constantinople and other parts. We are told, "Oh, but think how much worse we should be without the Anglo-Russian Convention." That Anglo-Russian Convention, it is said, is an instrument for helping Persia. "By protesting against these proceedings you are seeking to destroy the Anglo-Russian Convention!"
  I have never been against the Anglo-Russian Convention. I listened to the speeches made at the time, and I thought on the whole, though it might be a bad bargain for this country it was on the whole a good thing we should have a bargain with Russia. It is not we who seek to destroy or wreck the Anglo-Russian Convention; it is the Foreign Office themselves. I am making a protest at a time when the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention is being broken. I do not think anyone who reads the words of the Anglo-Russian Convention in which it is stated that Great Britain and Russia mutually engage to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, can contend when they proceed to read of the recent attack by Russia and the presenting of two ultimatums to a defenceless country that that is in form with the Convention. I say if the Anglo-Russian Convention is to be preserved, and I am all for preserving it, if it can be preserved, on lines consistent with the honour of this country, it is time the Foreign Office made clear to the Russian Government that the sort of action taken against Persia in the last few weeks cannot, and must not, be persisted in. If there are grievances against Persia let them be investigated. If the Persian Government behaved wrongly let there be proper investigation. But the recent action of Russia is not fair play, or in conformity with the spirit of the Anglo-Russian
  2644
  Convention, and I am certain it is not in accordance with the public opinion of this country.
  Mr. BIGLAND: It it not my intention to follow the argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but rather to go back to the beginning of this Debate today, and to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir Henry Norman). Some of his remarks were very much to the point in reference to the arguments I wish to put before the House. He said at the beginning of his speech that the German and British nations coming together at this particular juncture that they could do anything of themselves, and he went on to say that all other matters compared with that were unimportant. I believe a sense of responsibility has weighed with Members upon both sides of the House in the speeches they made during this Debate. I feel it myself, and I believe anyone could diagnose it directly. I claim to know something of the commercial spirit and the enterprise and competition existing between this country and Germany. Going back to 1870, or, roughly, forty years ago, we know that in the first twenty years after the great war the progress of Germany was presistent and steady; but during the last twenty years the progress of Germany has been terrific, and that progress must have extension. Members upon this side of the House and upon the other recognise that the enormous internal resources and development of Germany must have extension. The hon. Member for Blackburn rightly told us, in my opinion, that in one respect the German people and the British people come alongside one another in that they are the only two peoples who persistently demand the open door in neutral markets. In that way I think there is a point at which we can come alongside and offer to work with the German people in a different sense than has been mooted tonight. It is said that the Germans in their colonies have always given us the open door, and we have always given to Germany the open door, but when we come to consider some of the actions of other nations we regret that they have not seen fit on their side to give to the German people and to us the open door in their colonial dependencies We have only to remember that when we ceded Madagascar to France they practically wrote over that island, "No Lancashire and Yorkshire goods here." The United

  2645
  States is doing the same thing with regard to the Philippines and with their other possessions, and I apprehend that one point which is causing trouble in the German mind with regard to foreign affairs is that fifteen to twenty years ago they realised the fact that with their trading people the growing tariffs of the world had made them nervous. We have only to remember what happened between Germany and Canada when Canada voluntarily gave to this country a preference, because it increased the nervousness amongst the German people. They resented that preference, and hon. Members know the result of that little contretemps between Germany and Canada, and how finally Canada gave way and met Germany after protesting that she had a right to give a preference to the people of her own Empire. German opinion and German feeling with regard to foreign affairs is that there is one absolute necessity for the German Empire as it exists, and that is open markets in foreign countries.
  I do not believe that the navy built by Germany, which has exercised so much argument and so much thought in this country, is intended in any sense to be a menace to this country. I honestly believe that that navy has been built to stand before all the people of the world, and demand when international questions arise that her voice shall be heard with regard to the closing of markets or the resettlement of countries which may change the sovereign power. That, to my mind, is the reason why Germany has developed her navy to the extent she has, because that is an absolute necessity of the German people. They have no vast possessions in assured markets, and they must take up the position that they must make themselves so strong that if China is breaking up her voice will be heard. Germany realised fifteen to twenty years ago that it was no use her making strong representations with regard to the settlement of international affairs in a country 7,000 miles away if she was unable to take any definite action on the ocean, and this building up of her navy means that Germany demands open markets.
  I feel that something that was dropped from this side had a good deal to do with that on account of our action in 1903 in developing a policy of Imperial preference, for that increased the nervousness on the part of the people of Germany. I have thought this matter over for years, and I
  2646
  feel that the time has now come when we and Germany can meet together and talk openly with one another. Perhaps the time has come when the Foreign Secretary may ask ten business men in this House to meet ten business men of the German Parliament, and have a conference together to endeavour to understand the business difficulties between the two nations. There are business difficulties, and there is a feeling that Germany has not treated our Empire in the way we expected. They elect to take from Australia and New Zealand the wool our Colonies have to offer, but they absolutely prohibit the beef and the mutton. Is it not reasonable to think that these German merchants, hoping for great markets in Australia and New Zealand, would show a reasonable spirit in which to take some of the great products of this country? Is it quite fair the German merchant should say to the people of India, "We will take your raw jute, but at no price your gunny bag," and that at the same time their textile manufacturers should have the open market in India? If these things were put by business men to business men I believe that the Germans would reciprocate. The position with regard to this Imperial preference no doubt to-day does actuate the minds of the people in Germany. It makes them nervous, and I do not wonder at it. If we contemplate partially closing to German exporters the markets of 300,000,000 people, I do not wonder at them feeling nervous, and wondering how their trade would be affected if that policy were carried into effect. I am one of those broad-minded traders who would advocate that in any fiscal changes we may make in India we should be quite prepared to say, "We want no preference for Great Britain. We want in these markets just what the German wants—open markets and competition on equal terms." We want the countries who expect open markets within our own Empire to be prepared to give us a reasonably open market in their empire. The trouble arose in the beginning with John Bright and Cobden. When they appealed to the whole world to trade on equal terms, as spokesmen they did not realise they had obtained such a supremacy that the other competitors could not play the game with them on even terms. They should have been prepared to give their competitors a reasonable start in the race, because they were so much better equipped. If I may put a simile to the hon. Gentleman opposite who laughs, I would ask him to suppose

  2647
  that Hilton perhaps the best amateur player of golf, meets me upon the links, and says, "I will play you a game on even terms for £100." I say, "It Is nonsense. The game is lost before the first stroke is played. You must give me twelve strokes, according to the handicap, and then I will play you." That is the position in which we find ourselves to-day. There are certain countries which may rightly take the scratch place and which must be prepared in the fiscal arrangements with weaker and less developed countries to afford them willingly a start in the race. If we follow that simile a little further, and arrange that the tariff limit of all scratch nations shall be 20 per cent., then we can readily see how, Germany meeting with us in conference, we shall be able to say to Italy, "We can afford to give you a 10 per cent. tariff more than we give ourselves," and we can go to Turkey, to Greece, and to other countries and say, "We are prepared to give you an advantage." It was mentioned to-night that one of the things we could do with Germany was to give Turkey her freedom with regard to her tariffs. It is perfectly true that, internationally, Turkey is not free, and that is one of the things such a business conference might suggest to the Governments of both countries—the possibility of how we could do something to internationally make, peace more assured.
  It comes to this finally, that unless we arrive at an international understanding between the great races of the world—between Germany, France, the United States and Great Britain—all causes of war in the future will be a matter of markets. I believe that the wars of the future will have very little to do with territory. The great jealousy between the nations to-day is as to markets, and if we and Germany can come together and talk the matter over as business men and say, "It is imperative to your existence as an industrial people to preserve open markets in all parts of the world; we are willing to give you and ask our sister States to give you the same preference in our markets that they give to Great Britain on one condition, that you give the products of the British Empire the same opportunity in your markets. We are willing to have an understanding with you on the terms that there shall be no jealousy of the British Empire in the future. We, on our part, agree that there shall be no
  2648
  putting up of preferential tariffs against Germany provided that the German Empire reciprocates in the same reasonable way." If we can come to such an understanding all will be well.
  Personally I do not believe that free imports internationally will ever be possible again, I believe a certain limit of tariff is necessary to safeguard the wage earners, and if we, as business men, could come together and say the wage earners limit shall be 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., it may be possible to remove jealousies between nations. From that moment I believe it will be possible to talk about the reduction of armaments. But until we recognise that unanimity or uniformity of the tariff must obtain, there can be no hope of a general reduction. We must have something like equality of tariff. We must have equal opportunity in all markets and in each others markets.
  Who cared about Morocco? Germany knew that if France had it entirely her market was closed. It has been said that the reason Germany sent a vessel to Agidir was simply to keep an open market. We have had it stated that the result of that action was that we should have equality of opportunity in Morocco for thirty years and after. I believe, that if we and Germany commercially could come together, we might form ourselves into an international handicap committee, and we could offer to let certain nations come in. As sportsmen we could recognise there are some people we must give a start to. Some of us quite understand we could give a man four yards in a hundred, but if he claimed fourteen, we should refuse to run. That is the position in international markets with regard to commerce. We should be able to give our competitors, and all competitors, a small but certain start in the race. They have been handicapping themselves for the last forty years in a most unsportsmanlike manner, and we call a halt. We say we are going to have a voice on this handicapping committee. Surely our House of Commons, representing all the industries of this great kingdom, should be the handicapping committee. It is for us to say, "If you do not accord to your competitors reasonable opportunities in your markets, then you have no cause to say that if the British Empire gives a preference within its own borders it is actually unjust or unfair to you, if, at the same moment we offer you that same preference on the one condition that you give to the goods of the British

  2649
  Empire the same opportunities in your market that we give to yours in ours." We should cut away from the Germans the possibility of saying "You have not treated us fairly. This will strain relations to such a point, it will cut off the employment of our own people to such an extent that it will be a serious national menace to us if you follow this line of Imperial preference." Then we say, "It is open to you, if you like, to have the same opportunities in the British Empire market that we claim for ourselves, but you must be willing to take beef from Australia, the gunnybag from India, and the manufactured goods from Lancashire and Yorkshire, and you must be willing to recognise that we are both on the scratch line, and that we mean to play on even terms."
  I am not treating this matter lightly. If the Foreign Secretary can see his way to invite such a conference of business men in Germany and business men in England to meet, the first result would, perhaps, be void, but public opinion, engendered along these lines of what is fair between the trader in Germany and the trader in Great Britain, would begin to open the minds of the Germans to the fact that they have in this vast Empire of ours enjoyed opportunities that no other Empire has given to their traders, and I believe it would awake in them some sense of that fairness that is inherent in the minds of all our great traders, merchants, and shipowners, and of the fact that we ask for no preference. The greatest ambition in all our minds is that in all the markets of the world we should enjoy equality of opportunity with others. I believe that the two nations coming together on a purely business basis would do more towards settling public opinion and removing the jealousy which gives cause for war than any other line that we as a community in this House could possibly put before a friendly nation.
  Mr. ALLEN BAKER: I am unable to follow the last speaker in all his remarks. I am sure we have listened to him with great pleasure on this side of the House, and I heartily agree with his suggestion that a conference of business men, or other representative men if they can be got together, representing the two countries, would be able to come to some agreement or some understanding that would be satisfactory to both sides. I want to say how heartily I endorse the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Droitwich
  2650
  (Mr. John Lyttelton). That speech, I am sure, is one that will be welcomed in all parts of the country. It is one that will have its effect, I believe, across the Channel as well. The Debate has been characterised by a dignity, a sincerity, and a depth of feeling of friendship to our kindred people in Germany which will have its effect not only in this country and in Germany, but throughout the world. I was very glad indeed to hear the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beres-ford) breathing friendliness and kindliness to that great nation which, coming from him as representing that section of our people who are in favour of a large Navy, will be widely appreciated. The Debate falls upon an auspicious occasion. The meeting held a few hours ago in the Caxton Hall to organise a great demonstration a few years hence to celebrate 100 years of peace between the English-speaking peoples is one in which we can all rejoice. It was representative of both political parties and of business, literature, and all grades of thought in the country. It seems to me that the example of America and Canada, who have followed a policy of friendship and got rid of armaments and gunboats on their frontiers, ought to be followed, and I believe it will, by other countries.
  I want to refer to the remarkable speeches which have been made by the Foreign Secretary. The first on that memorable night of 13th March, when that proposal of President Taft came to this country and was welcomed by him, sent a thrill of satisfaction and of hope throughout, not only this country, but the civilised world. We felt that by the acceptance of that proposal we had taken a long step towards that to which I believe all civilised, and certainly all Christian nations are looking forward, the time when there shall be an understanding among the peoples of the world, and when our differences will be settled, not by brute force, but by justice, law, and arbitration. We are sorry, of course, that there has not been an immediate ratification of that proposed treaty, but a few weeks ago I had several conversations with the Vice-President of the United States, and he gave me what he said I might take as an assurance that he believed in a very short time that treaty would be ratified by the American Senate. That treaty, ratified by the American Senate, will be the first step in this great understanding between the two peoples. The proposal is that France also should

  2651
  join. Why should not Germany join as well? I believe the United States have made the proposal to Germany. If that is accepted by France and England I believe Germany will not be slow to follow. This is surely the ideal we ought to have before us. That speech will remain as one of the greatest and most historic pronouncements in connection with the question of international peace made in this or any other Parliament.
  I wish to refer to another speech. I am sorry I am not able to speak of it in quite the same enthusiastic way. I refer to the most unfortunate speech that was made at the Mansion House on 21st July. The voice was the voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hand was the hand of, if not the Foreign Secretary, certainly of the Foreign Office. I think that is the cause of the irritation that is felt and which has such an influence in Germany to-day. I had hoped that in the speech the Foreign Secretary made on the 27th of last month he would have gone a little further than he did, and that he would have said some words of greater warmth and friendliness to Germany which feels so much irritated over the position of matters to-day. It seems to me that, if we are to have the international peace which is desired by the two peoples, it must be by the cordial union of the three greatest Christian Powers, and three greatest nations of the world. We must not only have cordial relations with the United States, but equally cordial relations, and even warm friendship, with the German Empire and with other nations. We have had many evidences of the real strength and friendship that does exist between ourselves and our German cousins. That feeling had been growing for several years, and it had reached the point at which there was such real friendship that when any difference of opinion, or any strain came, and the Germans believed that we were allying ourselves with and standing with those whom they consider to be their natural enemy, they felt that, in the preparation which was made to attack them, we had played false to our professions, and that our friendship was not real. I believe that is the measure of their disappointment and their apparent unfriendliness to-day. I think every step ought to be taken that can be taken to remove the feeling of strain and stress that prevails. I believe that if some proposals were made whereby a conference could be held and
  2652
  the whole situation talked over and discussed an understanding would be come to and we would find that the interests of Germany and England are identical, that our aims and ideals are the same, that we are not only necessary to each other in the progress of our own commerce and our own development, but that unitedly we are required for the advance and progress and civilisation and Christianity in the world. I hope sincerely that some step may be taken and taken speedily to let our friends in Germany know that the masses of the people in this country are truly friendly to them, and ready to hold out the hand of friendship and meet them in any just ambitions they might have for expansion, and with such an understanding not only will our prosperity in both countries to be continued, but it will be the great step that is wanted for the union of the peoples of the world for peace and for progress.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: As a sincere and loyal supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, I yield to no one in my admiration of the exemplary qualities which he has shown as a public man. He must have observed that he found a friend or two opposite to him to-day, and a general silence from his own side of the House; and I think he must be impressed with the widespread feeling which there is on the benches near where I sit—I will not say of hostility to him and his policy so much as an earnest desire that true Liberalism must permeate the policy of the Foreign Office, and that cordial relations may be established with all the countries of the world, especially with Germany. One of the most striking things in the two days' Debates has been to show what tremendous power rests in the Government of this country, especially in the Foreign Secretary. Some unwise act, some false step may rapidly bring us into war and disaster. The best result I hope for from these two days' debates is that there will be established more intimacy between the House of Commons and the Foreign Office At present they are hardly on speaking terms. The Foreign Secretary, although a Minister of the Crown, must never forget that he can only remain so by leave of the House of Commons.
  May I point out to the House that the silence of the Foreign Office, the secrecy of the foreign policy, can never produce confidence, there may be produced indifference. To establish confidence there must be knowledge. We

  2653
  get on very well in normal times when nothing is happening, and people care nothing, and know nothing about what is going on. But when troubles come, as they lately have, then ignorance only breeds distrust. If the nation is kept in the dark, and then suddenly finds that things are going on, it becomes frightened and suspicious. That is what the Foreign Minister is suffering from now. Human creatures are always afraid of the unknown, and to know is to understand Therefore, let the right hon. Gentleman explain his policy, as he has done to-day, I believe with most beneficial results. Let him explain his policy if he wants, and I have no doubt he does want, the intelligent and moral support of the nation. There is no doubt—I think the Foreign Secretary will not be ignorant of it—that there is an uneasy feeling both in this House and outside it, that the Liberal party is being hustled along into an anti-Liberal policy. I listened the other day to my right hon. Friend's speech, especially to that part of it which referred to the crisis which arose in July. I listened eagerly to his words, but I am bound to say I was disappointed. Warmer words were spoken by the leader of the Opposition shortly afterwards, warmer words were spoken by my Noble Friend Lord Morley in the other House, and again, a few days later by Lord Haldane. Then we have had the reports of the Reichstag debate. Can anyone read the report of that debate and still doubt the imprudence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech at the Mansion House.
  The unadulterated mischief of that speech, the peril to the world, were such that it was like playing with fire. I could not but think what an infinite blessing words of an opposite character might have produced. Here again bringing out the responsibility of statesmen in such a position. Here we have hundreds and thousands of men and women both in this country and in Germany asking for Anglo-German friendship. All the time these hon. Members, these distinguished statesmen, can reach out the hand, and get it. They can get either friendship or hostility, as easily as Eve got the apple—the apple of discord. They can get it as easily as Noah taking the olive branch from the dove. Lord Haldane said it was only a disposition to misinterpret on either side which led to misunderstanding. That disposition to misinterpret very often arises from interested motives. Encouragement of the national spirit has
  2654
  been the foundation of the principle of Liberal foreign policy for long, and to many of us it would seem to be cynically disregarded both in Morocco and in Persia. The Moors are a fine and ancient race. Why did we ignore them in all these recent negotiations? Why did we ignore them in order to back up the French monopolist concessionaires? Persia has recently shown manifestations of its national spirit. Lord Curzon in a most eloquent speech, for which I beg leave to thank him, told us of their history, their art, their poetry, and their national aspirations. Why then are we to join Russia in crushing that spirit, crushing it, as it appears to many of us, like a walnut between nutcrackers?
  We hear a great deal about the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The more I hear about that agreement the more I am inclined to regard it as an Anglo-Russian entanglement. What we are doing, or at any rate, what we are sanctioning in Persia all results from this lack of understanding with Germany. Mr. Morgan Sinister, whose name has been brought up many times in this Debate, says to-day, in a published letter, a striking letter I think:
  "Well-informed public opinion here (in Persia), realises of course that British foreign policy is dictated by the necessity of keeping both eyes and one ear on our Teutonic friends, and for the sake of humanity in general I sincerely hope that some means may be found to bring about a better state of feeling between Germany and the English people."
  Do not we all share that sentiment. I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stands on the highest pinnacle of fame and power in Europe, and I believe it to be in his power to say things and to do things which would change the atmosphere now dangerously charged with suspicion and distrust, change it slowly perhaps, but change it into a blessed atmosphere of confidence and mutual help. For six years we have had a Government of which we on this side, at any rate, have been proud of, proud as a whole, proud of its individual members, proud of its eloquence, proud of its achievements, and we have supported them with a loyalty of which I think they will not complain. Though a Coalition we have been a solid phalanx in the Division Lobby for six years, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been able to break. Is this brilliant chapter of Parliamentary history to be prematurely closed because of foreign relations, because the Government supporters on this side of the House

  2655
  are so numerous in condemning the foreign policy, because Liberal principles have been departed from in that department of the State, and Liberal traditions and ideals forgotten.
  I warn His Majesty's Government seriously but sorrowfully, I can tell them and I speak of what I know, the continued strained relations with Germany, the consequent maintenance of a large and crushing expense to the nation for armaments, and perhaps above all the advance of the Cossack in Persia with our connivance, I warn them that those things are having the effect, and ought to have the effect, of lowering the temperature of Liberalism in this country, of weakening the loyalty of many of their supporters in the House and of lessening the allegiance of many of their strongest followers in the country. The Foreign Secretary knows vastly more than I can possibly know about the affairs we have been discussing. But I can, at any rate, read the signs of the times. As a nonsense writer has said, "I may not be a peacock, but I have eyes." I repeat the warning conscientiously. The Government have made many promises of large home reforms for next year—three great Bills on which they will want all the support and strength we can give them. But they will not have it unless the trend and spirit of their foreign policy is deflected—I will not say reversed. Let there be some cordial and generous words spoken to promote friendly relations with Germany. Let there be, on the other hand, some abatement in the expansion of our menacing armaments. Let there be to Russia some firm words about the pledges we have to maintain. Then, I believe, we may hope for a stronger loyalty and a more united party than the examination of the list in a division on foreign affairs to-day would reveal. I hope my right hon. Friend will not resent the observations that I have felt it my duty to make. I hope he will not say that he has been wounded in the house of his friends. It is the duty of a sincere friend to warn his friend when he thinks he is going wrong.
  Mr. KING: This Debate has now lasted about fifteen hours, and I have had the privilege and pleasure of sitting through the whole of it. One remarkable fact about this evening's Debate is that we have had nineteen speeches, of which only five have been delivered from the Unionist benches, two from the Irish benches, and no less than twelve by members of the
  2656
  party to which I belong. That is significant. It shows that we of the Liberal party are most anxious to understand and to express our feelings on foreign affairs, and if at any time the Prime Minister wants to do something to satisfy his own supporters, let him give a day for the discussion of foreign affairs. With regard to the speeches from the benches opposite, with one exception they might just as well have been made from the Liberal side of the House. They were all speeches of which the House might be proud, and with one exception they breathed a feeling of strong friendship towards Germany. They went further, and suggested that our policy was not sufficient in its present form, but that some action should be taken or some new departure made which would inaugurate a new era in our relations with Germany. The one exception that I make in this account of the speeches from the Conservative benches is that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) He is, I suppose, a distinguished Gentleman, for he has the honour of being the private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. We all know what extremely important persons Parliamentary private secretaries are. I call attention to his speech because I suppose it breathes the spirit of the Diplomatic Service. He is the one Gentleman in this Debate, so far as I know, that speaks with the experience of that Service.
  Lord BALCARRES: No, no!
  Mr. KING: Well, I understood so, and I do not want to be in the same category as those distinguished statesmen. The Member for Rugby used language which was absolutely indecent in the mouth of anyone who has served His Majesty. Speaking of Germany at the present time he said that we might discount nine-tenths of what was said there because it was being spoken owing to local exigencies. If you want to make friends with another Power do not, if you want to be diplomatic, start by telling them that nine-tenths of what they say you are not willing to believe. He then went on to say: "Perhaps Germany will think better of this when her General Election is over." I venture to say that German statesmen and the German people have a good deal more sense of dignity, and what is right and generous to those on the other side than has the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby. Why I take exception to his remarks is that when you get them from

  2657
  a man who has been brought up in the Diplomatic Service it shows what the Diplomatic Service must be! It is as narrow and as liable to error, if not more liable, than any other department of the public service.
  A United States ambassador, an eminent man, once made the remark that
  "no one ought to be an ambassador who had spent his life in the Diplomatic Service. When he was asked 'Why,' he replied, 'that an ambassador ought to understand the feeling of his country, and the atmosphere and inclinations of the people rather than the narrow groove of the service.'"
  I am inclined to think he was right. The greatest success in our diplomatic body at the present time is undoubtedly Mr. Bryce at Washington. Mr. Bryce, as everyone knows who knows of him either personally or his career, is absolutely free from all the prejudices and absurdities of the Diplomatic Service. I venture earnestly to suggest to the Foreign Secretary that one way in which we might begin a new era in our German relations would be to send as ambassador to Berlin and possibly to Vienna, some distinguished persons whom we previously found out would be acceptable at those capitals. I do not want in any way to suggest that the distinguished ambassadors serving in Berlin and Vienna are not in every way satisfactory, but those ambassadors might be promoted as occasion arises. The very fact that a movement of places among ambassadors was taking place would mark the end of one period which was mournful in its relations leading almost to a breach of the usual and proper relations between the two countries, and would begin a new period. I am sorry my suggestion does not seem to meet with the approval of one hon. Member below the Gangway, but I trust the spirit, at any rate, in which it is made, may meet with his accord. There are many ways in which we might begin a new era in our relations with Germany. One thing that struck me throughout this Debate was the practical unanimity from all sides of the House expressing a desire that something should be done in order to mark a new period in our foreign relations. This was really the striking note in our Debate to-night, and it has been echoed on each side of the House. I took a note of the whole Debate, and I marked no less than ten speakers who have in various ways given expression to the sentiment that something should be done.
  As one hon. Member said, "fine words butter no parsnips." That really was the governing note of the Debate, and although
  2658
  it was rather a long sermon, this text and the application of it has been sufficiently obvious. Let me point out to the Front bench how many ways there are in which something could be done. The Colonial extension of Germany has been mentioned, and in this connection a very interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland). During the course of that speech I was very glad to notice the leader of the Opposition came in. I am sure it must have been a very edifying spectacle for him to find how very near a free trader one of his supporters has become. He pointed to Germany's Colonial and national expansion. There are many ways in which this might be achieved. Could we not intimate to Germany that proposals for purchase or exchange of territory might be entertained? Let me point out that suppose the purchase of any territory was contemplated if it was accompanied by a mutual understanding about armaments, it would be a very useful investment for Germany to pay two or three millions a year for a few years, knowing that by so doing it would secure good feeling, and therefore freedom from war and from anxiety about increasing naval expenditure. Then, again, there is the question of coaling stations in different parts of the world. It has been the policy of our country to prevent as far as possible the acquisition of new coaling stations for Germany. I believe that policy to be wrong, and at any rate the opposite policy ought to be seriously considered. Is it not obvious that if the German fleet is able to go all over the world its force will be dispersed, and its danger in the case of any sudden outbreak would be lessened. I think this is a point which ought to be taken into consideration in connection with the words one often hears in Germany, and which now have a national meaning in that country, "Our future lies on the sea." The German Emperor some years ago uttered those words, and that phrase has become in some measure a national motto since then. The future of Germany on the sea can only be accomplished fully, and in the sense that they mean it when their fleet of war vessels is able to go all over the world as freely as a fleet of merchant vessels. I wish to say a word or two about the extremely unfortunate distractions which arise in connection with espionage. There has recently been a trial at Berlin of a British subject for endeavouring to purchase the plans of German battleships, and he has been

  2659
  sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. In this connection it is well to remember that he was arrested at Hamburg last March, and therefore his offence cannot have had anything to do with the recent crisis. In the course of what appears to be an official statement published at the conclusion of the trial, these words occur:
  "By this trial bands of spies are now rendered harmless, bands which have laboured to obtain military secrets for the English espionage bureau."
  I do not suppose any hon. Member of this House knows what the espionage bureau is, but this statement was published in every paper in Germany, and so long as these trials for espionage go on so long will a good deal of mistrust, suspicion, and dislike continue in the minds of people in both countries. What the action of the War Office, or the Admiralty, or the Foreign Office is in connection with the information they obtain from abroad I do not know, but I feel certain that if our policy mutually with Germany could be so altered that we should refuse to accept on either side information as to the warlike preparations of other Powers except through proper and recognised sources it would be an additional security for the peace of the world. I might also refer to other opportunities which seem to present themselves for meeting German feeling in this way. There are many ways in which trade and co-operation of work can be forwarded by mutual action by the Legislature of this country. During the present Session we have passed, or we are about to pass, two Bills, one connected with maritime law and another connected with copyright, which will be a distinctly benevolent influence in this direction, but there are many other ways, including the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) in connection with our commercial relations which indicate lines on which action taken by us now might begin a new era of relations with Germany, and might lead to the establishment in a much greater sense than ever before of the peace of Europe.
  There is in this building a notable picture, one of the most striking historical pictures, I suppose, that was ever painted. I mean the great picture in the Royal Gallery which represents the meeting of Blücher and Wellington after Waterloo. That recalls a great period which ended in 1815, the period of Napoleonic power in Europe. During the whole
  2660
  of the critical time of the period England and Germany were allies, and our union with the power of Prussia and with German national sentiment was, roughly speaking, the reason the power and the tyranny of Napoleon was brought to nought. That is the story of 1815, and never since that date have we been anything else but friends with Germany. It would indeed be a scandal and a shame and a disgrace to us and to civilisation if the year 1915 did not see us as good friends at least as we were in the year 1815. It ought to be, it might be, and it should be a lasting friendship between this country and Germany.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: It would be perhaps as well if some Member of the party to which I happen to belong said at any rate a word in this Debate. So far as we are concerned our attitude is one of confirmed friendship with the German people. I have listened with very great pleasure to some of the speeches to-night, and none gave me greater pleasure than that of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). I think he struck the right note in his speech. He gave a pretty straight indication not only to this House, and not only to those on the Front Bench, but to the people outside that whatever may have been his professions, in the Navy at any rate he is a man of peace, and very strongly in favour of peace between this nation and the great nation of Germany. I appreciated the sentiment in the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, and I am glad that men of his type realise, as I am sure he does, the tremendous value of peace between two great trading nations. It was my good fortune a few years ago to pay a visit to Germany in company with some of the members of the party to which I have the honour to belong, and there was one thing that struck me perhaps more than anything else during the course of our visit to several of the large towns in Germany.
  In nearly every town and city in Germany we visited we moved amongst all types of people who were in very close touch with English people who had made their homes in Germany, and on all hands we were reminded that the only time the people of Germany and England had been engaged in a war they were on the same side. It has also been my good fortune during my membership of this House to show some German people round this building, and I have noticed the same

  2661
  kindly feeling and the same expression of sentiment when these people have been drawn to the picture to which the hon. Member alluded. Those who have any knowledge of the German people, those who have visited that country, those who know anything of their industries or of the type of people who inhabit the country sometimes feel, when they come back hero that after all there is very little difference between the German and the English people, and inasmuch as this country has been invaded several times, it accounts for the fact, perhaps, that every type of person to be found in Great Britain has its equivalent in Germany. I believe the German people are a great nation, and that they will be a greater nation still. They constitute a nation which will develop and will develop because they are much of the same temperament, type, ability, patience, and stolidity, as the people of this country. They are men well versed in science and in mechanics, they are blessed with many of the minerals which this country possesses, and they are bound to develop commercially equally with ourselves. It seems to me, therefore, there can be no reason whatever in this world why we should not have an equally good understanding with Germany as we have with Russia and France.
  In my confident opinion at any rate the great mass of the people of this country have no quarrel with Germany at all. If there is to be a quarrel it will not be between the people of the two countries. The quarrel will be largely manufactured by those who sit in the seats of the mighty, by those on the Front Benches, and by certain newspapers in this country which are always endeavouring to create friction between our country and some other country. Sometimes it makes me feel that a remedy adopted in China might well be applied to the editors of these newspapers. They seem to lose their heads in writing their articles; it would be no loss if they lost their heads altogether. I believe a good understanding between this country and Germany is essential for the welfare of the whole of the nations of Europe. The people of Germany and those in authority in the German Reichstag have shown willingness to come to a friendly alliance. I trust that the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition on the last occasion when this question was debated in this House will be shown in a little greater degree by the
  2662
  Foreign Secretary. A friend of mine from Germany was present listening to that debate, and in the course of conversation subsequently he said: "We have sympathy and warmth from the Leader of the Opposition, but your Foreign Secretary seems to have ice in his blood." I hope a little warmer sentiment may in future be shown to that nation, and that a good understanding will be brought about with Germany at no distant date. It would be good not only for this country, but also for that country, and it will tend to increase goodwill in the world at large.
  Question put, and agreed to.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Rule as to Division of Loss.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HOLT: I should be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will explain exactly what are the changes in the law proposed to be enacted in the Bill. I understand it is confined to an alteration of the law as to the apportionment of damages in cases of collisions, and that where both vessels are to blame the damages are to be apportioned in proportion to the amount of blame, and not in the old rough and ready method of half and half. If that is so, I heartily approve of the change. I understand that the Bill is the result of an international conference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me what foreign countries have agreed to make this change in the law, and to what extent it represents a real international agreement; how far the various associations of shipowners in the country have been consulted, and whether I am right in understanding that they are practically unanimous.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am glad to be able to assure

