Sitting of 7 August 1912

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Carmarthen, Eastern Division, in the room of Abel Thomas, Esq. (deceased).—[Master of Elibank.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Monday, 7th October.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill,
Finance Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.
Amendment to—
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill, with an Amendment.

FEEBLE-MINDED PERSONS UNDER THE POOR LAW.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd July; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
MINT.
Copy presented of Forty-second Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Government Chemist upon the work of the
3140
Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1912, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th June, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-fourth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1911–12, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (KHAN BAHADUR KHWAJAMUHAMMAD KHAN).
Copy presented of Correspondence regarding Criminal Proceedings against Khan Bahadur Khwaja Muhammad Khan [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRANSPORT WORKERS' STRIKE (DISTURBANCE AT ROTHERHITHE).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Chester Jones, Esq., on certain disturbances which took place at Rotherhithe on the 11th June, 1912, and complaints against the Police in connection therewith [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FINANCE (1909–10) ACT, 1910 (APPEALS).
Copy ordered of "Return in respect of Appeals under Part I. of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, up to the 1st day of June, 1912."—[Mr. Masterman.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]

WHEAT.
Return ordered, "showing, for every year from 1800 to 1910, inclusive, the current price of British Wheat per quarter,

3141
the highest and lowest import duties charged on imported Wheat, and the current price of bread in London."—[Mr. Charles Bathurst.]

COMMUTATION OF CHARGE.
Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 6th day of August, 1912, on the subject of commuting the fee farm rent of £175 per annum in respect of the Middlesex Shrievalty now payable to Miss Agneta Cocks and Mr. Thomas Somers Vernon Cocks."—[Mr. Masterman.]
CYPRUS.
Return ordered, "of all sums paid in the years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, respectively, out of moneys arising from the revenues of Cyprus, in discharge of the interest upon the Turkish Loan guaranteed by this country and France in 1855; of all sums voted by Parliament during the same period in aid of the administration of Cyprus; and of the surplus remaining in each year over and above the payments made, with interest thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 240, of Session 1909)."—[Major Peel.]
URBAN DISTRICTS (AREAS AND RATES).
Return ordered, "showing, for the year 1911–12, with respect to each municipal borough or other urban district in England and Wales the area, in acres, of the borough or district and of the agricultural land as defined by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the total amount of rates collected, and the amount of rates collected in respect of agricultural land."—[Mr. Outhwaite.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Hospital Accommodation (Harwich).
  Captain CLIVEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the hospital accommodation at Harwich which was said to be sufficient for one officer and eight seamen consists of two rooms, in one of Which there is one bed and no other furniture and in the other
  3142
  two beds, a table, and two chairs; that neither of these rooms appear to have been papered, distempered, or painted for many years; that under the window of one of them there is a heap of stable manure, and that to this room an officer was recently taken to be operated on for appendicitis; and whether, seeing that Harwich is now a naval base, he would see that proper and sufficient hospital accommodation is provided?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Mac-namara): There are no naval sick quarters proper at Harwich. As at other places along the coast there is an arrangement under which temporary accommodation is placed at our disposal as occasion arises. In the case in question a young officer was brought in very seriously ill with appendicitis. An immediate operation was necessary, and it was quite impossible to move the patient to more suitable accommodation. The operation was performed successfully and the young officer, who is doing well, has been removed to other quarters. The question of the medical arrangements at Harwich is receiving attention.
  Captain CLIVE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the description I have given of these quarters?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They are not naval quarters; they are what I may call emergency quarters. I am not prepared to quarrel with the statement made.

  Protection of Swallows.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the wholesale destruction of swallows and other British migrants in the South of France and Italy; and whether, in view of their utility to agriculture and of the increase of insect pests in this country, he will communicate with the Governments concerned to see if some international steps can be taken for the protection of these birds?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I am aware that numbers of insect-eating birds are killed abroad, but I understand that the extent, to which these birds are useful to agriculture remains an open question, and that, moreover, their destruction cannot be proved to have produced an increase of insect pests in this

  3143
  country. The International Agricultural Institute are at present investigating the whole question, and it is hoped that they will, where necessary, be able to devise remedies for the present state of things. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not propose to approach foreign Governments on the subject ac present.

  Tientsin (Alleged Murder of Private Patchell).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of a coroner's jury at Tientsin in the case of Private Patchell, who was killed recently in the French concession at Tientsin; whether he is aware that the decision was that the deceased met his death at the hands of Jean Baptiste Roche, the foreign barman at the Grand Bar Saloon, situated beside the Rue St. Louis, French concession, Tientsin; that the said Jean Baptiste Roche shot at and killed the deceased; and that the evidence before the Court shows no justification for the act; and whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to have the alleged murderer brought to justice by the French authorities?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on the subject, but I have called for a report from His Majesty's Consul-General.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only was Private Patchell killed but Private Caughlin, also of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, was dangerously injured?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has just said he has no information, so how can he be expected to know that?

  Putumayo.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coloured labour is being recruited in Barbados or any other West India Colony for service in the Amazon region; and whether the report of Sir Roger Casement on the Putumayo has been brought to the attention of the Government emigration age at in Barbados with a view to his allowing no further recruitments for the firm of Messrs. Arana?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The recruitment of labour in the West
  3144
  Indian Colonies is regulated by the local authorities under local law. Copies of Sir Roger Casement's Report have been sent to all the local governments, and the attention of the Government of Barbados has been specially called to it. There is no Government Emigration Agent in Barbados, but the Government of that Colony has issued warnings to labourers against accepting employment in South America.
  Mr. KING: Has a special warning been issued with regard to this firm?
  Mr. ACLAND: The warning is against accepting all employment in South America.

  West Indies (Petroleum Industry).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any negotiations are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and any person or persons regarding the grant of rights for the development of the petroleum industry in the West Indies; and, if so, whether he can assure the House that care will be taken to prevent the sources of supply from falling into the hands of any trust or combine, and that no arrangement will be concluded until the terms thereof have been approved by this House?
  Mr. GULLAND: Yes, Sir. Various negotiations are in progress in connection with the petroleum industry in the West Indies, particularly in Trinidad. For the proper development of the industry large capital resources and organisation on a proportionate scale are required. The negotiations are being carried on in consultation with the Admiralty and the expert advisers of His Majesty's Government, and every precaution will be taken to safeguard the public interests, for the-protection of which I am responsible to the House.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like the hon. Gentleman to convey to the notice of the Secretary of State the last sentence of the question which asks that no arrangement should be concluded until the terms have been approved by this House?
  Mr. GULLAND: I will bring that to the-notice of my right hon. Friend.

  Agricultural Land (Ireland).
  Mr. GIN NELLasked the Chan-celor of the Exchequer, having regard to

  3145
  his undertaking in 1909 that the Finance Bill of that year would not increase the burden upon agricultural land in Ireland, if he will explain how it is that on every occasion of devolution or transfer of agricultural land in Ireland the revenue officers largely increase the tax expressly under that Act; and, as those officers, when one scheme of assessment works out nil, adopt another scheme, will he say which is the correct method of taxing agricultural land in Ireland on such occasions, tenanted, in course of purchase, under £1,000 in capital value, and over that value, respectively?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that, without fuller particulars than are contained in the hon. Member's question it has not been possible to ascertain the circumstances giving rise to his complaint. If he will be good enough to furnish me with these particulars, I will have inquiry made and communicate the result to him.
  Mr. GINNELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me the scale of assessment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The time has been quite inadequate for me to get the information asked for. If the hon. Member will give me fuller particulars, I will do my best to supply him with the information.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he would state what reparation was to be made, and when, to Edward Sheridan and others, joint owners of 111 cows shipped on 28th June from North Wall to Heysham, kept there eleven hours by the Midland Railway Company, then returned to North Wall, kept there in quarantine for three weeks, with insufficient room to stand or lie down and milking neglected, with the result that three of them died and the remainder were by this treatment reduced in value from £16 each to £5 each; and, this loss having been caused by State officials needlessly, since the cows had never had foot-and-mouth disease, whether the reparation would include anything for the dislocation of these dealers' business?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): My own knowledge of the circumstances of this case is confined to the fact that the cows in
  3146
  question arrived at Heysham on the 29th June, and that they could not be landed there in consequence of the issue of the Order on the previous day prohibiting the importation of animals from Ireland into Great Britain. I should have been prepared to allow them to be landed for immediate slaughter, but in view of the character of the stock the owners, not unnaturally, decided to take them back to Dublin. I much regret the loss which the owners sustained in the unfortunate circumstances which arose, but it is not in my power to pay them any compensation out of public funds.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Treasury on this subject?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, it would be quite useless to do so as there is no power to pay compensation in cases of this kind.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (16) whether, in considering the admission of livestock from the Drogheda district, he would have regard to the offer made to him by the deputation of stock owners who waited on him last week that they were willing, at their own expense, to provide the most exacting veterinary inspection by highly qualified professional men of livestock, both on the farms and at the port of embarkation, which his Department might ask, if the opening of the local ports was favourably entertained; and (17) whether he was aware that in proportion to its size the county of Meath exports more fat cattle to this country than any other county in Ireland and that anything affecting prejudicially the cattle industry in the county must injuriously affect the majority of counties in Ireland from which it draws its supply of lean beasts for fattening purposes before shipment here; whether, having regard both to the interests involved to the stock owners in the county and the effect to the other subsidiary counties which would follow any prolonged dislocation of the export trade, he would consider favourably the early reception of cattle from the natural outlet of the county, the port of Drogheda, which is twenty-three miles distant from the centre of infection; and, if he cannot immediately admit cattle from that port, as an alternative will he allow cattle to be landed from county Meath at Birkenhead or Manchester through the next most convenient port, that of Dundalk?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I fully realise the importance of the cattle industry of Meath, and I much regret the loss and inconvenience arising both in Ireland and Great Britain by the existing restrictions on importation into Great Britain. But I do not see my way to allow the importation of animals from Drogheda so long as any portion of that county is included in the area scheduled by the Irish Department. Animals brought from those portions of Meath which are not included in the scheduled area may be shipped at Dundalk for slaughter at the foreign animals' wharves at Birkenhead, Bristol, Glasgow, and London.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: If the Irish Department limits the prohibited area to the district round Swords, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the Irish Department modify the restrictions, I will reconsider the matter, but I cannot say more at present.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what proportion of the meat supply imported into Great Britain comes from Ireland, averaging over the past five years; and whether, having regard to the advisability of preserving unimpaired the continuity of the trade between the two countries in the interests of both producers and consumers, he will arrange that, after the adjournment of this House, someone representing his Department be kept in communication with the Irish Cattle Traders' Association or a committee thereof, so that the earlier information may be at his disposal which would justify him in resuming the acceptance of both fat beasts and store cattle at the various ports of Great Britain?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is estimated that about 20 per cent, of the total imports of meat (including bacon and hams) into Great Britain comes from Ireland. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would say that I am as anxious as is the hon. Member that the normal trade between the two countries should be resumed at the earliest possible moment consistent with safety, and that any representations which may be made to me on the subject during the Recess by the Irish Cattle Traders' Association will be promptly considered.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if neither the Board of
  3148
  Agriculture nor the Irish Agricultural Department can compensate owners whose cattle have been damaged, and some of them killed, by return from England to Ireland and detention in quarantine, when the cattle are found after quarantine never to have had the-suspected disease, and the loss caused by order of State officials to have been mistaken and needless, whether he will, by supplementary estimate or by legislation, make provision for compensation to the full amount of the loss in such cases?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I fully realise the losses occasioned to so many stock owners, both directly and indirectly, by reason of restrictions imposed to prevent foot-and-mouth disease from becoming epidemic in this country, but it is impossible for the Government to propose that those losses should be made good out of public funds. There is no precedent for such a course, and if it were adopted it would be impossible to limit its application to the particular circumstances in question.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Chief Secretary for Ireland having had notice of this question, may I be allowed to ask him whether he is in a position to add anything to what he has stated, and especially whether the Department will pay for the maintenance of the-cows while they were kept in quarantine?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I should like notice of the question.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, having regard to the possibility that between the Adjournment of the House for autumn and its next sitting in October the cattle trade of Ireland, which has more money invested in it than any other trade in that country, may pass through a perilous and exceptional period, and to the fact that portion of the cost of the recent slaughtering of cattle will fall on a comparatively small area, and that the loss sustained in Ireland where the dead beasts have the usual English markets closed against them falls much more heavily than in England where the slaughtered animals are beside the usual market, he will before the Adjournment ask Parliament for such exceptional powers and financial assistance as will enable his Department, acting in concert with the stock owners of Ireland, to meet any eventualities that may arise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It does not appear that further powers than those already conferred by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, are necessary for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. The further question raised by the hon. Member is under consideration.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice President whether, having regard to the fact that the foot-and-mouth disease is confined to the one immediate district where the first outbreak occurred, and that part of the still prohibited area in county Meath is thirty miles from the original scene of the infection, and that no single case has arisen in county Meath, he is now prepared, in the vital interests of stock owners, to still further limit the boundaries of the infected area which extends into county Meath?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The furthest point of the present restricted area in county Meath from the Swords infected district is twenty-two, not thirty miles. The Department expect very soon to be in a position to contract substantially the limits of the area under restriction.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are Irish miles, which are longer than English miles?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must confess that, although I am aware of the distinction between the two, that I am not aware which is which in my answer.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President whether he can state, approximately, the number of cattle and sheep exported annually through the ports of Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and Belfast from the county of Meath; and whether, having regard to the interests involved by the present closing of ports in Great Britain against livestock, he is considering any scheme whereby the loss to stock owners might be reduced to a minimum in the event of a continuance of the existing condition of affairs being thought expedient?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar question on this subject yesterday.

  Sheep Disease in Radnorshire.
  Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the report of the diseases of animals committee of the Radnorshire County Council, presented to that council on Friday last; and whether,
  3150
  in view of that report, and the mortality amongst the flocks of Radnorshire and North Herefordshire last winter, and consequent heavy losses to farmers, he will undertake to carry out a thorough investigation into the causes of such mortality, with a view to the suggestion of better methods of prevention in the future?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not yet received a copy of the report referred to in the first part of the question, but I am aware of the mortality which, unfortunately, prevailed amongst the flocks of Radnorshire and North Herefordshire last winter, and investigations with regard to it are now being made with a view, if possible, to the discovery of means by which it may be prevented.