  2663
  my hon. Friend that the associations of shipowners in the country are practically unanimous; indeed, I believe absolutely unanimous in support of the measure. This Bill gives effect to two Conventions, which took place at Brussels last year, dealing with the law of collisions at sea and of salvage, the object being to secure unification of the laws of the various maritime nations of the world in this respect. These Conventions were the outcome of a movement which began more than a quarter of a century ago. Although a long period followed the initiation of the movement in this country, initiation on the part of the shipowners and others, the conferences on the subject, I am glad to say, have been unanimous in a very high degree. They represent, on the whole, a rally of the other maritime nations to the maritime law of this country. There are just one or two points in which alteration has to be made. One of these my hon. Friend has mentioned. There is a rectification of the distinctly rough and ready procedure under which, when two ships which have been damaged in collision, they aggregate the loss and divide it equally between them, no matter what might have been the degree in which the ships singly contributed to the accident. It is universally admitted that this is very rough justice indeed. On this point our law is being usefully modified. There is one other point, the abolition of the statutory fault, which again makes a new change in the English law. As the law stands at present the principle of presumption of fault may bring it about that if a ship has committed any breach whatever of the laws of navigation and runs into collision, she is held to be seriously liable, although the error of navigation may not really have contributed to the accident at all. These are the only two important points on which the law is altered, and there is universal agreement among shipowners and jurists in favour of these alterations. Other modifications, such as the limitation of the time for proceedings, are also, I think, agreeable to the good sense of the whole commercial community. On the particular ground raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) all the important maritime nations of the world have consented, and we have confident expectation that our own Colonies will be included.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Application of Act.)
  (1) This Act shall extend throughout His Majesty's dominions and to any territories under his protection, and to Cyprus:
  Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland.
  (2) This Act shall not apply in any case in which proceedings have been taken before the passing thereof, and all such cases shall be determined as though this Act had not been passed.
  (3) The provisions of this Act shall be applied in all cases heard and determined in any court having jurisdiction to deal with the case, and in whatever waters the damage or loss in question was caused, or the salvage services in question were rendered, and Sub-section (9) of Section twenty-five of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, shall cease to have effect.
  (4) This Act shall apply to any persons other than the owners responsible for the fault of the vessel as though the expression "owners" included such persons, and in any case where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are not responsible for the navigation and management of the vessel, this Act shall be read as though for references to the owners there were substituted references to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to omit the words "Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland."
  12.0 M.
  This raises the very important question of the extent to which the self-governing Dominions ought to be allowed to act independently of this country in matters of international agreement. That is a matter of the utmost gravity, and I very much regret that it should not be possible to discuss a subject of that sort on its own merits at a suitable time of day. I do not think the Bill ought to be allowed to go through without having some plain speaking on the subject. The whole object of the measure is to secure international agreement on matters concerned with the high seas, and really it is quite absurd that in a matter as to which the

  2665
  whole object is to secure a reversal of things we should allow these self-governing Colonies to contract themselves out if they think fit to do so. How can we be said to be a united Empire when our negotiators are not entitled to speak for the Empire as a whole in a matter as to which a general agreement is the object that is being sought? In the Naval Prize Bill, which dealt with a similar class of subject there was no suggestion for a moment that the Colonies were not to be bound by the same laws which bound this country. Those who are interested in the mercantile marine object very strongly indeed to having different laws in the Colonies with regard to matters that occur on the sea from those which prevail in this country. I cannot see how it can be thought to be any part of the reasonable demand for autonomy that the Colonies should be allowed to make their laws separate from ours with regard to maritime affairs. I understand very little practical inconvenience is likely to arise in this case, and I hope I shall be assured that the majority of our Colonies are going to introduce similar legislation. I should also like my hon. Friend to explain what the effect of this Clause is going to be, assuming that we pass the Bill and that the Colonies do not pass similar measures. As regards vessels registered in the Colonies, will the effect be that the law will be different from that applicable to vessels registered in this country? Am I right in understanding—and I think this is the true interpretation—that it depends on the court before which you bring your action what the apportionment of the damages will be? If there was a collision between my ship and that of another owner, and the case was tried in Sydney, would we be told that the law was different there from the law in London for precisely the same thing? If that is so, I think everybody will agree that it is highly objectionable. Nothing can be more objectionable as regards the different parts of the Empire than that the selection of the place where you try a case should make a difference in the deciding of the question which of the two parties has to pay for the loss occasioned. That cannot be right. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance which will put it beyond doubt that in practice the law in the whole Empire as to collisions at sea will be one and the same, no matter in what part of the Empire the case is tried.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he wants. The Amendment raises two questions—one the general theoretical question whether the Colonies ought to be bound by the international laws of this country which have passed through our Legislature, and the other the particular question as to the position in which the Colonies will stand in regard to this measure. My hon. Friend has put to me the question: What will happen if we pass this Bill and the Colonies do not pass similar measures? In regard to the second question, I grant that in a case arising out of a collision at sea it would be wholly a matter for the court in which the case was tried. The Colonies, assuming that they do not pass this measure, would continue to act on their existing laws in whatever points they may differ from the law now being set up. But there is practical certainty that will not take place. The Colonies were parties to the Conference, and they considered the whole matter, and in fact two have given formal ratification of the convention, namely, South Africa and New Zealand. All the others, with one exception, have accepted the draft convention which has been very slightly altered in the process of drafting since. The only one that made any objection was Australia, and it objected on two points only. One was in regard to the abolition of the old defence of compulsory pilotage. That was discussed at the Conference, and it was decided that it should be dropped from the measure. Considering that the question of compulsory pilotage is not raised—and that was the only serious point put for Australia—the Australian objection falls to the ground. The other matter was quite a minor one. It seems to me that any objection by Australia has been met by the withdrawal of the proviso to compel pilotage and that the assent of Australia will be obtained in due course. This promise that the law in the Colonies will in due course be absolutely the same as ours in all the matters dealt with in this very important connection will meet my hon. Friend's contention that in such matters the law passed in the mother country should bind the Colonies. I would point out that the Naval Prize Bill to which he alluded is hardly an exact analogy. That deals with a matter of law arising in connection with war. On that point the Colonies are properly at one with the mother country. But as regards measures of commercial legislation such as

  2667
  the present the Colonies very naturally claim that as in all other matters, however they may give their assent, it must lie with them to give their assent in legislative form in their own legislature. I may also point out the terms of Clause 10, that this Act is to be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 to 1907. Those Acts leave it to the Colonies to pass the requisite measures, putting themselves on a level with us in regard to that particular legislation. As this Act is to be construed with these I think it is obvious that this Act could not pretend to exact from them a kind of submission which the original and main Act did not exact. That is to say you must in this as in the Merchant Shipping Act leave the Colonies individually to give effect to their assent by passing measures of their own. But my hon. Friend will see that their assent is practically quite certain.
  Mr. HOLT: After the assurance of my hon. Friend I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

LIVERPOOL AND HONG KONG MAIL SERVICE.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to move, "That the Contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1911, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for the conveyance of mails between Liverpool and Hong Kong" be approved.
Mr. HOLT: This is a matter of some importance, and I want a little explanation about it. This contract is a resuscitation of an old contract which was introduced, and the prolongation of a still older contract. It provides a mail service for £45,000, of which £25,000 is provided by the Canadian Government. This mail service is for a transit of 818 hours in summer, or thirty-four days; and 853 hours in winter, or thirty-six days. The contract provides for a service of from thirty-four to thirty-six days, whereas the mails go by Siberia in twenty-one days. We enter into a contract for a service of from thirty-four to thirty-six days,
2668
while the mails could go by another route in twenty-one days. I think there is a prima facie case for information. It is part of my business to receive letters from Hong Kong every week, and I know that the mails go and come via Siberia in twenty-one days. The mails go to and from Japan also via Siberia in from sixteen to eighteen days, and there is a corresponding reduction of time if sent by Canada. I shall be quite safe in saying that this contract has no interest for us at all as a contract for sending mails to Hong Kong, and it is not a contract which is needed—at all events, it would not be creditable to the Postmaster-General if it was—to send mails to Hong Kong.
There is a third route for sending mails to Hong Kong, and that is the route by Brindisi and Suez, used by people unable to use the Siberian route. If this contract is needed as one for a local service, then it is purely a question for the Canadian Government and for the Government of Hong Kong, who should be left to send their own local correspondence. I rather suspect that the real object of this con tract is found in Clause 11, which pro vides that the Government may use other steamers with a view to carrying mails between the United Kingdom and the Dominion of Canada, and I cannot help thinking that this contract, as far as it has any utility at all, is not a contract for sending mails from Liverpool to Hong Kong, but from Liverpool to Halifax or Quebec. It may be right to enter into a contract to send mails from Liverpool to Halifax or Quebec, but if you do that you have no right to call it a contract for sending mails from Liverpool to Hong Kong. If you want to send mails to Canada enter into a con tract for that purpose, and describe it as such. If that is the object there is plenty of competition on that route, and if the contract were offered to public tender we should know where we are. It is rather a suspicious circumstance that this con tract, without any public tender, is renewed from time to time for carrying mails via Canada from Liverpool to Hong Kong, and that there is only one possible tender, that of the Canadian and Pacific, for such a service. Therefore I do hope that the Secretary to the Treasury, who, I understand, is responsible for the con tract, will let us know exactly and fully what it is.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend spoke of this as being the prolongation

2669
of an older contract. It is the continuation of a contract that has existed since 1908. When he spoke of the prolongation of a still older contract I must point out that there is a considerable saving in this as compared with the older contract. We are now paying £45,000, of which the United Kingdom only pays £20,000, Canada paying £25,000. The older contract was for £60,000, and in that case Great Britain paid £45,000, so that as far as the contract that existed before 1908 is concerned, there is a very considerable saving in the new contract, which has lasted for three years, and which it is now proposed to renew for two years. My hon. Friend spoke as if the fact that the whole of the mails to Hong Kong go by other routes settled the whole question. But if the mails are sent by the Trans-Siberian Railway it is a very expensive route, and not a route by which parcels can economically be sent; and I believe parcels are not sent by that route, and that practically the whole of the parcels and the majority of the newspaper traffic go by the cheaper route or by Suez. A a matter of fact, though it is quite true that the bulk of the traffic may go by other routes, there is a considerable mail traffic by this route, because this service serves a great many intermediate ports—Halifax, Quebec, St. Johns, Vancouver, Yokohama, Nagasaki, and others. There is another feature of this contract, and that—it is profitable. The value of the mails is greater than the amount of money which is spent. I am certainly not able to give information as to the amount of the traffic as that can be given by the Postmaster-General, but from the point of view of the Treasury this is a very reasonable contract. The expenditure is more than covered by the value of the mails carried.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That the Contract, dated the 4th day of November, 1911, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, for the conveyance of Mails to the West Indies be approved.—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Lords Amendments of the Amendment in pp. 20–24 agreed to.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Supplementary Provisions and Restrictions.)
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3) insert paragraph (c).
  [Sub-section (3) A person shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder under this Act in respect of—

  (a) Any land the present rent of which within the meaning of this Act exceeds fifty pounds in money, unless such land (exclusive of any common pasture, or grazing, held or to be held therewith) does not exceed fifty acres (but without prejudice to the power of the Land Court, in determining from time to time a fair rent, to fix a rent exceeding fifty pounds); or

  (b) Any land being garden ground only, appurtenant to a house, or any land to which as the site of or as required for the protection of or for access to an ancient monument or other object of historical or archaeological interest the Land Court determine that the Landholders' Acts should not apply; or

  (c) Any land within the Parliamentary, police, or municipal boundary of any burgh or police burgh; or

  (d) Any land being a market garden within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; or

  (e) Any land being or forming part of any glebe, or any small holding under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, or any allotment under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, or the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; or

  (f) Any land that is not a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; or

  (g)Any land being woodland, or being or forming part of the home farm of any estate, or of any policy or park, or of any pleasure ground or other land used for the amenity or convenience of any residence or farmsteading; or being permanent grass park held for the purposes of a business or calling not primarily, agricultural or pastoral, including that of butcher, cattle-dealer, and the like; or

  (h) Any land bonâ fide held and used for purposes of public recreation; or

  2671

  (i) Any land acquired, whether compulsorily or by agreement, for any undertaking of a public nature, under the authority of any Act of Parliament or any Order having the force of an Act of Parliament.]

  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Ure.]
  Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, that paragraph (c) be omitted from the Sub-section.
  I am very sorry to trouble the House at this time of night, but I am also very sorry that these Amendments from the other place should have been brought on without notice and without us having had an opportunity of considering them. This Clause was, I know, introduced into the Bill of 1906. But from that time onwards, both in the boroughs and in the county of Sutherlandshire, and in other boroughs it has been objected to by a number of tenants within the municipal borough area. There are some persons who did not come under the Crofters Act because their rent was a little over £30, but under £50, which would bring them within this Act. They desire to have the benefit of the Act just the same as their neighbours on the other side of the road. The Act not only applies to burghs in Sutherlandshire, but to burghs in other counties, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Northern burghs in a telegram to me expresses his regret at his inability to be here to-night to help to get this matter put right, if possible. We succeeded last summer in Scottish Grand Committee in getting the Bill altered, not exactly as we wanted, but before we separated in August the Lord Advocate promised me that he would have this matter put right so far as the burgh of Dornoch, with which I was more closely connected, was concerned. The Lord Advocate very properly fulfilled his promise, and when the Bill came before this House he made my Amendment a Government Amendment, and moved that the Clause should be omitted from the Bill, and it was omitted. The Bill went to the House of Lords. Curiously enough, without any consultation with the Scottish Members, or any one else that I am aware of, the Secretary for Scotland threw overboard the Lord Advocate and his promise as to Amendment altogether, and let the thing go with hardly a protest.
  2672
  I know I am not speaking for a large number, but they are poor people, and therefore beneath the notice, I suppose, of some people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I claim, however, for them that they ought to have fair play and ought to be treated properly. These people will not come under the Act simply because they happen to be within the municipal area. I want to ask the Lord Advocate to fulfil his promise and ask the House of Lords to leave out this Clause, or to make some alteration whereby the crofting counties can be relieved of the difficulty they are in. I offered to compromise the matter by consenting to an Amendment, namely, that this should apply only to the crofting counties as defined by the Crofters' Act of 1886, but, failing to get any promise that it should be put in, all I can do now in the interest of my Constituents—and I have got no personal interest in this matter—is to move to omit these words, and I trust the House will see that fair play is given.
  It is all very well to say that the Bill is an agreed Bill. Well, so it was understood, but it was agreed not to put this in. Moreover, the Lords have very much weakened the Bill. But that is a matter which I do not, of course, desire to discuss now. The Bill has been very much weakened by the concession given to the opposite party, and that ought to be borne in mind. All I want to take care is that my Constituents who have applied to me to protect them are protected, and as fairly as other people. I notice the Front Bench laughing at me. I suppose those people of £5,000 and £2,000 a year do not care about these things, but I am here to endeavour to protect these poor crofters and to see that they have fair play. I regret that we have not had proper notice-and proper time to consider the matter. I therefore move to disagree with the words inserted by the House of Lords.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I do not think my hon. Friend is entitled to complain that this has been brought before the House to-night. He will probably remember that at a much earlier stage of our proceedings yesterday the Prime Minister intimated that these proceedings would be taken to-night. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's objection to this Amendment being inserted. As he knows very well, my own opinion has wavered on this matter, and ultimately the scheme went in favour of my hon. Friend, and I did my best for him; but the force of circumstances

  2673
  was too strong for me, and I must frankly own that a great deal of difference of opinion prevails among the boroughs of Scotland with regard to this question. Under these circumstances I really do not think my hon. Friend should persist in his objection. I would suggest to him that next Session a skilfully-framed one-clause Bill would probably silence all the interests of Dornoch, but at this stage of the proceedings I think it would be unwise for my hon. Friend to persist in his objection, and so risk the loss of an extremely valuable measure. Under these circumstances may I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection?
  Mr. MORTON: I quite admit the Lord Advocate has redeemed his promise so far as that went; but I cannot withdraw this. If the House likes to deprive these poor people of what is just and right let them do it.
  Proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Other Lords Amendments put, and agreed to.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

ARMY AEROPLANES.
Mr. SANDYS: I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for War is prepared to-night to make a declaration as to the terms of the competition which is to take place next June for military aeroplanes, but before he does that I would like to take this opportunity—probably the last opportunity we shall have, before the Army Estimates are considered—of again drawing his attention to the inadequate preparation at the present moment, at any rate in my opinion, for the British Army with regard to this important branch of military science. The Under-Secretary may have noticed that a very interesting lecture was delivered a few days ago by Captain Burke, of the Royal United Service Institution, in which he drew attention to the fact that, owing to the introduction of this new arm, a revolution would be accomplished in warfare in the future, and I think that some of the observations
2674
which were made at that lecture are worthy of the very serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. He pointed, out that in the future the first phase of, warfare would be a struggle for the supremacy of the air, and that out of that struggle for the supremacy of the air one or other side would emerge victorious, namely, that side which possessed the most skilful pilots and the largest number of highly-trained officers, and, when that struggle was decided, the side which emerged victorious would have an enormous advantage in the subsequent campaign, because that side would be able to obtain information of the greatest value which would be denied to its opponent. Now under those circumstances, in view of the vital fact that men and numbers of machines and officers are absolutely essential in the consideration of this question, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he is coming to a decision with reference to this particular question on the next Army Estimates, he will not be prepared to give a very generous allowance for military aviation. I would call his attention to the fact that the present situation is absolutely unsatisfactory, and in my opinion highly dangerous.
Within the last month or so we have admittedly passed through a very serious international crisis. We have been, it is generally believed—and I think there is a good deal of ground for the belief—on one occasion, at any rate, on the very threshold of war. If war had actually broken out, and it had been necessary for us to despatch the expeditionary force of, I suppose, 160,000 men to the Continent, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what our position would, have been with reference to aviation. We should have had about six officers, trained military avaitors, who would have had some practical experience of the work; but so far as our generals are concerned, they are absolutely unaccustomed to the new conditions which will admittedly prevail owing to the new arm being introduced into warfare. I do not think I should be over-stating the case if I say that under the circumstances we should have been courting disaster.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman has a new scheme in view, by which 100 officers are to be detached from their regiments for a short course—"short" is the actual word used in the Regulations—in military aviation. These officers, after

2675
passing this course and obtaining their military certificates, are to return to their regiments on the understanding, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that in the event of mobilisation they are to be recalled from their regiments and form an aviation corps. I venture to say that that is a totally unsatisfactory solution of the position. Firstly, it cannot be expected that we shall have an efficient aviation crops in any way comparable to that of the French Army unless we have a corps of highly-trained officers who are permanently detached for this particular duty, and devote their whole time to the subject and practice of aviation. Then I would like to call attention to the position that will be created in the regiments themselves. As we are aware there is not an overwhelming supply of regular officers in the Army now, and if on mobilisation it is known that those officers who have passed an aviation course will be detached from their regimental duties for service with the Aviation Corps, surely it will be the object of commanding officers rather to discourage rather than to encourage their officers to undertake this aviation service.
I will also call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that although the numbers of officers in the regular Army are fairly good, so far as the special reserve is concerned we are about 1,200 officers short. And the territorial Army is 1,700 officers short. Under the circumstances I would say, How can the right hon. Gentleman suggest it is desirable that on mobilisation one hundred officers should be detached from the Regular Army for aviation purposes? I venture to say this, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his consideration in the Army Estimates, that the only way in which we can get a thoroughly efficient corps is for the War Office to make up their mind to have a permanent Aviation Corps of about forty or fifty officers, permanently working at this particular service, continually practising and accustoming themselves to working with troops. I maintatin that that is the only policy which will give us an Aviation Corps suitable to our needs, which will supply us with officers having an efficient training and adequate in numbers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take these facts into consideration, and that he will also be able to announce the terms and conditions of the aeroplane competition which is to take place.
Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I desire to call the attention of the House to a paragraph in the Report of the Inspector-General of the Forces, Sir John French, in the annual report of the Territorial Force. The paragraph to which I wish to call attention and to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question upon is as follows:
"I think it right to place on record that complaints were made to me by more than one commanding officer, that their endeavours to obtain recruits were much hampered by agents of the National Service League who are said to go about certain districts advising men not to take service with the Territorial Force."
I should like to quote that paragraph in connection with similar statements made two or three weeks ago in another place by the Secretary of State for War. Speaking on the same subject of recruiting, the Secretary of State for War said:
"There are many who take a different view and who go about advising people not to enlist with the Territorial Force. I have no doubt that the as I think, misplaced services of these men have cost the Territorial Force between 20,000 and 30,000 men by this discouragement. There can be no doubt about the effect which the energies of the National Service League have had upon recruiting."
Then Lord Newton interrupted:
"The National Service League has brought in a great many recruits."
Lord Haldane went on:
"The Noble lord has been an honourable exception to the general rule of the members of the National Service League."
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Twelve minutes before One a.m., Friday, 15th December, 1911.

  Port Clerks.
  Port Clerks.
  Customs Examining Officers.
  Customs Examining Officers.
  National School Teachers' Pensions (Ireland).
  National School Teachers' Pensions (Ireland).
  Excise Service.
  Excise Service.
  Distillery Statistics.
  Distillery Statistics.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SANATORIA.
  SANATORIA.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Dundalk Magistracy (Mr. J. M'Court).
  Dundalk Magistracy (Mr. J. M'Court).
  Convictions for Assault, Tralee, County Kerry.
  Convictions for Assault, Tralee, County Kerry.
  Labourers' Cottages, Kilmallock Rural District.
  Labourers' Cottages, Kilmallock Rural District.
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Mine-clearing Operations, Portsmouth.
  Mine-clearing Operations, Portsmouth.
  Long Service and Good Conduct Medals.
  Long Service and Good Conduct Medals.
  Dockyard Contractors (Portsmouth and Devonport).
  Dockyard Contractors (Portsmouth and Devonport).
  Royal Artillery.
  Royal Artillery.
  Cotton Growing (British Protectorates, East Africa).
  Cotton Growing (British Protectorates, East Africa).
  Scottish Estimates.
  Scottish Estimates.
  Certifying Lunatics.
  Certifying Lunatics.
  Parliamentary Voters.
  Parliamentary Voters.
  Electric Lighting Companies (Audit of Accounts).
  Electric Lighting Companies (Audit of Accounts).
  Sight Tests.
  Sight Tests.
  Galway Tramways.
  Galway Tramways.
  Employment of Ex-Service Men.
  Employment of Ex-Service Men.
  Stationery Supplies (Ireland).
  Stationery Supplies (Ireland).
  Christmas Boxes.
  Christmas Boxes.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (India).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (India).
Preamble
In accordance with the arrangement made on the previous day the House met at 12 o'clock. The EARL of GRANARD took the seat on the Woolsack.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I understand that it is not possible to go on with the business which was put down for this hour. I have heard to that effect from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until half-past four o'clock this afternoon, and then take the business which is now on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Third Reading put off till the sitting of the House at half-past Four o'clock.
The sitting was resumed at half-past four, the LORD CHANCELLOR then taking his seat on the Woolsack.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DOMINION NAVAL FORCES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

COPYRIGHT BILL.
PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

SHIPPING CASUALTIES (UNCERTIFICATED OFFICERS).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 30th of November last), and to be printed. (No. 249.)
HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition for amendment of; of the Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Royal Burgh of Aberbrothock or Arbroath; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DOMINION NAVAL FORCES) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Carrington)). (No. 250.)
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President (V. Morley)). (No. 251.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I have to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for the remainder of the session.—(Viscount Morley.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before this Motion is put I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House how far this is going to be put in practice. Here is a Bill, for instance, the Shop Hours Bill, which is down for Second Reading to-day. Are we to have a Committee stage on that, or is it to be put through all its stages this afternoon?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The Committee stage will be taken to-morrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Recommitment), read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to let me say a few words on this subject at this stage. It is proposed that the House should go into Committee on this Bill. If any of your Lordships were explaining, say, to a child or a foreigner what going into Committee meant, the answer would be that it meant to consider the Bill in its details, clause by clause, and that is actually the description of the Committee stage which is given in a popular text book on the subject. But, my Lords, it would be ludicrous, but for its element of tragedy, that the Second Chamber, which everybody says ought to be a revising Chamber, should be offered at a few hours' notice the opportunity of considering and revising the details of a Bill of 115 clauses and eight schedules, covering 140 printed pages. The importance of the matter consists largely to my mind in this, that this is a Bill, not of a formal or consolidating or uncontroversial kind in detail, however uncontroversial in principle, but a Bill which bristles with intricacies which affect every grade and class of people throughout the land and practically raises issues which must make themselves felt in almost every house.
I am anxious that it should be emphasised, because I doubt whether it has been emphasised enough, how cordially the whole House—certainly I can speak for a very large section of it—welcomes the proposal and intent of this Bill. That approval is not conventional, but heartfelt and genuine satisfaction that an endeavour should be made to deal with the grave and real evils which this Bill sets itself to combat. The cause is the very noblest which can be committed to our trust. It is to take charge of the welfare of the poorest and the neediest. That is a duty, I venture to say, which devolves especially upon those who have the privilege of a seat in this House. I do not know whether you remember the phrase in which part, at least, of such duties was defined in the Middle Ages in connection with the foremost Order of Knighthood in this country—the Order of the Garter. The Installation ceremony comprises an injunction that the object and purpose of the men thus ennobled should always be "the just and necessary defence of those who are oppressed and needy." My Lords, that is precisely what
992
we want to do at this time. We want to help. What we are uncertain about is whether or not we are really by the enactment which we are requested to pass aiding in the just and necessary defence of those among us who are actually most oppressed and needy. That is the question that is before your Lordships.
So far as I can judge, this is a brave and somewhat adventurous attempt to accomplish in a few weeks and in one Bill an undertaking which might easily have occupied a great many months of inquiry, and many months of work for each separate section of it. I believe that without such time being devoted to it it is doubtful whether it will fulfil in its fulness the purpose which we, quite as much as those who have constructed the Bill, are anxious that it should fulfil. To deal with it in that way now is, of course, an utterly impossible task. I will not try to allot to anyone any blame. It may have been through over-hopefulness; it may have been an under-estimate of its multiplicity of detail; it may have been an expectation that authoritative statements made in a loud voice would be accepted as conclusive, without its being thought necessary to have them more quietly discussed. That, however, is how the matter comes to us now.
The question has been asked—I have seen it asked in the public Press and elsewhere within the last few days—If the members of the House of Lords find themselves taken aback by the Bill, what have they been doing for the last two months, and why did they not study it before it came here? That is exactly what we tried to do. I speak as one of those who, as soon as this Bill began to be discussed in detail, endeavoured to understand its provisions and find out what would be their incidence if they became law upon this or that class of the population. But that became an absolute impossibility. No kaleidoscope that ever was devised by man changed its form and its hue with such rapidity and in so incomprehensible a manner as was the case with this particular Bill. It is literally true to say that a page which one thought one had mastered in one day was unrecognisable when one saw it afresh, and the published account of how these changes came about would be comprised in a few lines of a newspaper. It has been simply impossible, I am certain, for any-

993
body except those who in the fullest sense are behind the scenes, the constructors and authors of this Bill, to follow in detail what these changes really meant. They may have been good or they may have been bad, but we have no possible means of knowing.
The Bill comes to us now as something which has been threshed out in the House of Commons. I notice that to-night the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has 101 Amendments down to the Bill. What would have happened if it had not come here at all, and had passed irrevocably from the House of Commons in a form that needed 101 and more Amendments? I have no doubt that they are all excellent Amendments, but we have no means of considering their details. There is no time to gain any knowledge of the details of the Bill. How can we be expected to discharge the task supposed to be that of a Second Chamber if a Bill comes to us in this way? It may have been inevitable. I am not blaming anybody, but stating the fact. We are simply denied an opportunity of co-operating and trying to make this Bill as good as it can possibly be made, and as far as I can see the only course open to us is to leave it to its authors and constructors and then to hope for the best. It may be a hope which some; of us cherish with confidence, while others of us may feel a little more uneasy about it, but it seems to me to be the only course open to us. I am not suggesting that we should take any other, but we might, at least, be given a definite reply on questions which seem to us not to be answered in the Bill, as to the meaning of points about which we are at this moment in uncertainty.
I will take a specific instance because it is one which affects the profession to which I belong. I refer to the question of whether or not an assistant curate comes under the terms of this Bill as being one who holds a contract of service. That question was debated in the House of Commons. It was raised and discussed on both sides, and the answer was, "We do not know." The Law Officers virtually declared that they could not tell whether it was so or not, and ultimately it came to this, that the matter would have to be settled, if at all, by litigation. Now, my Lords, I ask is that a fair position in which to put thousands of men who are amongst
994
the most deserving and hard-working of the population, and certainly not amongst the best paid of the population? I imagine myself in the place of an incumbent who has two or three curates working under him. It may be that the interpretation is going to be that he is liable as an employer under a contract of service, and then he has three possibilities open to him. He may at once begin to put stamps upon the paper, and get his employés, so called, to put stamps upon the paper, and it may be possible that a little later it will be found that the whole of that money has been thrown away, because it turns out to be not a contract of service at all. Or he may take the other line and say, "I will do nothing." But by a clause in the Bill he finds himself under a penalty of £10 for not having carried out what may be ultimately proved to have been the duty he was meant to have carried out, and he is then in a position of no small difficulty. Or he may decide that the matter is to be settled, as we have been told, by litigation. Is it fair that that should be the mode in which the matter is left when it leaves Parliament?
I venture to hope that the noble Viscount to-night will be able to do what the authorities in the House of Commons found themselves unable to do, and tell us clearly whether this Bill is intended or not intended to include the men to whom I have referred. Personally, I hope that the answer may be that it is not intended to include them. I believe that to be the true interpretation of the principle upon which such service is rendered, and these men would not fall, as far as I can understand it, naturally under the provisions of this Bill. But that was not by any means clearly stated to us in the House of Commons by the legal authorities there, and I venture to hope that we may have a definite decision given to us to-night. But my object in rising was to say how cordially many of us who are prevented from discussing the Bill in detail desire to give our endorsement to the principles which underlie this adventurous endeavour, and how cordially we hope that, notwithstanding the difficulties of bringing these principles into practice, it may turn out to fulfil all the highest hopes which have been detailed to this House as to its purpose and its intent.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I do not dispute anything which has fallen from the most rev. Primate as to the hardship which may occur to stipendiary curates. That point my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will deal with. But the most rev. Primate opens up a very large but perfectly legitimate topic—namely, the difficulty—and a stronger word might be used—of the position in which the House finds itself in dealing with a Bill of this enormous compass, range, and magnitude, with only a few hours in which to supervise it. Nobody is more alive than I am to the fatal element which the most rev. Primate has referred to, and I wondered very often during the discussions upon the Parliament Act that more notice was not taken in the course of the debates of the fatal difficulty in which this House will always stand, whether it be reconstituted or whatever may happen to it, if Bills of importance and magnitude come up leaving a very insufficient time for their full discussion. Noble Lords opposite, who have far more experience of this House than I have, must know that this is as things are, and as I am afraid they are still likely to be, inevitable. You cannot get Bills up from the House of Commons, if they are Bills of importance, so early that this House is left free to deal with them.
The only Act that I have had the honour of introducing and piloting through Parliament was the Indian Councils Act. I was able to introduce it in this House. In this House it was most adequately, fully, and fairly discussed, and that was no doubt a Bill of the first importance. But there are Bills which must evidently be introduced in another place, and it is equally evident that they cannot be brought up here at any very early date. But that is a general consideration which I think it right to mention. This is an annual story—a hardy annual story. In the year 1901, when noble Lords opposite sat on this side, the Factory and Workshops Bill came up from the other House. I am not going into the transaction, but I would like to read to your Lordships a few sentences that were used on that occasion by so faithful and admirable a representative of noble Lords opposite as the Duke of Northumberland. On August 15,
996
1901, the Duke of Northumberland said this—
"We are on the eve of the holidays, and during the recess some of us may attend public meetings, and at those meetings the question is sometimes asked, 'Is the House of Lords worth preserving?' What is the use of the House of Lords if a Bill of this magnitude and importance is to be presented at a time when it cannot be discussed, and when it is forced practically down our throats whether we like it or not."
Then at the end of this stage the noble Duke said—
"Lord James has said that this Bill has 100 new points in it, and yet the House of Lords is told to take it or leave it."
And the noble Duke added—
"This was the way in which a Conservative Government supported the House of Lords."
I only recite that reminiscence in order to show that this is a very old story, and, so far as I can sec, whatever you do with this House, it will be a standing story.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I remember perfectly well the circumstances of the Factory and Workshops Bill of 1901, but they were not comparable with the state of things with which we are now confronted. But, after all, what does the answer of the noble Viscount amount to? It amounts only to what is called a tu quoque. I confess I am sorry that in the past this House has been so submissive. I think that the circumstances of the Parliament Bill to a large extent alter the justification for bringing up Bills as has been done at the end of this session in a way, whatever the noble Viscount may say, which I maintain is absolutely unprecedented, and it is done at a time of year when it makes it absolutely impossible for us to take a longer time over the Bills. In August of 1901 the House, if it had chosen, could have taken a few more days. At present, owing to circumstances which are known to everybody, we are debarred from doing that if we wish.
I do not desire to prolong this discussion, but I have been thinking—and I shall probably take an opportunity of calling attention to this on an early day in another session—that a remedy, at any rate with regard to the class of Bills of this description, could be found in an amendment of procedure which would enable us to do more in the way of carrying over Bills from one session to another. That has