  Pea Industry.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that inferior peas are being sold as marrowfats, to the great detriment of Lincolnshire growers; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, he will say whether he proposes to take any and, if any, what action in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to this subject, and inquiries are being made with a view to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the institution of legal proceedings.

  Land Valuation (Site Values).
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will state what principles have been laid down for the guidance of valuers in assessing site values in the case of house property; what use is being, or is proposed to be, made of the value so fixed; and what are the grounds on which the value of property standing on land is ignored, while the site value is swollen by including the estimated; value of the buildings thereon?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The principles laid down for the guidance of valuers in ascertaining the site value of both covered and uncovered land are those contained in Section 25 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. The original site value so ascertained forms the basis of assessment for Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty.

  Hackney Carriage Duties.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked what is the annual revenue derived from the wheel tax of 15s. on hackney carriages; and whether, in view of the recommendations of successive Parliamentary Committees that the tax should be abolished, and the position in which the jobmasters' industry is placed by its imposition, the Government propose to take steps to remove the tax?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The yield of the hackney carriage licence duty of 15s. for each of the last two years, 1910–11 and 1911–12, was approximately £104,000. I am afraid I do not at present see any possibility of remitting the duty.

  Agricultural Labourers.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board what proportion of the persons who, according to the last Census, are engaged in agricultural pursuits in the United Kingdom are agricultural labourers; how this number compares with those so returned after the three previous decennial Censuses; and what proportion, on each occasion, of the total population were they found to represent?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): The tabulation of the occupations of the people as returned at the Census of 1911 is not yet compleetd. The figures relating to the Censuses of 1881, 1891, and 1901 are given in the General Report on the Census of 1901 in Table 35 on page 274.
  Mr. PETO: Do they show a diminishing ratio?
  Mr. BURNS: It is too early to say.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the low remuneration of agricultural labourers, the increase of the cost of their living during the past ten years, and the steady shrinkage of the proportion of the population engaged in agricultural industry, he will appoint a Royal Commission, on the lines of the United States Country Life Commission, to consider the best means of curing such national defects without rendering agriculture an unprofitable and neglected industry?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.

  Sterilised Milk.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Local Government Board what methods of sterilising milk are in use in his Department; whether any one of these has proved entirely satisfactory; and, if not, which is considered the most advantageous?
  Mr. BURNS: No sterilisation of milk, except occasionally for laboratory purposes, takes place in my Department.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the discussion on 25th July in the section of physiology at the recent meeting of the British Medical Association, at which several authorities attributed effects of malnutrition to the use of boiled milk; and whether, in view of the importance of the matter and the scantiness of properly controlled experiments on the subject in this country, he will institute a scheme of new experiments in order to decide the question?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing a full account of the discussion to which the hon. Member refers. I am awaiting a further report from Dr. Lane Claypon on the subject of milk. When I receive that I will decide whether any further experimental procedures are necessary.

  Geashill (King's County) Postman.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a vacancy arose some fifteen months ago for an established postman at Geashill, King's County; that the position was applied for by Thomas Coyle, who had been rural auxiliary for a period of sixteen years; and that, notwithstanding that Coyle had an unblemished record, an ex-soldier was sent from Kilkenny to fill the position, who, after a trial, found that he was unable to do the duty and retired; whether he is aware that another Army Reserve man was sent to Geashill on the 29th ultimo, a tailor by trade, who has no experience of the duties of postman; and, considering that Thomas Coyle has given sixteen years of faithful and efficient service as rural auxiliary, will he see that this second ex-soldier is withdrawn and Coyle promoted to the permanent vacancy?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Vacancies for established postmen are reserved for men who have served as boy messengers in the Post Office or as soldiers or sailors. Auxiliary postmen are sometimes appointed when they have served for a number of years and their own walk has so grown as to justify an established appointment being created. This was not the case in this instance, and as Mr. Coyle has not served in any of the capacities mentioned he has no claim to the vacancy, and I am unable to comply with the hon. Member's request. Mr. Coyle's auxiliary duty remains unaffected.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Postmaster-General if, in the interests of health, he will give instructions that all telephone mouthpieces in this House and in all Government offices shall be fitted with a Dongor or other equally efficient antiseptic cover?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The fullest investigations have been made by leading bacteriologists into the alleged risk of infection from the use of telephones at public call offices. They have proved that there is no such risk, provided that the mouthpieces are kept reasonably clean. In these circumstances I do not propose to take the action suggested.

  Agricultural Investigation (Scotland)
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Board of Agriculture proposes to issue separate leaflets on the subjects about which leaflets are issued by the English Board or whether, by arrangement with the latter and to avoid unnecessary expense, the same leaflets will be issued by the two Boards; and (44) whether the the Scottish Board of Agriculture proposes to conduct research into animal diseases, the pathology of plants, Mendelism, and other matters of equal interest and importance to agriculturists in both countries, when such research has been or is being carried on in England or Wales by or at the request of the English Board or whether the Scottish Board will only initiate research in matters affecting Scotland solely or in a special degree?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Arrangements have already been made by which copies of leaflets issued by the English Board are made available to the Scottish Board for
  3154
  distribution in Scotland. The two Boards are in consultation in regard to coordinating their action in the other matter referred to by the hon. Member; but it is not as yet possible to make any definite statement.

  GOVEENMENT OF IKELAND BILL.

    CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Prime Minister whether, on the Government of Ireland Bill becoming Law, persons of Irish birth would still be eligible to become candidates for the public competition for appointments in the English Civil Service; and whether British subjects, not of Irish birth, would be eligible for appointments in the Civil Service of Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill does not alter the existing law and practice in this matter.

    Food Supply in Time of War.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any steps have been, or are proposed to be, taken to carry out the unanimous and earnest recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Material in time of War, that steps should be taken for the more satisfactory ascertainment of the actual stock of wheat and flour held in this country; and, if so, what these steps are?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. As I stated in answer to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Shropshire on the 18th March last, the position in regard to the stocks of wheat and flour in the country is carefully watched, but it is not desirable in the public interest to give further particulars.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any steps have been taken to carry out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Material in time of War, that, having regard to the importance of complete preparation being made in peace to provide for the exigencies of sudden war, a small expert committee should be appointed without delay to investigate the proposed system of national indemnity of ship-owners against loss from capture by the enemy of foodstuffs in time of war; and, if not, whether, in view of the present greater danger of such exigencies arising and of the provisions of the Declaration of London, the Government will now take steps to carry out such recommendation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has already been examined by the Committee on a national guarantee for the war risks of shipping which reported to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in 1908 [see Cd. 4161, 1908], and the question is still receiving careful consideration, in the light of recent developments, by a Sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. PETO: Is it likely that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make any statement to the House when it reassembles as to what effective steps are going to be taken in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any such undertaking, nor am I altogether sure that it would be in the public interest.

    Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether elementary school teachers now retired, and who have served for as much as fifty years, are in receipt of a pension of only £28 10s.; and what, if any, additional provision he intends to make for these teachers already retired?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): No teacher with fifty years' recorded service who accepted the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, is in receipt of a pension of £28 10s. only, but it is possible that there may be teachers who did not accept the Act of fifty years' service who are in receipt of a pension of the amount referred to. With reference to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent on 12th July, a copy of which I am sending him.

    Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General the date at which proceedings for fraud were commenced against the Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation; the date at which those proceedings were stopped to await the result of the civil action by another party; whether the Director of Public Prosecutions concurred; what previous connection the liquidator had had with the directors; whether he is an officer of the Court; at what date he became aware of Fowler's
    3156
    malpractices; how much of the property he has found that Fowler misapplied; at what date he became aware that Fowler was about to leave the jurisdiction; at what date Fowler did leave; and why in a case of this character the Public Prosecutor allowed Fowler to escape?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I am not aware that any proceedings for fraud have ever been taken against this corporation, against which a compulsory winding-up order was made on the 20th December, 1910, and on the 31st October, 1911, an order was made for the public examination of some of the directors. On the 18th November, 1911, an application was made that in view of the civil action which was then pending against the directors individually, the public examination might be postponed, and an order was made adjourning it until after the determination of the action, which was heard in July, 1912, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. On the 19th July, however, a stay of execution was granted at the defendant's instance by the learned judge who tried the case, with a view to an appeal, and this appeal is now pending. No public examination of the directors having preceded the civil trial, the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not directed to the case until it was reported in the newspapers. I am informed that the liquidator was appointed by the Court, which must have been satisfied with his fitness. I am told that Mr. Fowler, who was dismissed from the company's service in August, 1910, left this country early in 1911, and at a time when there was no power to detain him.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to explain how it is that the liquidator's first report containing the disclosures which caused Fowler to leave this country did not rouse the Public Prosecutor to the necessity of detaining Fowler?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: For the reason I have already indicated. There was no public examination of any kind, therefore there was nothing to call the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not see every report that comes from the liquidator of a company.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it or is it not the duty of the Public Prosecutor, when a liquidator issues a report of such a character that the person involved flies from the law, to take notice of it?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As soon as those facts are disclosed to him, certainly.

    Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
    Mr. GINNELLasked what distinction the Director of Public Prosecutions draws between, the offence known as obtaining money by false pretences and the practice of an insurance company in obtaining money by a promise, continued for twenty years, that insured persons would be entitled to a specified sum, and at the end of that time paying less than half that sum; and, the Board of Trade being unable to prevent the continued use of this promise by the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia as a means of obtaining money, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, on being satisfied of the facts, can prevent the practice?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 26th day of June last to a question similar in its effect to that which now appears on the Paper, and I have only to add to that answer that, if the hon. Member is, as his question rather suggests, in possession of any evidence of the commission of any criminal offence by this life insurance society, it is, in my opinion, his duty to submit it to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it or is it not the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions, when a question of this character appears upon the Paper, to obtain and examine the papers and literature of the company to which the question refers?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is some limit to the literature that is available to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He does his best.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it or is it not the duty of the Public Prosecutor, when attention is repeatedly called in questions to the literature of a company, to examine that literature?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly.

    Debt Collection (India).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Undersecretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a decision in the Bombay High Court disallowing the attachment for debt of the salary of Lieutenant E. Bouchier, of the North Staffordshire
    3158
    Regiment, on the ground that he was an officer of the British Regular Force; whether this decision makes practically impossible the collection of debts from British military officers in India; and what action he proposes to take to remove this injustice to Indian merchants and place such officers on the same footing as other British subjects in India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no information of the decision referred to, but will inquire of the Government of India regarding it.

    Royal Commission on Housing (Scotland).
    Captain MURRAYasked the terms of reference to and the constitution of the Royal Commission on Housing for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The terms of the reference are "To inquire into the housing of the industrial population of Scotland, rural and urban (with special reference in the rural districts to the housing of miners and agricultural labourers); and to report what legislative or administrative action is in their opinion desirable to remedy existing defects." I am not yet able to announce the names of the Commissioners.
    Captain MURRAY: May we assume that the names of the Commission will be announced during the Recess?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not wish to make any definite promise, but I think it is probable.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the terms of reference enable the Commission to inquire into the scandalous neglect of the Government with regard to the housing of navvies at Rosyth?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir. I do not think that that subject will be excluded.

    Income Tax (Canadian Officials).
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether Income Tax is required to be paid by the official representatives of the various provinces of the Dominion of Canada while resident on official business in this country; and whether resident ambassadors, ministers, and consul-generals representing foreign Powers are exempt?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the

    3159
    affirmative. As regards the second part, a certain measure of relief is allowed to representatives of foreign Powers under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1842.

    Macnamara Staffing Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now give a definite date when Treasury concurrence will be given to the Admiralty proposals based on the Macnamara Staffing Committee's Report?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I can give no definite date. Conferences are now taking place, and I hope that the decision of His Majesty's Government will be announced before the House reassembles.

    Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked when it is proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments, contained in paragraphs 234 to 236 of the Report, dealing with overtime and night attendances and allowances to be made to officers appointed before 1st April, 1909?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I informed the hon. Member for Dundee on the 1st instant, this matter is under consideration. I am unable to make any further statement at present.

    Monedarra and Corclaragh Estates, North Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether, in view of the water-logged condition of the bog on the Monedarra and Corclaragh estates, North Longford, now purchased by the tenants, the Estates Commissioners "will direct their inspector, Mr. Gallon, to draw up a bog drainage scheme so as to render these bogs of advantage to the tenants, which in their present waterlogged state they are not?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The matter referred to will be considered by the Estates Commissioners.