997
been done frequently in the case of Private Bills, and I see no Constitutional difficulty in extending that practice to Bills of another class. But, of course, it would require the cordial co-operation of both Houses of Parliament. Each House is master of its own procedure, and there might be a carrying over of Bills to another session if they should choose to do so. But, my Lords, obviously it cannot be so useful unless there is the co-operation of the other House of Parliament. Take the Shops Bill. If we were to carry over that measure to another session it would have to go through all its stages in the other House, unless by the adoption of some Standing Order a Bill could be taken up at the same stage at which it had been previously in the preceding session. I am not going to elaborate that at the moment, but I venture to call the attention of the noble Viscount to it, because if his speech meant anything at all it was simply a throwing up of his hands in despair at the state of things of which this House was a victim and at an inevitable circumstance which it could not get over. If the noble Viscount did not mean that, I apologise.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I did not say the House could not get over it. I think I used the word "inevitable," but I meant inevitable under the present line of argument followed by both Parties.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With that qualification it seems to me hardly worth calling inevitable. If there was good will on both sides I venture to say that the simple proposal which I am only indicating at the moment is one which would get over a great many practical difficulties, and would restore to this House its position as a revising Chamber which along with other privileges has been taken away from it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I do not rise to continue this discussion. It is, no doubt, a very interesting subject, and will be discussed at some suitable time. But so far as this Bill is concerned, what we virtually decided on the Second Reading was to get on with it. I rise now to give an answer to the most rev. Primate on the question of law which he raised, as to whether a curate comes within this Bill or not. The definition in the
998
First Schedule is that employment under this Bill means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship. If the most rev. Primate will refer to the discussions in Committee in the other House he will find that the meaning of these words was very much discussed and that the Law Officers, notably Sir John Simon, the Solicitor-General gave a very strong opinion, after consideration, that a curate was not within these words. I myself have, with the best ability I possess, gone into the question, and it seems to me that a curate is a person who is there in virtue, not merely of a contract, but in virtue of his status. He is licensed by the Bishop, and without that licence he could not be there or perform his functions. No doubt in a sense he is employed by the incumbent, but I think he would be very much astonished if he was treated as a servant within the scope of this Bill, which you must look at as a whole in order to see what is meant by contract of service or employment or apprenticeship. Speaking for myself I do not think a curate comes within these words, and I think the most rev. Primate may be content to rely upon that view. At the end of Clause 68 there is power given to the Insurance Commissioners to decide the question of any difficulty about a penalty arising, and anybody following the decisions which the Insurance Commissioners give will see that is so. Therefore on a double ground the House is asked to act upon the view of the Government that curates are not within the section. Thirdly—because there is a third ground—the Government would be bound to get anybody out of the trouble they would have got into if a wrong view of the law had been taken. Therefore I think we may proceed on the footing that curates are not included. To try to put a definition clause in would be the most difficult thing in the world, because there are a great many contracts of employment which are not contracts of service or apprenticeship though they may look like it, and to define by excluding a curate would be to suggest that by reason of some other ground somebody else came within this Bill. Therefore it is on all grounds inadvisable to attempt such a definition. One can only rely on the law as it stands. I speak in the presence of much higher authority, but my own opinion is that a curate undoubtedly is not within the provisions of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not desire to say anything as regards the case of the curate, but I do desire to say a word in particular as to the observation made a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The most rev. Primate protested against the manner in which this House has been treated with regard to the Bill upon the Table. I have already made my protest, and I do not wish to repeat it this evening. But what I do wish to say, as strongly as I can, is that we on this side of the House cannot accept the proposition which is apparently suggested by the noble Viscount who leads the House when he tells us that this old scandal—for it is an old scandal—is "inevitable as things are." Those were his words, and he said it was one to the recurrence of which this House must look forward for all time. The noble Viscount talks of its being inevitable as things are. But he has forgotten that things to-day are no longer what they were twelve months ago, or before that. He has forgotten that this House has been shorn of the greater part of its powers, and that therefore a double injury is inflicted upon it when we are, in the first place, deprived of the greater part of our powers, and, in the second place, denied the legitimate opportunity of exercising those powers that are still left to us. I do not agree with the noble Viscount when he says that whatever we do this grievance must continue. I feel convinced, that the question of the position of this House in regard to its opportunities for dealing with measures coming from the other House of Parliament will have to be seriously considered, and that whenever the time comes—as it must—for dealing with the whole question of the constitution of the Second Chamber and its relations to the other He use of Parliament, this question will call aloud for a settlement more satisfactory than anything which has yet been offered to us.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, there are two topics that I wish to refer to, and as this is the only opportunity of doing so I will speak on both although they are very diverse from each other. With reference to the first, I have no doubt in the world that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will concur with me that this conversation and the opinions expressed, however illuminating they may be to your Lordships, will have no place in the construction of this Bill when it
1000
comes before a Court of Justice. But I certainly am of opinion, looking at the whole Bill and the object and purport of it, that a curate is not in "employment." The terms "service" and "employment" are not appropriate in that sense, and if I were construing the language myself I should come to the conclusion that a curate was not included in the Bill.
The other point is to my mind a much more serious one than the particular question with which we have been dealing, and, as I say, I only refer to it now because this is my only opportunity upon this stage of the Bill. My protest—for that really is what it comes to—is practically upon Clause 62 of the Bill, which deals with the question of insanitary places and unusual and extraordinary sickness. Now, my Lords, this is not the only occasion on which I have had to make exactly the same protest. The person who is to try that question, to try the very intricate and difficult question which is raised by the sixty-second clause, is to be a "competent person" appointed by the Government. From time to time I have had to make the same protest—that real questions of law and very difficult questions of law are not left to the Court to decide but are left to some person or another appointed by the Government. I hold in my hand a protest made by persons who certainly profess to be very widely interested in such questions—I refer to the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association, and the Rural Districts Councils Association. They say they are the four associations who represent together the local authorities of this country. Whether that last claim is absolutely correct or not I will not say without further investigation. But what they state is this, that the questions raised in this clause affect them, as they may be the principal sufferers in consequence of the default which is supposed to give rise to what follows. What they say—and I wish most heartily to concur in the language which they use—is this:
"We respectfully submit that if Parliament deems it right to approve the general principles of the clause and to retain it in the Bill provision should be inserted giving an absolute right to the parties affected to appeal from the decision of the person holding the inquiry to the tribunal provided by this country who would examine the matters judicially. It would be, we submit, a grave misfortune if, when Parliament enacts important and far-reaching and unprecedented

1001
provisions, the bodies thereby affected were deprived of their right to appeal to the Courts of Law."
I will only add to those words that last week your Lordships, by a large majority, insisted upon an appeal in the Scottish Landholders Bill with regard to a proposal which shows the tendency, and I am sorry to say the increasing tendency, on the part of the Government to try and get rid of the supervision of the Courts of Law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Benefits.
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the benefits conferred by this Part of this Act upon insured persons are—

(a) Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines, and such medical and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners (in this Act called "medical benefit");

(b) Treatment in sanatoria or other institutions or otherwise when suffering from tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury may appoint (in this Act called "sanatorium benefit");

(c) Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, of which notice has been given, commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work, and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called "sickness benefit");

(d) In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the determination of sickness benefit, periodical payments so long as so rendered incapable of work by the disease or disablement (in this Act called "disablement benefit");

(e) Payment in the case of the confinement of the wife or, where the child is a posthumous child, of the widow of an insured person, or of any other woman who is an insured person, of a sum of thirty shillings (in this Act called "maternity benefit");

(f) In the case of persons entitled under this Part of this Act to any of the further benefits mentioned in Part II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act (in this Act called "additional benefits") such of those benefits as they may be entitled to.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit to which insured persons are entitled shall be the rates specified in Part I of the fourth Schedule to this Act.
(3) In the case of insured persons who have attained the ago of seventy the right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall cease.
(4) No insured person shall he entitled to any benefit during any period when he is resident either temporarily or permanently outside the United Kingdom:
Provided that if a person is temporarily resident in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands he shall not, whilst so resident, be disentitled to benefits other than medical benefit, and that if with the consent of the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, a person is temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom elsewhere than in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, the society or committee may allow' him, whilst no resident, to continue to receive sickness or disablement benefit, and that a person resident out of the United Kingdom shall not be disentitled to maternity benefit in respect of the confinement of his wife, if his wife at the time of her confinement is resident in the United Kingdom.
(5) Where an insured person, having been in receipt of sickness benefit, recovers from the disease or disablement in respect of which he receives such benefit, any subsequent disease or disablement, or a recurrence of the same disease or disablement, shall be deemed to be a continuation of the previous disease or disablement, unless in the meanwhile a period of at least twelve months has elapsed, and at least fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him.
(6) Where a woman confined of a child is herself an insured person, and is a married woman, or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow, she shall be entitled to sickness benefit or disablement benefit (as the case may be) in respect of her confinement in addition to the maternity benefit to which she or her husband may be entitled, but save as aforesaid, a woman shall not be entitled to sickness benefit or disablement benefit for a period of four weeks after her confinement unless suffering from disease or disablement not connected directly or indirectly with her confinement.
Medical benefit shall not include any right to medical treatment or attendance in respect of a confinement.
(7) Where a pension or superannuation allowance payable in whole or in part as an additional benefit under this Part of this Act is provided, it may be made a condition of the grant of the pension or allowance that a member of the society shall, whilst in receipt of such pension or allowance, be excluded in whole or in part from his right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit, or to either of such benefits.
(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, no insured person shall be entitled—

(a) to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of this Act;

(b) to sickness benefit unless and until twenty-six weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

1003

(c) to disablement benefit unless and until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least one hundred and four weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

(d) to maternity benefit unless and until twenty-six, or in the ease of a voluntary contributor fifty-two weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fitfy-two weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him.

(9) As soon as the sums credited to approved societies as reserve values in respect of persons who enter into insurance within one year after the commencement of this Act have been written off in manner provided by this Part of this Act, the benefits payable to insured persons under this Part of this Act shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I move to leave out the word "payable" at the beginning of subsection (7) and to insert "is payable by an approved society." This Amendment is little more than drafting. It is not an Amendment which changes the substance. Under the provisions of the Schedule additional benefits may be given, and among these additional benefits there may be given pensions, and where pensions are given they ought to be placed on the same footing as other annual payments are placed under Clause 8, where in the event of those pensions being given sickness and disability payment are not given cumulatively.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("payable") and insert ("is payable by an approved society").—( Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "is provided" in subsection (7) and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble Viscount said: This is again practically drafting. It makes no change in the substance of the Amendment which was incorporated during the Report stage in the other House.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("is provided") and insert ("or out of any fund to which contributions have been made in accordance with paragraph (10) of Part II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Reduced rates of benefit in certain cases.
9.—(1) In the case of insured persons who are under the age of twenty-one years and unmarried, sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall be at the reduced rates specified in Table B in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act:
Provided that where any such person being a member of an approved society, proves that one or more members of his family are wholly or mainly dependent upon him, the society shall dispense with such reduction.
(2) Where in the case of any insured persons the rate of sickness benefit or disablement benefit (as the case may be) exceeds two-thirds of the usual rate of wages or other remuneration earned by such persons, the rate of such benefit shall be reduced to such an extent as the society or committee administering the benefit, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, determines; but where such reduction is made provision shall be made by the society or committee, with the like consent, for the grant of one or more additional benefits of a value equivalent to such reduction.
(3) The rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced in accordance with Table C in Part I of the fourth Schedule to this Act in the case of any insured person who becomes an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of this Act, and is at the date of so becoming an employed contributor of the age of fifty years or upwards and the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him is at the date of any claim by him for such benefit less than five hundred.
(4) In the case of every person over the age of sixteen years who, not having been previously insured under this Part of this Act, becomes an employed contributor subsequently to the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act, the rate of sickness benefit to which he is entitled shall (unless he proves that his time since he attained the age of sixteen has been spent in a school or college, in indentured apprenticeship or otherwise under instruction without wages, or otherwise in the completion of his education, or unless he undertakes himself to pay the difference between the voluntary rate and the employed rate, or pays to the Insurance Commissioners to be credited to the society, such capital sum as will be sufficient to secure him benefits at the full rate be such reduced rate as may be fixed in accordance with tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, but not in any case less than five shillings a week:
Provided that if at any time subsequently such person would become entitled to sickness benefit at a higher rate if he were treated as having become an employed contributor as from the time when he attained the age of sixteen, or as from the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act, whichever date may be the later, and as being in arrear for all contributions which, had he become an employed contributor at that date, would have been payable in respect of him between that date and the date when he actually became an employed contributor, he shall, if he so elects, be entitled to be so treated.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I move to amend subsection (2) by omitting the word "shall" ["the rate of such benefit shall"] and inserting "may." There was a slip

1005
made in the Amendment inserted on the Report stage in the other House. In the Bill as originally introduced it was made compulsory to reduce the rates on sickness and disablement benefit when they exceeded two-thirds of the ordinary wages, but by general assent that provision was made optional, and, of course, there should have been "may" substituted for "shall." "May" is the proper word. It is a matter of drafting, and I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I move to leave out "over the age of 16 years" at the commencement of subsection (4), and I move corresponding Amendments. I move, after the words "commencement of this Act" in the same subsection, to insert "and is, at the time of so becoming an employed contributor, of the age of seventeen or upwards." Then I move to leave out "sixteen" ["unless he proves that his time since he attained the age of sixteen"] and to substitute "seventeen"; and in the proviso at the end of the clause I move to omit "sixteen" ["from the time when he attained the age of sixteen"] and to insert "seventeen." These are all drafting Amendments. As the clause stands it is not clear at what time a person is to be regarded as over the age of 16. The definition clause says that a person after attaining the age of 16 is not to be treated as being over that age till his next subsequent birthday. That means, of course, when he is 17. It is very clumsy to leave it as it is now, and we propose to call him 17 when he is 17.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 33, leave out ("over the age of sixteen years")
Page 9, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("and is, at the time of so becoming an employed contributor, of the age of seventeen or upwards")
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen").
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Reduced rates of benefits where contributions are in arrear.
10.—(1) Where an insured person being a member of an approved society is in arrear to an amount greater than thirteen weekly contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance, his right to benefits under this Part of this Act other than medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit shall be suspended, and where he is in arrears to an amount greater than twenty-six weekly contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance his right to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit shall be suspended, and at the expiration of the calendar year next after the date when he becomes suspended from all benefits any sums credited to the society in respect of him, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall, if his right to benefits still continues to be suspended, be carried to such account for the benefit of the society or any other society to which he may subsequently be transferred and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed
Provided that if at any time after suspension from any such benefits he becomes employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act ho shall be entitled to those benefits at such rate, after the lapse of such time and after the payment of such number of contributions, as would have been applicable to his case had he not previously been an insured person, but if he so elects at any time the benefits to which he is entitled shall be, such as he would be entitled to, were the period from the time of his original entry into insurance taken as a whole.
(2) Where an employed contributor claiming sickness benefit is at the date of such claim in arrears but the arrears are less than as aforesaid, then the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced to a sum not less than five shillings a week or the time when sickness benefit commences deferred, proportionately to the amount of arrears in accordance with the table in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(3) Where a voluntary contributor is in arrears he shall be liable to such proportionate reduction of benefits as may be prescribed.
(4) In calculating arrears of contributions, no account shall be taken of any arrears accruing—

(a) during any period when the person in question has been, or but for this section or any other provision of the Act disentitling a person to such benefit would have been, in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit; or

(b) in the case of a woman who, being an insured person, is herself entitled to maternity benefit during two weeks before and four weeks after her confinement, or in the case of maternity benefit payable in respect of the posthumous child of an insured person during the period subsequent to the father's death; or

(c) in the case of an employed contributor during the first twelve months after the commencement of this Act;

but, save as aforesaid, contributions shall be deemed to be payable in respect of every week from the date of entry into insurance.
(5) Where an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if the arrears so paid had never become due:
Provided that if such person is at the date of payment or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes incapable of work by reason of disease or disablement, he shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be still in arrear in respect of the amount so paid until after the expiration of one month from the date of such payment.
(6) Any approved society may, if it thinks lit, excuse any part of the arrears which may have accrued due by or in respect of any member who is an employed contributor during any period of unemployment not exceeding such part as would have been payable by the employer had the member continued in his last employment, and in such case the amount of the arrears of that member shall be reduced accordingly.
(7) The average amount of arrears for the purposes of this section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.
LORD BYRON LORD BYRON moved to substitute "institutional" for "sanatorium" where that word first appeared in the clause. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, and in fact of all the Amendments standing in my name, is to comprehend within the scope of this Bill as many as possible of the existing hospitals, and this for two reasons. First of all, in the case of accidents these institutions provide the very best accommodation and the very best medical attendance. The idea is no longer that any injured person goes to these hospitals under the stigma of charity. Secondly, I wish that the people should utilise these hospitals more during the gradual establishment of sanatoria. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Birmingham on June 10 last, said—
"The first thing to do in our Bill is to provide adequate medical treatment for every workman in the United Kingdom."
Such adequate treatment must include hospital treatment, and experience has shown that such treatment requires at least two free beds per thousand of the population. At present few hospitals can afford to give a probation bed to insured persons without recourse to the Government or to the insured.
The population of Greater London, according to the last Census, was about 7¼ millions, and the number of persons
1008
who will be insured is estimated at 2½ millions. To secure adequate accommodation for this number about 5,000 beds will be required for sole use. The London hospitals contain altogether about 10,500 beds, of which about 10,000 are constantly occupied. If, therefore, as is estimated, the subscriptions to these hospitals decline to the extent of 40 per cent. there will only remain about 6,000 beds, or not more than 1,000 more than is required under the Bill for the insured. I notice that "hospital" occurs in Clause 12, section 2 (c) as being available in certain cases only, but I do not know if it occurs elsewhere. I have not been able to find out. The phrase "sanatorium or similar institution" occurs several times, so that the principle of hospital treatment seems already to be introduced, but in the case which is alluded to the persons qualified for admittance appear to be those who have no dependants, which must, of course, exclude a great number.
The object of my Amendment is to free these hospitals to all insured persons, wherever necessary, by agreement between the Commissioners and the hospital authorities by a pro rata payment to be set aside for a certain number of wards and beds for such persons. Then, turning to Clause 16, I have later on an Amendment which concerns the question of accidents in hospitals. As accidents are occurring every day it is quite impossible for an insured person who has been injured to go before the local Medical Board, the Board of Health, before he is admitted to the hospital, and the object of my Amendment which comes later in Clause 16 is to enable the insured person to go to the hospitals on the recommendation of a qualified medical officer. My second object, as I say, is to utilise the hospitals as sanatoria. For instance, the various consumptive and kindred hospitals would come in here, although I do not understand that the sanatoria are alone to be used for pulmonary complaints. They are, I suppose, to be used for complaints of all kinds, and the arrangements I have spoken of, if made, would give time for the various sanatoria to arise. It would be possible, says the Hospital newspaper, under a matured and careful scheme, for the hospital bed area gradually to cover the whole ground of sanatoria and hospital accommodation out of the fund provided under the Bill as it stands at present.
My idea is that it would be almost unnecessary to erect sanatoria if we used all available hospital accommodation. There would remain, of course, the question of the increased hospital accommodation that would be necessary for the general public by the absorption of so many beds by the insured. But this would be partly met by the adoption of the Continental system, where the patients are divided into four different classes; it would be partly met by the fact that many of the ordinary patients would be amongst the insured; and it would be partly met by a system of loans by the local board, which would be repaid by a sinking fund to be provided by the hospitals, with a clearance of the loans from time to time. The expense to these hospitals would not be so great as would at first sight appear, because many of them already have building sites on which annexes could be erected for temporary purposes, or, if it was decided to use them as sanatoria, permanent buildings. The Hospital newspaper which I have just quoted said in its number of December 9—
"As the Amendment would indicate, a sum set aside for sanatorium benefit must be made available, as to a certain proportion, for hospital benefit, an arrangement which will have the advantage of securing that all the rest of the expenditure under both heads should be made with the fullest care so as to avoid hasty expenditure upon buildings and sanatoria provision, and the undue multiplication of such buildings, which may, and probably will, otherwise take place."
After all, sanatoria are one kind of several institutions which are already in use, and it is possible at present to eradicate tuberculosis in the same way that typhus fever, smallpox, typhoid, scarlet fever, and other pests of our population have been successfully grappled with. Therefore the object of this Amendment, and of all those which stand in my name, is to utilise the hospitals where possible for sanatoria, and to enable the insured persons to use hospitals in cases of accidents upon the certificate of a certified medical practitioner.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 21, leave out ("sanatorium") and insert ("institional").—(Lord Byron.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to make institutional treatment—that is to say, treatment in hospitals—take the place of treatment in sanatoria. That is a
1010
very large principle, and if it were accepted it would upset the whole machinery of this Bill with regard to the treatment of consumption. After a great deal of discussion in the other House it was decided, on what was believed to be the best expert opinion, that the best chance of coping with consumption was to take it very early, and to treat it by giving preliminary treatment in sanatoria—not a long treatment, but a treatment which would enable the patient to get rid of the tubercle and have a chance afterwards. What is now proposed is to treat all these cases in hospitals, and to apply the machinery, the beneficial machinery, which has been applied to sanatoria to hospitals. The effect would be to convert the existing hospitals into publicly-supported and Treasury-aided institutions. That would be one very large consequence of the Amendment. Another consequence is that the charge would be very much increased, because these institutions are to be dealt with evenly. What the financial effect would be I cannot say, but a very much larger amount than the £1,000,000 which the State proposes to provide would be required. Therefore I beg to say that this whole series of Amendments is not such as we are competent to consider in this House, or which any private member is competent to propose. But the difficulty that is fatal, not only to this but to all the Amendments of the noble Lord, is that they would involve a complete recasting of the whole of this part of the Bill. We should be thrown into the most complete confusion, and it would not be the same Bill if the Amendments were accepted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "for the benefit of the society or any other society to which he may subsequently be transferred," and to insert, after the words "in such manner as may be prescribed" at the end of the first paragraph, the words "for the benefit (except so far as such sums comprise sums in respect of a reserve value) of the society or any other society to which such person may subsequently be transferred." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with this case. There is just a possibility that an enterprising insurance society might, particularly

1011
in the case of a voluntary contributor, do this: let him drop out of insurance, and even encourage him to drop out of insurance, very soon after he had insured, and then when he was an old life take the reserve value. I do not wish to explain to your Lordships over again what the reserve value credited by the State to an old life is, but it is created out of the State money and not out of contributions of the insured. Consequently if it were possible to drop him out of insurance and appropriate the reserve value there would be very great temptation to the insurance society to take that course, and it is not desirable that the Bill should so provide. What we propose by these two Amendments is to except sums that are in respect of reserve value. The effect of the Amendments is to prevent societies from getting any advantage, if the insured drops out of insurance, by appropriating the money contributed by the State to make up this reserve value.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("account") to ("and") in line 33.
Page 10, line 34, after ("prescribed") insert ("for the benefit (except so far as such sums comprise sums in respect of a reserve value) of the society or any other society to which such person may subsequently be transferred").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST: I move to substitute "delivery" for "confinement" in paragraph (b) of subsection (4). I think that the Bill as it runs hardly intends what it would be thought it conveys. "Confinement" hardly appears to me to be enough. I think what my noble friend means is better met by the term "delivery."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("confinement") and insert ("delivery").— (Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think that is better, and I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Provisions in the case of contributors entitled to compensation or damages.
11.—(1) Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to receive or recover, whether from his employer or any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any scheme certified thereunder, or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or at common law, in respect of any injury or disease, the following provisions shall apply:—

(a) No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to such person in respect of that injury or disease in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable by way of compensation or damages is equal to or greater than the benefit otherwise payable to such person, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any such lump sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid as, together with the weekly sum or the weekly value of the lump sum, will be equal to the benefit:

(b) The weekly value of any such lump sum as aforesaid may be determined by the society or committee by which the sickness and disablement benefits payable to such person are administered, but if the insured person is aggrieved by such determination, the matter shall be settled in manner provided by this Part of this Act for settling disputes:

(c) Where an agreement is made as to the amount of such compensation as aforesaid, and that amount is less than ten shillings a week or as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, the employer shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners, or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such agreement giving the prescribed particulars thereof, and proviso (d) to paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (which relates to the powers of registrars of county courts to refuse to record memoranda of agreements and to refer the matter to the judge) shall, in cases where the workman is an insured person apply to agreements as to the amount of compensation, in like manner as to agreements as to the redemption of weekly payments by lump sums.

(2) Where an insured person appears to be entitled to any such compensation or damages as aforesaid and unreasonably refuses or neglects to take proceedings to enforce his claim, it shall be lawful for the society or committee concerned, either—

(a) at its own expense, to take in the name and on behalf of such person such proceedings, in which case any compensation or damages recovered shall be held by the society or committee as trustee for the insured person; or

(b) to withhold payment of any benefit to which apart from this section such person would be entitled.

1013
In the event of the, society or committee concerned taking proceedings as aforesaid, and failing in the proceedings, it shall be responsible for the costs of the proceedings as if it were claiming on its own account.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the society or committee paying to an insured person benefit by way of advance pending the settlement of his claim for compensation or damages, and any advance so made shall without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recoverable by deductions from or suspension of any benefits which may subsequently become payable to such person.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to add, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the words "between insured persons and societies or committees."
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 37, after ("disputes") insert ("between insured persons and societies or committees").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to amend paragraph (c) of subsection (1) by leaving out "that amount" ["of such compensation as aforesaid, and that amount"], and inserting "the amount so agreed."
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("that amount") and insert ("the amount so agreed").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after the word "thereafter" ["the employer shall, within three days thereafter"], to insert "or such longer time as may be prescribed." The noble Viscount said: A promise was given in Committee in the other House to consider whether the three days could not be extended, and by an oversight effect was not given to the promise. The Amendment will enable the time to be extended.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, after ("thereafter") insert ("or such longer time as may be prescribed").—Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions in the case of contributors who are inmates of hospitals, &c.
12.—(1) No payment shall be made on account of sickness disablement or maternity benefit to or in respect of any person during any period when the person to or in respect of whom the benefit is payable is an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary, supported by any public authority or out of any public funds or by a charity, or voluntary subscriptions, or of a sanatorium or similar institution approved under this Part of this Act.
(2) During such period as aforesaid the sum which would otherwise have been payable on account of any such benefit to or in respect of such person—

(a) shall be paid to or applied in whole or in part for the relief or maintenance of his dependants (if any) in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, after consultation whenever possible with such person, thinks fit; or

(b) if such person, being a member of an approved society, is an inmate of a sanatorium or similar institution in which he is receiving treatment in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, and has no dependants, shall be paid to the Insurance Committee towards the general purposes thereof; or

(c) if such person, being a member of an approved society, is an inmate of a hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary supported by charity or by voluntary subscriptions and has no dependants, shall, if an agreement for the purpose has been made between the society or committee and the hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary, be paid, in whole or in part, according to such agreement, towards the maintenance of such person in the hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary:

Provided that—

(i) any part of such sum which is not so applied as aforesaid may, if the society or committee thinks fit, be applied in the provision of any surgical appliances required for the insured person or otherwise for his benefit; and

(ii) if such an inmate as aforesaid is a married woman or widow, and the sums so payable or applicable as aforesaid include the sums which would have been payable both on account of sickness or disablement benefit and on account of maternity benefit, no part of the sum which would otherwise be payable on account of maternity benefit shall be paid or applied for the relief or maintenance of her dependants, but such sum may be paid to the hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary of which she is an inmate as aforesaid in like manner as if she had no dependants.

LORD BYRON LORD BYRON moved, after "inmate" in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to insert "otherwise than as a person in receipt of institutional benefit." The noble Lord said: These words are intended to include persons in this class who are already in the hospital or who are unable to go before the Health Committee. I found this suggestion in the Hospital, the leading organ, I believe, of the London hospitals, and I therefore put it down as an Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, after ("inmate") insert ("otherwise than as a person in receipt of institutional benefit").—(Lord Byron.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: This Amendment has no meaning unless the noble Lord's previous Amendment had been inserted. The House negatived that, and therefore the present Amendment has no meaning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Administration of medical benefit.
15.—(1) Every Insurance Committee shall for the purpose of administering medical benefit make arrangements with duly qualified medical practitioners in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners.
(2) The regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall provide for the arrangements made being subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners and being such as to secure that insured persons shall, save as hereinafter provided, receive adequate medical attendance and treatment from the medical practitioners with whom arrangements are so made, and shall require the adoption by every Insurance Committee of such system as will secure—

(a) the preparation and publication of lists of medical practitioners who have agreed to attend and treat insured persons whose medical benefit is administered by the committee;

(b) a right on the part of any duly qualified medical practitioner who is desirous of being included in any such list as aforesaid of being so included, but where the Insurance Commissioners, after such inquiry as may be prescribed, are satisfied that his continuance in the list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the medical service of the insured, they may remove his name from the list;

1016

(c) a right on the part of any insured person of selecting, at such periods as may be prescribed, from the appropriate list the practitioner by whom he wishes to be attended and treated, and subject to the consent of the practitioner so selected, of being attended and treated by him;

(d) the distribution amongst and, so far as practicable, under arrangements made by, the several practitioners whose names are on the lists, of the insured persons who after due notice have failed to make any selection, or who have been refused by the practitioner whom they have selected;

(e) the provision of medical attendance and treatment, on the same terms as those arranged with respect to insured persons, to members of any friendly society which becomes an approved society who were such members at the date of the passing of this Act, and who are not entitled to medical benefit under this Part of this Act by reason either that they are of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the date of the commencement of this Act, or that being subject to permanent disablement at that date they are not qualified to become insured persons:

Provided that if the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied after inquiry that the practitioners included in any list are not such as to secure an adequate medical service in any area, they may dispense with the necessity of the adoption of such system as aforesaid as respects that area, and authorise the Committee to make such other arrangements as the Commissioners may approve or the Commissioners may themselves make such arrangements as they think fit, or may suspend the right to medical benefit in respect of any insured persons in the area for such period as they think fit, and pay to each such person a sum equal to the estimated cost of his medical benefit during that period, and where the Commissioners take any such action themselves they shall retain and apply for the purpose such part of the sums payable to the Insurance Committee in respect of medical benefit as may be required.
(3) The regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall authorise the Insurance Committee by which medical benefit is administered to require any persons whose income exceeds a limit to be fixed by the Committee, and to allow any other persons, in lieu of receiving medical benefit under such arrangements as aforesaid, to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment (including medicines and appliances), and in such case the Committee shall, subject to the regulations, contribute from the funds out of which medical benefit is payable towards the cost of medical attendance and treatment (including medicines and appliances) for such persons sums not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts which the Committee would otherwise have expended in providing medical benefit for them.
(4) The regulations shall provide that, in the case of persons who are entitled to receive medical attendance and treatment under any system or through any institution existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and approved by the Insurance Committee and the Insurance Com-

1017
missioners, such medical attendance and treatment may be treated as, or as part of, their medical benefit under this Part of this Act, and may provide for the Committee contributing towards the expenses thereof the whole or any part of the sums which would he contributed in the cast: of persons who have made their own arrangments as aforesaid, so, however, that such regulations shall secure that no person be deprived of his right, if he so elects, of selecting the duly qualified medical practitioner by whom he wishes to be attended and treated, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section.
(5) Every such Committee shall also make provision for the supply of proper and sufficient drugs and medicines and prescribed appliances to insured persons in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, which shall provide for the arrangements made being subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners, and being such as to enable insured persons to obtain from any persons, firms, or bodies corporate with whom arrangements have been made such drugs, medicines, and appliances if ordered by the medical practitioner by whom they are attended, and shall require the adoption by every Insurance Committee of such a system as will secure—

(a) The preparation and publication of lists of persons, firms, and bodies corporate who have agreed to supply drugs, medicines, and appliances to insured persons whoso medical benefit is administered by the Committee, according to such scale of prices as may be fixed by the Committee;

(b) A right on the part of any person, firm, or body corporate desirous of being included in any such list as aforesaid, of being so included for the purpose of supplying such drugs, medicines, and appliances as such person, firm, or body corporate is entitled by law and authorised by the Committee to supply except in cases where the Insurance Commissioners after inquiry are satisfied that the inclusion or continuance of the person, firm, or body corporate in such list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service:

Provided that—

(i) If the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the scale of prices fixed by the Committee is reasonable, but that the persons, firms, or bodies corporate; included in any list are not such as to secure an adequate and convenient supply of drugs, medicines, and appliances in any area, they may dispense with the necessity of the adoption of such system as aforesaid as respects that area and authorise the Committee to make such other arrangements as the Commissioners may approve;

(ii) Except as may be provided by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, no arrangement shall be made by the Insurance Committee with a medical practitioner under which he is bound or agrees to supply drugs or medicine to any insured persons;

1018

(iii) Subject to the regulations made by the last foregoing proviso the regulations shall prohibit arrangements for the dispensing of medicines being made with persons other than persons, firms, or bodies corporate entitled to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1808, as amended by the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, who undertake that all medicines supplied by them to insured persons shall be dispensed either by or under the direct supervision of a registered pharmacist or by a person who, for three years immediately prior to the passing of this Act, has acted as a dispenser to a duly qualified medical practitioner or a public institution;

(iv) Nothing in this Act shall interfere with the rights and privileges conferred by the Apothecaries Act, 1815, upon any person qualified under that Act to act as an assistant to any apothecary in compounding and dispensing medicines.