    Scholarships for Primary School Pupils (Ireland).
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether the scholarships for Irish primary school pupils will be available this year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to add anything to the general statement I made on this subject on the 31st July.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish details of the scheme, and, if so, when?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The subject is now engaging my attention. I certainly hope the details will be published during the recess.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the Estates Commissioners received the petition and query forms duly signed by the tenants on the estate of O'Grady Delmege, situate at Glensharrold, in the county of Limerick, asking to have a sale of the estate under the Land Act take place; and what action do they intend to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is at present under consideration of the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. FLAVINasked whether the schedules of tenancies on the John Sands estate, in North Kerry, have now been lodged by the solicitors having carriage of sale with the Congested Districts Board; if so, whether the Congested Districts Board have yet inspected the lands; and, if so, what progress has been made with a view to immediate purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The schedule of tenancies on the estate referred to has been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, and the Board will arrange for the lands to be inspected as soon as practicable.
    Mr. FLAVINasked if an inspection has yet taken place on the Charles Edward Day estate, situate in North Kerry; whether the agreements to purchase were signed in March, 1908; and when will the inspection take place and the vesting orders to the tenants be issued?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the vendor to the tenants, and is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash). The purchase agreements were lodged in August, 1908. The estate will be dealt with in order of priority, but, having regard to its position on the principal register and the claims of other estates,

    3161
    the Commissioners are not in a position to say when it will be reached in its turn.
    Mr. LYNCHasked when the estate of Lord Leconfield in West Clare will be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board; and when the Kildeerno farm will be acquired for division amongst those uneconomic tenants for the benefit of whose class the Land Act of 1909 was passed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Lord Leconfield's estate in West Clare, including the farm referred to, has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board. It is understood that he will only sell the estate direct to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it be possible in this case to use compulsory powers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That, of course, is a question which has to be considered by the Congested Districts Board in connection with a great number of others.
    Mr. FLAVINasked what steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to purchase the tenanted and un-tenanted land of Eyre Stack, situate near Liselton Cross, North Kerry; and when the people of the neighbourhood may hope that the Congested Districts Board will acquire this land for the enlargement of small holdings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have been in communication with the owner of the estate referred to, but up to the present it has not been offered for sale to them.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that negotiations have been going on for four years, and is it not time the Congested Districts Board took practical steps to acquire the land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board has been in negotiation for a considerable number of years with the owners of land in this part. We cannot consider one estate without regard to others. We are most anxious to buy all we can.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Has this landlord been endeavouring to sell his land in the public market, so as to deny the right to poor people to have their holdings enlarged?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think he has succeeded in doing so.
    Mr. FLAVINasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet taken any
    3162
    action to acquire the lands owned by Colonel Rice, of Bushmount Causeway, county Kerry, for resale amongst the tenants; and whether, seeing that Colonel Rice absolutely refuses to recognise the Board or their communications for the past two years, steps will be taken to improve the condition of the tenants under Colonel Rice by a purchase scheme?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 22nd May last. The Congested Districts Board do not propose to take steps to acquire this estate com-pulsority pending the result of proceedings which have been taken for the compulsory acquisition of some other estates.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps recently to have the evicted tenants on the estate of Lane Joynt, at Aughanish, county Limerick, reinstated in their holdings from which they were evicted over twenty years ago; and whether he thinks that drastic action should be taken to bring about their immediate reinstatement?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position-to add anything to the replies given to the previous questions asked by the hon. Member on this subject.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not the fact that the Estates Commissioners have taken no action whatever to reinstate him in his holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They have made full inquiries into the matter. I cannot say more than that.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What were the inquiries?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have answered a great many questions of the hon. Member on this subject. I cannot pursue it further.

    Disturbance at Edgeworthstown.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that at Edgeworthstown, county Longford, the police, acting under orders of District-Inspector Marrinan, attacked a crowd of 200 persons with batons, inflicting wounds on sixteen men, most of whom had to get their wounds dressed by Dr. Yorke, dispensary medical officer at Edgeworthstown; whether this attack was ordered without

    3163
    warning or notice of any kind to the people; whether he is aware that the crowd were returning to the district of Ardagh, to which they belonged, and were going the direct route to the same; and whether, as no violence was attempted by the crowd beyond attempting to push their way through the police cordon, he is prepared to order an independent police inquiry into the whole matter with a view lo ascertaining the true facts of this assault upon defenceless people?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the, reply given to his question on this subject on the 5th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was very unsatisfactory?

    Lord Farnhatm's Statue Tarred (Cavan).
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary whether the police in Cavan have yet any information in reference to the tarring of Lord Farnham's statue in Cavan; why the police formed the opinion that the work was done by drunken rowdies; and is he aware that the Nationalist urban council of Cavan offered a reward of £20 for the discovery of the perpetrators?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the urban district council offered a reward as stated in the question, and that this was supplemented by another £20 offered by Lord Farnham. In spite of this reward the police have obtained no further information in the matter. The police, as a result of their inquiries, believe that the outrage was committed by drunken rowdies, and they cannot think that any respectable inhabitant would have been guilty of such an act.

    Labourers Acts (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Report for the year ending 31st March, 1912, does not contain any items in connection with the distribution of the million Grant for the Labourers Acts nor the places to which some of it has already been allocated, will the rural districts to which Grants have already been given, and those to which loans have been sanctioned, be published at once for the benefit of the public, and also the amounts given to each respective district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Labourers Act of 1911 increased the sum of £4,250,000 fixed by the Act of 1906 to £5,250,000, and detailed particulars showing the amount sanctioned by way of loan in each rural district up to 31st March last are given in the Report referred to. The total sum sanctioned under both Acts was then £4,277,768. The publication now of separate particulars for the Act of 1911, without any reference to the amounts of loans obtained under the Act of 1906, would be misleading as regards the relative claims of the different rural districts for new loans for the purposes of the Acts. The additional million provided by the Act of 1911 is not a separate fund in which every rural district is entitled to participate, irrespective of the amounts already received out of the £4,250,000 previously granted.

    Employment of Troops, Belfast.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Secretary of State for War by what authority named in Section 956 of the King's Regulations troops were recently requisitioned for service in Belfast; and whether the said troops were moved into Belfast with the knowledge and consent of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The troops were requisitioned in the first instance by the Lord Mayor of Belfast and are remaining there at his request; the order for the movement of the troops was accordingly issued by the Acting Commander-in-Chief in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, who was in England at the time.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Was the Commander-in-Chief notified that the troops were to be moved?
    Colonel SEELY: I have no knowledge of that.

    Cavalry Brigades (Saturday Drills).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain from the general officers commanding concerned on how many Saturdays in the last three months ending Saturday, 27th July, the officers and men were worked in the different regiments of the First, Second, and Fourth Cavalry Brigades in parades, drills, exercises, or firing, or other general duties to past midday and thus prevented from enjoying the week-end half-holiday to its full extent; and if he will give instructions in the various commands that wherever possible,

    3165
    when not on actual manœuvres, commanding officers shall arrange for officers and men to be home and to have ceased ordinary work by one o'clock on Saturdays, so that those whose conduct is exemplary may be able to travel to London or elsewhere in time to spend Saturday afternoon and evening in a not more restricted manner than that now lawfully permitted to London shop assistants?
    Colonel SEELY: Inquiries are being made into these matters.

    Territorial Force (Devonshire Brigade).
    Mr. DUKEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the recent camp at Wilsworthy, Devon, of the Devonshire Brigade of Territorials, was pitched upon land the surface of which had become a quagmire by continual use during a wet season after removal of the natural growth of turf, although extensive areas of neighbouring moorland in good condition were available; and whether he will take steps to secure in future that clean and dry sites shall be used for camping when they are at the disposal of the War Office?
    Colonel SEELY: A report has been called for on this matter.

    Cotton Cultivation (India).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-secretary of State for India if he has any official information showing that the cotton grown in India thirty years ago was superior in quality to the cotton grown in that country now; if so, will he say what has caused the deterioration; and will the Government use all proper means at its disposal to improve the quality of Indian cotton?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is a generally accepted fact that the quality of Indian cotton has deteriorated. In a White Book presented to Parliament in 1904 on the improvement of Indian cotton, this was attributed to careless cultivation and poor seed, impoverished soils, and hybridisation. The Indian Governments are doing what they can through their agricultural Departments to improve the quality of Indian cotton and of other Indian staple crops.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his Department is aware that experts in cotton growing seem to agree that it would be easier to
    3166
    increase the cotton crop of India by 1,000,000 bales than it would be to raise in any new district in Africa 50,000 bales; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: A statement to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend has been made. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India with regard to the suggestions for the advancement of cotton growing in India laid before him on 1st July by a deputation representing the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Associations.
    Mr. KING: How long has this deterioration been observed; for some years or only recently?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was noticed in the White Book in 1904.

    Imperial Legislative Council.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether it is proposed that in the new city of Delhi the place of meeting for the Imperial Legislative Council should be a building forming no part of and quite detached from the Viceroy's residence?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is proposed that the Legislative Council should meet in a hall which will be situated in one wing of the building, which also contains the Governor-General's official residence and Durbar Hall. The Legislative Council rooms will have a separate entrance and will comprise writing and waiting rooms.

    Typefounders Strike, Edinburgh.
    Mr. LYELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the strike which is now going on at Messrs. Millar and Richards' typo foundry in Edinburgh; whether the strike has now been in progress for six weeks; whether he can state the matters at issue between employers and workmen; and whether he is prepared to offer his good services so that a meeting may be arranged, and a renewed effort be made to arrive at a settlement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Chief Industrial Commissioner has been in communication with the parties to this dispute and it does not appear at present that the Department can usefully take further action in the matter. The dispute arose over the

    3167
    demand of the workpeople for certain increases of wages, and commenced on June 21st last.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this firm has refused all offers of arbitration from outside people, and whether the Board of Trade could not properly act now?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Even if the Board of Trade intervened, they could refuse.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman try between now and early in the holidays to see if some arrangement cannot be come to?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will try to find if anything can be done.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: May I ask whether the Board of Trade has made inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether this firm are Government contractors, or whether any other firms holding Government contracts have sub-contracted with this firm?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would require notice of that question.

    Medical Officers at Seaports.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many medical officers to the Board are acting at each of the various seaports in the United Kingdom; whether anything is done by them in supervising, during the construction of new vessels, the nature of the accommodation to be provided for the officers and crews, in order that such accommodation shall be adequate in space, ventilation, and in other matters ensuring proper hygienic conditions and eliminating any risks of subsequent insanitary conditions arising; and whether he proposes to appoint any further medical officers to deal with these matters?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Marine Department of the Board of Trade has two salaried medical officers at Liverpool, and one each at London, Glasgow, and Queens-town. At other ports, such as Belfast, Bristol, Lame, Londonderry, Plymouth, and Southampton, local medical practitioners are employed as occasion requires. The inspection of the spaces provided on ships for the accommodation of the officers and crew is not made by these medical officers, but by the Board's staff of salaried ship engineer and nautical surveyors. The
    3168
    whole question of strengthening the survey staff is receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade.

    Cotton Goods Trade with China and Japan.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Reports of British Consuls in China issued in 1911, which show that both British and Indian cotton goods are being rapidly driven out of the China market by Japanese goods, which are manufactured and marketed at from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. below British goods; and whether the Government intend taking any steps to prevent a similar result taking place in the Indian market as soon as the demand for imported cotton goods in China has been fully met by the products of Japanese cotton mills?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member presumably refers to the remarks contained in the Report of the Acting Commercial Attaché for China for the year 1910, which were based on the trade statistics for that year. Later statistics show that during 1911 British trade in cotton piece goods had more than recovered its position in the Chinese market, whilst Japanese progress was much less marked. Imports of cottons, from India into China have always been relatively small. In these circumstances it appears unnecessary to consider the contingency suggested in the second part of the question.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to the official Japanese Government Returns for January to May, 1911, and January to May, 1912, of imports of cotton yarns and cotton and woollen piece goods, showing a diminution to one-half in cotton yarns, to one-sixth in cotton shirtings and prints (from 4,248,418 yen to 711,064 yen) to less than half in cotton, satin, and italians, to less than one-fourth in woollen cloths and serges, and to less than one-tenth in mousseline de laine; whether these imported into Japan have been nearly exclusively from Great Britain in the past; whether the fall in imports into Japan is due to the operation of the new tariff that came into force in Japan in July last; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to make good the loss of trade, which seriously affects Lancashire and Yorkshire, by securing other

    3169
    markets, particularly within the British Empire?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The facts are substantially as stated, except that mousseline de laine is not imported into Japan from the United Kingdom. I have already explained to the hon. Member, in answer to a question which he addressed to me on 20th June, that the comparison with a year ago docs not convey the real facts of the situation, on account of the temporary disturbance of trade due to the anticipation of the new Japanese tariff. As compared with two years ago, imports of cottons and woollens into Japan have declined by 25 per cent., doubtless owing in part to the operation of the new Japanese Customs Tariff. The imports of other articles from the United Kingdom into Japan, have, however, increased considerably as compared with two years ago, the total value of all imports from this country in the first five months of this year being greater than in the corresponding period of 1010 by 12,500,000 yen, or 36 per cent. The hon. Member will be aware that steps have already been taken by the appointment of Trade Commissioners in the self-governing Dominions to promote our trade with those parts of the British Empire, and I may add that these steps have been attended by a considerable measure of success.
    Mr. PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the exports from this country to Japan which have increased are exports of manufactured goods, or of all kinds of goods?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: All kinds of goods.

    Tobacoo Trade.
    Mr. COTTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state how many persons have been put out of employment in the manufacture of tobacco in Great Britain and Ireland since the Imperial Tobacco Combine was formed in 1901; whether the Imperial Tobacco Combine is a part or offshoot of the American Tobacco Trust, against which the Government of the United States is at present proceeding; how many of the directors of the Imperial Tobacco Combine directly represented the American trust; whether he is aware that the manfacture of roll tobacco is the principal part of the trade of the Irish tobacco manufacturers, and that roll tobacco is sold by the Imperial Tobacco Combine at a price which does not leave
    3170
    a living profit for manufacturers outside the trust; whether he is aware that the Imperial Tobacco Combine compels shopkeepers in Great Britain and Ireland to exhibit its goods and advertisements by depriving them of bonuses if they fail to comply; and whether the Government can see its way to take any steps to prevent such action on the part of the Imperial Tobacco Combine and its consequences?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member refers to the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland), Limited, as the Imperial Tobacco Combine, the answer is that this company is not, so far as I am aware, an offshoot of the American Tobacco Trust, though it is in close business relations with it as regards trade outside of the United Kingdom and the United States. I have no definite information as to the other points raised in the question, and in any event my right hon. Friend does not, as at present advised, see what steps could properly be taken by His Majesty's Government in the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

    Safety Precautions on Ships (Provision of Boats).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate to hon. Members the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Committee at which the provision of boats was discussed and the recommendations made by the Committee to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not in a position to present the minutes of the proceedings of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, as they are regarded as confidential by the Committee, and do not come before the Board of Trade in any way. The recommendations of the Committee are included in their Report, which was presented on Thursday last.
    Mr. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Report is only in dummy, and can he say when it will be circulated to Members?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think it will be circulated very soon.

    Port of London (Strike).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what recognition, if any, has been made by the authorities of

    3171
    the extra duties performed by the Metropolitan, City, and Essex police during the recent dock strike?
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if he will state what extra leave or extra pay in lieu of leave he proposes to give to those members of the Metropolitan Police force for the extra work thrown on them by the recent dock strike?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner informs me that so far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, the necessary adjustment for the extra duty performed will be made by giving time off, and I have no doubt the City and Essex authorities will make suitable arrangements in accordance with their own rules or practice.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary if, in order to avoid the necessity of men who desire to work and are wantonly attacked by strikers being compelled to arm themselves with firearms, he will make more adequate provision for the protection of non-union labourers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Port Authority is responsible for the policing of the docks, but the Metropolitan Police have always been ready to give assistance where it has been needed. The use of firearms has been unnecessary, and the Port Authority, I am glad to say, have prohibited firearms being brought within their premises.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consult the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has had experience of a somewhat similar kind?
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will also consult the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the effect of the inflammatory speeches made in regard to Ulster?
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Home Secretary if he will state whether the arrests made in connection with the dock disturbances on 31st July include any of the unionist workers whose violence made it necessary for those attacked to shoot in self-defence and in face of overwhelming numbers; and if any steps will be taken to secure the punishment of Mr. Ben Tillett, who has urged his followers to adopt any means at their disposal to prevent non-unionists working?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first question is that the arrests made on the 31st July include both unionist and non-unionist workers; to the second, the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether a representative of the firm employing the non-unionist labourers who were attacked by strikers on 31st July called at the Home Office on that day and asked for protection; if such protection was refused; if the men who were attacked fired at their assailants in self-defence; and if, although he refused to meet the employers concerned with a view to devising means to prevent a recurrence of disturbances, he afterwards saw Mr. Ben Tillett, who threatened some time ago to shoot Lord Devonport, to receive complaints from him as to the action of the non-unionists in defending themselves against acts of brutality?
    Mr. McKENNA: I presume the question refers to Messrs. Houlder, who called at the Home Office on 31st July with regard to an attack on their workmen in the South West India Dock. Their request for protection was not refused. On the contrary, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, who saw them, said if protection were required outside the docks it would be given at once by the Metropolitan Police; and that if it were required in the docks the Port Authority was responsible, but assistance would be given by the Metropolitan Police if the Port Authority applied for it. He undertook to communicate at once with the Commissioner of Police, and, on doing so, found that assistance had already been given at the request of the Port Authority's Chief Constable. There was no shooting either by unionists or non-unionists in this case. I declined to see Messrs. Houlder later in the day. Some hours after the-matter had been disposed of and the necessary police assistance given, I received a deputation in the evening from the Labour party and the Strike Committee on a new and urgent matter, and Mr. Tillett was present.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House what was the new and urgent matter to which he has referred, and which he was in communication about with his Friend Mr. Tillett?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may remember that the new and urgent matter

    3173
    in question was the subject of debate on the last occasion when this matter was discussed on Thursday.

    Metropolitan Police (Weekly Rest Day).
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if he will state what progress he has been able to make towards giving the members of the Metropolitan police force one day's rest in every seven?
    Mr. McKENNA: Out of the twenty-six days additional leave, eighteen are row being granted. Subject to delays which may be caused by difficulty in recruiting, the eight remaining days would be given within about twelve months.

    Arrest of Dr. Ethel Smyth.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent proceedings against Dr. Ethel Smyth on a charge of complicity in the attempt to set fire to Nuneham; whether he is aware that there was no evidence against Dr. Smyth; that the case was heard in private and that, as a consequence, misleading statements as to what took place have been published to the detriment of Dr. Smyth; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent any further cases being heard in private?
    Mr. McKENNA: I know nothing of this case except what I have read in the newspaper reports. These do not show any irregularity in the proceedings; but if my hon. Friend will let me know on what evidence he founds his suggestion, I will of course make inquiry.

    Taxi-cabs (Alarm Signals).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether inspectors from Scotland Yard have at any time been in the habit of advising taxi-cab drivers to hoot half-a-dozen times at every street corner or crossing; and whether, in view of the annoyance caused to the public, especially during the hours commonly devoted to sleep, by the excessive and inconsiderate use of warning signals, he will take such steps as may be necessary to impress upon taxi-cab and other motor drivers that in order, so far as possible, to obviate the use of warning instruments they should drive at a low rate of speed when approaching a crossing?
    Mr. McKENNA: Such advice is not and has at no time been given by inspectors of the Metropolitan Police. Drivers, on
    3174
    being licensed are strictly enjoined to exercise at all times great care in driving through the London streets.
    Captain MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Regulations issued by the Local Government Board are not attended to?
    Mr. McKENNA: From personal observation I am disposed to agree with my hon. Friend.

    Sugar Convention.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to adhere to their suggestion that Great Britain shall cease to remain a contracting party to the Sugar Convention; and, if so, whether he will state if he has formed any estimate as to the extent to which the output of British refineries will be diminished, the extent to which the West Indian trade will suffer, and the extent to which such policy will have a deterrent effect upon the development of the British sugar-beet industry?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, their decision in this matter is not likely to affect adversely the output of British refineries, the trade of the West Indies, or the prospects of the British sugar-beet industry.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Captain CLAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an insured person will be able to choose the doctor he wishes to be attended by, or whether, in order to obtain medical treatment, he will be compelled to be attended by a doctor who agrees to serve under the National Insurance Act, whether he has confidence in that doctor or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Section 15 of the Act provides for free choice of doctor by the insured person from a panel composed of all the doctors in any district who wish to work under the Act. An insured person, under Section 15 (3), may be allowed to make his own arrangements for medical attendance, and to receive a contribution from the insurance committee towards the cost of medical attendance.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many doctors have accepted the terms suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

    APPOINTMENT or CHIEF INSPECTOR (IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a gentleman named Darley, with no official experience, has been nominated by the Irish Insurance Commissioners for the post of chief inspector, although an Inter-Departmental Committee recently recommended that the chief inspector should be selected from amongst those already in the service of a public department; if, in response to a request from the Irish Insurance Commissioners, names of candidates suitable to fill the appointment were furnished to them by the heads of the various public departments applied to; whether he is aware that the qualifications of some of these gentlemen have been declared by some of the Irish Commissioners to be in every way equal, if not superior, to those of the gentlemen nominated; whether, before Treasury sanction is given to the nomination now made, he will invite the Commissioners to state their reason for acting in disregard of the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee by nominating a gentleman with no organising experience; whether he will state the nature of the qualifications possessed by Mr. Darley; and if there was a full attendance of the Commissioners when he was nominated or barely a quorum; and (28) whether, at the meeting of the Irish Insurance Commissioners, when Mr. Darley was nominated for the position of chief inspector, an actual majority of those present voted in his favour; and, if so, whether they constituted a majority of the Commissioners, or, if not, whether the matter will be reconsidered before formal sanction is given to his appointment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. Darley was appointed to the post of chief inspector by the unanimous decision of the Irish Commissioners. They invited applications from public departments, and, with the applications received in response before them, decided upon his appointment. I understand that he possesses high academic and professional qualifications. He has had considerable organising experience, has taken a large part in the man-
    3176
    agement of friendly societies, and was the founder of one of them.

    BORDER SOCIETIES.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the Joint Committee have received a deputation from the Manchester Unity pointing out the inconvenience caused by Section 83 (3) of the National Insurance Act to border societies; and what action the Joint Committee propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A deputation has been received and valuable information has been given to the Commissioners which will be of service to them in framing regulations under Section 83 (3).
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any prospect of the Commissioners being able to get over this difficulty by regulation, or will an amending Act be necessary?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners have great hopes that they will be able to get over the hardship by means of regulations.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will it be possible to indicate to the societies affected that they will be allowed for one year to remain undivided?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Several alternatives are under consideration.

    NUMBER OF VOLUNTARY ASSURERS.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked what is the number of persons who have become voluntary insurers under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of voluntary contributors cannot be ascertained until the contribution cards are returned at the end of the current quarter.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM PENSIONERS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question of which I have given private notice: Whether Army pensioners who are entitled to exemption from the National Insurance Act are having 4d. a week deducted from their wages by the officials of the Royal Arsenal because the exemption cards for which they have applied have not been returned, and whether the delay in dealing with claims for exemption cannot be avoided?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any inconvenience to such pensioners will be of a slight and transitory character. The Commissioners are dealing rapidly with claims for exemption, and a number of exemption certificates are being issued every day. The Commissioners will refund the amounts deducted in the meantime to those who prove to be entitled to exemption.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state what are the proposals of the Government for business on resumption?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, 7th October, we propose to take the discussion of the Report on the "Titanic" disaster, and to take the Motion of which I spoke yesterday, for an address for an additional judge.
  On Tuesday, 8th October, we propose to take the Report stage of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider favourably the suggestion that the House should meet on the Tuesday instead of the Monday? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, owing to railway arrangements Monday is always a very inconvenient day for many Members.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is for that reason that I put down for Monday discussions of a non-contentious kind. I agree that to take the Scottish Temperance Bill on Monday might cause inconvenience to Scottish Members, who have to come a considerable distance, and who, perhaps, do not like leaving on Sunday night.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether putting the Scottish Temperance Bill down at the beginning of the Session is done on the principle that the last shall be first?

  SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has requested me to read a brief statement to the House with regard to the untoward incident of yesterday, and with your permission and the permission of the House, I shall do so. The statement is as follows:—
  "I own that I was wrung in not accepting Mr. Speaker's decision yesterday. I deeply regret that in my keen desire not to be identified with a personal attack on Sir George Roos Keppel. I committed an act of disrespect to the House and of disobedience to Mr. Speaker, for whom I have, and always have had, a most sincere regard. I, therefore, venture to hope that Mr. Speaker and the Members of the House will accept the unreserved apology which I hereby tender for an unpremeditated act, which I most profoundly regret."
  May I just add that I hope the House will regard the hon. Member as having
  3204
  taken a step in the right direction, and that in any subsequent proceedings the fact that he has given an early, and I venture to add, an ample apology, will be remembered in his favour.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I suppose that I may on behalf of the House, as I know I can for myself, accept at once the very full and frank apology which comes from the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, and, if I rightly interpret the sense of the House, I am quite certain that on the first day we meet again after the Recess any claim for readmission to the Chamber will be most favourably considered.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I may venture to say so, as it fell to my lot in support of the authority of the Chair to move the Motion for the suspension of the hon. Member, after what we have heard to-day I shall be glad at the earliest opportunity to move to rescind that Motion.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. WHELER: In reference to the Clause which has been accepted enabling tobacco to be grown in this country, the House is aware that the object of the Clause is to get cheap nicotine for agricultural and horticultural purposes. The Clause has been promised subject to Regulations to be issued by the Treasury, so that the tobacco grown for the purposes referred to can be distinguished from the tobacco used for any other purposes. We have been experimenting in reference to this. We have and shall have during the autumn tobacco in a dried state variously experimented on, and we would ask the Chancellor that he should give us active assistance from his officials, so that the Clause may become an operative Clause and we may be able to grow tobacco next year. Our experiments have been going on for the last two years, and if we can have the active assistance of the Treasury officials I think we shall be able to obtain what we want.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have been in communication with the hon. Gentleman for some time on this question,

  3205
  and, as he knows, I entirely accept his attitude. Whatever assistance the Treasury can afford for this purpose will be very gladly given.
  Mr. DUKE: May I draw attention to the fact that some of the county councils are put in a position of much disadvantage with regard to local licences by reason of the appointment, under the Finance Act of 1910, of the year 1908–9 as the governing year which decides the apportionment of the Licence Duties between the funds under the control of the county councils and the funds which go to the Road Improvement Board. The county council in Devon, for instance, finds itself deprived of several thousand pounds which in ordinary circumstances would have come to it, not arising from the increase of Motor Duties, but from duties on traps and to some extent from the greater vigilance of the county councils and the local authorities. I think that the matter has been mentioned to the Treasury on one or two occasions, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would look into it and see whether there has not been a substantial breach of the pledge given that the county councils should not suffer by the method of distribution. I am sure that this matter will be regarded as non-contentious and that the right hon. Gentleman will probably see his way to do what is desired.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I shall certainly look into the matter. I know the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) —(RECOMMITTED)—BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Agreement between Marconi's "Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, Commendatore Gugliemo Marconi, and the Postmaster-General, with regard to the establishment of a chain of Imperial Wireless Stations, be approved."
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): On behalf of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) I beg leave to move the Motion which stands in his name. I do not anticipate that the House will be ready to arrive at a decision on this matter to-day, but it is for many reasons desirable that without further posponement a statement should be made of the course of the negotiations that led to the conclusion of the contract with the Marconi Company for the erection of a chain of Imperial wireless stations, and that a fuller explanation of the terms of the contract should be given to the House than has yet been possible. On two points I think there will be no disagreement. The first is that the erection of long range wireless telegraphy stations at suitable points throughout the Empire is in itself desirable; in peace they will be useful for commercial purposes, and are likely to contribute to the cheapening of telegraphic communications between various portions of the Empire. In time of war—and however little we may anticipate war, it is of course the primary duty of the Government to make provision for Imperial defence—should war unhappily occur, cables are always liable to be cut, and of course it is for strategic reasons exceedingly desirable that some alternative means of communication should be provided, and, further, that it should be a means like this, which enables communication to be kept up with the Fleet and with merchant ships. The problem of our Empire is largely a problem of communications, and the more the Government is able to improve Imperial communications the better it is.
  The second point with respect to which I think there will be no controversy is that these stations, when they are erected, ought properly to be in the hands of the Governments in the different parts of the Empire, and should not be in the hands of a private company. In March, 1910, the Marconi Company requested the grant of a licence for the erection of long range wireless stations at eighteen points throughout the Empire. They promised that they would charge low rates for telegraphic communications between those stations. They asked for no subsidy and for no payment of any kind, but that their licence should be for a period of twenty years, with the right of purchase at the end of that time to be in the hands of the Government. That offer naturally received the very full attention of the Government, and was considered for some time. It was an