(6) There shall in each year be paid to the Insurance Committee for each county or county borough out of moneys credited to a society which has members resident in the county or county borough such sum in respect of the medical benefit of such members and the cost of administration thereof as may be agreed between the society and committee, or, in default or agreement, may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners.
(7) If in any year the amount payable to an Insurance Committee in respect of all persons for the administration of whose medical benefit it is responsible is insufficient to meet the estimated expenditure thereon, the Committee may, through the Insurance Commissioners, transmit to the-Treasury and to the council of the county or county borough an account showing the amount so payable and the estimated expenditure, and the Treasury and the county council or the council of the county borough, may if they think fit and if satisfied that the amounts so payable and the proposed expenditure are reasonable and proper in the circumstances, sanction the expenditure.
(8) The Treasury and the council of the county or county borough sanctioning any such expenditure as aforesaid shall thereupon each be liable to make good, in the case of the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament, and in the case of the council of a county or county borough out of the county fund or borough fund or borough rate, as the case may be, one half of any sums so sanctioned by them and expended by the Insurance Committee on medical benefit in the course of the year in excess of the amounts so payable to the Insurance Committee as aforesaid.
LORD SANDHURST: I move, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to insert the words "duly qualified" before the words "medical practitioners." This is merely a drafting Amendment. As far as I have been able to see in every case in which "medical practitioner" finds a place in the Bill the words "duly qualified" appear. It so happens that in this

1019
particular paragraph that it is not so. I do not know whether that is the intention of the noble Viscount or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, after the second ("of") insert ("duly qualified").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is clear that the subsection must be so read. The words suggested are not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR moved to add, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the following proviso—"Provided that any person so removed shall have right of appeal to the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom, who may, if they think fit, after due inquiry restore his name to the list." The right rev. Prelate said: I am sorry that an Amendment of this kind has been left to be moved by one who has no legal training or experience, but as there is no one more competent willing to fulfil the duty I must do the best I can. I wish it also to be understood that if I say anything savouring of distrust in the Commissioners created under this Act I am not referring to Sir Robert Morant, whom I hold in the highest honour, or any of the other gentlemen whose names have been given to us. I am referring rather to hypothetical appointments which may be made by this or any other Ministry succeeding them.
In making law I take it we ought to try to guard against possible as well as probable mischief. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that it would be in the power of the Commissioners at any moment to strike a medical man off the panel and to ruin his professional prospects. The object of my Amendment is to give the unfortunate medical man in question such protection as may be afforded by an appeal to a legally constituted tribunal already in existence. And in moving this I claim, if I cannot have his support, at least the sympathy of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, who feels, as he well may, an honest and increasing satisfaction in the part taken by him in founding the Court of Criminal Appeal. The subsection which I wish to amend provides that where the Insurance Commissioners, after such
1020
inquiry as may be prescribed, are satisfied that a medical practitioner's continuance in the list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the medical service of the insured, they may remove his name from the list.
Now let me give an example to your Lordships of the kind of case I have in mind, and which I desire to protect. A young doctor without money or interest, who has scraped up enough money to pass through the medical schools with credit, thinks he sees an opening in medical practice, and is beginning to make his way. Perhaps a hysterical woman—both doctors and clergymen, as your Lordships are aware, are exposed to this danger—brings a false accusation against him, and scandal arises. The case, under this Bill, is to be referred to the Insurance Commissioners. Now who are the men who would have to try the doctor, if not for his life, at least for that which to many men is dearer than life—namely, his character and professional prospects? They are an unspecified number of Commissioners, I suppose four or five, of whom one should be a medical practitioner, who may or may not be eminent in his profession. Of course, such a man would be highly respectable and honourable in his profession, but I doubt whether the emolument would be such as to tempt a man of first-class eminence to undertake the duty. Let me take a parallel supposition. I believe that Courts of Inquiry—at least, I gather so from what I have read occasionally in the newspapers—are occasionally held in the Army to inquire as to the fitness of some particular officer or other to command. Let us suppose that such a Court was to sit without an appeal, composed of five civilians taken from the Civil Service and one commissioned officer, who might be of any rank whatever in the Service. Would such a Court, acting without appeal, be very satisfactory for the purpose of deciding as to whether or not any officer in the Service was fit to hold his command?
Or, again, take a case which is perhaps more common. A young lieutenant is to be tried because of some error of judgment or miscalculation of the force of the tide or current, by which he loses the vessel under his command. Five men, none of whom knows more of navigation than can

1021
be obtained by taking an occasional run from here to Greenwich in a penny steamer, and one lieutenant, who may have been on the retired list, no one knows how long, are to decide the question as to whether that officer had fulfilled his duty or not. Lest any one should say the case is not parallel, let me remind your Lordships that the doctor I am supposing to be put on his trial can be tried equally for want of professional skill or for having made some fatal mistake in his treatment of a ease, as well as on account of such a scandal as I have suggested. Now let me go on. The Commissioners may hold an inquiry, and, if they think fit, may remove the man. They are not bound by the result of that inquiry. They may, indeed, act quite contrary to its findings if they like. Let me remind your Lordships of what took place in a Swansea case which occupied so much of your Lordships' time some while ago. There the Board of Education claimed, after holding an inquiry, the power of judging on other knowledge in their possession, and setting aside the findings of that inquiry. I appeal to those who sat in judgment on that occasion to say whether that is not a fair statement, whether that was not the very pleading urged—that the Department had a right to act on other knowledge, and so set aside the report of their own Commissioner. In that case there was an appeal to the High Court and to your Lordships' House. There was a great deal of popular enthusiasm and indignation, and sufficient money was subscribed to support that appeal. But look at the case I am quoting of the young doctor with no money, and perhaps with local feeling against him. The Commissioners may send down, not a Mr. Justice Hamilton, but some much less capable person, and then allow the man to be condemned and found guilty on insufficient evidence, or, if found not guilty, set aside, as in the Swansea case, the finding, acting on knowledge within their possession but of which the accused has not heard. In that way they may ruin the man. It may be said that what was done in the case of a school would never be done in the case of a person. But is that quite sure? I know something of inquiries in cases of local scandal. Public feeling sometimes condemns a man first and then insists that an acquittal is a failure of justice, and the pressure brought to bear on such a tribunal as the Commissioners would not be slight.
Now what is the Court to which I propose to give the right of appeal in such a case—the General Medical Council? This was established by Act of Parliament in 1858, and its constitution was enlarged and put on a more popular basis in 1886. The Act was brought in by the Party now in power. It was backed by Sir Lyon Playfair, Mr. Mundella, and the Lord Advocate. It provides that the constitution of the, Council should consist of five persons nominated by the King, on the advice of the Privy Council, one person to be nominated by the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, and a number of other Medical Colleges and Universities, three persons elected from time to time by the registered medical practitioners of England, one elected by the registered medical practitioners of Scotland, and one by the registered medical practitioners of Ireland. Is it not reasonable that a man condemned for misbehaviour or unskilfulness in the exercise of his profession by an unspecified number of Commissioners with only one professional member among them, whose name no one knows, sitting, certainly in the case of Wales, no one knows where, acting possibly upon private unsifted information, should be allowed to appeal to this august tribunal founded by Parliament for the protection, and, if need be, the correction of medical practitioners?
My Lords, I regret that some one better acquainted with law has not attempted to discharge this duty, but I have one qualification—my love to those whose cause I plead. Before I was called to my present office I was an ordinary common country parson, and as such I was in close association with the ordinary common country doctor. I know something of their kindness and self-denying labours. I have known them go out in all weathers amongst the suffering poor; I have known them while ministering to the suffering to relieve their poverty out of their own penury, finding often the poor have been unable to pay them anything. I know also that a measure is in contemplation to expel myself and the other Bishops from this House. If that time comes there will be no vote or speech of mine which I shall look back upon with more satisfaction than this attempt to obtain justice for those hard-working good men to whom the poor and those who work amongst them and for them owe so much.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, after ("list") insert ("Provided that any person so removed shall have right of appeal to the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom who may if they think fit after due inquiry restore his name to the list").—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The right rev. Prelate has travelled far from the question of this Bill into a dim and dubious future into which I will not try to follow him. I come back to the rather prosaic question which we have to discuss, which is this. As the practice of friendly societies originally stood, and as this Bill might very well have stood, the friendly societies nominated the doctors whom they employed, and the patients went to the friendly society's doctor and got his advice. The doctors objected—and I am not at all complaining of them for it—to being left under the old practice. Under the scheme of the Bill as it now stands there is substituted a system under which every: doctor within a given area can get himself put on the panel subject to what is recognised on all hands to be a necessary check—a check which was necessary for this reason, that on the certificate of a doctor depends the paying of a good deal of money, and the doctor has the comfortable and uncomfortable position of having a duty to discharge to the State and at the same time a duty to discharge to his patient. This somewhat delicate question having to be considered from time to time, it was felt necessary to make some provision for revising the panel. I do not suppose it will often happen, but undoubtedly there will be cases in which it may happen, and it is one of those things which ought to be done with a good deal of local knowledge and also a knowledge of the working of this system. The Insurance Commissioners, after such an inquiry as may be prescribed, are to exercise the duty of revising the panel when that has to be done, and they are given power under Clause 66 to appoint a specially qualified referee to assist them in coming to their decision. I should have thought that was all that need be covered. I should have thought that was all that could possibly be wanted. What sort of body is the General Medical Council in a question of this kind? Something arises, it may be in a remote parish in Scotland, when; the facts are to be investigated, and where you have to send somebody down under Clause 66 to inquire into the circum-
1024
stances and report if there was matter or not matter for a body sitting in some central position to deal with at a distance. It is not as if it was a matter which could not be inquired into on the spot. The machinery which is here provided has been very carefully thought out and deliberately adopted. The provision is absolutely necessary for the protection of public moneys, and the Government could not possibly give way to the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (2), after "which" ["to members of any friendly society which"], to insert the words "or a separate section of which." The noble Viscount said: This is a desirable improvement on the wording as it now stands. At the present time the right to have medical attendance for old men and persons chronically ill is not the same right as that of insured persons. We have thought it right to extend to these old people the privilege of getting medical attendance, and we propose to put in these words with the idea of meeting their case.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 21, after ("which") insert ("or a separate section of which").—( Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That Clause 15, as amended, be agreed to.—(Viscount Haldane.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, nothing I can say will influence the intention of the Government with regard to this clause, but before your Lordships part with it I desire to enter the strongest protest I can against the manner in which this clause has been inserted in the Bill and the position in which it leaves the matter. I do not believe, unless a special study has been made of it, that there are many men in this House who are aware of what the effect of this clause is, and I desire, if your Lordships will grant me two or three minutes, to state the position. There are some 14,000,000 people coming under this Bill. It is reckoned that there are about 15,000 doctors available to attend these 14,000,000 people, and if you divide the

1025
number of people to be attended by the number of available doctors you will find that each doctor will have nearly 1,000 patients to attend on. The average number of visits paid by the doctors of friendly societies to members of those organisations represents nine or ten a year to each member; and it is not unreasonable to estimate that the number of visits to be paid to each insured person under the Bill will represent an average of twenty annually, inasmuch as female patients—and the attendance on female lives is estimated by doctors variously at from three to five times that on male lives—are included and the lives generally will not represent picked lives. At the fixed fee of 4s. 6d. per patient a doctor would have to pay 20,000 visits a year in order to earn between £200 and £250 annually. It is a physical impossibility that the Bill can be carried out under those conditions either with due regard to attendance or with the possibility of keeping up the standard of a scientific profession or the supply in preparation for which a man has to spend five or six years of his life. In the bargains which have been made lately with the friendly societies and with other classes the subjects have been too much set on one side, and in the sudden changes in the Bill in the House of Commons it has not been generally appreciated by the public and hardly even by the medical profession how prodigious is the burden placed upon them and how impossible it is that the Bill can remain in its present condition. I know it is said that it is open to the Insurance Commissioners to take steps in this matter, but nobody knows better than the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that their horizon must be limited by their purse and by the grants which come from the Government. I think it will be found that the Government have lighted a fire which they will not be able to extinguish, and by their procedure and by the denial to this House of the power of revision they will have contributed to a large extent towards making the operation of the Bill difficult and the recasting of certain clauses, of which this is one, imperative in the near future.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in days gone past Governments have been accused of filling the butchers' shops with big blue flies and of many other things; but never before have I heard it suggested that the Government were, by a Bill they
1026
had introduced, likely to increase the amount of illness in the country. Yet what does the speech of the noble Viscount mean, if it does not mean that. He says there are nearly 15,000 doctors doing the medical work of the country.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I said 15,000 doctors were available for this particular purpose. As everybody knows, we have a much larger number on the Register, but of that large number some are in practice in London as specialists, some belong to the Army and the Navy, and some are attached directly to hospitals. The actual number estimated by the medical profession themselves as being available is about 15,000.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes; but, after all, people suffer independently of this Bill, and they will suffer, I hope, not more. I trust that in the end they will suffer less after the Bill. There are doctors enough, even with these things. The doctors who deal with this class of cases do so at very moderate rates of remuneration—much less than they will get under this Bill. Is it stated by the noble Viscount that this Bill is going to increase the number of patients so enormously that the supply of doctors will run out?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In regard to the London County Council, since children have been placed under public medical practitioners 90 per cent. have been found to be suffering from caries of the teeth and to require an amount of attention which they had never received before; and of course as soon as this Bill becomes law and when anybody may call in a doctor without having to pay for his visits many persons will ask for medical attendance who now go without it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No doubt it is true that in the schools, where there was no medical attendance or medical inspection at all practically until the other day, there is naturally more work to be done. But I cannot see why under this Bill people should unnecessarily when they are not ill send for a doctor, or how this Bill should make them ill. It may be there were cases before where they did not send for a doctor, and under this Bill the number of doctors employed will increase.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The fees will not.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I may say I am engaged just now as Chairman of a Royal Commission, in an investigation which has brought to light the remarkable fact that doctors and the entries of men as medical students are diminishing, and it may be that the country is getting more healthy, but I cannot for the life of me see why or where the difficulty is likely to arise in getting sufficient doctors to do this work. At present the complaint coming before me is as to the extreme difficulty for the young doctor to secure a start. Now he will get on the panel and get a start off, and there will be plenty of work for him to do, and, if so, so much the better.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am reluctant to trouble your Lordships again, but these arguments should not be allowed to go without a protest. Of course, you can increase the number of doctors indefinitely, but if you keep the fee at 4s. 6d. the additional doctors, instead of making a little over £200 a year, which in all conscience is small enough for the amount of work done, will have their remuneration reduced pro tanto. There is no question of raising the amount of each man. If you divide the work which one man can perform between two, he will get £100 a year instead of £200 a year; and I venture to say, with great respect to the noble Viscount, that the method by which he has attempted to defend these clauses proves more conclusively than anything with how little thought and with what a light heart the Government have gone into one of the most difficult and most serious questions that could possibly have been raised.
On Question, Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Administration of sanatorium benefit.
16.—(1) For the purpose of administering sanatorium benefit Insurance Committees shall make arrangements, to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners,—

(a) with a view to providing treatment for insured persons suffering from tuberculosis or any other such disease as aforesaid in sanatoria and other institutions, with persons or local authorities (other than poor law authorities) having the management of sanatoria or other institutions approved by the Local Government Board, which treatment it shall be lawful
1028
for a local authority to provide as respects insured persons resident outside as well as respects those resident within their area; and

(b) with a view to providing treatment for such persons otherwise than in sanatoria or other institutions, with persons and local authorities (other than poor law authorities) undertaking such treatment in a manner approved by the Local Government Board, which treatment (including the appointment of officers for the purpose) it shall be lawful for a local authority, if so authorised by the Local Government Board, to undertake.

(2) The sums available for defraying the expenses of sanatorium benefit in each year shall be—

(a) one shilling and threepence in respect of each insured person resident in the county or county borough payable out of the funds out of which benefits are payable under this Part of this Act;

(b) one penny in respect of each such person payable out of moneys provided by Parliament;

Provided that the Insurance Commissioners may retain the whole or any part of the sums so payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to be applied in accordance with regulations made by the Commissioners for the purposes of research.
(3) An insured person shall not be entitled to sanatorium benefit unless the Insurance Committee recommends the case for such benefit.
(4) An Insurance Committee may, out of the sums available for defraying the expenses of sanatorium treatment, defray in whole or in part the expenses of the conveyance of an insured, person to or from any sanatorium or institution to which he may be sent for treatment therein, or may make advances for the purpose.
LORD TENTERDEN: I move to delete paragraph (b) of subsection (2), and I do so with the firm conviction that the majority of your Lordships are not in favour of this clause remaining part of the Bill. How the endowment of research ever came to be entered into to form part of an Insurance Bill is quite incomprehensible; but what is perfectly clear to every one is that the term "research" is a misnomer—a cloak to conceal the horrible practices of the inoculation and vivisection of living animals. I know I shall be told that research is nothing of the kind, and that it simply means that scientific research by doctors which has been proceeding for a number of years past. If that were so, my Lords, no one would welcome its endowment more than I should, and I should net be here to move this Amendment. But unfortunately this is not so. Research as practised now invariably means vivisection in its worst form.

1029
In support of what I am saying I will call your Lordships' attention to the remarks of Mr. McKenna, when he received a deputation of representatives of antivivisection societies on behalf of Mr. Lloyd George. He admitted that if the endowment of research were part of the National Insurance Bill it could not be hoped to exclude the inoculation, and not improbably, too, the vivisection of living animals. As another instance of the fact that research means what I have said it does, there is the fact that there exists a Research Defence Society. Now it is quite clear to anybody who thinks about the matter at all that there could not exist a Research. Defence Society unless there was something to hide and to defend. Therefore if it is necessary to organise a society to defend research there is some thing going on behind the curtain which the public is not allowed to see and not allowed to understand. In the face of all this, is it not perfectly clear, if this clause is allowed to remain part of the Bill, that hundreds of thousands of people will be compelled to subscribe to the £60,000 endowment for purposes which they hate and detest, when they would willingly give their money to prevent it instead.
Your Lordships must remember that this money is to come from all classes of people. You are taxing people who work very hard for their living and with whom every penny counts; and if this Bill passes your Lordships' House people are going to be compelled to subscribe to the endowment of research which include the vivisection and the inoculation of living animals when their whole spirit and mind revolt against the practice, and who no doubt, as I have said, would willingly subscribe money to prohibit any such practice throughout the nation. In 1910, out of 95,731 experiments, only 129 were seen by inspectors. From this it is clear that there is not even proper supervision, and what happened in the case of the experiments on the wretched animals which were not inspected no one knows. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the admissions made by these very inspectors before the Royal Commission. They admitted that the experiments resulted in great and lingering suffering and sometimes acute pain for these poor defenceless animals—well, I will leave what they say to your Lordships' imagination. No real good has ever been obtained
1030
from this so-called research. If any good results had been obtained from it I might not be here to move this Amendment. The results have been invariably inaccurate, inconclusive, and contradictory. If research by torturing animals must be continued, then it is amply provided for by the laboratories which exist at the present moment, and it is unnecessary to put this imposition upon the ratepayers and compel them to provide a further large sum—as much as £60,000 a year—for a purpose which does not commend itself to them. I would remind your Lordships that whenever the public have known and have had explained to them what really went on under the name of research, they have one and all condemned these iniquitous practices. It is certain that had it been possible this Amendment would have been proposed in the House of Commons. Mr. Chancellor was ready to move it, but unfortunately things were rushed through at such a rate that he was unable to get a chance of bringing the matter forward; but in a very short time he collected the signatures of sixty-two Members of Parliament to a protest against this imposition, and that protest was signed by 100,000 people outside the House of Commons.
Let me mention to your Lordships a few of the associations that have passed resolutions against this. The London Liberal Federation, consisting exclusively of the most representative Liberal workers from all the London constituencies, passed a resolution asking for the exclusion of experiments on living animals; only four voted against it. The Women's Liberal Association passed a similar resolution unanimously. The Liberal Members of the House of Commons who moved Amendments received similar resolutions from Liberal Associations in many parts of the country. The Church Anti-Vivisection League, which has for its object the prohibition of the vivisection of living animals, of the inoculation of animals with diseases, and of the treatment of serums prepared from animals inoculated with diseases, ask your Lordships—
"to protect the people from their nominal representatives by exercising your Veto in respect of certain unstatesmanlike clauses in the National Insurance Bill."
They add—
"Our Empire owes its rise to our just treatment of the lower humanity; let us beware lest it owe its fall to our unjust treatment of the lower animal creation."

1031
They have passed a resolution embracing an Amendment to Clause 16 in somewhat similar terms to the one I am now moving. It reads—
"But none of the money so provided shall be used for experiments on living animals, or for providing buildings or apparatus for the purpose of such experiments."
By this it will be seen that I have the support of the Church, I do not say the whole Church; but in any case a very large section of the Church is dead against these practices.
If your Lordships allow this clause to pass you will be doing a great injustice to the people of this country. No doubt your Lordships remember the demonstration that took place lately in this city, when resolutions were passed at eight platforms protesting against the insertion of this clause in the Insurance Bill. That demonstration goes to prove what the feeling of the people is in regard to this matter. This is not a Party question, as I have already proved. It is one on which, fortunately, I have very large support on both sides in this House and also in the House of Commons. I maintain that if your Lordships allow this subsection to remain in the Insurance Bill, with which it has nothing whatever to do, it will be a disgrace to the nation, and not only will you perpetrate a cowardly act towards the whole animal kingdom but you will do a great injustice by taxation to a large number of your fellow-countrymen.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, lines 32 and 33, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Tenterden.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Strange to say, nowhere in this Bill is there a word about vivisection, nor has the provision to which my noble friend behind me has devoted so much attention anything to do with vivisection. The provision is that Parliament is to provide one penny in respect of each insured person towards the sums available for defraying the expenses of sanatorium benefit in each year. If this penny were struck out, the sanatoriums would be the first to suffer, and part of the fund for the treatment of consumptives would be gone; and why my noble friend should have moved to omit this paragraph I do not know. Lower down the word "research" occurs, and research is one of the subsidiary purposes to which what is
1032
left of this money can be devoted. There will probably be very little of it. But I need not say that, even on the most extravagant hypothesis, research includes a great deal more than vivisection, and if we are to be debarred from taking advantage of the enormous facilities which this Bill affords for pursuing the study of consumption, all I can say is a very great evil will be brought about. I do not pursue the other arguments which my noble friend has raised, but I might point out that this is obviously on the face of it dealing with a financial provision, a thing which is not considered to be within the competence of this House, and therefore the Amendment would be out of order. I rest my case, however, on the broad ground that it would be a disaster, for the other reason I have given, if the Amendment of my noble friend were carried.
LORD TENTERDEN: The noble Viscount has opposed my Amendment. I quite expected, knowing the sentiments he holds, that he would do so. But I have none the less brought the Amendment forward, because I am an ardent anti-vivisectionist, and as a protest on behalf of those anti-vivisection societies which I am here to represent to-day. I shall always endeavour to bring it forward whenever I have an opportunity. As to whether or not it has to do with vivisection, I think there is sufficient evidence to show that up to the present research has always included vivisection. If I am to understand from the noble Viscount that the £60,000 a year is to be devoted to the purposes of sanatoria and of ordinary scientific pursuits and investigations by doctors and to those purposes only, then I am entirely with him; but if not, then I put it to your Lordships that experiments upon living animals should be excluded from the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment in my name, to add at the end of subsection (2), after the word "research," the words "or of education," is a very small one, but I venture to hope it will have the sympathy and possibly the acceptance also of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. He let drop a phrase a few moments ago which showed that he had been studying this question. He said that one of the great things we are learning about all kinds of pulmonary disease is

1033
that if we are to get good results we must take it in hand early, and the great object of my Amendment is to provide that some part of the fund in the hand of the Insurance Commissioners may be used for the purpose of education on this matter. The National Association for the Prevention of Consumption, of which I happen to be chairman, has several exhibition caravans which go about to different centres of population for the purpose of educating the people in precautionary measures. I believe that under Clause 59 there is power given to the local health committees to expend money in the direction I have indicated, but it would be, I think, of great importance if we could appeal to the discretion of the central body instead of having to go to every local authority. The only object with which I have put down this Amendment to add the words "or of education" after "research" is to give the National Insurance Commissioners power, if they see fit—leaving it entirely to their discretion—to give small subsidies here and there for the purpose which I have endeavoured to describe.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, after ("research") insert ("or of education").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have very great sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. The difficulty I feel about it is this. There will be a very small margin of money available for research, and if that margin may be devoted to education I am afraid research may suffer. The intention of the Bill was that education should be dealt with under Clause 59, which provides other machinery and other funds for the purpose. The educational objects which the noble Lord has in view should be attained in that way. I am afraid if we go beyond research here, the temptation would be to divert the very little money there is available out of this penny, which would be better devoted to the investigation of the causes of phthisis than anything else. On the whole I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. I have entirely the same object at heart as himself—education is most important—but, as I say, Clause 59 deals with that, and I am very anxious not to take any money away from the small amount that will be available for research.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BYRON: The object of the proviso which I propose to add at the end of subsection (3), which I hope the noble Viscount will accept, is to enable a workman who cannot pay for himself in the hospital but who is insured to go to such an institution on the recommendation of the medical man, by which he will avoid all stigma of charity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised that all insured persons shall receive free medical attendance. It is quite clear that a man falling from a scaffold or a man who is run over by a cart and seriously injured—as I recently witnessed in Essex—has not time to go before a health board, and it seems to me it is necessary in such cases that he should get the quickest certificate he can to enable him to go to the best hospital. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, after ("benefit") insert ("Provided that where a duly qualified member of the Medical Staff of any such hospital as aforesaid certifies that an insured person is in urgent need of admission to such hospital, such certificate shall have the same validity so far as regards the admission and subsequent treatment of such person, as a recommendation by the local Health Committee").—(Lord Byron.)
LORD SANDHURST: I do not know what the noble Viscount will say, but I think I can assure the noble Lord that his Amendment is hardly necessary, for this reason. If a person meets with an accident, either through falling from a scaffold or being run over by a motor car, all that is necessary is for him to be taken to the hospital in a cab by the first passerby and he will receive the most instant attention and all the care that it is possible to give him.
LORD BYRON: Then it goes under the name of charity.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) has just said represents my view entirely. I cannot see what legal effect the Amendment would have if it were inserted. We are not exercising jurisdiction in this Bill over hospitals, and, unless we are, what meaning can possibly attach to the words, "such certificates shall have the same validity so far as regards the admission and subsequent treatment of such person

1035
as a recommendation by the local health committee." This Amendment would be in place if the rest of the Amendments of the noble Lord had been accepted by the House, but as they have gone out I cannot attach any legal effect to these words and I think they are objectionable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Administration of maternity benefit.
18.—(1) Where the mother of the child is herself an insured person, and is not the wife or, in the case of a posthumous child, the widow of an insured person, maternity benefit shall be treated as a benefit for her and shall be administered in cash or otherwise by the approved society of which she is a member, or if she is not a member of any society by the Insurance Committee: in any other case the benefit shall be treated as a benefit for her husband and shall be administered in cash or otherwise by the approved society of which he is a member, or if he is not a member of any such society by the Insurance Committee, and shall be payable in respect of a posthumous child as if the husband were still alive:
Provided always that the mother shall decide whether she shall be attended by a duly qualified medical practitioner or by a duly certified midwife, and shall have free choice in the selection of such practitioner or midwife.
(2) In deciding whether or not they shall make an order under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, for the payment of the expenses incidental to the birth of a child, the justices shall not take into consideration the fact that the mother of the child is entitled to receive maternity benefit under this Part of the Act.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to add to the proviso at the end of subsection (1) the words "and the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall provide for the payment of a fee to any medical practitioner who may be summoned on the advice of a midwife to render assistance in a case of emergency." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with cases where a midwife is obliged by the law as it stands to call in medical assistance. That means that a fee has to be paid to the man so called in. This fee, I understand, is sometimes paid by what is called the Supervising Committee of the Midwives' Board, and is recovered or not as the case may be. It does happen I am told, that very often the midwife herself pays the fee and does not get it back. As we know, there is a very large body of mid-
1036
Wives—I think there are some 30,000 enrolled—and it seems to me a hardship that they should be out of pocket in this way. I do not know whether my noble friend can accept my Amendment, or whether he feels inclined to put in some words of his own to meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 11, after ("midwife") insert ("and the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall provide for the payment of a fee to any medical practitioner who may be summoned on the advice of a midwife to render assistance in a case of emergency").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If my noble friend will take the Amendment in a slightly different form, I can accept it. I propose myself to move these words: after "midwife," insert "but if, in the case of a midwife being selected, a duly qualified medical practitioner is subsequently summoned in pursuance of the rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902, the prescribed fee shall, subject to the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be recoverable as part of the maternity benefit." That will meet my noble friend, and I think it is a better form.
LORD SANDHURST: Yes. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 18, page 24, line 11, after ("midwife") insert ("but if, in the case of a midwife being selected, a duly qualified medical practitioner is subsequently summoned in pursuance of the rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902, the prescribed fee shall, subject to the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be recoverable as part of the maternity benefit").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST: I beg to move, after Clause 18, the new clause standing in my name. Its object is to secure to the wife that the maternity benefit where paid to the husband shall be secured to her. It is possible that some husbands might get hold of the money and not put it to

1037
the use intended. It is not difficult to imagine a case where, if the money got into the hands of a very bad man, it might be squandered in drink and the wife thereby deprived of the benefit. I hope my noble friend will see his way to accept this clause.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
(". Where under the immediately foregoing section, which relates to the administration of maternity benefit, of this Act maternity benefit is given or paid to the husband, it shall be the duty of the husband to make adequate provision to the best of his power for the maintenance and care of his wife during her confinement, and for a period of four weeks after her delivery, and if he neglects or refuses to do so he shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment, with, or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding one month").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I again agree with my noble friend. I think that what he proposes is right. But there may be other legal liabilities which ought to be saved, and therefore I would propose to introduce this clause with the words, "Without prejudice to any other legal liability." With the addition of those words, I can accept his Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Might I suggest that as this only refers to one clause, Clause 18, it would be better to put it into that clause at the end, instead of making a new clause of it and so causing a renumbering of the clauses throughout the subsequent pages of the Bill.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships have passed Clause 18, and what the noble Lord now suggests can only be done on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I suggest that we take it as it is, and then it can be dealt with on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, with the addition of the words at the beginning of the proposed new clause, "Without prejudice to any other legal liability."
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Power to approved societies to subscribe to hospitals, &c.
20. It shall be lawful for an approved society or Insurance Committee to grant such subscriptions or donations as it may think fit to hospitals and other charitable institutions, or for the support of district nurses, and to appoint nurses for the purpose of visiting and nursing insured persons, and any sums so expended shall be treated as expenditure on such benefits under this Part of this Act as may be prescribed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This may be described almost as a drafting Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 29, after ("hospitals") insert ("dispensaries").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Power of councils of boroughs and districts to contribute to certain expenditure on medical and sanatorium benefits.
21. The council of any borough or urban or rural district may agree with the council of the county in which the borough or district is situate to repay to the latter council the whole or any part of the sums payable by that council in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act towards the excess expenditure on medical or sanatorium benefit so far as such excess is properly attributable to the borough or district, and any sums payable by the council of the borough or district in pursuance of such an agreement shall be payable in the case of a borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, and in any other case as part of the general expenses incurred by the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask a question on this clause? This is one of those unfortunate clauses that were not in the Bill as originally introduced, and it has never been discussed at any stage, as I understand, in another place. There is a serious pecuniary difficulty in regard to this clause, and also a serious departure from ordinary practice. I understand—in fact I am certain—that it affects Scotland as well as England, because it is one of those clauses applied to Scotland by Clause 80 of the Bill. It is entirely contrary to principles that Parliament has

1039
hitherto adopted in regard to cases where powers are conferred on county councils with regard to non-county boroughs. There are, of course, cases in England and Scotland where both county councils and borough councils are empowered to perform the same class of duties. The larger non-county boroughs are educational authorities, and they are out of the county for the purpose of the education rate. The point here is that this clause gives a power, and a very reasonable and proper power, to a non-county borough to make special arrangements with the county council for the performance of certain duties. If the non-county borough is liberally inclined, it may want to increase the medical man's fee, and to do certain things to secure better services within its own bounds; but if it once takes advantage of this clause, as the Bill stands, I am afraid it runs the risk of having to pay twice over, because it will not only have to pay the sum it agreed with the county council to pay, but it will also be liable to be rated in respect of the duty. I am sure the noble Viscount understands the point, and I will not elaborate it. I cannot move to omit the clause, because that would do great harm; but if the noble Viscount, either at this stage or a subsequent stage, would take this addition to the clause I think it would meet the case—namely, "A county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of this Act within any borough or urban or rural district the council of which has entered into an agreement in pursuance of this section during the continuance of such agreement." The notice was so short that I am sorry I was not able to put these words on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 5, after ("Acts") insert ("A county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of the Act within any borough or urban or rural district the council of which has entered into an agreement in pursuance of this section during the continuance of such agreement.")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. It is plain in a case of this kind that if a borough, not being a county borough, is desirous of having a special rate for special medical benefit or sanatorium assistance, it should be free to enter into an agreement to that effect, and it
1040
is also clear that it should not be rated by the county council in respect of it. Of course, there is an alternative method—that is, that it may be rated on paying the contribution—but it is probably simpler to have the machinery which the noble Lord proposes, and therefore I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Power of societies to undertake business under Part I.
23.—(1) It shall be lawful for any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, established before the passing of this Act which is desirous of transacting insurance business under this Part of this Act, or of making any amendments in its constitution, or administration, or contributions, or benefits, or otherwise which may be necessary or expedient in consequence of the passing of this Act, notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the Acts under which it is established or registered or carried on, or of its memorandum or articles of association, rules, or other instrument governing its constitution or defining its objects, to do all such acts and things (including the establishment of a separate section as aforesaid) as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the body to undertake the transaction of such business as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and, if the instrument regulating the constitution of the body contains provision s requiring any interval to elapse before action can be taken, such provisions shall not apply to action taken for the purposes aforesaid.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) of section seventy of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, shall not apply to any resolutions for amalgamation or transfer of engagements when the resolution is made expressly for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(3) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act and shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to add at the end of the clause the words in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 38, after ("Act") insert ("except so far as may be necessary to enable a society which has undertaken the transaction of insurance business under this Part of this Act to continue to transact such business").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Admission of insured persons to membership in approved societies.
29.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any insured person and any person entitled to become an insured person may apply to an approved society for membership therein.
(2) An approved society shall be entitled, in accordance with its rules, to admit or reject any such applicant, or to expel any of its members being insured persons: Provided that no such application shall be refused solely on the ground of the age of the applicant.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to add a new subsection to the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 26, after ("applicant") insert the following new subsection:
(3) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 36, after ("branch") insert ("by the branch").
Page 37, line 5, leave out ("approved") and insert ("sanctioned").—Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38:
Amendments moved—
Page 39, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("in the case of an association and to")
Page 39, line 12, after ("borough") insert ("in the case of a group")
Page 39, line 13, leave out ("as the case may require")
Page 39, line 21, after ("branches") insert ("except those requiring the approval of a society to a scheme prepared by a branch as to the distribution of a surplus or the making good of a deficiency").
Page 40, line 10, leave out ("in whole or in part") and insert ("any part of").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Provisions as to special classes of insured persons.
43.—(1) Where a woman who has before marriage been an insured person marries, she shall be suspended from receiving the ordinary benefits under this Part of this Act until the death of her husband, and if she is a member of an approved society one-third of her transfer value shall be carried to a separate account called the married women's suspense account, but if at any time after the death of her husband she becomes an employed contributor, the period between her marriage and the expiration of one month from the death of her husband shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears, and there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society of which she is a member the proper reserve value calculated according to tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners:
Provided that where a woman who has been employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act before marriage, proves that she continues to be so employed after marriage, she shall not be So suspended so long as she continues to be so employed, and that where a married woman so suspended from the ordinary benefits becomes employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act before the death of her husband, contributions shall thereupon again become payable in respect of her, and she shall cease to be suspended from receiving the ordinary benefits, but, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, she shall for the purposes of those benefits be treated as if she had not previously been an insured person.
(2) Where a married woman being a member of an approved society is so suspended from the ordinary benefits as aforesaid, she may, if she so elects within one month after such suspension, or, subject to the consent of the society, after the expiration of that month, and notwithstanding that she is not engaged in any regular occupation, become whilst so suspended a voluntary contributor, subject to the following modifications, but not otherwise:—