  3207
  attractive offer. It involved no expenditure on our part; it would have enabled the rates for communication to have been reduced, but, on the other hand, it would have given the Marconi Company a monopoly of this form of communication throughout those parts of the Empire, for wireless telegraphy is in itself to a great extent a natural monopoly. It is impossible to erect a number of stations side by side with one another in a comparatively small area on account of the risk of mutual interference. If this request of the Marconi Company had been granted they would have had in their own hands during a period of twenty years the entire control of wireless telegraphy through large areas of our Dominions. Further, the Government would not have been able to have ensured that the most efficient system at any time could be adopted. They would not have had power to put into the stations newer inventions which might have been made available, and consequently they could never have been certain that the system would have been the most efficient possible at the time. Further, at the end of the period of twenty years, if the Government wished to purchase, they might then have to purchase at a very high price. For these reasons the Government came to the conclusion that the stations must be State-owned and could not be in the hands of a private company.
  At the end of June there were three Committees which considered the matter—the Cable Landing Rights Committee, which is a Departmental Committee, representing all the various Departments interested in cables, with as Chairman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade; a Sub-Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee; and the Imperial Conference itself, in June of last year, also had the matter before it; and all those three bodies, in the summer of last year, were unitedly of opinion that wireless stations ought to be erected at suitable points in the Empire, and ought to be State-owned and not in the hands of a private company. So far the House will be agreed that the stations are desirable and that they should be State-owned. When the Imperial Conference came to that conclusion, I took steps to form a Special Committee in order to work out a scheme, and that Special Committee was formed in the summer of last year. It consisted of representatives of the Treasury, of the Admiralty, of the War Office, of the India
  3208
  Office, of the Colonial Office, and of the Post Office. The High Commissioners of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were good enough to accept seats on the Committee and attend its meetings. All the Government experts in wireless telegraphy were also members of that Committee, which was a large Committee, consisting altogether of about twenty members. I acted as Chairman. The Committee first met on 9th August, 1911, and, after considering the question where the stations should be placed and in what way the Governments concerned could best cooperate, it proceeded to consider what steps could properly be taken in order to secure the erection of these stations. Three courses were open to the Government. It might have taken upon itself to erect the stations through its own engineers and officers; it might have invited tenders from any contractors who considered they were in a position to erect them; or it might have negotiated with the Marconi Company, which had previously made a further offer of a different kind, to which I will refer later.
  On the question whether or not the Government should itself erect the stations it was at once clear that the Post Office was not in a position to do so. Although we have a number of comparatively small wireless stations around our own coasts, the Post Office has no direct experience of the working of long range telegraphy, and although it is carefully watching its developments throughout the world, its engineers and officers themselves have not had direct experience of the actual direction and management of long range stations. Further, we have not the staff which could possibly undertake so vast an enterprise as this. The Admiralty might have been in a position to erect the stations, and were prepared to do so if it was necessary, but they were very reluctant to undertake the work for the reason that it would have meant devoting the whole of their expert staff to this enterprise during a period probably of some years, and diverting them from their proper and normal duties of looking after the wireless telegraph system of the Navy on board ship and on land. It was, however, decided that, if necessary, the point should be further considered. The natural course, no doubt, when any Government Department or Departments undertake any enterprise of this character, which is to be carried out by outside contractors, would be to throw the matter open to public tender,

  3209
  and at the first meeting of this large Committee to which I have referred, that course was fully discussed. It at once appeared that there was no company in any part of the world which had practical experience of continuous long distance working of wireless telegraphy. That was stated to the Committee by the expert representatives of the Admiralty, of the War Office, of the India Office, and of the Post Office, and all agreed that there was no company in any part of the world which had that experience except the Marconi Company. It is true that there were one or two syndicates and companies which were working and had worked various forms of wireless telegraph systems, and which occasionally had covered very considerable distances.
  It is a well-known fact in the science of wireless telegraphy that remarkable distances are from time to time—atmospheric and other conditions being favourable—reached by comparatively low power stations. Our own Post Office station at North Foreland, which has a normal range of regular communication of 250 miles, has occasionally exchanged messages with the Mediterranean, but that is rare. The Marconi station at Clifden, which is in regular day by day communication, for very many hours per day, with Glace Bay, in Canada, which is a range of 2,000 miles, has transmitted signals as far as Buenos Ayres, which is a distance of 6,000 miles. There are certain systems, which are now being experimented with, which occasionally have covered what experts call "freak distances." That is a very different thing from being able to maintain continuously, through atmospheric and other interruptions, a commercial service day and night at all times of the year. It was impossible in this matter to go into the market and to ask various firms, "How much are 2,000 miles' wireless telegraph stations per half-dozen?" The science is now, its operation is of extreme difficulty, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was not advisable for that reason to throw the contract open to public tender.
  I should like in this connection to put this point to hon. Members. Suppose we had invited tenders from those syndicates which are now experimenting with various inventions, and suppose they had quoted a comparatively low figure, and that I had presented a contract with them to the House of Commons, what would hon. Members have said then? They would
  3210
  have said, "Have you tested this system; do you know that it is capable of carrying out this service which it undertakes to carry out? Have the promoters of it got the engineers and the staff and the experience which would enable them to perform properly the contract into which the Government has entered with them." And if those questions were not satisfactorily answered I venture to say that, the House would blame, and would properly blame, the Government of the day for having entered into a contract with some syndicate or company which had not been able to show to the world that it was capable of carrying on a service of this character. For those reasons, and for those reasons alone, the Committee on the 9th August, 1911, decided that it was desirable that the Government should consider in fuller detail the offer which had been made in April, 1911, the second offer of the Marconi Company. The company were then aware that the Government would probably resolve not to give them licences such as they had asked for. They therefore offered to erect stations which would become the property of the Government itself. They offered, in April, 1911, to erect as many stations as might be required at a price per station, which was higher than was ultimately agreed to, and the equipment of the station was to be in several respects less than what was ultimately agreed to. They asked for a much higher royalty than was ultimately conceded and for a longer period. They also offered to sell for a very considerable lump sum all the rights in present and future Marconi patents, for the use for non-commercial purposes of all Government Departments, both here and in the Dominions which had adhered to the Agreement, and also in India. For this lump sum they were willing to give the right to use the Marconi patents to the Admiralty, the War Office, the Board of Trade, and for other similar purposes practically throughout the Empire.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: For how long?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All present and future Marconi patents. They vary. Some of them have been operative for some time and others quite recently patented, and there are some inventions that have not yet been patented. The Committee resolved to negotiate with this company. In the autumn and winter of last year there were a scries of interviews with the managing director of the Marconi Company. I myself had two

  3211
  interviews with him, and the secretary and assistant secretary to the Post Office had other interviews. The Government offered very much lower terms than the company had tendered. We offered a lower price per station; we offered a very moderate royalty indeed; and we offered a much smaller lump sum for the purchase of the right of use of the Marconi patents. The negotiations continued for some time, and finally the company made a revised offer in, I think, November or December of last year, and substantially in the form of the terms as they now stand in the contract, except that for a large lump sum payment, they would give the right of user to which I have referred. The company definitely and categorically declined to accept lower terms. They said that for many years they had been carrying on experiments, very costly experiments, and during all that time their shareholders had received no profits of any kind, and that now, when they had developed their system and made it of real commercial value, they were not prepared to enter into a contract unless they considered it would be remunerative to them. It was stated that the price per station would leave them a small margin of profit and that they depended for their profit in this enterprise and for recoupment for past work on the sums that might come to them by way of royalty. On that I summoned a further meeting of the Committee on 15th December, 1911, and I reported to the Committee that negotiations had resulted in an impasse, and that the company had definitely stated they would not erect stations for lower terms than those which they had finally stated. The Committee at once formed the opinion that the lump sum payment which the company had asked for the user of their patents by the various Departments was too high, an opinion with which I entirely concurred, and indeed I should not have made myself responsible for the payment of any such sum for such a purpose. And on those lines negotiations with the company were broken off, and it was agreed to drop altogether the question of purchasing the right to use Marconi patents by the various Government Departments, and each Government was to be left to make what bargain it could, if it desired to do so. These negotiations therefore concluded and were abortive.
  With respect to the erection of the wireless stations for the Imperial chain, the
  3212
  Committee resolved that a technical Subcommittee should be formed, which should go in detail into the cost of erecting stations on the assumption that they were to be erected by the Government and not by the Marconi Company. That technical Committee consisted of six members—three Admiralty experts on wireless telegraphy, one War Office expert, and two Post Office experts. After a minute examination of the whole subject they ultimately reported that, without entering into any question of royalties and dealing only with the cost of the erection of the stations themselves, they estimated that the cost of their erection by the Government would average £60,300 each, excluding, as the Marconi estimate excluded, the sites, but including, which the Marconi estimate did not include, buildings and foundations. On the other hand, while they included the cost of buildings and foundations, they made no allowance for general office charges. Further, these stations were to be simplex or single stations, while the Marconi Company have recently developed a duplex system, which enables wireless telegrams to be sent and received in two directions at once. Their stations were to be duplex stations, and in many respects double those which were contemplated by the Government Committee had Government stations been erected. So that the Marconi Company estimated £60,000 for duplex stations, excluding buildings and foundations, and the technical Sub-committee reported that the cost of Government stations would be £60,300, including buildings and foundations but, being stations of only a simplex character. Therefore it was obvious that so far as the cost of stations was concerned, there was no very great difference either way.
  There remained the question of royalties. If we used the patents of the Marconi Company, or other patents, we-should necessarily have to make a reasonable royalty payment. We could not tell beforehand precisely what it would be, but some payment there would necessarily be. Further, the Marconi Company offered to give us the use of all future patents and all future inventions without any further payment beyond the royalties. We thought that the Marconi Company, being now in a sound financial position, were just as likely as anybody else, and probably more likely, to be able either to evolve or to buy future patents or future developments of wireless telegraphy. In addition, the Marconi Company

  3213
  have had now some years' experience of long range stations, both in the tropics and elsewhere. Lastly, and this is a point which weighed greatly with the Committee and with myself, if the Government put up these stations, they would have run the risk of the stations not being successful. It might be found, after all, that however skilful we might have thought our experts to be, these stations in certain seasons of the year, or from other circumstances, would not be able to maintain the thoroughly efficient and continuous service which is desired. One of the conditions of the arrangement with the Marconi Company was that nothing at all should be paid for their stations until they had been erected and had shown that they were capable of maintaining the service. Nothing was to be paid on account, which is a most unusual condition in any contract. Nothing was to be paid until the stations had been completed, and then two-thirds of the cost was to be paid on account, and that was to be repaid if during the test of six months it was found that the conditions had not been fulfilled.
  Those were the conditions and circumstances with which the Committee had to deal. About the same time an offer had been received from one of the syndicates at work on other inventions—the Poulsen Syndicate—who said that they would put up the stations for a considerably lower price. The Post Office was well aware that this invention had been in existence for some years and had been in an experimental state during that time, and was still in an experimental state, so far as long distance telegraphy was concerned. The Poulsen system has not maintained a continuous long distance service, so I am informed. However, I summoned a third meeting of the Committee, which met on 17th January of this year, and the Committee was generally of the opinion—unanimously, I believe—that the Government could not possibly accept an offer such as that of the Poulsen Syndicate without a complete test being made as to the capacity of the system to fulfil the purposes required. We decided that if that test could be made within a comparatively short period we would postpone the matter until it had been effected; but, if not, it was decided that the agreement should be concluded with the Marconi Company, with a number of comparatively minor modifications suggested by various members of the Committee. I then had an interview with the
  3214
  representative of the Poulsen Syndicate, who told me that they could not give us a complete test over a long range of 2,000 miles in less than twelve months, and that they might be able to make a partial test with communications one way only in six months. Of course, there was the possibility that that test when made would not have been satisfactory, and the delay of six, or more probably twelve, months, might have proved to be fruitless. The negotiations in these circumstances were continued with the Marconi Company and were concluded early in March, when a tender from the company in general terms was accepted. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the date?"] March 7th.
  I submit to the House—I am not speaking now of the actual terms agreed—that the course followed by the Government to arrive at the best result in this matter was a perfectly proper course, and was indeed, in the circumstances, the only possible course. It was necessary to call into conference all the various Departments concerned and the expert advisers who were at the disposal of the Government. It was not possible to adopt any system which had not proved itself by actual test to be capable of performing the service required. I may mention here that within the last few days I have had an opportunity of conversing on the subject with the Postmaster-General of the South African Union, Sir David Graaff, who has been in London, and he told me that in his view the Imperial Government acted quite wisely in concluding the arrangement with the Marconi Company, who have had great experience, and that for his part he would have strongly deprecated coming to an agreement with one of the systems which was still in an experimental state. The South African Government, I may add, has stated its readiness to erect on the conditions of this contract one of the stations of the chain within the territories of the South African Union.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Have the Marconi Company given any proof whatever that they can carry out automatic transmission?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was coming to that. The company have undertaken in this contract to give efficient and continuous service capable of dealing with commercial traffic by day and night, and at all seasons at a speed, duplex of twenty words per minute, and simplex of fifty words per minute, automatic, and after