(a) The rate of contributions payable by her shall be threepence a week;

(b) The benefits to which she shall be entitled shall be—

(i) medical benefit; and

(ii) sickness benefit and disablement benefit at the rates and subject to the conditions specified in Table D of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act;

(c) No part of her contributions shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of discharging their liabilities to approved societies in respect of the reserve values created under this Act:

Provided that where a married woman elects not to become such a voluntary contributor she shall be entitled to have a sum equal to the remaining two-thirds of her transfer value applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted, except that where a reserve value was credited to the society in respect of such woman at the date of her entrance into insurance so much of such sum

1043
as aforesaid as may be prescribed shall not be so applied but shall be written off the amount of the reserve values credited to the society.
(3) Where the husband of a married woman who has been so suspended from ordinary benefits as aforesaid and who is a member of an approved society dies, she may, if she is qualified to become a voluntary contributor, and elects to do so within one month after the death of her husband, become an ordinary voluntary contributor paying contributions at the rate which would have been applicable to the case had she become such a contributor at the date of her entry into insurance:
Provided that she may, whether or not so qualified, if she so elects within one month after the death of her husband, continue to be or become a voluntary contributor on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as above provided as respects married women.
In either such case there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society the proper reserve value calculated as aforesaid.
(4) Where a married woman who was at the date of her marriage a deposit contributor is by virtue of this section suspended from the ordinary benefits under this Part of this Act two-thirds of the sum standing to her credit in the Post Office fund shall be applied in accordance with the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted.
(5) Where a woman who was a married woman at the commencement of this Act at any time subsequently either before or within one year after the death of her husband becomes an employed contributor and a member of an approved society, she shall be entitled to full benefits notwithstanding that at the time of so becoming she is over the age of sixteen.
(6) Where any arrears of contributions have accrued due in respect of a married woman during coverture such arrears shall, on the death of her husband, be disregarded and she shall be thenceforth entitled to benefits as if such arrears had never accrued due.
(7) Except as provided by this section a married woman shall not be entitled to become a voluntary contributor, and if a woman is before marriage a voluntary contributor she shall on marriage not be entitled to continue to be such a contributor.
(8) If a woman, whilst a voluntary contributor at such reduced rates of benefit as are provided by this section, becomes employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act she shall be entitled to a certificate (to be granted in manner herein-before provided) exempting her from liability to become an employed contributor so, however, that such exemption shall not exempt the employer from his liability to pay contributions in respect of her, or deprive him of his right to recover such part of those contributions as is payable on her behalf, but of each weekly contribution so paid by the employer threepence shall be treated as her contribution as a voluntary contributor and the balance shall be applied for her benefit in such manner as the society may determine.
(9) If at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed on it by this section the deficiency shall
1044
be made good out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created by this Act.
(10) Transfer value for the purposes of this section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.
(11) Where a woman is a member of an approved society at the time when she is entitled to exercise an option under this section, it shall be the duty of the society to give her full information as to the nature of her rights.
(12) Where a deficiency has been found in respect of the society or branch of which a woman is a member at a valuation previous to the time when she became suspended from ordinary benefits under this Part of this Act, and that deficiency has not been made good at the time of her marriage, or where a woman is in arrears at that time, such adjustments in the sums transferred to the married women's suspense account, and in the balance of her transfer value, and in the rates of benefit to which she is entitled under this section, shall be made as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.
(13) Save as aforesaid the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to a woman who has been married, both during and after coverture, in like mailer as if she had never been married.
(14) This section shall apply in the case of a woman whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled, or who has for a period of not less than two years been actually separated from or deserted by her husband, as if her husband had died at the date at which such dissolution or annulment took effect, or, as the case may require, at the expiration of such period of two years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "over the age of sixteen" at the end of subsection (5), and to insert "of the age of seventeen or upwards."
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, leave out ("over the age of sixteen") and insert ("of the age of seventeen or upwards").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to omit from the middle of subsection (14) the words "two years," and to insert "twelve months." The noble Lord also had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the clause the following new subsection, "(15) This section shall apply in the case of a woman whose husband has been sentenced to be kept in penal servitude or to be imprisoned for a term of twelve months or longer as though her husband had died on the date on which he was sentenced." He said, in moving the first Amendment: The object of this Amendment is to shorten the period. Two years seems to me an unnecessarily long time, and I think it would be met by twelve months.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 34, leave out ("two years") and insert ("twelve months").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. We think that one year is not long enough, and that two years should be the minimum.
LORD SANDHURST: I beg to withdraw the Amendment; the other standing in my name is consequential.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Special provisions as to aliens.
44.—(1) This Part of this Act shall apply to persons over the age of sixteen at the date of entry into insurance who are not British subjects, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) No such person shall be qualified to become a member of an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act except upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned;

(b) No part of the benefits to which such persons may become entitled shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;

(c) The rate of sickness, disablement, and maternity benefit shall be reduced, in the case of men, to seven-ninths or in the case of women to three-quarters, of the to which they would otherwise be entitled under this Part of this Act;

(d) No part of the sums payable in respect of such persons for medical benefit and sanatorium benefit or towards the expenses of administration of benefits shall in the case of such persons be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(2) Where such a person becomes a member of an approved society the following provisions shall have effect:—

(i) The contributions payable by or in respect of such person shall be credited to the society;

(ii) The society shall in each year pay to the Insurance Committee the sums payable in respect of such person for medical benefit and sanatorium benefit;

(iii) The rate and conditions of sickness benefit, and disablement benefit, and maternity benefit shall be such as may be determined by the society;

(iv) Such person shall not be deemed to have joined an approved society for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to reserve values, and no part of the contributions of such person shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards the discharge of their liabilities in respect of reserve values.

(3) A woman who, having been a British subject before marriage, has ceased to be a British subject by reason of marriage with a person not being a British subject, shall not be subject to the provisions of this section if her husband is dead, or the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, or she has for a period of not less than two years been actually separated from or deserted by her husband.
(4) This section shall not apply to any person who on the fourth day of May nineteen hundred and eleven, was a member of a society which, or a separate section of which, becomes an approved society, and had then been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or upwards, or to any person who is transferred to an approved society or the Post Office fund in pursuance of an arrangement with the Government of any foreign State.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "over the age of sixteen" at the beginning of the clause, and to insert "of the age of seventeen or upwards."
Amendment moved—
Page 47, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("over the age of sixteen") and insert ("of the age of seventeen or upwards").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to amend paragraph (c) of subsection (1) by inserting, after "shall," the words "as respects a deposit contributor."
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, after ("shall") insert ("as respects a deposit contributor").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved
Page 47, line 26, after ("committee") insert ("the whole of").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45:
Special provisions with regard to persons in the naval and military service of the Crown.
45.—(1) For the purpose of providing seamen, marines, and soldiers with such benefits during their term of service and after their return to civil life as are hereinafter in this section mentioned, there shall be deducted from the pay of every seaman and marine within the meaning of the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, and of every soldier of the regular forces (other than soldiers of His Majesty's Indian Forces, the Royal Malta Artillery and native soldiers of any regiment raised outside the United

1047
Kingdom), the sum of one penny halfpenny a week, and there shall be contributed by the Admiralty and the Army Council respectively, out of moneys provided by Parliament for navy and army services, in respect of every such seaman, marine, and soldier who has joined an approved society in the manner hereafter mentioned the sum of one penny halfpenny per week, and in respect of every other such seaman, marine, and soldier such sum per week as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the pay of a seaman, marine, or soldier who has completed the period of his first engagement and has re-engaged for pension unless he so elects within the prescribed time, and that no contribution shall be made by the Admiralty or Army Council in respect of any week in respect of which such a deduction is not made.
(2) A seaman, marine, or soldier—

(a) who was at the date of his entry for enlistment an insured person and had joined and was at that date a member of an approved society; or

(b) who within six months from the date of his entry or enlistment, or, in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier serving at the commencement of this Act, within six months after the commencement of this Act, or within such longer period as may be prescribed, joins an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act;

shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as if he were an employed contributor, subject, until his discharge, to the following modifications:—

(i) The employed rate shall be three pence, and the deductions made from his pay and the contributions made in respect of him by the Admiralty or Army Council shall be treated as the contributions paid in respect of him;

(ii) He shall not be entitled to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, sickness benefit, or disablement benefit;

(iii) Maternity benefit shall be payable notwithstanding that both he and his wife are resident outside the United Kingdom at the date of the confinement, and the society may arrange with the Admiralty or Army Council for the administration of the benefit through the Admiralty or Army Council;

(iv) The sum to be retained out of each weekly contribution by the Insurance Commissioners towards the discharge of their liabilities in respect of reserve values shall be one penny, and the remaining five-ninths of a penny shall he paid out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund hereinafter constituted.

(3) With respect to seamen, marines, and soldiers who have not joined an approved society as aforesaid, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) The sums so deducted and the contributions so made as aforesaid in respect of such men shall be paid into the National Health Insurance Fund, and out of such sums there shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards discharging their liabilities in respect of
1048
the reserve values created under this Part of this Act the like amount as if such men were members of approved societies and the balance shall be credited to a special fund to be called the Navy and Army Insurance Fund:

(b) There shall also be paid into the Navy and Army Insurance Fund in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament a sum equal to two-ninths of the amount, calculated in the prescribed manner which would have been payable in that year in respect of medical sanatorium sickness and disablement benefits (including expenses of administration) had all seamen, marines, and soldiers from whose pay deductions are made under this section been members of approved societies and entitled to such benefits as employed contributors:

(c) The weekly contributions to be made by the Admiralty and Army Council in respect of such men shall be such as may-from time to time be required to keep the Navy and Army Insurance Fund solvent:

(d) If any such man was at the date of his entry or enlistment a deposit contributor he shall, for the purpose of dealings with the sum standing to his credit in the Post Office fund, be treated as if the Navy and Army Insurance Fund had been an approved society, and he had at the date of his entry or enlistment become a member of that society:

(e) In the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier serving at the commencement of this Act there shall be credited to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund such reserve value as would have been credited to an approved society had he at that date become a member of the society as an employed contributor: Provided that no such reserve value shall be credited to that fund if at the date aforesaid he had completed the period of his first engagement and had re-engaged for pension, unless he elects to have deductions made from his pay or unlesss, not having so elected, he becomes on discharge entitled to benefits payable out of that fund as hereinafter mentioned:

(f) Every such man shall until discharged be entitled to maternity benefit payable out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, and shall be entitled to such benefit notwithstanding that both he and his wife are at the date of the confinement resident outside the United Kingdom, and the benefit shall be administered by the Admiralty and Army Council either directly or through Insurance Committees:

(g) On the discharge of a seaman, marine, or soldier from whose pay deductions have been made and continue to be made up to the date of his discharge there shall be debited to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, and if he becomes a member of an approved society within the prescribed time from his discharge, there shall be credited to that society, or if he does not become a member of such a society within the prescribed time from his discharge, there shall, unless he

1049
becomes entitled to benefits out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund as hereinafter mentioned, be carried to his credit in the Post Office fund the transfer value which would have been payable in respect of him had be been a member of an approved society throughout his period of service, or in the case of a man serving at the date of the commencement of this Act since that date, and if he becomes a deposit contributor, so much of the reserve value, if any, credited to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund in respect of him shall be cancelled as would have been cancelled had he been transferred from an approved society to the Post Office fund:

(h) A man discharged from service as a seaman, marine, or soldier who proves that the state of his health is such that he cannot obtain admission to an approved society may, if he so elects, oil making application to the Insurance Commissioners in the prescribed manner within three months of his discharge, or such longer time as may be prescribed, become, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, entitled to benefits (other than additional benefits) provided under this Part of this Act at the full rate, the cost of which benefits shall be payable out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, and such benefits shall be administered by Insurance Committees or otherwise in such manner as may be prescribed by such regulations as aforesaid, and any contributions paid over this Part of this Act by or in respect of him shall be paid into that fund:

Provided that—

(i) no deduction from benefits shall be made on account of any pension to which a man may be entitled:

(ii) the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced, in the case of a man who entered into insurance when over the age of sixteen or who is in arrears, to the like extent as it would be reduced had he been an employed contributor and a member of an approved society who entered into insurance at the like age or who is in arrears to the like extent, so however that the rate of sickness benefit shall in no case be reduced below five shillings a week;

(iii) there shall in each year be repaid to the Navy and Army Insurancse Fund, out of moneys provided by Parliament, a sum equal to two-ninths of the amount expended out of the fund on such benefits as aforesaid, including the expenses of administration;

(iv) if a man who is so entitled to benefits payable out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund at any time becomes a member of an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act he shall cease to be
1050
entitled to benefits payable out of that fund, and there shall be debited to that fund and credited to such society the transfer value which would have been so debited and credited if he had been at that time transferred from one approved society to another approved society.

(4) In the application of this Part of this Act to a man who is or has been a seaman, marine, or soldier, and to whom this section applies—

(i) the date of his entry or enlistment as a seaman, marine, or soldier, or, if he was serving at the commencement of this Act, the date of that commencement shall, unless he was an insured person at the date of his entry or enlistment be treated as the date of his entry into insurance;

(ii) deductions from pay, with the corresponding contributions made by the Admiralty and Army Council, shall be treated as payments of contributions at the employed rate for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions made in respect of him, arrears, and transfer value, and for the purpose of qualifications for becoming a voluntary contributor;

(iii) a seaman, marine, or soldier during his term of service shall, if he has joined an approved society as aforesaid before his entry or enlistment, be deemed to reside in that part of the United Kingdom in which he resided immediately before his entry or enlistment, or, if after his entry or enlistment, in the part of the United Kingdom in which the registered office or other principal place of business of the society or branch which he has joined is situate, and in any other ease in England, and all persons entitled to benefits payable out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund shall be deemed to reside in England.

(5) Discharge shall in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier who on the completion of any term of service is transferred to a reserve include such transfer.
(6) This section shall not apply to a seaman, marine, or soldier who entered or enlisted before the age of sixteen until he attains that age, and on attaining that age shall apply to him as if he had entered or enlisted at the time when he attained that age.
(7) The foregoing provisions of this section shall, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed, apply to men belonging to the Naval Reserves when employed on service during war or any emergency, and to men of the Army Reserve when called out on permanent service, and to men of the Territorial Force when called out on embodiment, but, except as aforesaid, shall not apply to any such men.
(8) Where a man of the Naval Reserves, the Army Reserve, or the Territorial Force is being trained and is in receipt of pay out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Navy or Army services, he shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be deemed whilst so engaged to be in the employment of the Crown.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "over the age of sixteen" from proviso (ii) of subsection (3), and to insert "of the age of seventeen or upwards."
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 10, leave out ("over the age of sixteen") and insert ("of the age of seventeen or upwards").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to omit "engaged to be in the" from the end of the clause (the last words but four), and to substitute the words in his Amendment. The noble Viscount said: The object of this and the next Amendment is this. A person may go out to train with the Territorial Force who would, in the ordinary case, come under the insurance clause; but it seems very absurd to apply the insurance clause to a man who was not immediately before the training an insured person, and might be a man in receipt of £500 a year. We do not want such men as those to come under the insurance clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 3, leave out ("engaged, to be in the") and insert ("training, to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act and to be in the sole").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE then moved to add a new proviso at the end of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 4, after ("Crown") insert ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a man who was not immediately before the training an insured person, except in such cases and under such circumstances as may be specified in a special order made by the Insurance Commissioners").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46:
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the employer").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47:
Special provisions as to the mercantile marine.
47. In the application of this Part of this Act to masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and the sea fishing service the following provisions shall have effect:—

(1) Neither sickness benefit nor disablement benefit shall be paid to a master, seaman, or apprentice suffering from any disease or disablement in respect of any period during which the owner of the ship is under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment or otherwise, liable to defray the expense of the necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance and medicine, and of his maintenance, but for the purpose of calculating the rate and duration of sickness benefit such benefit shall be deemed to have been paid from the commencement of the disease or disablement until the determination of such liability as aforesaid, and he shall not be entitled to medical benefit during such period:

(2) In the case of masters, seamen, and apprentices serving on foreign-going ships or ships engaged in regular trade on foreign stations, the employed rate and the employers' contributions shall each be reduced by one penny a week and every four weekly contributions paid in any calendar year by a master, seaman, or apprentice whilst serving on such a ship shall, for the purposes of determining the number of contributions to be paid by him in that year and for the purposes of calculating arrears, be treated as five such contributions:

Provided that—

(a) nothing in this provision shall affect the number of employees contributions to be paid in respect of such a master, seaman, or apprentice but no employer's contributions paid in respect of any week in respect of which no contribution is payable by the master, seaman, or apprentice shall be taken into account in reckoning the amount of his arrears;

(b) there shall be credited to the approved society of which the master, seaman, or apprentice is a member, or if he is a deposit contributor to his account in the Post Office fund, a sum equal to two-fifths of the amount of the contributions actually paid in respect of him, and an equal sum shall be treated as having been expended on sickness benefit, and the proper proportion thereof shall accordingly be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:

(3) A master, seaman, or apprentice who is neither domiciled nor has a place of residence in the United Kingdom shall not be deemed to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, but the employer shall be liable to pay the same contributions in respect of him as would otherwise have been payable by him as employer's contributions, except in eases

1053
where the ship is engaged in regular trade on foreign stations:
(4) The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause a society to be formed, to be called the Seamen's National Insurance Society, of which any masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and the sea fishing service who are employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be entitled to become members, but nothing in this section shall prevent any such person joining another approved society instead of the society so formed:
(5) The affairs of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall be managed by a committee constituted in accordance with a scheme to be prepared by the Board of Trade with the approval of the insurance Commissioners, comprising representatives of the Board of Trade., of shipowners, and of members of the society in equal proportions, and the society shall, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, become an approved society:
(6) All contributions paid by employers in respect of masters, seamen, or apprentices who are neither domiciled nor have a place of residence in the United Kingdom, and consequently deemed not to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, shall be credited to the Seamen's National insurance Society:
(7) In addition to medical, sanatorium, sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits, members of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall be entitled to such other benefits as may be provided under a scheme to be prepared by the committee of management, with the approval of the Board of Trade and the Insurance Commissioners, and such other benefits shall include pensions for masters and seamen with long sea service, and the scheme may provide for preference being given to masters and seamen who have served in foreign-going ships or ships engaged in foreign trade over those who have served in the coasting and home trade ships, and such preference may be proportionate to the length of time spent in the first-mentioned service: Provided that, in the case of the transfer of a member of the society to another approved society, the transfer value payable in respect of him shall be calculated with reference to the liabilities of the society for benefits other than such pensions as aforesaid:
(8) The rules of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall provide for allowing a member who leaves the sea service and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member of the Seamen's National Insurance Society for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and the rules of that society may provide that a member of the society who has fulfilled the conditions entitling hint to such pension as aforesaid shall not be deprived of his right to the pension by reason only
1054
that he has ceased to be a member of the society at the time when the pension first becomes payable or ceases so to be at any subsequent time:
(9) Where a master, seaman, or apprentice is at the commencement of this Act a member of a society which becomes an approved society he may, if that society and the Seamen's National Insurance Society so agree, continue to be a member of the first-mentioned society for the purposes of benefits muter this Part of this Act other dins pension, and become a member of the last-mentioned society for cite purposes of pension only, and in such ease the balance of the contributions payable in respect of him (after deducting the sums to be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values) shall be divided between the two societies in such proportion as they may agree:
(10) Expressions in this, section have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1907, and the expression "ship engaged in regular trade on foreign stations" means a ship engaged regularly in trade between ports outside the British Islands when trading between such ports, but for the purposes of this provision a ship shall not lie deemed not to be engaged in such a trade by reason only that she puts into a port in the United Kingdom for the purpose of survey or repair:
(11) The provisions of this Part of this Act affecting the employed rate and the rates of contributions of employers and contributors in Ireland, arid depriving insured persons in Ireland of medical benefit, shall not apply to any such master, seaman, or apprentice, unless he has a permanent place of residence in Ireland and is not a member of the Seamen's National Insurance Society; and, in the case of a master, seaman, or apprentice serving on a foreign-going ship or a ship engaged in foreign trade to whom such provisions do apply the amount by which the employed rate and the employer's contributions are to be reduced shall be one halfpenny a week:
(12) Members of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be deemed to reside in England, and the medical benefit and sanatorium benefit of such members shall be administered by the society instead of by the Insurance Committee, and the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the administration of those benefits shall apply accordingly subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to add a new proviso in subsection (7), after the words "Provided that" The noble Viscount said: The reason for this Amendment is that some of the engineers belong to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and

1055
not to the Seamen's National Insurance Society, and we think it right that they should be put on the same footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 38, after ("that") insert—
("(a) The scheme shall provide for making a proper proportion of the sums credited to the Seamen's National Insurance Society under the last foregoing subsection applicable towards the payment of pensions or superannuation allowances granted by other approved societies to members with such sea service that, had they been members of the Seamen's National Insurance Society, they would have been entitled to pensions under the scheme; and
(b)").—(Viscount Haldane)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE THE EARL OF STRADBROKE moved an addition at the end of subsection (9). The noble Earl said: If the Government are not able to accept this Amendment as it stands, perhaps they will be able to insert a few words to meet the case. I move this at the wish of the National Sea-Fishers' Protection Association, to which is affiliated practically all the sea-fishing associations in the United Kingdom. Under the Merchant Shipping Act owners of fishing vessels are compelled to make provision for any of their men who may be taken ill when they are on board, and they have to provide for medical attention during sickness. It must be remembered that these fishing vessels are very often engaged in fishing in places far distant from this country; they proceed to the coast of Iceland, to the Faroe Islands, the White Sea, and the northern coast of Morocco, and if a man is taken ill in such a place the owners of the vessel are put to considerable expense in providing for his maintenance and treatment, and also for his conveyance home. The object of the Amendment is to try and remove a grievance which I think will be found to come into existence if the Bill is passed as it now stands. We hope the Government will give permission for a scheme being prepared, which the Commissioners may accept or not, which will meet the case, so that vessels engaged in fishing operations so far distant from this country may have the same treatment as is accorded to merchant trading vessels in distant waters.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 29, after ("agree") insert—
(10) The fishermen and employers in the sea fishing service may submit a scheme to the Insurance Commissioners setting out the liabilities already covered under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the annual cost of providing medical benefits and other liabilities for the men employed, and the Insurance Commissioners may reduce the contributions of the men and the employers in accordance with the provisions laid down in this section for British ships and seamen in the foreign service or in such way as they may determine."—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am afraid I cannot do all that the noble Earl wants me to do, but I may be able to do something. The clause as it stands is an agreed clause. It was negotiated by Sir Norman Hill on behalf of the shipowners, and they all agreed to it, and it is a very good clause. Of course, the main purpose of it is with reference to foreign-going ships. The ships that go for long voyages come under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and the benefits provided by the shipowners are larger than the benefits under the Bill, and it is quite right that there should be special treatment there. But when you come to the coasting trade it is quite different. Ships that go along the coasts to the home ports can always as easily put a man on shore as keep him on board, and the difference in cost is very great indeed. What is a heavy burden in the case of the long voyage shipowner is a mere trifle in a case of this kind, and the difference in cost between the two benefits is so slight that it would not be possible, in these cases of merely short voyages along the coast, to allow the shipowner to make special arrangements such as is permitted under the clause dealing with the longer voyages. But there are cases of fishermen going out for a considerable voyage, to the Dogger Bank, for example, and I am prepared to move an Amendment in subsection (10), after "1894 to 1907," to this effect—" but the expression 'foreign-going ships' and home-trade ships' includes ships engaged in the sea fishing service." That will let in a certain number of these fishing boats to the scheme of the clause, but will still exclude those that merely trade along the coast.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for meeting the case in the way he has, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 47, page 60, line 31, after ("1907") insert ("but the expressions foreign-going ships' and home-trade ships ' include ships engaged in the sea fishing service").—(Viscount Haldane)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to add words at the end of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 19, after ("prescribed") insert ("but nothing in this provision shall prevent the society agreeing with Insurance Committees for the administration of those benefits by the Committees in relation to individual members of the society").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 13, after ("and") insert ("that").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
National Health Insurance Fund.
Financial Provisions.
53.—(1) All sums received in respect of contributions under this Part of this Act and all sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Part of this Act in respect of the benefits thereunder and the expenses of administration of such benefits shall be paid into a fund, to be called the National Health Insurance Fund, under the control and management of the Insurance Commissioners, and the sums required to meet expenditure properly incurred by approved societies and insurance committees for the purposes of the benefits administered by them and the administration of such benefits shall be paid out of that fund.
(2) The sums payable to the said fund out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine.
(3) The Insurance Commissioners shall ascertain periodically what sums standing in the National Health Insurance Fund to the credit of the several societies and of the Post Office fund and of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund are available for investment, and the amount so ascertained shall, so far as not required under the provisions of this Part of this Act to be paid over to societies for
1058
investment or to be retained for investment on their behalf, or for the discharge of liabilities of societies, be carried to a separate account, called the Investment Account, and shall be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and by them invested in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury in any securities which are for the time being authorised by Parliament as investments for Savings Banks funds, but those Commissioners shall in making the investment give preference to stock or bonds issued under the provisions of the Acts relating to borrowing for raising capital for the purposes of the local loans fund where the purposes for which such capital is required is the making of advances for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1909:
Provided that nothing in this provision shall prevent the Insurance Commissioners paying over to the National Debt Commissioners for temporary investment, pending the ascertainment of the amount available for investment as aforesaid, any sums in the National Health Insurance Fund not required to meet current liabilities.
(4) There shall be credited to the Post Office fund and to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund interest at the prescribed rate per annum on the sums from time to time standing to the credit of those funds in the Investment Account.
(5) The accounts of the National Health Insurance Fund shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
(6) The National Debt Commissioners shall present to Parliament annually an account of the securities in which moneys forming part of the said fund are for the time being invested.
LORD WELBY: I wish to call the attention of my noble friend to subsection (5) of Clause 53 which provides that the accounts of the National Health Insurance Fund shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may direct. I propose, by the leave of the House, to move to insert after "audited" the words "by the Comptroller and Auditor General" I trust my noble friend will assent to that Amendment. As it at present stands it would leave the choice of an auditor to the Treasury, and I do not think that that choice ought to be left to the Executive Government. There being an independent officer in the shape of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I think Parliament should lay it down that the audit of a public fund of this kind should be conducted by him.
Amendment moved—
Clause 53, page 65, line 17, after ("audited" ) insert ("by the Comptroller and Auditor General").—(Lord Welby.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54:
Amendments moved—
Page 65, line 30, after ("this") insert ("Part of this")
Page 65, line 31, leave out ("over the age of "sixteen") and insert ("of the age of seventeen or upwards").
Page 66, line 8, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 32, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56:
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 13, leave out ("such").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 14, after ("inspector") insert ("appointed by them").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
Appointment of Advisory Committee.
57. The Insurance Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connexion with the making and altering of regulations under this Part of this Act, consisting of representatives of associations of employers and approved societies, of duly qualified medical practitioners who have personal experience of general practice, and of such other persons as the Commissioners may appoint, of whom two at least shall be women.
LORD WEARDALE*LORD WEARDALE moved, after the words "general practice," to insert "of pharmacists." The noble Lord said: My Amendment to this clause, and also my Amendments to Clauses 58 and 61, are in
1060
the interests of the organised chemists and druggists, who wish to be represented on the Advisory Committee proposed to be set up under this clause. One of the duties of that Committee will be to provide for the supply of pure drugs to insured persons at reasonable prices, and it seems to the associations that it would be of great service to have two or three of their members added to the Committee in order to advise them upon the subject. I ought to say that these Amendments were put down in the House of Commons, but were never discussed. They, unfortunately, came under the operation of the guillotine. Therefore I do not know what the view of the Government may be upon them, but I hope my noble friend will be prepared to make some concession to this important industry, who wish to be represented in the carrying out of the very valuable operations of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 29, after ("practice") insert ("of pharmacists").—(Lord Weardale.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The proposal of my noble friend in his series of Amendments to place pharmacists in the same position as doctors and give them representation on the Advisory Committee is a very far-reaching proposition and depends upon whether pharmacists are entitled to be placed on the same footing as doctors. We cannot see that it is necessary to put them in this position, and I would point out that the Insurance Commissioners have power, if they think pharmacists should be on the Advisory Committee, to put them on. But, after all, their business is not the same as the business of physicians, and I see no reason why they should be placed on the same footing; and if this Amendment was accepted there might be other trouble of a far more serious character with regard to some of the later clauses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58:
Insurance Committees.
58.—(1) A Insurance Committee shall be constituted for every county and county borough.
(2) Every such committee shall consist of such number of members as the Insurance Commissioners, having regard to the circumstances of

1061
each case, determine but in no case less than forty or more than eighty of whom—

(a) three-fifths shall be appointed in such manner as may be prescribed by regular of the Insurance Committee as to secure representation of the insured persons resident in the county or county borough who are members of approved societies, and who are deposit contributors in proportion, as nearly as may be, to their respective numbers;

(b) one-fifth shall be appointed by the council of the county or county borough;

(c) two members shall be elected in manner of provided by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, either by any association of duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county or county borough which may have been formed for that purpose under such regulations, or, if no such association has been formed, by such practitioners;

(d) one member or, if the total number of the committee is sixty or upwards, two members, or if the total number of the committee is eighty, three members, shall be duly qualified medical practitioners appointed by council of the county or county borough;

(e) the remaining members shall be appointed by the Insurance Commissioners:

Provided that—

(i) The regulations with respect to the appointment of members to represent insured persons shall provide for conferring on the approved societies which have members resident in the county or county borough the power of appointing the representatives of such members, and, where an association of the deposit contributors resident in the county or I county borough has been formed under such regulations as aforesaid, for conferring on such association the power of appointing the representatives of the deposit contributors;

(ii) Of the members appointed by the council of the county or county borough two at least shall be women, and of the member's appointed by the Insurance Commissioners one at least shall be a duly qualified medical practitioner and two at least shall be women.

(3) The Insurance Commissioners may, where any part of the cost of medical benefit or sanatorium benefit is defrayed by the council of the county or county borough, increase the representation of the council and make a corresponding diminution in the representation of the insured persons.
(4) The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations as to the appointment, quorum, term of office, and rotation of members and proceedings generally (including the appointment of subcommittees consisting wholly or partly of members of this committee) of the committee, and the employment of officers and the provision of offices by the committee including the use by the committee, with or without payment, of any offices of local authority, but subject to the consent of such authority, and any such regulations may
1062
provide for the constitution of district committees, and for apportioning amongst the several district committees any of the powers and duties of the Insurance Committee and regulating the relations of district committees to the Insurance Committee and to one another:
Provided that the regulations so made shall require the Insurance Committee of every county (except in cases where, owing to special circumstances, the Commissioners consider it unnecessary) within six months after the commencement of this Act to prepare, after consultation with the county council and submit for approval to the Commissioners a scheme for the appointment of district committees for the county and prescribing the area to be assigned to each such committee, and in particular the scheme shall provide for the appointment of a district committee for each borough (including the City of London and a metropolitan borough) within the county having a population of not less than ten thousand, and for each urban district within the county with a population of twenty thousand but if the Insurance Committee or, on appeal, the Insurance Commissioners consider it expedient in the case of any such borough or urban district any adjoining areas may be grouped with such borough or urban district for the purpose of the appointment of a district committee.
(5) Any Insurance Committee may, and shall if so required by the Insurance Commissioners, combine with any one or more other Insurance Committees for all or any of the purposes of this Part of this Act, and where they so combine the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply with such necessary adaptations as may be prescribed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to add the following new paragraph, "One-tenth to be appointed by the employers of the said insured persons." The right rev. Prelate said: I hope the Government will see their way, if not to accept my Amendment exactly as I have put it, to agree to something of the kind. Health committees are appointed with very considerable powers, and it is proscribed that the majority on those committees shall be elected to represent the insured persons. The committees have very great powers, and can set in motion machinery that may bring very unpleasant consequences upon the employer, and it does seem to me only fair that the employers, who are so largely interested, should have some representation. Let me quote one instance where the employer may be seriously affected. Subsection (2), paragraph (a), of Clause 62 provides that—
"Where the excess"—that is, of sickness—" or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to the conditions or nature of the employment or to any neglect on the part of any employer to observe or enforce any such Act or regulation as aforesaid, it shall be made good by the employer."

1063
There seems to be a large avenue opened up there of serious consequences that may fall upon the employer owing to machinery set in motion by the health committees, and while I quite admit that the insured people should have a large majority, it seems only right that the employers should be represented too. This also seems to be in harmony with the intentions of the Bill, because Clause 47 in constituting the committee to deal with the affairs of the Seamen's National Insurance Society, which also has great powers, gives an equal representation to the Board of Trade, shipowners, and members of the Society. It is, therefore, I think not unreasonable to give employers some slight representation on these health committees, and I propose a representation of one-tenth, but perhaps the noble Viscount, on considering the matter, can suggest some better way.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 4, after ("numbers") insert the following new paragraph:
One-tenth to be appointed by the employers of the said insured persons.—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The difficulty about the right rev. Prelate's Amendment is that it would take away from the representation, not of the insured persons, but of the county councils. As he proposes it, it would take away half the representation of the county councils and give it to the employers. Employers are not directly interested in the administration of the benefits; that is not a thing that personally concerns them; and I do not see why they should be represented on the health committees. I do see why the county councils should be strongly represented; and, moreover, I think the county councils will very often appoint persons who are employers to sit on the committee. Therefore it is better to leave the representation of the committees as mentioned in the Bill. I venture to think that the county councils would be extremely angry if we took away from their not very strong representation on the committees and gave it to those whom it may turn out will be the very people they will appoint.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment on the Paper to amend paragraph (e) of subsection (2) by inserting
1064
after "members" the words "who shall consist of employers." The noble Lord said: My Amendment raises in a different form something of the same point which has just been raised by the right rev. Prelate. I agree with the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that it would not be fair to take away from the county councils a part of their representation to give it to the employers, but it seems to me hard that the employers as a body should not have a certainty of some representation. As a class they will have to furnish a large proportion of the funds which these committees will administer. I am informed that of the whole sum, at least £9,000,000 out of the £20,000,000 will come direct from the employers as a class. They are also interested in the matters which will occupy the attention of these committees, and they are greatly concerned with the way in which these committees will exercise their powers and duties. For example, the committees will have to prepare statistical and other returns as to the health of insured persons. Under a sub Sequent clause allegations may be made seriously affecting the interests of the employers and the moneys they will have to pay, and as a class I think the employers are asking very little if they ask to be assured that some part of the representation on these committees will be allotted to them. I do not think that the actual form of the Amendment which I have put down is quite satisfactory, and I propose to move it in these words, "some of whom shall be employers." I trust that the noble Viscount will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 19, after ("members") insert ("some of whom shall be employers").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I feel the same difficulty here that I felt and expressed with regard to the last Amendment. I repeat that employers are quite likely to be put on these committees. Under the second proviso, if you take the somewhat exiguous character of the representatives appointed by the Insurance Commissioners, one at least must be a duly qualified medical practitioner and two at least shall be women, and you may find somebody who is both a woman and an employer, and somebody who is a medical practitioner and an employer, and somebody who is a

1065
woman and a medical practitioner and an employer all in one. It is very unwise to restrict the narrow operations of the Commissioners, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, especially as I think his object will be attained otherwise.
VISCOUNT ST. ALWYN: In any case, I do not think my noble friend's Amendment would have any effect, because any person who has a maid-servant would be an employer under the Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Whether that is so or not, it is quite obvious that it is no use at this stage, and under the circumstances in which we are placed, attempting to impose an Amendment on the Government which they do not wish to accept, and therefore I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will simply ask the noble Viscount whether he can accept my next Amendment to include a certified midwife. I will not argue it.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 20, after ("Commissioners") insert ("and shall include one certified midwife").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I sympathise with the object of the noble Lord, but I do not see my way to work the Amendment in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 12, after ("district") insert ("insurance")
Page 71, line 13, after ("district") insert ("insurance")
Page 71, line 14, after ("district") insert ("insurance")
Page 71, line 22, after ("district") insert ("insurance")
Page 71, line 24, after ("district") insert ("insurance")
Page 71, line 28, after ("of") insert ("not less than")
Page 71, line 30, after ("borough") insert ("outside London")
Page 71, line 32, after the second ("district") insert ("insurance").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59:
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 41, after ("duties") insert ("conferred and").
Page 72, line 1, leave out ("or conferred").— (Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 23, after ("desirable") insert ("and may, if it thinks fit, for that purpose make arrangements with local education authorities, universities, and other institutions."—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Excessive Sickness.
62.—(1) Where it is alleged by the Insurance Commissioners or by any approved society or Insurance Committee that the sickness which has taken place among any insured persons, being, in the case where the allegation is made by a society or committee, persons for the administration of whose sickness and disablement benefits the society or committee is responsible, is excessive, and that such excess is due to the conditions or nature of employment of such persons, or to bad housing or insanitary conditions in any locality, or to an insufficient or contaminated water supply, or to the neglect on the part of any person or authority to observe or enforce the provisions of any Acts relating to the health of workers in factories, workshops, mines, quarries, or other industries, or relating to public health, or the housing of the working classes, or any regulations made under any such Act, or to observe or enforce any public health precautions, the Commissioners or the society or committee making such allegation may send to the person or authority alleged to be in default a claim for the payment of the amount of any extra expenditure alleged to have been incurred by reason of such cause as aforesaid, and if the Commissioners, society, or committee and such person or authority fail to arrive at any agreement on the subject may apply to the Secretary of State or the Local Government Board, as the case may require, for an inquiry, and thereupon the Secretary of State or Local Government Board may appoint a competent person to hold an inquiry.
(2) If upon such inquiry being held it is proved to the satisfaction of the person holding the inquiry that the amount of such sickness has—

(i) during a period of not less than three years before the date of the inquiry; or

(ii) if there has been an outbreak of any epidemic, endemic or infectious disease, during any less period;

1067
been in excess of the average expectation of sickness by more than ten per cent., and that such excess was in whole or in part due to any such cause as aforesaid, the amount of any extra expenditure found by the person holding the inquiry to have been incurred under this Part of this Act by any societies or committees where the allegation is made by the Insurance Commissioners, or if the allegation is made by a society or committee, by the society or committee in question by reason of such cause shall be ordered by him to be made good in accordance with the following provisions:—

(a) Where the excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to the conditions or nature of the employment or to any neglect on the part of any employer to observe or enforce any such Act or regulation as aforesaid, it shall be made good by the employer:

(b) Where such excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to bad housing or insanitary conditions in the locality, or to any neglect on the part of any local authority to observe or enforce any such Act or regulation or such precautions as aforesaid, it shall be made good by such local authority as appears to the person holding the inquiry to have been in default, or if due to the insanitary condition of any particular premises shall be made good either by such authority or by the owner, lessee, or occupier of the premises who is proved to the satisfaction of the person holding the inquiry to be responsible:

(c) Where the excess of such part thereof as aforesaid is due to an insufficient or contaminated water supply, it shall be made good by the local authority, company, or person by which the water is supplied, or which having imposed upon it the duty of affording a water supply has refused or neglected to do so, unless the local authority or company prove that such insufficiency or contamination was not clue to any default on the part of the authority, company or person, but arose from circumstances over which it had no control.

(3) Where any such inquiry as aforesaid is held in respect of bad housing or insanitary conditions in any locality, it shall be lawful for the local authority to serve notice upon the owner, lessee, or occupier of any premises which are the subject-matter of the inquiry, and where it is proved that such a notice has been served and that any such extra expense as aforesaid, or any part thereof, has been caused by the act or default of such owner or occupier, the person holding the inquiry may order the owner, lessee or occupier to repay to the local authority the amount of the extra expenditure or part thereof which has been so caused.
(4) For the purpose of this section the average expectation of sickness shall be calculated in accordance with the tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of valuations under this Part of this Act, but any excessive sickness attributable to any disease or disablement which is due to any disease or injury in respect of which damages or compensation are payable under the Employers'
1068
Liability Act, 1880, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or at common law, shall not be taken into account.
(5) The Insurance Commissioners shall make regulations as to the procedure on inquiries under this section, and a person holding an inquiry under this section shall have all such powers as an inspector of the Local Government Board has for the purposes of an inquiry under the Public Health Acts, and shall have power to order how and by what parties cost, including such expenses as the Secretary of State or Local Government Board may certify to have been incurred by them, are to be paid, and an order made by such person under this section may by leave of the High Court be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court to the same effect:
Provided that a society or committee shall not be ordered to pay the costs of the other party to the inquiry if the person holding the inquiry certifies that the demand for an inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances, and when he so certifies the Treasury may repay to the society or committee the whole or any part of the costs incurred by it.
(6) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, any sum ordered under this section to he paid by a local authority may, in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury, be paid out of the Local Taxation Account and deducted from any sums payable either directly or indirectly out of that account to the local authority.
(7) For the purposes of this section any expenditure on any benefit administered by an Insurance Committee shall be deemed to be expenditure of that Committee, but any sums ordered to be paid to any such Committee under this section to meet extra expenditure on sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be dealt with for the benefit of deposit contributors in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners.
(8) Where under this section any sum is paid to the Insurance Commissioners, the Insurance Commissioners shall apply the same in discharge of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners under this section and shall distribute the balance amongst the societies and committees which appear to the Commissioners to have incurred extra expense on account of the excessive sickness in such proportions as the Commissioners think just.
(9) Where an association of deposit contributors resident in any county or county borough has been formed under regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, the Insurance Committee for the county or county borough shall, if so required by the association, take proceedings under this section on behalf and at the expense of the association.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a most important clause, and I would like to call the attention of your Lordships to one or two points in it. The pith of it, of course, is that if a complaint is made an inquiry shall be held by

1069
a person to be appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Local Government Board to see how far excessive disease, so to speak, within a certain area is due to the neglect or default of the local authorities, or of any individuals; and the result of the inquiry might be, that the local authorities or individuals might be heavily penalised by the person so appointed. There is nothing whatever said as to the qualifications of the person who should conduct such an inquiry as this, which may be one imposing a very large payment towards the insurance fund upon the local authority, or indeed upon individuals. It is quite easy to conceive the possibility, in a large area like London or Lancashire, of a sum amounting to many thousands of pounds being imposed on the local authority and consequently on the ratepayers, and yet there is no appeal whatever provided in the clause. The penalty is to be imposed by a person who is only described as a "competent person." That person may be a briefless barrister of seven years' standing, or a medical practitioner without any practice and with a considerable number of fancies in his mind as to sanitation; and I think His Majesty's Government might consider whether, in the first place, the authority imposing such a penalty ought not to be a Government Department instead of an individual, and, secondly, whether there ought not to be some kind of appeal, certainly on points of law, against the result of such an inquiry. On the first point, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the inquiry should be held as proposed, the person being appointed, as is also proposed, by the Secretary of State or the Local Government Board, and that then, if a penalty has to be imposed, it should be done on the report of the inquiry by the Government Department concerned—either the Secretary of State or the Local Government Board. They would be responsible to Parliament for their conduct in the matter, whereas the person concerned could have no responsibility of the kind. I submit to your Lordships that this is a matter which ought not to be dealt with in the manner now proposed in this clause. My noble friend, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, at the instance of the County Councils Association, has placed an Amendment on the Paper later on providing for an appeal from the decision to two or more of His
1070
Majesty's Judges. I do not know whether that Amendment is one—perhaps it may not be—that His Majesty's Government can accept, but I have suggested in another Amendment another kind of appeal, that before any order is made the draft of the same shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a certain time, with power, of course, to annul it. The point I wish first to raise is the question of the authority which should impose the penalty. I submit to the noble Viscount that this Amendment does not in any way impede the working of the scheme, but simply provides a responsible authority to exercise the very large powers provided under this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 20, leave out ("person holding the enquiry") and insert ("Secretary of State or Local Government Board, as the case may be").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Government have given a great deal of consideration to this question. On the one hand we wish to do what is right, and, on the other, we wish also to take care that the machinery is machinery of a workable kind. If the Amendment of the noble Viscount were carried, it would put the Minister responsible for the Department in the position of giving a judicial decision, and that is just what he is not in a position to do. In the case of a purely administrative matter that very often happens, and an Amendment such as the noble Viscount proposes would be appropriate. But in this case, you are holding a judicial inquiry into something which can only be held by a referee. It is obvious that a question of this kind, if it came before the Law Courts, would almost inevitably be referred to some barrister, I hope of good standing, or to a special or official referee, and he would go down and take the evidence and report, and practically it would be almost impossible to review his report. It is almost impossible in these cases even for a Court of Justice to review the report come to on a question of fact. Of course, if he had exceeded his powers or gone contrary to natural justice, then in the case I am describing where the Judge of the High Court has referred the matter to a referee who has gone down and reported, the Judge would set the thing aside as ultra vires on the part of the referee, or misconceived in the form of the

1071
procedure. But that power remains under this clause in regard to the special machinery, because the order of the person making the inquiry has not of itself any legal force until you put in operation subsection (5) of the clause, which says that "an order made by such person under this section may by leave of the High Court be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court to the same effect." That means that you have to apply to the High Court to enforce it, and if they have any doubt about it they say, "No, bring an action."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Would the noble Viscount look at the following subsection—subsection 6—where the penalty may be exacted?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes,—"any sum ordered under this section to be paid." That is only in cases where the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, have made regulations enabling them to take the sum out of the Local Taxation Account.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: There is no appeal to the Court.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not in that case; but it is subject to regulations that the Local Government Board may make, and they may in such a case make provision for the payment of the amount—it is not an absolute right—out of the Local Taxation Account. There is no power to enforce it in persona. In the general case you have to go to the Court which gives you leave to bring an action, or to apply for a writ of certiorari. The kind of question here is not one which you could litigate in an ordinary Court of Justice. If you tried to do so, it would be referred to somebody, as would happen under the Bill, and the purpose of this is to make machinery which is workable. I agree that the machinery must be just, but looking to the class of case which had to be dealt with, we thought that this was the most efficacious and fair way of doing it, and it is on that footing that the Government have framed the clause. It is a footing to which they attach very great importance, and without it they think the section would be a dead letter.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I have read this clause with attention. It is, like a great many other clauses, of tremendous length and anything but simple to understand. I have also had the advantage of listening to the explanation of the noble Viscount, who is, of course, a very distinguished lawyer, but I am not sure how subsection (5) and subsection (6) are to be read together, or how they are consistent either with each other or with what precedes them. The objection taken by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, is that this immense power is given to an unknown person, a person with no official position, and there is no statement of any qualification whatever on his part. My noble friend instanced the possibility of his being a barrister without a brief or a medical man without a practice, but even those meagre qualifications are not given in the Bill. It is to be some person who is to be deemed "competent," but it does not state with clearness who is to be satisfied of his competence—it may be the Secretary of State or it may be the Local Government, Board—and I think the least we might expect would be some statement as to his qualifications. His powers may be immense, the liabilities under a finding of his might easily tot up to thousands, £20,000 or £30,000 or even more, and yet he may be a person without the slightest qualifications or training to guide him in deciding these intricate questions, involving listening to the most diverse, scientific evidence and I can conceive the highest expert evidence being called to prove who is responsible for the damage and whether it is traceable to anything that is curable or incurable. It is perfectly evident to anyone that this clause bristles with difficulties and with enormous risks of vast sums being imposed by way of penalty under it, and yet there is no appeal in law.
The noble Viscount says that whatever is the finding of this competent person it is not to be carried into effect until an order is made by a Court of Law. I am glad that that is given as the legal construction of the clause as a whole. I readily accept as entitled to the highest respect any opinion given on that subject by the noble Viscount, whose eminence as a lawyer we all are glad to recognise, and I accept his statement that it is intended that the omnipotence given by the four preceding subsections is all subject to review by a Court of Law under the

1073
fifth subsection. I do not see how it can be said that the sixth subsection follows, as what one would expect to find, upon the fifth subsection; but taking it that they are, to be read together, would it not be legitimate to put into the sixth subsection that the power given there shall be subject to the same process of review by the High Court as is mentioned in subsection. (5)? If that is intended, why not say it? Subsection (6) stands out by itself without a suggestion of appeal to any one. It is very difficult to apply our minds to it in this rapid way, but it is quite obvious that the clause should not be allowed to stand as it is now without some intimation of the kind of competent person that is to be employed. What are to be his qualifications? Is there to be a rota of competent persons? Is he to have any official status, like an Inspector of the Local Government Board? Is what he does to be subject to any form of official examination and approval before it is submitted to the High Court; or is his work not even to be reviewed or considered by the Department which appoints him? I accept the statement that it is intended to give to the High Court a power of review; but is it reasonable, before that review of the High Court, to allow this man to go wandering about the country giving judgments involving large sums of money, without even having his work submitted to the Local Government Board or the Secretary of State, or whoever appoints him?
I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but it occurs to me that words should be put in, either now or at the next stage, making it absolutely plain, if there be, any room for doubt, that the power of appeal to the High Court in subsection (5) is intended to be a power that covers all the previous work of this "competent person," and enables him to be subject to a complete review in regard to all his findings under the previous four subsections; and I venture to suggest that it might be reasonable, after the explanation given by the noble Viscount opposite, that subsection (6) should have clear words put into it indicating that it is to be read in connection with, and to have the same power of review as is mentioned in, subsection (5).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I want to add a word in support
1074
of the contention which has just been urged from this side of the House. There are two questions involved. First, by whom and on whose authority the person who is to make the inquiry is to be appointed and what are to be his qualifications. The other, and I venture to say quite as important, if not a more important, question is whether there is to be an appeal from his decision. We have drifted into a discussion on both these points at the same time. I want to say a word or two in support of the extreme desire for an appeal from the decision of this gentleman. I think in this matter that local authorities all over the country have been somewhat unjustly treated and their case prejudiced by the course of events in another place. Evidence was given that they had to some extent neglected their duties. But the evidence which was adduced was of old date. It may be that in the past local authorities have neglected their duties, and some of them may be in default, but you must remember that it is only very recently that powers have been given to the local authorities to take the steps which will probably be incumbent upon them in the future. Difficulties in taking these steps have been very great on financial grounds. Time after time new burdens are laid upon the rates, and promises made that, local authorities are to have assistance out of a central fund if they do their duty, but those promises have not been fullfilled; and I object to this power, apparently to be forced on the initiative of a Government Department, of penalising them in this way and subtracting from the pittances which they already possess without any appeal. The Government can collect the money they are ordered to pay at their own sweet will, and there is to be no appeal at all. My contention on this point will, of course, fall to the ground if there is to be an appeal under subsection (6) as well as under the previous one.
On the question of expense, I believe that on balance an appeal to a properly constituted Court will save expense rather than add to it. One of the commonest arguments against appeals is that they add to the expense, and that the expense is greater than the appeal is worth; but I would point out that if you have two or three score of independent experts going about the country and holding inquiries and coming to decisions against

1075
which there is no appeal, their decisions will form no authoritative precedent and will not be binding, whereas if you have a case or two taken to the Law Courts, in the form of an appeal the questions there decided will be decided according to the law of the country, and not according to the sweet will of the individual who is holding the inquiry, and the decision given in each case will constitute a precedent and afford guidance that may be followed in similar cases. I think I have made out my case that in this matter the giving of a power of appeal will create precedents and let people know where they are, and save expense rather than add to it, and I hope it will be given.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The noble and learned Lord who spoke last but one said he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He said that after having made what was, no doubt, a serious contribution to the debate. All of us who listened both to his speech and to the more detailed speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, will feel that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the views which are adverse to this clause of the Bill. There is much to be said, as on many other questions, on both sides. The Government have not treated this matter lightly. It has been minutely and elaborately considered, and the Government, I am afraid, even if the discussion were ever so far prolonged, would not be at all likely to accede to the wishes of the noble Lord opposite. I regret it, but it is so.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I feel the difficulty of pressing any Amendment, and the Government must take the responsibility in the matter. I will not therefore press it, but only refer to what was said by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill when he referred us to subsection (5) as giving an appeal to the Law Courts. I accept that, but I venture to point out to him that subsection (6) gives no such appeal, and that under that subsection any local authority can be fined and the amount deducted from money due to it from the Treasury at the instance of the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and that no appeal lies under that subsection to any Court at all.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Treasury is as good as the Secretary of State.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I put in the Secretary of State for an entirely different purpose—as the authority proposing the fine, so to speak. That would be precedent to what I am now referring to. I propose to withdraw my Amendment, and on subsection (6) to move, when the proper time comes, that after the word "and" in line 31 be inserted the words "may, by leave of the High Court, be." That would make it clear that whether the money has to be exacted from the local authority by levying a rate or by depriving it of money due to it from the Treasury, there will be an appeal to the High Court.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 25, leave out the first ("which") and insert ("whom") and leave out the second ("which") and insert ("who").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 75, line 26, leave out ("it") and insert ("them")
Page 75, line 27, leave out ("has") and insert ("have")
Page 75, line 28, leave out the first ("or") and after ("company") insert ("or person")
Page 75, line 31, leave out ("it") and insert ("they")
Page 75, line 39, after ("owner") insert ("lessee").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I now beg to move, in page 76, line 31, after ("and"), to insert "may by leave of the High Court be." Subsection (6) will then read—
"Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, any sum ordered under this section to be paid by a local authority may, in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury, be paid out of the Local Taxation Account and may by leave of the High Court be deducted from any sums payable either directly or indirectly out of that account to the local authority."
That will give power to the local authority to appeal to the High Court, as I understand is already given in the previous subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 31, after ("and") insert ("may by leave of the High Court be").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: This is quite unworkable. The noble Viscount proposes to put in "by leave of the High Court." The High Court has been given no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. What is done here is this. An administrative section is put in which, requires the approval of the Treasury in the event of the procedure being put in force. Then there is some kind of control by an important Government Department, I should have thought as good as the Secretary of State brought in in the way the noble Viscount proposes to bring him in. But it is not really the fact that in the one case there is an appeal and in the other there is not. As I pointed out, if, having given an order of this kind, the person appointed to inquire has travelled beyond his duty or acted contrary to natural justice, it can be reviewed. You can review an arbitrator in such a case, and if the High Court has any doubt you can bring an action or proceed by way of a writ of certiorari. The necessity of going to the High Court gives you an opportunity of raising the matter. In the other case where it is a question of paying money, there is still the remedy, I take it, by certiorari; and you have there the security of the Local Government Board and the Treasury coming in. To bring the High Court into that clause would be to bring it in in a way which would give it no jurisdiction. This is a case in which very high, and responsible persons are put in charge, and to introduce the High Court is to do what really is not only quite impracticable in working, but a thing I have never seen anything the like of in the course of my experience.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I see there is a difficulty, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 37, leave out ("ordered to be")—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63:
Amendments moved—
Page 77, line 17, after the second ("of") insert ("or making grants in aid to")
Page 77, line 32, leave out ("such").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65:
Amendments moved—
Page 79, line 6, leave out ("a person is employed") and insert ("any employment or any class of employment is or will be employment"
Page 79, line 29, at the end of paragraph (ii) insert the following new paragraph:
(iii) The Insurance Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding whether any class of employment is employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act submit the question for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as subject to rules of court may be directed by the court, and the court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question, and the decision of the court shall be final.
after ("society") insert as a new subsection
(2) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66:
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 9, leave out ("contributor") and insert ("person").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 3, after the second ("or") insert ("any").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 19, after ("scheme") insert ("or a supplementary scheme").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 23, after ("scheme") insert ("or the supplementary scheme").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 3, after ("scheme") insert ("or the supplementary scheme").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 8, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79:
Amendments moved—
Page 87, line 25, leave out ("an actuary") and insert ("a person"), and after ("such") insert ("actuarial")
Page 87, line 26, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("approved by the Treasury").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 34, leave out from ("person") to the end of line 36, and insert ("shall be deemed according to the law in England, Wales, and Ireland, as well as according to the law in Scotland, not to have attained the age of seventeen until the commencement of the seventeenth anniversary of the day of his birth, and similarly with respect to other ages").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80:
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 39, leave out ("except in this section").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment in my name is to suit the special circumstances of Scotland. I have made a slight amendment in the third line. The words "in such case" are not sufficiently definite, and I propose to substitute for them "where a number less than forty is fixed." I think that will meet the case of Scotland, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 6, after ("1889") insert:
("(6) The minimum number of an insurance committee for any area containing a population of less than forty thousand shall be twenty-five instead of forty; and where a number less than forty is fixed the constitution of the committee may be varied as may be prescribed, so however that the proportion of members to be appointed by insured persons and by a county or town council and the number of members possessing a medical qualification shall not be altered").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 7, after person insert ("except a medical practitioner qualified as such").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 41, after ("the") insert ("Scottish").
Page 91, line 4, leave out ("and sub-committees") and insert ("subject to the approval of the council")
Page 91, line 6, leave out ("sub-committees") and insert ("committees")
Page 91, line 20, after ("the") insert ("Scottish")
Page 91, line 33, leave out ("section fifty-nine") and insert ("the section")
Page 91, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("relating to excessive sickness").
Page 92, line 34, leave out from ("justice") to ("means") in line 37.
Page 93, line 12, after ("proceedings") insert ("certified midwife" means any midwife possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed")
Page 93, line 14, after ("1907") insert ("'Local Loans Act, 1875' means the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Acts, 1891 and 1893").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81:
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 28.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 40, after ("provision of") insert ("or making grants in aid to").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 28, after subsection (16) insert the following new subsection:
("(17) In the special provisions as to persons becoming certified teachers references to the Board of Education, to the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, and to a public elementary school shall respectively be construed as references to the Superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Office, to the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1879, and to a national school, and any sums paid to the Superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Office in pursuance of those provisions shall be carried to the Pension Fund established under the last-mentioned Act and shall be dealt with in accordance with rules under that Act").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 35, after subsection (18) insert the following new subsection:
("(19) For references to a duly certified midwife, there shall be substituted references to a midwife having such qualifications as may be prescribed").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82:
Establishment of Commissioners for Wales.
82.—(1) For the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect in Wales there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, Commissioners for Wales (to be called the Welsh Insurance Commissioners) with a central office in such town in Wales as the Treasury may determine, and with such branch offices in Wales as the Treasury may think fit, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, of whom one at least shall be a, duly qualified medical practitioner, shall be appointed by the Treasury, and may appoint such officers, inspectors, referees, and servants for the purposes aforesaid as the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may determine, and the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the payment of the salaries and remuneration of the Insurance Commissioners, and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them, and with respect to the payment of the expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Insurance Commissioners in carrying this Part of this Act into effect shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the payment of the salaries and remuneration of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them, and to the
1082
payment of expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Welsh Insurance Commissioners in carrying this Part of this Act into effect in Wales, and for the purpose aforesaid the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them shall respectively have all the like powers and duties as are by the provisions of this Act conferred and imposed on the Insurance Commissioners and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them, and references in those provisions to the Insurance Commissioners shall be construed as references to the Welsh Insurance Commissioners.
(2) All sums received from contributions under this Part of this Act in respect of insured persons resident in Wales, and all sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of benefits under this Part of this Act to such persons, and the expenses of administration of such benefits shall be paid into a fund to be called the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund, under the control and management of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and the sums required to meet expenditure properly incurred by approved societies and Insurance Committees for the purposes of such benefits, and the administration of such benefits shall be paid out of that fund, and the foregoing provisions of this Act, with respect to the National Health Insurance Fund, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund accordingly.
(3) The powers of the Local Government Board with respect to the distribution of any sum available for the purpose of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions shall, as respects the part thereof apportioned to Wales, be exercised by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners.
(4) If before or within twelve months after the commencement of this Act there is established for Wales by royal charter an association for the purpose of providing sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment and prevention of tuberculosis or such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint, the Welsh Insurance Commissioners in making and the Treasury in approving grants from any such sum as is in the last preceding subsection mentioned shall have regard to the provision of such institutions which may have been made, or may be proposed to be made, by the association.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR moved to amend subsection (1) by omitting "such town in Wales as the Treasury may determine," and inserting "Carnarvon." The right rev. Prelate said: I must say I am exceedingly doubtful as to how far the appointment of these Welsh Insurance Commissioners will be acceptable to my countrymen, who are a small body. The population of Wales is only about half that of the county of Lancashire, and we are to have a special Commission co-equal with the Commission sitting in London. I hope they will be paid the same, because although it may be extravagant to pay people who attend to a population of two millions the same as those who attend

1083
to thirty millions, if they are not paid the same I do not think we shall get efficient people, and there must be many difficulties in the administration of the Act. I propose in my Amendment that the central office of the Commissioners should be in Carnarvon. I think we ought to have the place fixed once and for all by Parliament, and so prevent us quarrelling amongst ourselves with regard to it. Carnarvon is perhaps not as important an industrial centre as Cardiff, but I do not think that consideration would weigh, and I think on the whole it would be the right and most convenient place, especially seeing that it was specially honoured recently by being selected as the place for the Investiture of the Prince of Wales.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 40, leave out ("such town in Wales as the Treasury may determine") and insert ("Carnarvon").—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Notwithstanding the patriotic considerations which no doubt suggest themselves, I think we had better leave the question of Carnarvon to the Government. We shall have to consider carefully the merits of a great many places. I should not like to say that Carnarvon—a town which I very much admire—would be the most convenient place from the point of view of accessibility. I know I found a certain amount of inconvenience in getting there the last time I visited it. I think it had better be left to the Government to decide which is the best town.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 1, after ("of") insert ("or making grants in aid to").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83:
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("either alone or jointly with any such bodies").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 102, line 38, after ("valuations") insert ("surpluses, deficiencies")
Page 102, line 40, leave out ("or branch").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85:
Amendments moved—
Page 104, line 18, after ("cards") insert ("or otherwise")
Page 104, line 21, after ("impressed") insert ("or payments are otherwise to be made")
Page 104, line 22, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("production and").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87:
Disqualifications for unemployment benefit.
87.—(1) A workman who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues, except in a case where he has, during the stoppage of work, become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in an insured trade.
Where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of this provision, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop or separate premises, as the case may be.
(2) A workman who loses employment through misconduct or who voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks from the date when he so lost employment.
(3) A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit whilst he is an inmate of any prison or any workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds, and whilst he is resident temporarily or permanently outside the United Kingdom.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to add a new subsection to this clause. This is the only Amendment of substance in my name. I think it ought to be accepted by the House because the two different