  3215
  allowing for repetitions. I would emphasise this latter point, because in wireless telegraphy it is frequently necessary to repeat words. These speeds are to be effected, after allowing for whatever repetitions are necessary in order to render the messages effective. That is stated in the contract. If not fulfilled, as I have already intimated, the company are to receive no payment at all. It is on the principle of goods returned if not satisfactory. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) asked me with regard to the automatic service. The company has been engaged for some time in experimenting with automatic apparatus, but they have not yet practically demonstrated that they can use it. They are now engaged in the manufacture of further automatic apparatus; therefore it has not been actually tested. But an automatic speed of fifty words simplex is not very much greater than a speed of twenty words duplex. Consequently it will make no very great difference if the automatic appliances are not used. In view, however, of the past record of the company and their achievements in the sphere of wireless telegraphy, of the fact that Mr. Marconi himself is perfectly confident that he will be able to use automatic apparatus, and that his system is in every way suited for automatic apparatus, the Government do not think that this point need be an obstacle.
  The station at Clifden which communicates with Glace Bay a distance of 2,000 miles has been inspected both by an independent expert and by the officers of the Post Office, and the reports are favourable. The Italian station at Coltano which keeps up continuous communication with Massowah, in Italian East Africa, an even longer distance—has also been reported upon and the report of that is also favourable. The company not only give us the use of all existing and future patents and inventions during the royalty period, but they also have agreed that any patents which are being used by the Government in the Imperial stations at the time the royalty period comes to an end—when this agreement is over—however new they may be at that date, may still be used by the Government for the purposes of those stations without any payment of any kind. There is a further provision which is annexed to this contract, although it does not form part of it. In 1903 the Admiralty made an agreement with the Marconi Company for the use of their patents, and
  3216
  the Post Office in 1909 made an agreement for their ship and shore stations. Both these agreements contain provisions that these Departments should not communicate any information with respect to the Marconi Company patents to other Government Departments. That has been found exceedingly inconvenient, by the War Office particularly, for they have found that they have been making experiments to solve problems which had already been solved by the Admiralty, and the Admiralty have not been at liberty to communicate to the War Office any improvements which they might have been able to effect by their experts in their Marconi apparatus. Those agreements, of course, have been honestly observed, but they have been found exceedingly inconvenient. Without any payment of any sort the Marconi Company, as a consequence of the conclusion of this contract, have released the Departments altogether from the restrictions imposed by these earlier agreements.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: Already released them?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes; I mean an undertaking has been signed to release them. Now I come to the actual terms of payment. It no doubt seems to many hon. Members who are accustomed to see the small wireless telegraphy installations on board ship or on shore that £60,000 is a vast sum to pay for the mere erection of stations apart from the buildings, foundations, and site. But I am informed by my advisers that every addition that is made to the distance which the station has to cover in its range is costly, far disproportionately to the increase of distance. It is like the cost of running a ship. It costs much more than twice as much to run a ship twenty knots than ten knots, and it requires a far more than twice as powerful a station to cover the distance of 2,000 miles than to cover a distance of 1,000 miles. Indeed Mr. Marconi told me himself in conversation that his experience is that it is much easier to get from 100 miles to 1,000 miles than to get from 1,000 miles to 2,000 miles. It is out of proportion far more costly. The problem of covering a distance of 2,000 miles is a far more difficult one to solve than that of covering 1,000 miles. The area of these stations covers seventy-five acres. Each station has two aerials, one to transmit and one to receive. The intermediate stations, which are duplex, will have four aerials. The station in British

  3217
  East Africa, will have to communicate in three directions, one to Alexandria, one to Pretoria, and also to India. That station will require six aerials.
  Each of the stations will cover the great area of about seventy-five acres. Some of those out of England may have a larger area. My engineers estimate, and the Admiralty engineers also estimate, that the cost of the masts alone will be more than half of the total cost of the stations. These steel masts have to be 300 feet high, and they have to be so constructed as to be able to bear a horizontal strain at the top of two tons. On the average there will be thirty of them, made of steel, and the cost of them per station will, including freight and the cost of erection, average about £32,500. These are not the estimates of the Marconi Company, but the estimates of our own officers. The power plant is in all cases to be duplicated, so that these stations will not be put out of action in case one of the engines breaks down. As to this duplex power plant to be established in the stations there is some disagreement among the experts, some saying the cost will be £12,000 and others £15,000. The apparatus itself will, my officers estimate, cost between £9,000 and £10,000. These three items alone, apart from the aerials, the cost of supervision, and all incidental expenses, are estimated to cost from £53,000 to £57,000.
  Therefore, with regard to the cost of the station, £60,000 is not an unreasonable estimate. With regard to the royalty, the master or main patent of the Marconi Company expires in 1914. The company will make an application for renewal, which may or may not be successful. They have also purchased the Lodge-Muirhead patent, which has lately been renewed for the period of, I think, seven years. The company have a number of other patents which will be of extreme value in the conduct of this service, and, as I have already stated, they have some inventions—particularly in relation to duplex working I understand, though I am not quite sure—which are quite new and which have not yet been patented. If the company had asked for no royalty they would certainly have required a very much higher price for the erection of the stations themselves. My own view was that it was better to pay a royalty and a moderate price for the stations than a high price for the stations and no royalty, because the royalty will maintain the interest of the company in the scheme, and make it worth their while to
  3218
  give us the advantage of every development which they can secure in the sphere of wireless telegraphy.
  The royalty is to be on gross revenue, not on net, because we are anxious that the Government should retain complete control of the amount of the rates charged for transmitting telegrams. If we had said the company shall be paid so much on not revenue, the company would be entitled to say that the rates should not be reduced without their consent. They might have said it would absorb the whole of the profits and that there would be no net revenue, and therefore it would destroy the whole of their royalty if we reduced the rates; consequently, as the Government is anxious to retain the entire control of the rates charged in its own hands, the other system was preferred. Of course, I should greatly have liked to have agreed for the payment of a much lower royalty than 10 per cent., and my first offer to the company was a mere fraction of that, but we were in this position, that the company categorically, definitely, and finally informed us that they would not undertake the erection of the stations for a less sum than that which was ultimately sanctioned by the Committee and myself. I should like to make it perfectly clear to the House that the company has not been granted a monopoly. Many mis-statements have been made, or, rather, misunderstandings have arisen in this respect. The company has not been granted a monopoly.
  We reserve the right to introduce any new invention that we choose into the working of these stations. If we hear of any improvement which is the property of any syndicate, and we can make terms with that syndicate for the use of that improvement, we are at full liberty to introduce that improvement into our stations. The hon. Member for Launceston mentioned to me that we had, however, undertaken to consult the Marconi Company, that the introduction of these improvements by any other company should be subject to their advice, and this would mean that no secret improvements would be introduced, because the owners would not wish them, or would not permit them, to be made known to the Marconi Company. That objection, which would be a serious one if it were valid, is not well founded. We do not so read the Clause, and the company have clearly been given to understand that they will not have a right to inspect any such patents at all. What is

  3219
  meant by the Clause is this: that if we hear of some improved appliance we should have a report upon it by our own experts; that we should communicate in general terms to the Marconi Company what the nature of the improvement is, and that the Marconi Company should be given an opportunity of saying "that they know this invention or that they know what its general nature is, and that they think it inadvisable, and as our advisers they suggest it should not be introduced"; but we are not bound to take their advice, and it has been clearly stated to the company that they are not, under the contract, to have any right to inspect any secret invention we may think it advisable to introduce into those stations. Further, we reserve to ourselves the right at any time—within a year, if we like, after the stations are erected or at any time later— if we can obtain the use of some better system altogether, to get free of the Marconi patents entirely We reserve to ourselves the right to discontinue the use of the Marconi system and to introduce any new system we prefer, and the moment we do so the royalty ceases altogether.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Does not Clause 3 prevent that.?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Clause 3 does not deal with these stations, it deals with any fresh stations that may be erected after the first six. My advisers inform me if for example we were to wish to convert the stations later on and to adopt the continuous are system instead of the spark system, if that is found to be more satisfactory, the cost of the conversion would be about one-sixth of the original cost of the stations, and of course it may be worth while to go to that expense in order to get that new system; while to convert it to the Telefunken system, which is another spark system, on the same lines as the Marconi system, would cost much less. Of course we do not at present contemplate conversion.
  I now come to the five-year limitation to which the hon. Member has referred in Clause 3. The company originally pressed for the right to erect all future long range wireless stations throughout the Empire or any of the eighteen for which they had originally asked licences. That we declined, and as a compromise it was decided that during the next five years after the date of the signature of the contract any fresh long distance stations
  3220
  forming part of this general scheme should be erected by the Marconi Company on the same terms as are laid down in the contract. That is in the contract. It is true that that Clause would debar the Government within the next five years from erecting any additional stations in other places on other systems, and the Clause has been criticised for that reason. Within the last two or three days the Marconi Company have written me a letter in which they say they have observed this criticism, and for their part they have no desire to be protected against the competition of other systems, or rather that they do not attach serious importance to any protection against the competition of other companies. They say:—
  " The company is confident of being able to retain its lead in long distance wireless telegraphy and does not fear the competition of other companies."
  And, therefore, they say, if it is thought desirable in the House of Commons that this five-year Clause in the contract should be omitted, on their part they would have no objection. I am very ready, and naturally glad to accept an offer of that character, because it removes a restriction limiting the Government, and future discussion of this matter can proceed on the assumption that Clause 3 of the contract is omitted.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Entirely?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Entirely, and if later on the Government think some other system is better, they may erect long distance wireless stations in different parts of the Empire on some other system. I confess I am sceptical that the Government will be able to avail themselves of that opportunity. I should like, finally, upon this point to say that within the last few days the German Government have entered into a contract for long distance wireless stations in certain parts of their dominions in the Indian Ocean and Australian seas. Four stations are to be erected. They have not adopted the are system, but they have adopted the Telefunken system, which is analogous to the Marconi system.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that agreement of the German Government with other companies has been made public?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I believe not. I have the best information, but I have not the actual terms. I have been

  3221
  informed, on authority which I believe is reliable but which I cannot vouch for, that the cost per station is considerably more than the £60,000 which we pay, but I have no official confirmation of that. The Tele-funken Company, which is in very close touch with the German Government, is to receive an annual subsidy which would recoup them for their expenditure, and, in addition, a royalty not of 10 per cent., but of 25 per cent. on the gross receipts. The House must, however, remember that the gross receipts in an area such as that are likely to be considerably less than those which we should receive in our stations. However, the fact remains that the German Government is not adopting one of the new systems which several hon. Members have faith in, but are adopting a spark system, and are, I am informed, paying more for their stations than we are paying. Now I must come to a conclusion, but before doing so I wish to answer a complaint which has been made that the Government have not kept the House sufficiently informed of the conditions and the nature of this contract, and that while the company gave the public information last March, when the preliminary tender was accepted, only recently was the contract laid on the Table. I plead guilty to no disrespect to the House in that respect. I could not have acted otherwise. It would have been perfectly impossible for me to impose upon the company last March any pledge of secrecy that when their preliminary tender had been accepted by the Government they should not be at liberty to inform the public at large of that fact. The first opportunity that arose of informing the House of the nature of the contract which had been made was when the Post Office Estimates were before the House last May. Then I made a general statement giving to the House practically the same information as the company have given, with certain exceptions. I did not mention the period of the royalty or the conditions for its termination on which the contract had been made.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: It was stated in the "Evening Standard" of the 26th of October that the agreement had been signed.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There was no contract then.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The "Evening Standard" of that date stated, that the company had come to terms with the Government.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is quite incorrect. We did not come to terms with the company until last March. It was in January that we had a meeting of the Committee when there was further discussion about the possibility of the erection of stations by the Admiralty. If any such statement was made last October it was quite unfounded.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: It was stated in an article in the "Evening Standard."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: You cannot hold the Government responsible for what appears in the "Evening Standard."
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: It got into the Press as early as October last, and the terms stated are the same as were made later.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At that time the company had made their offer, but certainly it had not been agreed to. It was still under consideration and negotations were proceeding. In fact, the negotiations only began effectively somewhere about October last year, but no conclusion had then been reached. On 7th March the preliminary tender was accepted, and on the same day a statement appeared in the Press which, on the face of it, stated that it had been communicated by the Marconi Company. A statement was made in May in the House. I did not go into details, because, having a great variety of subjects to deal with on that occasion, I was not anxious to keep the House too long, as I am afraid I have done to-day. I could not then lay the complete document, and owing to the necessary time that was taken in the solicitor's department of the Post Office and negotiations between the Departments, that contract was not concluded until July. The working of the system would be as follows: The British Government will erect and pay for four stations in England, Egypt, subject to the approval of the Egyptian Government; in East Africa, probably near Nairobi; and in Singapore or in the neighbourhood of Singapore. The Indian Government will erect one station on the Western Coast or not far away from the Western Coast. The South African Government will erect one station in the neighbourhood of Pretoria. The Australian Government has undertaken to erect a station communicating with Singapore, but has not yet decided what contractor to employ or whether to do it itself, or on what

  3223
  terms the station shall be erected. Telegrams can be forwarded from the Australian station along the Australian land lines to the wireless stations that are being erected to communicate between Australia and New Zealand. Later it is contemplated erecting a station at Hong Kong and possibly one in West Africa. Each Government will work and pay for the maintenance of the stations which it erects. Each Government will be credited with the receipts of the traffic which its own stations handles. The receipts will not be pooled. It is much simpler to deal with them separately in that way. The revenue will be divided on the same principles as the through telegraphic revenue between various countries.
  2.0 P.M.
  The sum to be spent by the British Government, which will probably amount to £320,000, will be financed from the Post Office Vote, but the commercial accounts of the Post Office will be charged with interest and sinking fund annually. It is anticipated that we shall be able to effect a considerable reduction in rates of communication. But what the rates will be has not been settled, as it is necessarily a matter of agreement between the various Governments concerned. It is calculated that the cost of working the whole six stations, allowing for repayment of capital in eighteen years, and for interest and management expenses, will be about £106,000 per annum. The revenue must depend upon the rates charged and upon the amount of traffic obtained, and it is impossible to form an estimate of the revenue until we have decided what the rates will be. If we are able to secure enough traffic to enable these stations to be worked for twenty hours a day; if we are able to carry the traffic at a speed of twenty words a minute duplex; if one-third of the traffic is unpaid, that is Government traffic; if one-third is Press traffic, on those terms this system will be remunerative—indeed, quite profitable. Of course, we are allowing for a considerable reduction of rates. If we are not able to keep the stations employed twenty hours a day, or if any other of these conditions are not fulfilled, then the financial results will be modified accordingly. But even if they are not remunerative, the Government think it advisable to erect the stations if only for strategic reasons.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the estimated royalty will be? I think he has some figures.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The royalty must necessarily depend upon the amount of traffic and the rates charged. It is only possible for me to give an estimate of the royalty by declaring what are the rates the Government propose to charge, and that I am not in a position to do, because I have not consulted the other partners to the agreement. This contract is the outcome of two years' work. It is the result of the best advice on these highly technical subjects at the disposal of the Government. I deeply regret that discussion has been postponed for so long; that the exigencies of public business have thrown this statement over to the last day of the Session, and that further delay is inevitable. The Committee of Imperial Defence as long ago as May last year expressed the opinion that the stations should be erected as speedily as possible. At the same time the Government quite recognise that on an important matter of this kind it is impossible to press the House to come to a decision on the last day of the Session, when many hon. Members cannot be in attendance. Therefore the Government cannot resist, if it is so desired, a Motion for the Adjournment of the consideration of this matter.
  Lord BALCARRES: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and in accordance with what he has just said, I beg leave to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Monday, 7th October.