1085
Parts of the Bill are administered by two different authorities, and this is to remove any possible doubt that a workman is not to receive benefits at the same time under both Parts.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 5, after ("Kingdom") insert as a new subsection:
("(4) A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit while he is in receipt of any sickness or disablement benefit or allowance under Part I of this Act.")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88:
Amendments moved—
Page 106, line 22, after ("the") insert ("court of")
Page 106, line 29, after the first ("the") insert ("court of")
Page 106, line 37, after ("court") insert ("of referees").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.
Clause 91:
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 1, after the first ("and") insert ("for securing").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92:
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 23, after ("audited") insert ("by the Comptroller and Auditor General").—(Lord Welby.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
Clause 95:
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 39, after ("the") insert ("full") and leave out ("full").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99:
Amendments moved—
Page 114, line 7, after ("under") insert ("any part of")
Page 114, line 14, after ("and") insert ("whereby in respect of such workmen different").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100:
Amendment moved—
Page 114, lines 34 and 35, leave out ("institution for technical instruction") and insert ("place for the purpose").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
Clause 103:
Power to extend to other trades.
103. If it appears to the Board that it is desirable to extend the provisions of this Part of this Act to workmen in any trade other than an insured trade, or to vary the definition of "workman" with respect to the age of the persons included therein, either generally or for any particular insured trade, or any particular branch of any such trade, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make, in manner hereinafter provided, a special order extending this Part of this Act to such workmen or so varying the definition of "workman," as the case may be, either without modification or subject to such modifications of rates of contribution or rates or periods of benefit as may be contained in the order, and on any such order being made, this Part, of this Act shall, subject to the modifications (if any) contained in the order, apply as if the trade mentioned in the order were an insured trade, or as if the definition of "workman" were varied in accordance with the order, as the case may tie, and as if the rates of contribution and the rates and periods of benefit mentioned in the order were the rates of contribution and the rates and periods of benefit provided by this Part of this Act in respect of such trade:
Provided that no such order shall be made if the person holding the inquiry in relation to the order reports that the order should not be made, or if the order would, in the opinion of the Treasury, increase the contribution to the unemployment fund out of moneys provided by Parliament to a sum exceeding one million pounds a year before the expiration of three years from the making of the order, and that the rates of contribution mentioned in the order shall not exceed the rates specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and shall be imposed equally as between employers and workmen.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment on the Paper to add the following additional subsections to the clause—
(2) The Board may submit to Parliament for confirmation any Provisional Order made by them in pursuance of this section, but no such Order shall have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament.
(3) If, while a Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to that Order, may be referred to a select committee, or if the two Houses and Parliament think fit so to order, to a joint committee of those Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of Private Bills.
(4) Any Act confirming a Provisional Order made in pursuance of this section may be repealed, altered, or amended by any subsequent Provisional Order made by the Board and confirmed by Parliament.
The noble Lord said: I have had a good many communications about this clause, and many people are averse to giving power to a Government Department to at their own sweet will extend the provisions of this Part of the Bill to any trade, and more especially the agricultural industry is very apprehensive that injustice might be done to them, and they think this ought to have Parliamentary sanction. I have put an Amendment down dealing with this, but I cannot, of course, profess to have the knowledge of the Bill that those who are promoting it have, and since I came down to the House to-night it has been represented to me that Parliamentary sanction is necessary now, and that no Government Department can act without first laying its order on the Table of each House of Parliament for a certain number of days during the session. I ask the question whether there is a necessity for Parliamentary sanction, and whether Parliament can stop such an order if it chooses?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes. First of all the Treasury consent, then there is a public inquiry at which evidence can be taken on oath, and then the person reports, and the order he makes must lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days during which Parliament is sitting, and if an Address is carried against it it falls to the ground; so I think the noble Lord is in perfect safety.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I do not move the Amendment.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104:
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 28, after ("occupations") insert ("The provisions of this Part of this Act as to the laying of regulations before Parliament and the presentation of an Address thereon shall apply to special orders made under this section").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105:
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 105.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 109 agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST: This proposed new clause of mine after Clause 109 is to determine the position of a woman entitled to maternity benefit, but who otherwise may be destitute. At present a woman who is destitute is admitted to the Poor-law infirmary for her confinement, if she so desires; but if she is not destitute, I understand she can be refused admission. I do not know whether the fact of her receiving maternity benefit under the Act would put her in a position in which she could not be said to be destitute.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
(". Where a person who is in receipt of, or entitled to, any benefit under Part I of this Act, or whose husband is entitled to maternity benefit thereunder, applies for admission to any workhouse or infirmary, the board of guardians shall not take any such benefit into consideration ").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think there is a, little obscurity in the way my noble friend has drawn his proposed new clause. Perhaps these words would meet it better, "Where a person who or whose husband is entitled to maternity benefit applies for admission to the maternity ward at any workhouse or infirmary admission thereto shall not be refused on the ground only of such benefit."
LORD SANDHURST: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend, and I withdraw my Amendment in favour of what he proposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
Where a person who or whose husband is entitled to maternity benefit applies for admission to the maternity ward at any workhouse or infirmary admission thereto shall not be refused on the ground only of such benefit.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111:
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 8, after ("1875") insert ("and the respective dates therein mentioned").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 10, after ("1888") insert ("and the date of the receiving order; and an Act of Sederunt under the Bankruptcy Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1856, shall be substituted for rules under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) Sections eighty and eighty-one of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the making of regulations under that Act, as set out and adapted in the Ninth Schedule to this Act, shall apply to special orders under this Act.
"(2) Before a special order (other than a special order excluding any occupation from the occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade) comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during which the House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the order or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new order").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114:
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 9, after ("registrar") insert ("or superintendent registrar").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
Amendments moved—
Page 126, line 11, after ("piece") insert ("or otherwise").
Page 127, line 4, leave out from ("Corps") to the end of line 7, and insert ("except as otherwise provided in Part I of this Act").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 133, line 19, leave out from ("benefit") to ("from") in line 21.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 137, line 11, leave out ("Part II of").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule:
Amendments moved—
Page 138, line 3, leave out ("Part II of")
Page 138, line 4, leave out ("relating to unemployment insurance")
Page 138, line 5, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority empowered to make special orders")
Page 138, Page 138, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 138, line 22, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 138, line 27, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 139, line 3, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 139, line 5, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 139, line 6, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("authority")
Page 139, line 7, after ("effect") insert:
("(6) For the purposes of this schedule the expression "authority" means the Insurance Commissioners or the Board of Trade, as the case may he."—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 139, leave out the whole schedule.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 252.)
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): I have an amendment to move to Clause 4. It is a consequential amendment, but it is not on the Paper—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is contrary to the Standing Orders to move on Third Reading an Amendment which is not on the Paper.
LORD PENTLAND: I understand it is contrary to usage; but perhaps, by the leave of the House, it may be done in this case.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
What is the Amendment?
LORD PENTLAND: It is in Clause 4, page 5, line 23, to leave out the word "Board," and insert the words "Secretary for Scotland." I may say that I have intimated this and the other Amendments to the other side. I can explain to the noble Marquess what it means. It has reference simply to the appointment of the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. The appointment as it stands now in the clause lies with the Board. It ought to be with the Secretary for Scotland.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I want to know why this cannot be done in another place. If we once begin to infringe the Standing Orders it makes a precedent, and I think there have been precedents created in the last few days. I stand on the rights of the House.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My noble friend the Secretary for Scotland has already spoken, and cannot speak again without the leave of the House. May I say that I understand this is not against the Standing Orders? It may be against custom and usage, but it is not against the Standing Orders to propose an Amendment of this kind. Of course, in matters of this nature we are always anxious to work as far as possible in harmony with noble Lords opposite, and I hope we may be able to come to some joint agreement on the subject.
LORD CLINTON: I think it is the case that "Secretary for Scotland" was in the original Bill.
LORD PENTLAND: That is so. It is only restoring it.
LORD CLINTON: I hope we may see our way to agree with the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 5, line 23, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Secretary for Scotland").—(Lard Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers to facilitate the constitution of new holdings.
7.—(1) It shall be lawful for the landlord of any land and any other person to agree that in respect of such land such person may apply to the Land Court to be registered as a new holder under this Act, and such person may thereupon apply accordingly, and subject to the provisions of this Act may be so registered.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner for Small Holdings to report from time to time to the Board after due inquiry what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and after consultation (where practicable) with the landlord or landlords what land (if any) is available to meet that demand, without causing undue displacement of farm servants presently employed on or about such land, under what conditions such land is cultivated, and what employment it affords.
(3) Where the Commissioner for Small Holdings is satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings and that suitable land exists it shall be his duty to negotiate with the landlords of such land with a view to the adjustment of a scheme for the registration by agreement of any one or more new holders in respect of such land.
(4) Failing agreement, such land may, otherwise than by agreement, be made available for the registration of new holders in the manner and subject to the conditions herein-after prescribed.
(5) In proceeding under this section, the Board shall take steps to ascertain what land is falling or is about to fall out of lease where the present tenant is not an offerer, and thall preferably select such land (if otherwise suitable) for the constitution of new holdings otherwise than by agreement.
(6) Where a new holder is registered under this section by agreement, the rent agreed between the landlord and the new holder shall not, if the same shall have been agreed upon for a specified period, be altered by the Land Court during such period, and shall not in any case be altered by the Land Court for a period of seven years from the term at which it first becomes payable.
(7) Where, with a view to, or as incidental to, the registration of a new holder or holders in respect of any land, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Board are of opinion, upon consideration of a report by the Commissioner for Small Holdings, that assistance should be provided for the purpose of dividing, fencing, or otherwise preparing or adapting the land, making Occupation roads, or executing other works, such as works for the provision of drainage or water supply, or erecting or adapting a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses or other buildings, or for any similar purpose, the Board may provide such assistance by way of loan or (except as regards dwelling-houses or other buildings) by way of gift, and subject to such conditions as they may prescribe. Conditions so prescribed and the provisions for their enforcement or for the case of their violation shall be as effectual as if they were contained in this Act.
(8) Where the Board are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, they shall pay compensation as may be agreed between the Board and such tenant.
(9) Where the Commissioner for Small Holdings reports that the landlord refuses to negotiate, or where, after submitting to the landlord a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on the land, he reports that no agreement can be reached, it shall be lawful for the Board, after due notice and after hearing any party who desires to be heard, to intimate to the landlord and to other parties concerned that it is in the public interest that one or more new holdings should be constituted on the land in accordance with the said scheme, and that they propose to apply to the Land Court to make an order or orders for the constitution of one or more new holdings on the land in accordance with such scheme, to be occupied by new holders, at a fair rent and upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the Landholders Acts as the Land Court consider just; and thereafter to apply accordingly.
(10) Before snaking such an order, the Land Court shall give all parties having a right or interest in the land an opportunity of being heard.
(11) The Land Court shall thereafter determine, with due regard to the provisions of the Landholders Acts, and by order or orders declare—

(a) In respect of what land, if any, specified in the scheme, one or more holdings for new holders may respectively be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them otherwise than by agreement may be exercised;

(b) What is the fair rent for each new holding;

(c) What land, if any, specified in the scheme is to be excluded therefrom; and

(d) Whatever else may be necessary for the purpose of malting the scheme effective and of adjusting the rights of all parties interested in or affected by the proceedings:

Provided that, where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which such land forms part, or to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part in consequence id and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, they shall require the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with, to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court determine after giving parties an opportunity of being hearth and, if they so desire, of leading evidence in the matter: Provided always that it shall be competent for any person aggrieved by the determination of the Land Court, if the amount in dispute exceeds four hundred pounds, to require the Land Court to state and sign the case upon which the question arose, setting forth the evidence, together with the determination thereon, and to transmit such case for the decision of either division of the Court of Session, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, and such decision shall be final.
(12) In or after making such an order, the Land Court (without prejudice to their other powers) may do, provide, or decide anything incidental to or consequential on such an order as if it were an order under section twelve of the Act of 1886, and may, if they think fit, provide

1095
for the incorporation with the order, subject to the necessary adaptations, of any provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts which appear to them requisite for carrying the order into effect.
(13) Upon such an order providing for the constitution of one or more new holdings on any land being issued, the Board may proceed to make it effective by entering on the land, carrying out works, and otherwise as may be required (due compensation to such amount as may be agreed or as, in case of dispute, may be determined by the Land Court being made for surface damage) and may negotiate with one or more duly qualified applicants with a view to their registration as new holders in respect of the land.
(14) A new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration otherwise than by agreement who does not satisfy the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him.
(15) The Board shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by a landlord to any applicant for a new holding, and ceteris paribus shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord.
(16) Except by agreement, a new holder shall not be registered—

(a) in respect of any land being or forming part of a farm not exceeding one hundred and fifty acres occupied by a person who has no personal interest in any other farm, or in the ease of a farm so occupied which exceeds one hundred and fifty acres but is wholly or mainly pastoral, not exceeding an annual value as entered in the valuation roll of eighty pounds: Provided that nothing herein contained shall operate to prevent the registration otherwise than by agreement of two or more new holders in respect of the whole of such farm, not being a farm wholly or mainly pastoral, where no other land is available in the neighbourhood of any existing village or township; or

(b) in respect of any land being or forming part of a farm occupied subject to a lease which was in force at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and eleven, so long as the lease remains in force.

(17) All parties being possessed of lands or any right or interest therein who under the Lands Clauses Acts have power on behalf of themselves or of others to convey and dispose of such lands, or of such rights therein for the purposes mentioned in those Acts, shall have the like power to enter into ally agreement or give any consent for the purposes of this section.
(18) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, the expression "landlord" in this section includes the Board in respect of any land purchased under that Act and transferred to the Board under the provisions of this Act.
(19) Any member of the Land Court, or the Board, or any person authorised in writing by the Land Court or by the Board, may for the purposes of the Landholders Acts enter upon and inspect any lands or buildings at all reasonable hours on any lawful day after due notice has been given to the owner and occupier of such lands or buildings.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit from subsection (11) the words—
"the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which such land forms part, or to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, they shall require the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with, to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court determine after giving parties an opportunity of being heard and, if they so desire, of leading evidence in the matter: Provided always that it shall be competent for any person aggrieved by the determination of the Land Court, if the amount in dispute exceeds four hundred pounds, to require the Land Court to state and sign the ease upon which the question arose, setting forth the evidence, together with the determination thereon, and to transmit such case for the decision of either division of the Court of Session, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, and such decision shall be final."
and to insert in their place the words—
"a landlord claims to be entitled to compensation in respect of any damage or injury to be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders or of any farm of which such land forms part, or in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate or which the land forms part in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, or where a tenant claims to be entitled to compensation in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, if the landlord or the tenant and the Board fail to agree as to the amount and time and mode of payment of the compensation, the difference shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, with the substitution of the Lord President of the Court of Session for the Board wherever occurring therein."
The noble Earl said: I have taken the very unusual course of proposing at this late stage of the Bill an Amendment on my own Amendment which your Lordships accepted when we were in Committee. Your Lordships will remember that on this side of the House we have maintained all along, and we are still of the opinion, that the Land Court is not a body well suited, indeed it is not suited at all, to determine whether any damage has been done in consequence of the action taken, and certainly not to determine what the amount of that damage, if there be damage,

1097
is to be. We insisted that there must be an appeal from this Court, and with that view I proposed an Amendment, which your Lordships accepted in the Committee stage, to give an appeal to the Court of Session. An appeal, of course, means two hearings—the first hearing before the original body, and the second hearing before the Court of Appeal. We were well aware that this second hearing would involve a certain amount of delay and expense, and it was for that reason, and for that reason alone, that in my Amendment I suggested that smaller questions of damage could be left to the Land Court up to £400, and that anything in excess of that must be open to appeal. The Government objected to that Amendment, and I suppose I am not divulging a secret when I say that representations were made to us to see whether we could not suggest an alternative to that course. Not merely in regard to this Bill but other Bills affecting Scotland we have endeavoured to do our best to meet the wishes of the Government as far as we possibly could, and therefore in this case we suggest the alternative which now appears in my name on the Paper, and which proposes an entirely different course from that in the Bill.
Our proposal is to take away questions of compensation from the Land Court altogether, and place them in the hands of an arbiter to be appointed by the President of the Court of Session. This Amendment was framed for the purpose of meeting the objections of the Government. The first objection of the Government, as I understand, was that they were opposed to any law Court or other holy revising the decisions of the Land Court. In the next place, they objected to my former Amendment because they said that the Court of Session was not accustomed to deal with these cases, and they did not think that it was an advisable Court to refer the matter to, and they took further objections on the ground of the amount of delay and expense.
My present proposal seems to meet all these objections. It proposes an entirely different course of proceeding. It removes from the Land Court all questions relating to whether damage has been done, or how much damage has been done, and it places those questions in the hands of a single arbiter, to be appointed by the Lord
1098
President of the Court of Session. It is not a case of appeal at all, because an appeal means two hearings. This is a simple proceeding, and involves one hearing and one hearing only. It does not override in any way the Land Court, because the Land Court would not have the question of compensation before it. It is a cheap way and an expeditions way, and as far as I am able to judge it meets all the objections which were raised to my former Amendment by the Government.
I do not think I need trouble you by saying any more with regard to my Amendment. The details are really all reprinted, or for the most part re-printed, from the subsection as it previously stood in the Bill. But Lord Pentland proposes an Amendment in lien of mine, which I am not going to discuss in detail. I will merely take the substance of this Amendment, which is very much the same as mine, but with one very important difference. What the noble Lord proposes is that in all eases up to £500 these questions shall be decided by the Land Court, and that in cases which exceed £500 the person desiring to petition should have his choice as to whether he would appeal to the Land Court or appeal to an arbiter appointed by the Lord Ordinary. The Government will naturally say to me, "Why do you, having accepted the principle up to £400 of questions to be settled by the Land Court, object on this occasion to questions, which we will say are nominal, being settled by the Land Court?" My answer is perfectly simple. The two cases stand on an entirely different footing. The first case is a case of appeal. It is a case of a second hearing. We were anxious to save expense, and it was for that reason and not because we desired to place the matter in the hands of the Land Court that we said, "In these circumstances we will make this proposal, that up to a certain amount the matter shall be decided by the Land Court." But this new proposal of mine, and of the noble Lord's, too, is not a case of a second hearing. It is simply setting up one tribunal to settle once and for all these questions of compensation. When you set up this tribunal, all the reasons for making a distinction between large and small cases of compensation at once disappear. I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships as shortly and as clearly as I can the difference between the two Amendments.

1099
In the one case it is a question of a double hearing, and for that reason no doubt it might be desirable to avoid unnecessary delay and expense. In this case it is a question of a single hearing, and therefore I cannot see any reason whatever for drawing any distinction between cases of large or of small damages. I move my amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 9, line 22, leave out from ("where") to the end of line 43 and insert ("a landlord claims to be entitled to compensation in respect of any damage or injury to be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders or of any farm of which such land forms part, or in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate or which the land forms part in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, or where a tenant claims to be entitled to compensation in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, if the landlord or the tenant and the Board fail to agree as to the amount and time and mode of payment of the compensation, the difference shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, with the substitution of the Lord President of the Court of Session for the Board wherever occurring therein").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl has stated, I think accurately, the course that has been followed in regard to these Amendments; and if you will look at the Amendment which I have put down on behalf of the Government your Lordships will see that it approximates very closely to that proposed by the noble Earl. It has the differences which he points out and it has also the special difference of leaving the alternative open to the litigant to take either course he wishes. I do not intend to argue the matter, but I would appeal to your Lordships. We have, I think, shown a bona fides in this matter and a desire to meet the wishes of the Opposition, and if there are any details in the Amendment I have put on the Paper in which I can further approximate to the views which the majority of your Lordships hold in this matter, I shall be very glad to do my best to meet them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The point raised in the Amendments on the
1100
Paper is a highly controversial one, and I one with regard to which we feel very strongly on this side of the House. I cannot nevertheless help hoping, after carefully comparing the two Amendments, that they afford the material for a satisfactory arrangement between the two sides of the House. Our point of departure has throughout been our strong objection to allowing the Land Court an absolutely free hand to deal with these questions of compensation. The Land Court is in this position. It can take land either from the owner of the land or the occupier of the land, and it can distribute that land to other persons; it can fix the rent that these other persons are to pay, and under the Bill as it originally stood the Court was able to fix the amount of compensation to the dispossessed party. In our view that was highly improper. It did not seem right that a newly-created department of this kind should have both the power of dealing administratively with these questions and also of deciding judicially what amount of compensation should be paid to any one aggrieved. To meet that feeling, the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, proposed an Amendment which the House accepted. Under that Amendment, in all cases where a claim exceeded the sum of £400 there was to be an appeal from the Land Court to the Court of Session. We understood that His Majesty's Government entertained a very strong objection to that proposal. They objected to the Land Court being overridden by the Court of Session, and they also suggested that the procedure proposed by the noble Earl involved unnecessary expense to the litigants. Thereupon the noble Earl has put this alternative proposal on the Paper, and I must say I think he has made a very fair attempt to meet the points raised by the Government.
The noble Earl proposes that this question of compensation should be taken out of the hands of the Land Court and handed over to a process of arbitration with which we are all familiar. Now, as my noble friend very forcibly urged, this Amendment does really meet the point raised by the Government, because instead of having two hearings and two decisions you have under his plan only one decision and one set of proceedings. I understand that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland does not quite like that proposal, and he meets it by an alternative which I

1101
think to a great extent does meet the requirements of the noble Earl. I understand that what Lord Pentland proposes is this, that in cases where a claim amounts to a sum exceeding £500, either the owner or the occupier should be placed in a position of being able to ask that the matter shall be disposed of, not by the Land Court, but by a process of arbitration, and the decision has to be given by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Ordinary. I suggest to Lord Camperdown that he might entertain this proposal. Personally I prefer the proposal of the noble Earl. It seems to me the simplest and the most logical, but in cases of this kind the two sides of the House ought to make an endeavour to meet one another, and I think it is, perhaps, fair for noble Lords opposite to insist to some extent upon the fact that the noble Earl is in a way committed to the idea that cases of moderate amounts might be left to the discretion of the Land Court.
I should like to add that if we did accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite as an alternative, there are two or three points in it which might very well be reconsidered. For example, under the Amendment a landlord or tenant is required to intimate that he desires to go to arbitration instead of having his case dealt with by the Land Court within seven days after the issue of the order. That seems to me to be a very unfair and drastic proposal. Take the case of a large tenant farmer who finds himself suddenly threatened with the deprivation of a considerable part of his holding. He, of course, will want time to consult his friends and advisers, and he very likely will want to call in a valuer. A period of seven days seems to me to be altogether unreasonable. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that if we take his Amendment he will be in a position to give us a longer period than seven days. Then I cannot see, if we are to accept his Amendment in principle, why the limit should be fixed so high as £500. The limit of £500 is very high, and I should have thought that a much lower minimum might have been fixed.
There is another suggestion I should like to make with reference to the words in the last seven or eight lines at the end
1102
of the last paragraph on page 2 of the printed Amendments. Under the Amendment as it now stands a scheme for new holdings might be put forward by the Land Court, and that scheme might be proceeded with through all its stages. The award or order might be made, and then at the last moment the Land Court would be able to drop the whole thing. It might find that the expense was prohibitory or something of that kind, and it might decide that the scheme should not be proceeded with. In a case of that kind I think words ought to be inserted with the object of recouping any of the parties who have been put to expense in consequence of the action of the Land Court, at any rate their out-of-pocket expenses. I think the noble Lord will find that the English Small Holdings Act contains a provision designed to cover this particular point, a provision in which it is expressly laid down that where schemes have been proposed in this way and then dropped by the responsible departments the parties should be indemnified for any expense to which they may have been put. I hope the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will kindly consider these points, and if he is able to meet us in regard to them I would advise my noble friend Lord Camperdown to accept the alternative suggested to him as being one which, not completely, perhaps, but at any rate to a material extent, satisfies the requirements he has laid down.
LORD CLINTON: My noble friend Lord Camperdown has pointed out that the object of his Amendment is to meet as far as possible the objection of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to our former suggestion of an appeal. The noble Lord has told us, and I am grateful to him for doing so, that in principle he accepts this scheme of arbitration, but I should like to point out that while he accepts it in principle he very largely destroys it by insisting upon this large limit of £500, below which there can be no arbitration. If the noble Lord will consider the number of cases which will come up for compensation under this Bill, he will recognise that there will be very few cases indeed over that sum. From our experience of the working of the English Small Holdings Act we know that such cases are extremely rare. I do not like to say there are none, because there may be some cases of which I do not know;

1103
but I have never known a case of compensation where the demand has come up to that sum. If the noble Lord lays down that there is to be no arbitration under £500, he practically does away with the arbitration scheme altogether. I am sure that is not his wish. I believe, in accepting the principle of arbitration, he wants to give us arbitration fairly, but I am certain we are getting no advantage at all out of that concession unless we have a much lower limit than £500.
My noble friend has stated quite plainly his reasons for thinking that there should be no limit at all, and I agree with him in principle. I think that logically there should be no limit, but we have gone so far in the direction of endeavouring to meet the noble Lord opposite in this matter that it would be almost ludicrous if we fell out on a comparatively small point. We have built up compromise on the top of compromise until we have lost almost everything—perhaps not everything, but almost everything which we set out to gain. I do not want to belittle the concessions which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given us. He has met us very fairly, I admit, on certain matters, but we have lost by compromise, as I have said, a vast amount of what we went out to gain. But it would be foolish on both sides if we refused at this moment, at this very late hour, to accept a reasonable settlement of this matter. The noble Lord encourages me to say this because he has recognised that we do approximate very closely to one another in this matter, and he tells us that he is perfectly prepared to consider any matter of detail. I hope he will consider this limit a matter of detail. I think it is, and I hope he will be able to propose to us a limit which we on this side of the House will be able to accept.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but I entirely disapprove of the proposal which is now made. It may be that I am powerless to resist it, but there is all the difference in the world between arbitration and a Land Court. The whole argument the other night of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, of the Secretary for Scotland, and of the Lord Advocate in another place, was to the effect that arbitration had been successful in these matters from 1845 down to the present
1104
time. Arbitration has been successful, but for this reason—that those who were concerned in arbitration, whether landlord or tenant, have had the right to agree upon the individual to whom they will submit their case; they have, as a rule, agreed, and if they have not agreed they have, at any rate, agreed to accept his award. That is a wholly different thing from being put at the absolute discretion of a body of men over whom they have no control. From their decision there is to be no appeal, and the whole argument which is drawn from the success of the previous Acts, either of the Agricultural Holdings Act or any other Act, is beside the point which we are deciding to-day. I entirely approve of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. If he would go to a Division I should be glad to support him, but I know perfectly well that he is not going to do so. I have probably no power of stopping what is going on, but this is one of the most fatal moves that, in the whole of my experience, has ever been made in the interests of the best class of agriculturists in Scotland, and I shall continue to protest against it in any way that I have power.
LORD PENTLAND: If, by your Lordships' leave, I may say a word in response to what has been said by noble Lords opposite on the Amendments which are before the House, I will attempt to place before you the position of the Government. As noble Lords know well, the Government are not in a position to command a majority in this House, and therefore it will not be my suggestion that the Government should prolong the proceedings to-night by taking divisions on any of these detailed points, and I should greatly hope, in view of the conciliatory spirit which I think is present on both sides of the House, that we might be able to adjust this matter. I assure your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, that there is every desire to meet the views which have been expressed in regard to these Amendments. I will not weary your. Lordships by arguing this matter of principle. You are well aware of the position which the Government have taken up throughout and which we still hold, but I do wish to respond to the suggestion which has fallen from the noble Marquess, and to say that if he should succeed in advising the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, to accept my Amendment as the basis for a settlement of this question,

1105
I see no difficulty whatever myself in meeting him upon the points already enumerated by the noble Marquess.
I will mention them if I may. In the first place, there is the question of the notice, which is seven days in the Bill. I do not know whether fourteen or twenty-one days would meet the views of your Lordships. Shall we say twenty-one days? [The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: Hear, hear.] Then comes the question of the amount of the limit. I regret extremely any reduction of the amount of the limit, for the reasons which I have stated on former occasions, but I do not wish to stand out on the amount, and if your Lordships wish £400, or £300, instead of £500, I am not going to stand out on a point of that kind. The Government, I assure your Lordships, are anxious to meet you, except on matters of principle where they feel they cannot give way. There is another Amendment which the noble Marquess desired, and that is that the matter of expense should be met in the case of a scheme which is ultimately dropped by the Board of Agriculture. The noble Marquess suggested that it was hardly fair that an owner should be put to the expense of his part in the proceedings and that at the close, and perhaps after hearing the award for compensation, the Board of Agriculture should withdraw from the scheme. The noble Marquess suggested that the owner should be indemnified for the costs to which he had been put in this respect. I am, quite ready to meet your Lordships in that matter, and I have had a clause drafted which I believe meets that demand.
There is one other suggestion I should like to make, and that is that after the word "and" in my Amendment ["to be settled by arbitration instead of by the Land Court, the same shall be settled accordingly; and"] these words should be inserted, "at any time within fourteen days after the said intimation." I think that will make this a more complete scheme. I am advised that we must have some limit of tim3. I do not adhere strictly to the proposed limit of time, but I think fourteen days gives ample time considering that it follows on twenty-one days, and I do not anticipate that your Lordships will take any objection to that. I hope I have made the position of the Government quite clear, and I assure your
1106
Lordships that we are very anxious not to delay proceedings beyond a reasonable limit. May I mention one further point? This is Third Reading, and it is, of course, the only stage which we have left for the consideration of this Bill in this House. There are, of course, objections—the noble Lord opposite has drawn attention to them—to inserting at this stage Amendments which are not on the Paper but it would be a great convenience if your Lordships would allow such Amendments as we agree to to be inserted at this stage, without prejudice to any verbal Amendments which may be made elsewhere.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have listened very attentively to all that has been said on both sides of the House in regard to this matter. I still do not consider that this Court is a body well suited either to settle whether compensation is due or the amount that ought to be paid. But in consideration of all that has been said, and more especially after what has fallen from the Secretary for Scotland, for I understand that whatever Amendments are inserted by this House to-night the Government will press in the other House of Parliament with all the power at their command—
LORD PENTLAND: That is so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: On that understanding I shall have much pleasure in following the advice which was tendered to me by the noble Marquess, and shall, by the leave of the House, withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Amendment standing in the name of Lord Pentland was as follows:
Clause 7, page 9, line 35, leave out from ("matter") to end of line 43 and insert:
("Provided always that where within seven days after the issue by the Land Court of an order under this subsection a landlord or a tenant, as the case may be, intimates to the Land Court and to the Board that he claims compensation to an amount exceeding five hundred pounds and that he desires to have the question whether damage or injury entitling him to compensation as aforesaid will be done, together with the amount of such compensation (if any), to be settled by arbitration instead of by the Land Court, the same shall be settled accordingly; and, failing agreement with the Board as to the

1107
appointment of an arbiter, it shall be lawful for him to apply to the Lord Ordinary on the bills for such appointment, and the Lord Ordinary shall forthwith on receipt of such application nominate a single arbiter to decide the questions aforesaid, whose award shall be final, and binding on the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with; and, if no final award be given within three months from the date when the arbiter is nominated, the questions aforesaid shall be decided by the Land Court as herein-before provided.
"In determining the amount of compensation under any provision of this Act no additional allowance shall be made on account of the constitution or enlargement of any holding being compulsory.")
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND, in moving this Amendment, intimated that he desired to amend it by inserting the modifications to which he had consented by way of compromise. These were to substitute "twenty-one days" for "seven days "at the beginning of the proviso; to omit "five hundred pounds" and insert "three hundred pounds"; to insert "at any time within fourteen days after such intimation" after "and" ["shall be settled accordingly; and"]; and to add a further provision that the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1908 should apply to any such arbitration with the exception of the paragraphs (1), (5), (10), (11), and that in the event of the scheme not being proceeded with the expenses of parties reasonably incurred in connection with the arbitration should be paid by the Board.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to hear some explanation of this last Amendment. I have heard nothing of this before, and I frankly say I do not understand a word of what is intended. This is legislation by reference, without an opportunity of its being considered, and to insert such an Amendment at this stage when it is not even printed is establishing a precedent which has not been established before.
LORD PENTLAND: This Amendment is designed to meet the suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that in cases of the withdrawal of a scheme the expenses of the arbitration cast upon the parties should be met. Of coarse, if the House would prefer that this Amendment should not appear in the Bill, I am in the hands of the House.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I thoroughly enter into the objection taken by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that it is inexpedient as a rule to introduce Amendments on Third Reading which have not been put down on the Paper, but, unfortunately, usage and custom are being departed from much more frequently than used to be the case, and I think that in this matter we might as well swallow the camel. The noble Lord has not had an opportunity of seeing the Amendment, but I have been fortunate enough to have had that opportunity, and I have looked at it with the assistance of persons better able to judge the matter than I am and I am hound to say that it seems to me to meet the case.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I may point out that not only is this going to be done in this House without notice, but if this Amendment goes to another place it will also have to be done there without notice, and we are entirely in the hands of those who have taken the responsibility of drafting it. It seems to me a most improper proceeding and utterly derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, and with all my strength I protest against it.
On Question, Lord Pentland's Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved, after the word "eleven" in paragraph (b) of subsection (16), to insert "or in the case of land within the counties specified in section nineteen of the Act of 1886, at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and six." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment requires a little explanation. This is a point on which there has been a difference between the two sides of the House. Your Lordships will remember that a saving of leases was introduced into the Bill. I wish, first, to remind your Lordships that there is no such saving in the English Act passed three years ago. The saving was introduced into this Bill because of the fear of the tribunal, of the inadequacy of the compensation, and injustice and so forth. I think for the real working of this scheme the whole of this subsection should go out of the Bill. But there is objection to that. I am very anxious to meet the views of the Opposition in this matter, and to reduce our differences

1109
to the lowest possible degree. We have a tribunal which, I think, satisfies us. We have a compensation which satisfies us, and therefore everything really has been done which should reassure us and put us in the position of the English Act, in which there is no such saving. I do not even ask your Lordships to do that. But I do ask, so far as the crofting counties are concerned, that my Amendment should be inserted for this reason. At present there is no restriction, so far as the currency of leases is concerned, upon the power of the Crofters Commission to make enlargements; and if there is a distinction drawn between making enlargements and making new holdings, I have only to remind you that we have now provided a compensation and a tribunal and so forth to meet that difference between enlargements and new holdings. From what I have said your Lordships will see that if you do not allow current leases to be open to the operation of this Bill—that is to say, leases from 1906 onwards—you are actually going back on the crofting counties, and you are depriving those counties of opportunities which they have at present under the 1886 Act. I have, I hope, shown your Lordships that I have gone as far as possible to meet the objections on this score. I have confined myself simply to continuing the existing state of things and preventing this Act taking a backward step. I hope your Lordships will see your way to meet the Government in this respect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 10, line 41, after ("eleven") insert ("or in the case of land within the counties specified in section nineteen of the Act of 1886, at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and six").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 15 agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 16, line 5, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("alternative arbitration").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: The words in Clause 25 which I move to omit are no
1110
longer necessary owing to the alterations we have made in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 25, page 19, line 16, leave out from beginning of line to ("provided") in line 17.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32:
Provisions as to statutory small tenants.
32. With respect to statutory small tenants the following provisions shall have effect:—
(1) A statutory small tenant means and includes a tenant from year to year, or leaseholder, not otherwise disqualified in terms of this Act, in regard to whom section two of this Act provides that he shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and the successors of such tenant or leaseholder in the holding, being his heirs, legatees (if within the relationship specified in section sixteen of the Act of 1886), or assignees (if assignation be permitted by the lease):
(2) Except so far as expressly applied by this Act, the Landholders Acts shall not apply to statutory small tenants:
(3) A holding which is or has been held by a statutory small tenant shall not be merged in or amalgamated with any other holding as defined in the Agritural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, except with the sanction of the Board:
(4) Except in any case where the landlord satisfies the Land Court that there is reasonable ground of objection to a statutory small tenant (hereinafter in this section referred to as the tenant) and the Land Court find accordingly, the tenant for the time being shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled on any determination of the tenancy to a renewal thereof on the terms and conditions herein-after specified:
(5) Except so far as varied by this section, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, shall apply in the case of the tenancy of a statutory small tenant in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease, and for the purposes of those Acts and otherwise the tenancy, as renewed from time to time, shall be deemed to be a lease current for the period of renewal:
(6) Subject to the provisions of the last-mentioned Acts and of this section, the landlord and the tenant may agree upon the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy:
(7) Failing agreement, the landlord or the tenant may have an equitable rent, or the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed, determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by this section:
(8) In determining the rent the arbiter shall, so far as practicable, act on his own