  ADJOURNMENT (WINTER SITTINGS).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday, 7th October."—[The Prime Minister.]

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I desire to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the action which His Majesty's Government have intimated they are going to take before the 1st September next with regard to the Brussels Sugar Convention. Last Thursday the

  3225
  Government announced they intended to give notice to terminate the Convention before 1st September. That statement was received with considerable applause from hon. Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite. I confess, when I listened to that chorus of approval, I could not help reflecting that there are a great many of what I may call erroneous ideas both with regard to the nature and the working of the Convention, and some of these ideas appear to be held even by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is the idea, for instance, that the Convention—I have seen it described in an interview with the right hon. Gentleman, whom I should have thought would have known a little better—is a sort of secret junta which sits at Brussels with the sole object of raising the price of sugar to the British consumer. I think that is a somewhat erroneous view of the situation to take, and I should like to begin by asking the House for a moment to consider what has been the history of this matter within the last few years. About seven or eight years before 1902 there grew up on the Continent of Europe a system of giving bounties either by means of combinations among the different sugar producers themselves or by the Governments of the different countries concerned, either by means of these cartels or bounties a bonus was given on the production of beet sugar.
  The producers of beet sugar were therefore enabled to place it on the market at a price which was artificially pressed below the cost of production. It came into competition with what, for the sake of argument, I will call natural sugar, sugar sold at a price based on the actual cost of production. That sort of competition between bounty-fed sugar, on the one hand, and natural sugar, on the other, could only have one end. Sooner or later the sugar which enjoyed the artificial aid was bound to crush out the natural sugar. That is no new phase of commercial war; it is what always happens. It is the regular course of operations of every single Trust which has existed since the commercial world began to recognise such things. The first act of every Trust is always to squeeze out competition by cutting rates, and then, when competition has been squeezed out, it is in a position to raise the price to any figure it likes to the consumer. That was the actual position on the Continent before 1902. Competition by natural sugar producers was being very
  3226
  largely eliminated by the growth of this system of bounty fed production. Then came the Convention of 1902, which was designed to place natural sugar once more upon a firm footing, and which had two main sets of provisions. The signatories of that Convention, on the one hand, bound themselves to abstain from giving bounties, and, on the other, they bound themselves to prohibit the introduction into their countries of bounty fed sugar.
  I want to say quite frankly that, regarded as an instrument for securing the abolition of the bounty system, I have never myself extolled the Convention as being the best possible instrument. I think it was a roundabout and somewhat clumsy instrument. I think it was a concession to fiscal views which at that time obtained much more largely in this country than they do to-day. I have always said, and I say now, that when it became a question of abolishing bounties, it is a pity we did it in such a roundabout way as this and did not take the simple and direct course of saying we were going to impose a countervailing duty on the imports of bounty fed sugar into this country. I think that would have been a simpler and more straightforward and easier course. Unfortunately, at the moment the fiscal faith of the country was not in that state which I believe it is at the present moment, and such a course could not indeed be proposed. The Convention of 1902 was therefore entered into. It lasted until 1907, when the Government of the day gave notice that they were going to adhere to a new Convention which was to last five years, from 1908 to 1913, without adhering to the penal clauses of that Convention. They were going to adhere to the Convention, but they were not going to bind themselves to prohibit the importation of bounty fed sugar into this country. I said at the time, and I still think, that course was both unwise and absurd. I think it was exceedingly absurd, and I am sure on reflection hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree. It is exceedingly absurd to find you had arrived at a state of things in which Russia, herself a bounty giving country, was going to be admitted a member of a Convention, the object of which was the suppression of bounties.
  I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) bitterly attacking the Government for having tied themselves down to any restriction

  3227
  upon Russian exports, but I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little less than just even to the Government at the time, because, so far as the Government were concerned, they said then that our ports were perfectly free to Russian sugar. I think they were wrong in saying that, but that is what they said. So little importance did the Russian sugar producers attach to our market that, having our ports free to them, they voluntarily entered into an agreement with the other Continental signatories and tied themselves down to an export of not more than 300,000 tons the first year of the second 1908–13 Convention, and 200,000 tons in each of the subsequent years. That shows the value which Russia attached for the moment at all events to their freedom to the market of this country. Then came the great drought in 1911 and the consequent rise in the price of sugar and the shortage of supply. There followed the new Convention in 1912, which is to run from September, 1913 to 1918, and it is to that new and third phase of the original Convention that I understand the Government are now refusing to give their adherence. Russia is a party to that new Convention, and she is a party to it on the terms that she is to be allowed to export westward in any year the 200,000 tons which were allowed to her under the second Convention, and in the year 1911–12 an extra 150,000 tons and in 1912–13 and 1913–14 an extra 50,000 tons, each year respectively. That is the condition of Russia's adhesion to this new Convention. I apologise for troubling the House with these figures, but I thought it rather necessary to have a clear understanding as to what had happened before we began to consider what was going to happen.
  I want the House to consider what is going to be the future course of events. The British Government has given notice to withdraw from the Convention. One of two things may clearly happen: either the Convention will break up altogether or it will go on without the adhesion of Great Britain. I want to look at the question from both points of view. Take, first, the hypothesis that the Convention will unanimously decide to break up. I say "unanimously," because it is quite clear it must be a unanimous decision of the Powers concerned, as otherwise the Convention is bound to continue in existence until 1918, the signatories having bound themselves by protocol to continue in the Convention until the 1st September
  3228
  of that year. It can only break up by the mutual consent of all the signatories. I do not think that unanimity is likely to be reached. But, at the same time, I must consider the hypothesis, because I know there are some Members of this House, among them the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who hold the view that it is possible that the Convention may end before 1918. No doubt that will not be a source of sorrow to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). He has always been perfectly consistent and perfectly straightforward in his objection to the Convention. He has attacked it on two broad grounds. He has attacked it, first, because it is an infraction, in his opinion, of Free Trade ideals, and he has also attacked it because, he says, it has had the effect of unduly raising the price of sugar in this country. Let me say a word or two with regard to these two suggestions which are made in opposition to the Convention.
  I will deal first with the suggestion that it is an infraction of Free Trade. It is quite clear that any policy which is going to be for the commercial advantage of this country may be attacked because it is contrary to certain economic principles, but if it is going to be a commercial advantage that fact remains, whatever particular economic brand you attach to it. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Convention was an infraction of Free Trade, I would remind him of statesmen in the past whose conceptions of Free Trade were at least as pure as his own, and whose expositions of their ideal of Free Trade were at least as authoritative as the expositions of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The statesmen in the past repeatedly asserted that a system whereby any product introduced into Great Britain was sold at a price artifically depressed and unnaturally low was not only not in accordance with the principles of Free Trade, but actually in violation of them. As far as I have observed, looking only the other day, as I naturally did, to see what the various Liberal newspapers were saying about the proposed action of the Government, I noticed the following illuminative sentence in the "Daily Chronicle," which I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman, who thinks it an infraction of Free Trade:—
  "Bounties, of course, whether on production or export, violate the canons of Free Trade."
  I have referred to statesmen of the past. May I call the attention of the right hon.

  3229
  Gentleman to the views of Mr. Gladstone as described in the same paper:—
  "Sir. Gladstone as a whole-hearted opponent of the bounty system. Writing in 1881 he expressed his views as follows. He said: 'I do not regard with any satisfaction a system under which an artificial advantage is given in our markets to the products of foreign labour, the principle to be observed being that of equality. Home people say it is a good thing because the consumer gets the benefit of it, but I do not see any benefit that either inequality or injustice can bring even to the consumer.'"
  Mr. Cobden also held strong views on this subject of bounties. He said:—
  "We do not seek Free Trade primarily for the purpose of purchasing at a cheaper money rate. We require the natural prices of the wages market. Whether it becomes dearer by Free Trade or cheaper mutters not to us, provided that the people of this country have it at its natural price."
  That was the view of Mr. Cobden with regard to Free Trade ideals, and, under the circumstances, I do not think it can be wondered at if I do not altogether accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Convention was undesirable, because it was an infraction of Free Trade. Then I come to the second suggestion, that it was undesirable because it unduly raised prices. I say "unduly raised prices" because it is quite clear that, so long as the price of the world's sugar is based on beetroot and not on cane, the natural price must be higher than the bounty price. As I explained at the outset of my observations, the county price is a price artificially depressed below the real cost of production; therefore, it is quite clear the natural price must be higher than the artificially low price. The basis of the world's sugar trade at the present moment is 88 per cent, beet f.o.b. I have satisfied myself, and I Tiave consulted some very good authorities, that the natural price of 88 per cent, beet, with the average cost of production in a normal year, cannot be put at less than 9s. 3d. f.o.b. Hamburg, without taking into account any charge for interest or amortisation of capital. Tf you put the ordinary prices at, roughly speaking, somewhere about 9s. 3d., you are reaching a price which may be taken as the natural basic price for 88 per cent, beet sugar. Of course, I shall be told that the operation of the Convention has resulted m very considerably enhanced prices in this country, as compared with the prices which obtained in the years before it came into operation. All sorts of figures are given. I read with amusement the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gives regarding the loss to the consumer, and how it varies from day to day. On Monday it is put at £8,000,000. Before the end of the week it
  3230
  becomes £10,000,000, and I noticed an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the other day in which he put it at £12,000,000. I would like to ask the House to examine into the exact condition of prices, and to see what has been the history of prices since the Convention came into operation.
  Before I give them, I would like the House to bear in mind that I am making comparisons which bear hardly against the case I am arguing, because since 1902 the sugar industry has been singularly unfortunate in climatic conditions. There has been a singular number of years in which there has been a serious shortage somewhere in the sugar world. For instance, in 1904–5, the shortage in Europe was about 1,200,000 tons; in 1908, Cuba was 500,000 tons short; in 1909–10, Europe was 400,000 tons short; immediately afterwards Cuba was 300,000 tons short; and in 1910–11, Europe was nearly 1,800,000 tons short. All those climatic facts make comparisons between the years before the Sugar Convention was entered into, and subsequent years bear rather hardly against the subsequent years. But it is a significant point, to which I call the attention of the House, that even taking all these facts into consideration, remembering that in the years 1905, 1908, and 1910–11 there was a serious shortage of sugar somewhere among the producers of the world, yet the figures of prices are so remarkable and so completely destroy the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are worth recalling. Since 1902, when the Convention was entered into, nine full years have elapsed. I compare the prices in those nine full years with the prices in the nine full years before 1902. The result is very remarkable. In the nine years before 1902 the average price of 88 per cent. beet, f.o.b. Hamburg—worked out on the returns presented to this House which happen to bear my name—is 10.29 shillings per cwt. In the nine years subsequent to 1902, notwithstanding all the climatic difficulties of which I have spoken, the average price is only 10.41 shillings per cwt., a difference of 11 of a shilling, or something less than ½d. a lb. It is a remarkable thing that those figures should come out as I have stated, and not as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite.
  The case does not stop there. I want the House to consider what the price would have been in a year of shortage, such as last year, if the Convention of 1902

  3231
  had never been entered into. If the Convention had never been entered into, the process which was going on then by which natural sugar, that is to say, cane sugar, and beet sugar not enjoying bounties, was gradually being crushed out by the competition of bounty fed sugar would have continued. I believe that sugar production in the West Indies would have ceased, and that British sugar production in the Mauritius would have almost entirely ceased, and we are told by one of the greatest authorities on East India sugar that sugar production in Java would also have gone under. I tell those who make complaints about the operation of the Convention that if it had not been for the Convention of 1902 prices last year would not have been up to a maximum of 17s. for 88 per cent. beet, but somewhere nearer 27s. or 37s. If the Convention does collapse, and bounties and cartels are revived, you will be exchanging what I think is a healthy commercial process for an unhealthy one. You will be exchanging a state of things under which this country was coming to depend for its supplies more and more on production scattered all over the world, and less and less on production which took place in one particular little corner of the world. This country was coming more and more, under the operation of the Convention, to depend for supplies on cane sugar, which is grown in all tropical parts of the world, and less on beet sugar, which is grown in a particular corner of Europe. That was a healthy process, but if the Convention collapses it will be reversed. I will tell the House why it is a healthy process. It is a healthy process—I have no particular interest myself one way or the other—for the reason that if you are drawing your supplies from widely scattered parts of the world you are much less liable to have all over the world at one particular moment a bad climatic season. If you are drawing cane sugar from all over the world it is unlikely that there will be a bad season all over the cane sugar world, but if you are drawing your sugar from one particular corner of Europe—the beet corner—you are bound to have higher prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to meet with that measure of assent from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Let me try to give figures to prove what I have said about the dependence of this country more and more on cane sugar and less and less on beet sugar. I
  3232
  have taken the figures of the production of sugar and worked them out at a four years' average. The two contrasting periods that I have taken are the four years before 1902 and the last four years which are given in the Returns presented to this House, 1907 to 1910, inclusive. I find that the average production all over the world of beet sugar in the first of those periods was 5,420,000 tons. In the second period beet had risen from 5,420,000 to 6,922,000 tons. That is a sufficient increase. But cane sugar, which was 5,535,000 tons in the first of those periods, was no less than 7,845,000 tons in the second period. In other words, the average production in the last four years of cane sugar has, for the first time since the bounty period, outstripped beet sugar, and actually the average production for that period was rather more of cane sugar than of beet sugar. Of course the objection may be and has been made, and it sounds as if it had a good deal behind it, that the effect of the Convention has been to dry up the supplies of European beet. That is not the fact. I will give the House the actual figures, taking again the same periods, the immediately pre-Convention period and the last period for which the figures are available. The production of European beet in the first of these periods was 5,364,000 lbs. and in the last period it was 6,500,000 lbs. That is including Russia. If you exclude Russia the figures are 4,560,000 lbs. and 4,951,000 lbs. So that so far from the Convention drying up the supply of European beet, as a matter of fact under that and under the knowledge that fair trade and genuine free trade in sugar was assured, the beet crop of the Continent has actually grown, and, more remarkable still, the beet production of Russia has actually grown since the Convention.
  Mr. LOUGH: They did not change their system.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, they kept to their cartel, and the growth which has taken place in Russia has been very considerable. I will deal with another suggestion which is sometimes made when one talks about this change which has taken place in the world's dependence upon beet sugar, and how it was coming under the operation of the Convention more and more to depend on cane and less and less on its supplies of beet. We are told sometimes that the Convention has failed in its main object—that it has failed to increase the supply