1111
knowledge and experience, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, including the rent at which the holding has been let, the proposed conditions of the renewed tenancy, the improvements made by the landlord and tenant respectively, and the then condition and value of such improvements; and shall fix as the rent to be paid by the tenant the rent which, in his opinion, would be an equitable rent for the holding between the landlord and the tenant as a willing lessor and a willing lessee: Provided that he shall allow no rent in respect of any improvements made by or at the expense of the tenant or any predecessor in title for which he or his predecessor, as the ease may be, has not received payment or fair consideration from the landlord or his predecessor:
(9) Subject as aforesaid, the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy shall (except so far as agreed to be varied) be those of the determining tenancy, in the same way and to the same effect, as nearly as may be, as if the tenancy had been continued for the full period of renewal under tacit relocation, and the tenant shall be entitled, if he so desires, to a renewal on those terms and conditions:
(10) The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, as applied by this section, shall be varied as follows (that is to say):—
In the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Land Court shall be substituted for the Board, and where in terms of that schedule a person is nominated as arbiter by the Land Court his remuneration shall be paid by the Land Court:
(11) In the event of the landlord on the renewal of the tenancy failing to provide such buildings as will enable the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the terms of the lease or agreement or at any time failing to maintain the buildings and permanent improvements required for the cultivation and reasonable equipment of the holding, in so far as the tenant is not required at common law or by express agreement in writing to do so, it shall be lawful for the tenant to apply to the Land Court to so find and declare, and if the Land Court after hearing parties (if they desire to be heard and after giving the landlord (if he so desires) an opportunity of remedying his failure as aforesaid) shall so find and declare, the tenant shall as from the date specified in the finding become a landholder, and the definition of landholder in this Act shall include such tenant and his successors in the holding, being his heirs or legatees:
(12) It shall he lawful for the Board to provide model forms of agreements for optional use by landlords and tenants under this section, provided that nothing herein contained shall make the use of any such form compulsory:
(13) In the event of any dispute arising as to whether a person is a statutory small tenant within the meaning of this Act, it shall be competent for the Land Court to determine such question summarily:
(14) Subsection four of section six, section twenty, and section twenty-seven of the Act of 1886, section two of the Act of 1887 down to the word "summarily," and subsection nineteen of section seven, subsection four of section eight, section twelve, section twenty-five, and subsection one of section twenty-six of this Act shall, with the substitution of "statutory small tenant" for "landholder," and "equitable rent" for "fair rent," and with any other necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of the Landholders Acts:
(15) Without prejudice to any agreement between the parties, the Land Court may, on the application of the landlord, and upon being satisfied that he desires to resume the holding or part thereof for building, planting, feuing, or some other reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or the estate (including any purpose specified in section nineteen of this Act), authorise the resumption thereof by the landlord, subject to the payment of the like compensation to the tenant in respect of improvements on or in connection with the land resumed, to which a tenant would be entitled under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, on the determination of his tenancy, and in addition, where part only of the holding is resumed, to such reduction of rent as may be agreed between the parties, or, in case of dispute, determined by the Land Court.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to omit from subsection (7) all words after "Failing agreement, the landlord or the tenant may," and to insert the words of his Amendment. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one which reverses the decision of your Lordships at a previous stage of this Bill, and which I hope you will see fit to allow to be embodied in the Bill. I do not think I need explain it at any length. You are familiar with it, and I understand that you are not averse, in view of the alterations which have been made in the Bill, to accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 32, page 26, line 37, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 41 and insert ("apply to the Land Court to fix an equitable rent, or to fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed, and the Land Court may thereafter determine the rent to be paid by the tenant, or the period of renewal, or both, as the case may be ").—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD CLINTON: I view with real regret the noble Lord's intention to reverse the decision to which this House came on a previous occasion. I have always viewed the substitution of arbitration for the Land Court in fixing rents under Clause 32 as of the greatest, importance. I know that it was the only method which in any way reconciled my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh to the provisions of this clause. He thought, as we all did, that the powers to which this clause referred should have been left out of the Bill altogether, but the noble Lord refrained from opposing the clause in Committee because the system of arbitration was adopted. But I am bound to say that this system of arbitration was shorn of almost all its value by the refusal of the noble Lord to accept Amendments which subsequently moved. I explained my views in. Committee at some length, and do not want to trouble you further on the point, except to say this, that the result of the clause which provides that the Land Court shall pay the remuneration of the arbitrator only in cases where that Court, itself appoints him is absolutely destructive of all form of mutual arbitration. I feel quite certain that, under ordinary arbitrations under the Holdings Act, the better method of agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to who should be the arbiter to settle matters in dispute between them will be destroyed by the decision to pay the remuneration of the arbitrator only in cases where they have failed to come to an agreement, and to make them pay the remuneration in those cases where they have agreed upon the arbitrator. This will practically take away the whole value from the system of arbitration.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The special pleading of the noble Lord opposite does not reconcile me to the abandonment of our Amendment. As long as the House understands what it is doing, it is for the House to decide; but by the abandonment of our Amendment Parliament will be allowing, for the first time, a landlord who has done his duty and carried out the whole of the improvements upon the holding, to be put in the same category as the man who has done nothing. The basis of the Crofter Act and the Irish Land Act was that the tenant acquired an interest in the holding by doing improvements of a permanent nature. That was a reasonable and legitimate ground for giving him
1114
an interest, and that could only be decided by an independent tribunal. But in this case, for the first time, you are giving to the tenant who has done absolutely nothing for the permanent improvement of the holding, who has come in for a period of years only under a lease, an interest which in course of time will grow, and must grow into that dual interest which has been the curse of Irish land. So long as the House knows what it is doing, I have nothing to say; but that it should do it with its eyes open, and only with its eyes open, is the object of my making these remarks. For the first time you are giving to a tenant an interest which he has not acquired, to which he has no moral or equitable right, and you are giving it to him by Statute. To my mind, there is no distinction—and that has been admitted by the Lord Advocate in another place—there is no logical distinction between what is above and what is below £50. There is no logical distinction between the man who holds a lease and the man who does not hold a lease. You are in principle and in fact breaking down by this action to-night the whole distinction which has hitherto been preserved. You are giving to the man who has come in temporarily and done nothing at all precisely the same right as if he had earned and paid for a permanent interest in the holding. I know I stand alone, but I make a most earnest -and respectful protest against the course which is proposed to be pursued.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down upon the question of principle, and indeed, unless I am mistaken, in the debate on the Second Reading I used arguments very closely resembling those he has just used in regard to the proposal of the Government to create this new category of statutory small tenants. They are, as he truly said, tenants who ex concessis have not executed their own improvements, but the improvements have been executed by the landlord. I suggested the other day that there was no sufficient reason for giving them what, in the language of the Irish Land Act, we call fixity of tenure and fair rents, but if the House was disposed to insist upon that view our proper course I think, would have been, either to have thrown out this Bill on Second Reading, or to have expunged from it the whole of the sections dealing with statutory small holdings. We have

1115
not done that, and now we are simply called upon to decide between a form of words inserted in the Bill by my noble friend Lord Clinton, and an alternative form of words proposed by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Let me point out that, although there is a great deal to be said for the form of words now in the Bill, they do not have the effect of precluding the statutory small tenant from getting a fair rent fixed or getting a perpetuity of tenure. The difference between the proposal of my noble friend Lord Clinton and the proposal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that in the one case the thing is done by the Land Court and in the other case it is done by agreement. With Lord Clinton's Amendment the Bill would still be open to the indictment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
Now to come to the proposal of Lord Clinton. The author of that Amendment has risen in his place to-night to tell us that, after examining the question carefully, he has come to the conclusion that his words, without other alterations in this part of the Bill, would really not produce the desired effect. If that is the view of the author of the Amendment, I cannot be more courageous than he is, and therefore I think he is probably well advised not to insist upon it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: The next four Amendments are consequential drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 32, page 27, line 1, leave out ("arbiter") and insert ("Land Court")
Clause 32, page 27, line 2, leave out ("his") and insert ("their")
Clause 32, page 27, line 10, leave out ("his") and insert ("their")
Clause 32, page 27, line 13, leave out ("he") and insert ("they").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Further drafting Amendments made.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHOPS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, this Bill which I have the honour of submitting to your Lordships for Second Reading is only a part of the original and more ambitious legislative proposals which engaged the attention of Parliament in another place this session. In fact, it contains only those clauses, upon which there was general agreement in another place, and with the exception of a few Amendments of a more or less formal and drafting character which it will be necessary to move to give effect to those agreed points, I do not think it presents anything of a character which need engage your Lordships' attention very long. Both Parties are committed to legislation on this subject. The Act of 1892 and the amending Act dealt with the hours of young persons serving in shops, the Act of 1899 provided for seating accommodation for female shop assistants, and the Act of 1909 dealt with the question of early closing. It is, I think, common ground between the two Parties that shop assistants are a class the nature of whose occupation calls for the attention of Parliament, and I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the principle on which this Bill rests, nor to cite any instances to recommend it to your Lordships. Though this Bill is really only a fragment of the larger measure—the limitations of the hours to sixty per week, the Sunday closing provisions, and the seating and ventilation clauses have been dropped—there remain four important provisions which vitally affect the health and leisure of, I believe, about 2,000,000 shop keepers and shop assistants. The first provision, which is to be found in Clause 1, gives to shop assistants one half holiday a week, the holiday beginning at half-past one in the afternoon. The second provision allows intervals for certain meals—this is dealt with in subsection (2) of the first clause and also in the Schedule. Then there is the provision for the closing of shops on one half day in each week, so as to give the shopkeepers themselves the benefit of a half holiday. The fourth provision, which is contained in Clause 3, has the effect of facilitating the early closing movement provided for in the Act of 1904.

1117
I will say one word with regard to the application of these provisions, and in this connection I hope your Lordships will notice the elasticity with which the application of these principles is carred out. Your Lordships will see that by proviso (a) of Clause 1 the provision with regard to the half-holiday is not to apply to the week preceding a bank or public holiday or any day of public rejoicing or mourning if the shop assistant is not employed on that day and if on one week day in the following week in addition to that day the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than half-past one o'clock in the afternoon. And proviso (b) states that where it is the practice for a shop assistant to enjoy an annual holiday of not less than two weeks on full pay the weekly half-holiday may be cancelled during four months of the year. With regard to meals different intervals are allowed. By the First Schedule in-boarders are given three-quarters of an hour and twenty minutes for dinner and tea respectively, whereas out-boarders have an hour and half-an-hour respectively for those meals.
By Clause 2 you will see that it is left to the local authority, by order, to fix what day the shops shall be closed, and they are permitted to fix either the same day for all shops, or different days for different classes of shops, or different days for different periods of the year. That is a provision the elasticity of which I think is commendable. Then it is further provided that if the half-holiday was fixed for a Saturday the shop keepers may decide upon another day for the half-holiday instead; or if the day fixed is not Saturday, then the shopkeepers may, by reversing it, have Saturday as the half-holiday. Then there is a further provision which allows the shopkeepers to practically contract out of this clause, and it is left to the local authority to decide whether exemption shall be granted either wholly or in part under the provisions of this clause. In order to do that, they have to satisfy themselves that a majority of the shopkeepers are in favour of this exemption. Then subsection (5) extends this exemption to holiday resorts. Moreover, there are a great number of exemptions from the provisions of the half-holiday and from the closing of shops: refreshments, intoxicating liquors, perishable articles, like provisions and tobacco,
1118
motor accessories, and, of course, the Post Office.
Then, coming to the other provisions to which I alluded—that of assisting and facilitating and giving a certain stimulus to the early closing movement—your Lordships will see that by Clause 3 the Secretary of State, on the representation of a local authority or a joint representation from a substantial number of occupiers of shops and shop assistants is entitled to appoint a suitable person to go down into the locality and promote early closing in the district. The fact is, as your Lordships know, that although the Act of 1904 gives power to close shops at an earlier hour than usual, it is very difficult to give effect to the Act. In fact, it appears that there is a great need for someone outside and rather standing above the district, to focus public opinion on the subject, to dispel the local jealousies which may exist, and the mutual distrust which is common enough between shopkeepers who are rivals in the same business. It is thought that the appointment of a person of this kind who can act the part of a conciliator might do a lot to assist in bringing about early closing where, just for the want of sympathy and assistance in bringing them together, very often the early closing movement comes to nothing. He will be empowered to hold an inquiry, and, if he thinks fit, to submit a scheme, and that scheme will be regarded as a prima facie case for the early closing movement.
The Bill applies to Ireland in rather a modified form. The terms of the clause relating to Ireland are no less favourable to shopkeepers and shop assistants there than in England or Scotland, but they are more applicable to local conditions. In fact, early in the session, before the Bill assumed its present shape, an arrangement was come to between the representatives of the liquor trade on the one hand and the assistants serving in licensed premises on the other. That arrangement is satisfactory to both parties, and as it does not place them in a worse position than they would enjoy under the Act it is thought wise to let that arrangement stand. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the noble Lord has intimated, this Bill has fallen into the category of those Bills which are now called agreed Bills. As such, I am certainly not prepared to raise any objection to it. At the same time I hope that the agreement which has been arrived at in the House of Commons will be extended outside as well, because from indications which I have already seen, there will be little prospect of agreement outside. I am anxious, in order to facilitate business and clear the atmosphere on a very small point to some extent, to call attention to one rather unfortunate incident. As your Lordships are aware, the Shop Hours Act of 1899 regulates the hours of employment, and that Act is administered by the London County Council. The Shop Hours Act of 1904 provides for the closing of shops, and that is administered by the local authorities. In the case of London, outside the City it is administered, of course, by the borough councils. This present Bill deals not only with the regulation of hours, but also extends the provisions for early closing. The unfortunate occurrence to which I have to call attention is connected with this. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill informed us quite correctly that it was considerably altered between the time that it passed through Grand Committee and the Report Stage in the House of Commons. A Home Office Paper was issued consisting of two parts—a copy of the Bill as passed by the Standing Committee, showing Amendments on Report; and a copy of the Bill as it would be if so amended, and under which, in the case of London, outside the City of London the authorities for working the Bill were the borough councils. But I am told that by an unfortunate inadvertence on the part of the draftsman a very important proviso was omitted, and the administration of the Act outside the City was transferred from the borough councils to the London County Council.
Any of your Lordships who are familiar with these questions which have for some time been argued as between the borough councils and the London County Council will know what that unfortunate omission means. I am sure that in the work now falling upon them the Government draftsmen have the ready sympathy of this House, but this omission is a very important one, and I am bound to point out
1120
that if the effect of this reversal had been fully appreciated and known it is extremely doubtful whether the Bill could have been treated as an agreed Bill. I have therefore to ask His Majesty's Government whether they still adhere to the view expressed by the revised edition of the Bill, or whether they are prepared to consider the question of restoring the administration of the Act in the case of London outside the City to the borough councils. The matter is one of considerable importance, and one to which the borough councils attach the greatest importance. If I am correctly informed, the borough councils are to some extent apprehensive, from threats which have been used elsewhere, that considerable alterations may be made in the government of London which may tend to a diminution of the work carried out by the borough councils. That does not necessarily arise on this Bill. But it is a most unfortunate thing that the borough councils, who had every reason to anticipate from the White Paper which was produced that they would be placed in the position which they desired to be placed in, should find their hopes dashed in this way. I do not intend to press the matter at this stage, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury proposes to place an Amendment on the Paper which will afford the Government an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. And in the event of their deciding to adhere to the London County Council as the authority for London, we shall be prepared to forego Our resistance and let the whole responsibility of depriving the borough councils of what is a perfectly legitimate power rest upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: With the permission of the House I will say a word on the point raised by the noble Duke. As he said, this was an inadvertent omission from the White Paper. I think the noble Duke admits that?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Quite.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: In the House of Commons on the Report stage the House was in possession of the fact that it was not the intention of the Government to go back from the position they had taken up all along not to introduce the borough councils as the authority. I do not think there was any doubt in the House

1121
or in the mind of anybody as to what the Intentions of the Government were. There was nothing to conceal. The noble Duke used the words "alter" and "reverse," as if this was a change of policy on the part of the Government. As a matter of fact, I am given to understand that when this Bill was debated in Committee the position of the Government was clearly stated. No Amendment was moved in Committee to make the borough councils the authorities. I know that no Amendment was placed on the Paper before the Report stage with a view of getting them made the administration authorities, and I know that no Division was challenged on the Report stage on this question. Therefore I do not understand how the noble Duke can use the words he did as describing the policy of the Government. On the merits of the question, it seems to me that when you come to the application of early closing orders, it is perfectly clear that a borough authority is not the one to entrust with this Act—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The borough councils have now the power of administering the orders for early closing.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes; and the fact that early closing has proceeded so slowly and to such a small extent proves the difficulties under which they labour. The noble Duke will see that the mere question of boundaries is an almost insuperable objection to applying an early closing order. If a street divides two authorities, it is clear you cannot apply an early closing order to one side of the street only. It is for that very reason that the Government consider that the borough authorities are not the best authorities to administer the Act and believe that if the London County Council administer the orders the early closing movement will make much greater strides in the future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (BELFAST) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): I am sorry to trouble your Lordships further in regard to this Bill, but there are two small purely drafting Amendments which I want to insert. One is in Clause 2, page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "nominated" and insert the word "appointed." I may say that "nominated" has been left out everywhere else, and replaced by "appointed," but this was not noticed, so I ask that the omission should be made good now. The other Amendment is to bring the proviso to which your Lordships agreed from Clause 69, in which it was placed by mistake, into Clause 60, the clause to which it rightly belongs.
On Question, Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) AMEND- MENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUOHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after ("construction") insert ("lighting").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Special permission to keep open.
2. On a representation being made to any two members of the town council of a burgh or the county council of a county where section eighty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, is in operation by the occupier of any place for public refreshment within the burgh or the county, as the case may be, that it is intended that a special entertainment, whether of a public or of a private nature, is to take place therein during any specified time, such two members may grant such occupier a special permission in writing to open or to keep open such place, if it be a place for public refreshment registered

1123
under the section aforesaid, beyond the hours prescribed by any bye-law under that section applicable thereto or, if the place be not so registered beyond the hour of eight o'clock at night, for such time as such members may see fit to prescribe: Provided that in the latter case such opening shall not be held to require the place to be registered as aforesaid.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to substitute "two magistrates" for "two members of the town council" at the beginning of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("members of the town council") and insert ("magistrates").—(Lord Soltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Definition.
3. In section eighty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act the expression "place for public refreshment" includes any building or part of a building or other place of public resort for the sale for consumption therein of provisions or refreshments of any kind (including confectionery, ice-cream, fruit, and aerated waters), but does not extend to any premises certificated or registered under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, or any premises in respect of which a licence or other sanction or permit is for the time being in force, issued in virtue of specific powers conferred on a town council or other authority by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts or any other statute.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 22, after ("ice-cream") insert ("as defined in the said section").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Commencement of Act.
4. This Act shall come into operation after the expiration of six months from the passing thereof; and until that expiration nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the provisions of section eighty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, or the provisions of any local Act respecting the licensing of persons for the sale of ice-cream or the regulation of ice-cream shops or aerated water shops, or the enforcement of any byelaws thereunder respectively; but after that expiration all such provisions in local Acts and all such byelaws shall case to be in force.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to leave out "six" ["This Act shall come into operation after the expiration of six"], and to insert "three."
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order): Further drafting Amendments made: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this Bill is for the purpose of increasing the limit of the rate which may be imposed by the Secretary of State for police purposes in the metropolitan area. The present limit is 9d. in the £, and that was fixed by the Act of 1868. It is found that there is not enough money to pay for the cost of the police force in the metropolitan area. The fact is that some considerable additional expenses have been thrown upon this fund of late. In the year l909 a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported in favour of a weekly rest day for the police force, and that is being given effect to and is estimated to cost £180,000 a year. There is a further item of expenditure—the new scale of pay which is now given to the police, which is estimated to cost £80,000 a year. Your Lordships will remember that in August last, after the strikes and the serious additional tasks which were imposed upon the police force, it was generally agreed, both inside and outside Parliament, that

1125
the police should be put on a new and better scale of remuneration. Then there is the general growth of expenditure owing, in the first place, to the growth of the police force in comparison with the population of the metropolitan area, a consequence which your Lordships will see is bound to arise in the metropolis of any country. The growth of population, the number of foreigners who come here, the amount of duties cast upon the police in regulating the traffic, and other things, must lead to an increase in the police force. Then there has been the rise in the price of commodities, of which we have heard a great deal of late, and the general increments which have to be met.
It may be said that this growth of expenditure ought to be met out of the resources at present at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and so, no doubt, it would have been, were it not for the fact that, unfortunately, the rateable value of the metropolis, which for many quinquennial periods has always risen to a considerable extent, shows in this quinquennial period a tendency to decrease. Ten years ago the increase in the valuation of the metropolitan area amounted to no less than £2,000,000. Five years ago the increase was £1,500,000. This year the quinquennial valuation shows that the rateable value of the metropolis has decreased by £350,000. That may be regrettable from one point of view, but from others it may have its compensations. It is owing to that fact that the Secretary of State finds it necessary to ask Parliament to give powers to increase the limit of the rate for police purposes. I understand that some objection is taken to the fact that this Bill is brought before your Lordships, indeed before Parliament, so late in the session; but as many of the items of additional expenditure did not arise until late in the year—for instance, the new scale of pay did not come into existence until August—and there has been a change in the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, which of course has occasioned some delay, your Lordships will see that it was not easy to introduce this Bill at an earlier stage in the session. The Bill was issued on the 7th of this month, and read a second time in the House of Commons on the 11th, and I understand that the London County Council, who, I believe, are interested in this Bill, have already had an opportunity
1126
of discussing it. At any rate a committee of the London County Council discussed this Bill last week. Therefore although the Bill is produced late, it cannot be said that Parliament and those concerned have not had ark opportunity of considering the provisions.
Let me also say that there is considerable urgency in regard to this Bill. If the new rate is to be imposed, the borough councils must know early in February what that rate is. If they do not get the information then there will be considerable confusion, if indeed it will be possible for them to issue the new rate that will be needed. It must be admitted that this Bill throws a considerable burden upon the ratepayers of the metropolis, and so it must be until there is a general remodelling of the system of Imperial subventions to local taxation. Your Lordships will probably remember that that formed the subject of an inquiry by a Royal Commission, and I believe the Report is of a rather voluminous character; so much so that it has been thought necessary to appoint a Departmental Committee, and that Committee is sitting at the present time. I think, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill may fairly be regarded as being temporary and provisional, and that the last word on the question of rating and Imperial contributions is not spoken by this Bill. The fact that this is a provisional Bill is proved by the proviso, to which I will draw your Lordships' attention. The proviso in the first clause provides that. I he local authorities are to be relieved of any obligation to contribute in respect of the additional rate which is here proposed. Your Lordships are aware that under the Local Government Act of 1888 local authorities are obliged to make contributions out of the funds they derive from the Exchequer towards the total cost of the police. The rate is 9d. in the £, and the contribution of the local authorities is 4d. in the £. The proviso to which I have referred establishes that their contribution is to remain the same. This proves that the whole Bill is rather of a provisional character, because otherwise they would naturally be expected to contribute the same proportion as before.
I may say that the sum of money required in order to carry on next year is about £220,000. It is estimated that a penny in the £1 will produce £233,000. If

1127
that is so, perhaps your Lordships will ask, "Why do you ask for 2d. additional, instead of only a penny?" In the first place we have to think of the future. There is the increase of ordinary expenditure due to the ordinary growth of population, and then there is the rateable value. There is the fluctuation in the Exchequer contributions account, and the frequent shortages which the police fund has had to submit to on this item. And then one always has to think of the possibility of emergencies, strikes, or anything of that kind, which throws great additional expense on the police fund. But I am authorised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say that he only intends to impose a penny additional rate this year, and that he will not go further than a penny rate without giving the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the whole question upon his salary. Further than that, he will make a personal investigation into the whole question of police finance with a view to seeing whether the expense can be reduced in the future and what contribution can be made by the Exchequer to meet it.
I am aware that this Bill has aroused opposition in some quarters. I hope that opposition will not be pressed, because if this Bill does not go through it will not be possible to go on recruiting the additional police necessary to give effect to the weekly day of fest which has been approved of in another place and promised to the police. If noble Lords insist in their opposition to this measure they must take the responsibility for that weekly rest day being, in effect, cancelled. I hope, indeed, that on reflection the opposition will not be pressed in view of the pledge which the Secretary of State has authorised me to make and in view of the circumstances generally surrounding the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the state of this House surely illustrates the extraordinary conduct of the Government with regard to this measure. I do not think any measure has ever been introduced into Parliament in which such scant feeling has been shown for the ordinary laws of representation. This measure involves a charge on the London ratepayers of about £460,000 a year. It was intro-
1128
duced into the House of Commons last week for Second Reading at half-past two in the morning, and the next stage was taken on the following day at, I believe, between two and three o'clock in the morning, and no opportunity what ever has been given to the London County Council to discuss this matter. I had the honour of waiting on the predecessor of the present Secretary of State, who promised in terms that he would give substantial assistance, if he could induce the Treasury to increase their contributions, towards this police fund, but he also distinctly said that no further operations were to be taken without consulting the London County Council. The London County Council has not been consulted, and this matter has never been before the council. It has been discussed by one committee of the council but not by the other, which takes serious objections to it.
Our view of the finance differs entirely from that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord spoke on the assumption that this House was seized with the objects of this Bill. The House of Commons was not so seized. On the contrary, those who carried on the negotiations between the two Parties were assured that the rest day to the police could not be given unless this Bill was put into operation. That is, according to the London County Council, not the fact. The rest day to the police has been given; an extra day has been given. We are prepared to maintain and pay our fair share, but we are not prepared to take on our shoulders the whole responsibility. The system was that the Government should pay half the charge of the metropolitan police, and the London County Council the other half. In the last few years there has been a great increase of expenditure, and at this moment the charge, instead of being 50 per cent. equally, is 58½ per cent. on the London County Council and 41½ per cent. on His Majesty's Government. It is now proposed, at one stroke, to raise the rate by 2d. We contend that no more than £50,000 is wanted; yet by this Bill we are to be liable to have the Secretary of State swoop down upon us at any, moment and raise a further £460,000 a year. After all, the ratepayers of London have some right to consideration in this matter, and, late as it is, I must trouble your Lordships to divide on this Bill unless I get some satisfactory pledge with regard to it.

1129
There is no cause whatever for going beyond an extra penny rate in the present conditions. The total charge which is anticipated by the London County Council next year in excess of the present year is £190,000, and the surplus raised by levying a rate of 9d. at the present time is £196,000. I am instructed that we can pay the whole of these extra charges for the rest day of the police and for the extra wages without jeopardising in any way the state of the fund, and we maintain that we have a right to wait until the Royal Commission's Report has been considered by the Departmental Committee. The Royal Commission recommended that 50 per cent. should be borne by the ratepayers and 50 per cent. by the taxpayers, and until that has been considered by the Departmental Committee we object most strongly to any Parliamentary action being taken except in concurrence with the London County Council. Here we are in the last two days of the session. If we are in difficulties it is clue entirely to the action of the Government. They knew this question would require settlement, they have known it for the last four or five years; they have chosen to give us five days. They introduce the Bill at the last moment, carry it in a small house, and invite your Lordships' assent to it at the close of business, with only one more day of the session to go. There are members of the London County Council who attend more than 500 committee meetings in the year, sometimes sitting more than ten times in a week in order to get good administration and avoid adding a halfpenny to the rates; yet we are now, by a process which is taken entirely out of our hands, to be mulcted to the extent of a further 2d. in the £1 without any power whatever of objection. I have had some communication with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and he was good enough to make me an offer that the Secretary of State would only raise a penny at present and would not raise the other penny without allowing a discussion on his salary. That is no concession whatever. Everybody has the right to raise a discussion on a matter of that sort on the Secretary of State's salary. And after three or four hours' debate the Secretary is in a position to closure it, and the whole thing would then terminate without possibly even a definite vote in the House of Commons. That is by no means satisfactory.
1130
I desire very much to avoid moving the rejection of the Bill. In several measures which have passed the House—in one which passed the House this session—it was required that the Act should not be put in operation until a substantive Motion had been moved and carried in both Houses. I do not here say both Houses of. Parliament, but do ask that if the Secretary of State, who cannot possibly for some years to come require more than a penny rate, desires to raise the other, he should give a pledge that a substantive Motion shall be moved in the House of Commons and carried before any portion of that further penny rate is applied to the service of the police. I ask that as a representative of the greatest financial body, except the House of Commons, existing in this country. We—the London Comity Council—have a revenue of £10,000,000; we have great difficulty in carrying out our services; and to add at one stroke nearly half a million pounds, against the pledges of the former Home Secretary, against precedent, against the advice of the Royal Commission, and against the understanding on which this was carried through the House of Commons last week is, I think, straining a power which the Government would do wisely to avoid, especially when they are in contact with the representatives of the ratepayers of this great metropolis. I have done all I could by personal influence in the last few hours since I first heard that this question would be brought up to induce the Government to make some concession to this feeling. I am absolutely without power of consulting those with whom I act, except those who happen to be members of this House, and they are at one with me. Therefore unless I receive the pledge I ask for I shall be forced to press an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I must support the protest of the noble Viscount. Here is a Bill which was passed through the House of Commons in the early hours of the morning. The noble Lord in charge of tine Bill said that it was required in connection with the recent increase effected in the pay of the police and the extra expense involved in the one day's rest in seven. The noble Lord also informed us that the total amount

1131
which would be required was £188,000. We are all in favour of giving these privileges to the police; they are well deserved. But a penny rate represents £230,000, and I maintain, as did the noble Viscount, that there is no chance of the whole of a 2d. rate being required in all probability for many years. The noble Lord contended that the rejection of this Bill would prevent the one day's rest in seven being given. How can that be the case? It is difficult to give the exact figures, but a 9d. rate produced a surplus of over £150,000 this year. It may be said that that surplus is required in connection with the pension fund, but may I remind the noble Lord that separate rating powers are given for the purpose of meeting deficiencies in the pension fund. I know that the cost of that fund is increasing. That is another reason why we should hesitate very much before adding 2d. to the statutory rate. The pension fund in 1902 was £139,000; it is now £282,000, and according to the actuarial estimates it will very soon be £500,000. That is all the more reason why the representatives of the ratepayers ought to have had a chance, which they have not had, of considering and discussing the proposals of His Majesty's Government. This Bill was put through before the London County Council had any opportunity of expressing their views or even considering the matter.
It surely cannot be necessary to pass this Bill in its present form, placing a burden of nearly half a million on the ratepayers. If the whole of that money is required at least we ought to know the purpose for which it is to be raised. I do not want to throw out this Bill, but I would remind the noble Lord that, after all, if he refuses to meet us and we reject this Bill, it is open to him to put a new Bill through again in February, and to bring it in before the new financial year. There cannot be any need for this tremendous haste in putting this huge burden on the London ratepayers. I protest on the part of the London ratepayers, who ought to have had a voice in the matter. I was glad to hear one thing. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that some inquiry was to be made as to the cost of the London police. The cost of the London police is 7s. 9d., whereas the average in the big towns all over the country is somewhere about 3s. Therefore
1132
it is more than double in London, and I would welcome any inquiry into this matter. I do hope that the noble Lord will meet us; but if he cannot I shall be compelled to support the noble Viscount, much as I dislike that course. It is absolutely necessary that this matter should be considered. A 2d. rate is unwarranted; there is no need for it. I trust that the noble Lord will give the representatives of the London ratepayers an opportunity of considering the matter.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The two noble Lords who have just spoken are quite wrong if they think that the Secretary of State has any money up his sleeve and does not need the money for which he comes to Parliament. We have not got these balances of £190,000 and other figures that are mentioned, and if anything is needed to prove the state of the finances of the Metropolitan Police Force, noble Lords have only to look at the state of the balances to the credit of that force on March 31 of each year. In 1905, the balances at our credit were £541,000. By a successive depletion, owing to excess of expenditure over revenue, those balances have fallen in this year to £352,000. There has thus been in a period of seven years a reduction of almost £200,000 out of half a million, or two-fifths of the total balances in 1905. If that is true—and those are official figures given me to-night—it is clear that we have not got these large balances which the noble Viscount thinks we possess and which render unnecessary the proposals of this Bill.
If we do not get our Bill the recruiting for the police force must stop because there will not be funds. The noble Viscount understands that if recruiting ceases the force cannot be augmented, and unless it is augmented the weekly rest cannot be given. It has been estimated that a very large addition—I have not got the figures—is necessary in order to give effect to this weekly holiday, and unless we can go on recruiting that cannot be given. I must correct the statement which was made that the weekly half-holiday had already been given. That is not so. A start has been made; we have been able to give half of it, but if it is to be carried out in its complete form we shall have to recruit another 800 men. I have it on the authority of the Secretary of State that if this Bill does not pass to-night he will not be able to go on with that recruiting

1133
and the weekly half-holiday will have to remain where it is, in a very partial condition.
I am rather surprised that the noble Viscount makes such a point of this. He knows, and we all know, that the contributions of the Exchequer to the local services must be revised. That is common ground. A Departmental Committee is considering the Report of the Royal Commission, and it is absolutely certain that before a year or two the whole subject will be reconsidered; and the contributions from Imperial resources to this kind of charge must be very materially increased. Very likely we shall come back to that half-and-half arrangement which the noble Viscount says existed not many years ago. As I said, this is really only a provisional measure to get us over the difficulty. Why deny to the Secretary of State a little measure winch you admit he wants in order to carry on? He comes and asks for an extra penny in case of emergency such as cannot be foreseen—surely it is a mere act of confidence in the Secretary of State to give him that slight margin on which he can draw in case of emergency. Add to that the promise he gives that he will not increase it this year, and that it will not be increased at all without a full discussion in Parliament. I do not quite understand the noble Viscount when he asks for a pledge of a substantive Motion. How is it open to my hon. friend to pledge the Government to give a day in the session to discuss this matter? There is a day allotted for the discussion of his own salary He has promised that, if required, this matter shall he raised on his salary and there must be a substantive Motion;
Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.
if that is what the noble Viscount attaches importance to, surely that ought to satisfy him. In any case I deprecate the attitude taken up. I can understand it in a way, because I see that the noble Viscount is afraid that he is going to part with his bargaining power, and that if he lets this penny go, he will not have anything to bargain with next year. In view of the fact that the whole thing must come up for settlement before many years are over and that it is common ground between both Parties that the Imperial contributions must be increased to these rating expenditures, surely it is not necessary for the noble Viscount to press his opposition on this occasion; and I sincerely trust that he will not.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should have been only too glad to yield to the appeal of the noble Lord, but it is quite impossible. The whole of what is wanted is a halfpenny rate. We offer a penny rate, and that represents a quarter of a million of money. The noble Lord asks us to give away this gigantic power of taxing us to the extent of another quarter of a million without anything in our own hands which may enable the ratepayers of London to do more than state their case before the Home Secretary. If the Bill is not passed not a single policeman will go short of a farthing, not a single administrative act will be changed for a moment. I hope the House will refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
On Question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Allendale, V.

Granard, L. (E Granard.)

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lucas, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Pentland, L.

Craven, E.

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller]

Glantawe, L.

Willingdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Devonshire, D.

Falmouth, V.

Estcourt, L.

Northumberland, D.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Lamington, L.

Barrymore, L.

Lawrence, L.

Camperdown, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Newton, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Seaton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) [Teller]

Sinclair, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.