  3233
  of cane sugar. It is quite true that cane sugar has increased all over the world, say hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that increase has not been due to the Convention, but to other causes. It has been due to the tariff policy of the United States, to preference in Cuba and Porto Rico, and to the tariff policy of Japan. That is very interesting in its way as an objection, and I take note of the admission, which appears again in this interview which I have referred to, that a scientific tariff can favourably influence an industry in any particular country.
  Mr. LOUGH: I never said that.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I remember the right hon. Gentleman quarrelling with me on a previous occasion because he said I was counting in Cuban sugar, Porto Rico sugar and Japanese sugar in my periods of increase of cane.
  Mr. LOUGH: I never said anything about scientific tariffs; it is an utter fallacy.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I quite agree the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, but he said I was inaccurate in commenting on the growth of cane sugar all over the world, because he said I was leaving out of account the fact that a good deal of the increase came from Cuba and Porto Rico and Japan, and the increase there was due to the tariff policy of those countries. He did not say whether it was scientific or not, and if he says I am misrepresenting him I will quite gladly withdraw that. The statement has been made from his side of the House repeatedly, and I was only commenting on the admission. The statement that there has been no increase of cane sugar, except in Cuba, Porto Rico and Japan, is quite inaccurate. I have been at some trouble to take out the exact cane figures for the whole British Empire, but if I gave them I should be accused of including India, which has long ago adopted the policy which this country refused to adopt. It has a system of countervailing duties which absolutely prohibit the import of bounty fed beet sugar, and, therefore, I will not include India in the Empire figures. Here again, in the first of the periods the cane production of the British Empire, excluding India, was 617,200 lbs., and in the second period it had risen to 1,149,000 lbs., and a large part of that increase has resulted in a greater influx of cane sugar into this
  3234
  country. In 1901, the year before the Convention, the import of cane sugar into this country was 169,000 tons, or 12 per cent. of the total import. In 1910 that had risen to 650,000 tons, or 36½ per cent. of the total import of sugar.
  It is objected again that the Convention has been a great burden on the refining and confectionery industries in this country. With regard to the confectioners, the burden does not seem to have made itself as manifest as one would have expected, if it had really been as serious as it is represented to be. The rise in price on the average of nine years before and nine years after has been a purely illusory idea, which exists only in the mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you take the export of confectionery, it becomes apparent at once that the confectionery trade cannot at all events be said, so far as its export branch is concerned, to be depressed, because the exports of confectionery, jams, and preserves have risen from 606,000 lbs. in 1900 to 1,580,000 lbs. in 1910; and I am told that leading industries in the confectionery world have had no difficulty in making very substantial profits in the period which has elapsed since the operation of the Convention. Whatever may be the case as regards the confectionery industry, there is no doubt at all as to the attitude of the refiners. There is no doubt as to the feeling of the people of Greenock and the refiners of London and Liverpool in regard to the matter. They know perfectly well that if the Convention were to collapse it would mean disaster to them. They know perfectly well that their industry was only saved by the Convention, and the fruit of that is to be found on examination of the figures. Here, for instance, is the percentage of sugar consumed in this country which was British refined. In 1885, 95 per cent. of the sugar which we used in this country was refined in this country. In 1902 it had fallen to 39 per cent. In 1906 it had increased again to 45 per cent. That is to say that having gone down to 29 per cent., it increased again under the operation of the Convention to 45 per cent., and therefore I do not think it is to be wondered at that the refiners have complained of the threatened action of the Government.
  There remain still, on this hypothesis, the British Colonies. I have stated repeatedly what I think is the duty which the House owes to our Colonial possessions. If the Convention were to

  3235
  collapse, or even if you had the fear of the Convention collapsing, you would have such a feeling of insecurity and such a loss of confidence as would mean ruin, in many cases, to the industries of some of our smaller Colonial possessions. Mauritius, under the supposition of the Convention collapsing, if it got through at all, would only get through because it sends a considerable proportion of its output to India, where, as I say, the market is protected. I may remind the House that it is not very long since the Prime Minister was saying kind things about the West Indies, both in this House and at a dinner of the West Indian planters. I remember he pointed out at that dinner, in a speech of much eloquence, how hard the planters had worked, and how they had taken advantage of the kindness of Providence, not to dissipate any profits they had made, but to put them back in the land and to improve their factories. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not wonder if the British West Indies somewhat resent the attitude the Government have taken after language of that kind by the Prime Minister, because we can only suppose that if it leads to a revival of bounties it would mean the absolute ruin of the West Indies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I put it too high in saying it would mean absolute ruin. I am referring to the sugar industry. The sugar industry of the British West Indies can look at the future more hopefully and without the absolute despair which would have possessed them two or three months ago. In the last two or three months the situation has been very materially changed, thanks to the coming establishment of a system of preference between the West Indies and Canada. The West Indies are, at all events, assured for a considerable proportion of their sugar product, and in time to come, as regards a great portion of the sugar crop, they have a preference which nobody can take away from them. That is a position which certainly materially improves the West Indies, even if the whole Convention were to collapse. But it is no thanks to the right hon. Gentleman or the Government. As to these British Colonies the net result of the Government's operations is that, whatever happens to the Colonies, whatever be the success or failure that awaits them, the Government have not stretched out a finger to help them, but have left them to help themselves.
  3236
  I do not think that really what is going to happen is that which some people think will happen. The Convention will go on with Russia a party to it, and without Great Britain a party to it. What is going to be the effect of our withdrawal on British consumers and on British industries? As regards the effect on the price of sugar to British consumers of our withdrawal from the Convention, I think it will be absolutely nil. It will make no difference whatever, and I will tell the House why. There are most erroneous ideas about this. There is a sort of idea in the Liberal Press that now for the first time Great Britain is going to be free in getting into this country enormous stocks of Russian sugar which have been unable to come before. The real truth is, as regards Russian sugar stocks, that we are just as free as we have been since 1907, and no freer, except in regard to a small point, the figures respecting which I will explain in a moment. Since 1907 Russia has been free to send us a yearly average in four years of 225,000 tons a year. She actually has sent us yearly an average, not of 225,000 tons, but only 47,485 tons. Now she has bound herself down not to export in 1913 and 1914 more than 250,000 tons. That is the ostensible reason the Government have given for withdrawing from the Convention. I wish the House to bear that in mind, because I am going to call attention to the language of the Foreign Secretary on this matter. The last time there was a Debate on this subject was in 1908. It will be remembered that the position then was that Russia was binding herself down to send only 200,000 tons of sugar, and not 250,000 tons, as is the case at present. The Foreign Secretary said on 3rd June, 1908:—
  I do not believe any reasonable man would say that the probability of the economic effect of the limitation to 200,000 tons when Russia was in previous years in the habit of sending an average of only 40,000 tons—I do not believe any reasonable man would say that we should have made that a reason for breaking off the Convention altogether."
  That is exactly what the Government have done. They have made the figure of 250,000 tons an excuse for doing what the Foreign Secretary said no reasonable man would do. I think in regard to that matter the Government have stultified their position without putting the consumer in a position in which he will be a penny better off. As regards the effect on industry, I have already spoken about the refiners. The only other industry, besides confectionery, which is cramped and unsettled by this action is the new industry

  3237
  of British beet growing. That new industry is attempted to be started in this country to provide more work for those who live on the land, and to provide better remuneration for farming, and it is an industry which for its output employs a large amount of labour. That industry is going to be cramped and unsettled, and a feeling of uncertainty is going to be raised by the action which the Government have taken. It is all very well to go and talk about "Back to the land" at by-elections, but they are paying far more regard by their present action to the Russian than to the British labourer. What is to be the effect of the withdrawal from the Convention on the confectionery trade? I think the result is going to be a most unexpected one. If there is one thing more certain than another it is that the first result of the Government's withdrawal is going to be that foreign countries, signatories to the Convention, are going to impose, if not prohibitive, at any rate, very strong retaliatory duties on all confectionery imported by them from this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why"?] I will tell the House. The Foreign Secretary explained this clearly in 1908. Assuming that we had denounced the Convention of 1908, he says:—
  "What would have happened would have been the continuance of the Convention, with Russia a party to it and possibly other States."
  That is exactly what has happened—
  "Anyhow, the Convention would have been continued without us, and it would have been a condition of the Convention into which they must have entered that they would impose either prohibition or retaliatory duties on sugar exports from this country… It would have been contended that it was a violation of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause to place retaliatory duties on bounty fed sugar, and you would undoubtedly have had this, that not only would the Convention have been continued without us, but it would have been continued in such a form that the other countries would impose retaliatory duties on British sugar products."
  That was what the Foreign Secretary anticipated in 1908, and that is exactly what I anticipate today. I am perfectly certain that the result is going to be that confectioners, or the more short-sighted of those in the confection industry who have grasped at the shadow of cheap sugar which they are not going to get, are going to lose the real substance of their export trade to foreign countries. The net result apparently is that while the consumer is not going to benefit, it is perfectly certain that the British beet industry and British refiners and confectioners are going to lose through the action of the Government. I do not think that that is a result
  3238
  which they can contemplate with very much satisfaction.
  I may now say a word as to the manner in which the announcement was made to the House of Commons. It was made not as a statement volunteered by the Government, but in answer to a question, and whatever the merits or demerits of the action of the Government, I do not think that there is a single man in the House who really regards the manner of making this announcement as treating the House of Commons fairly. This is another case of what is constantly happening now under this Government, which is always professing its attachment to democracy. The power of the Government is constantly being used to the detriment of the liberties of this House. More than that, the action of the Government is a direct breach of a Parliamentary pledge. That pledge was given in the following terms by the Prime Minister on the 14th December last:—
  "The Government would keep a free hand until the House of Commons had had an opportunity of reviewing the result of the negotiations."
  3.0 P.M.
  That means the negotiations in January. This is what the Government call keeping a free hand. They come to the House and in reply to a question say, "We have decided to withdraw from the Convention," and the only opportunity we get of discussing it is on the last day or the second last day of the Session. If this is what the Government call keeping a free hand and giving the House of Commons an opportunity of reviewing the negotiations, it is a breach of a Parliamentary understanding, and is not treating the House of Commons fairly. We have asked for the date at which the Government arrived at this decision, and it has been refused. I now ask one single straight question: Was the decision to withdraw arrived at before or after the announcement of a vacancy in Manchester?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The hon. Member will see in the White Paper that it was arrived at last year.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister told us the other day that it has been arrived at quite recently.
  Mr. ACLAND: It was stated in our instructions to our representative at the meeting of the Committee, I think in January, that if Russia was not allowed to send an extra 300,000 tons we would withdraw.

  3239
  That was when the decision was taken which is now being acted upon, simply because now we have to give the notice which we then said we would give unless certain conditions were arrived at.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why did the Prime Minister say the contrary?
  Mr. ACLAND: He did not say the contrary. If notice were to be given, the decision to give it would have to be arrived at before the time when the year's notice would have to be given. The decision was that unless we could get this extra 300,000 tons we must withdraw. That decision was arrived at last December, and anything which has happened since has been the natural and inevitable result of that decision.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman makes a statement which, I think, on comparison, he will find somewhat at variance with the Prime Minister's words, and he does not really touch the point as to what I want to know: When was the decision formally to give notice arrived at? Was it before or after the announcement of the Manchester vacancy? If it was before the announcement of the Manchester vacancy, why was it not communicated to the House? Why did the Government wait until Supply was closed, and until the only Vote on which we could discuss the instructions given to the representative of the Government at the Convention was passed? And why, if the decision was taken before the Manchester vacancy was announced, why did not the Government communicate it to the House? If, on the other hand, it was taken after the Manchester vacancy, how can they say that this is not the first time a similar coincidence has happened? I remember the by-election in Dundee, when by a singular coincidence it was decided to reduce the Sugar Duty. Personally, I may say that if this is intended as a bit of electioneering. I do not think that it is very good electioneering, because Manchester and Lancashire have very good customers in the Colonial cane-producing countries, and anything which hurts the purchasing powers of those countries will hurt Manchester and Lancashire. The mean of the exports to the British West Indies from this country during the last, four years was over £500,000. In British Guiana it was £116,000. In Mauritius it was £85,000. In Cuba, Peru, and Java the figures were very much larger.
  3240
  Java alone took over £2,500,000 from Lancashire. Anything which hurts the cane-producing countries will not in the long run benefit Lancashire. Though it may appear somewhat offensive to the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I cannot help thinking that this has a very strong electioneering flavour about it. I am confirmed in that when I read the article which appeared in the "Star" on 2nd August. In the last sentence, in which leader writers usually put into a crisp sentence the pith of what they want to say, the writer in the "Star" says:—
  "The decision of the Government"—
  He does not say it is going to benefit the country—
  "ought to win many votes for Mr. Gordon Hewart."
  A great man is Mr. Gordon Hewart. The claims of national honour, the considerations of national interest, and the claims on this country of other countries are all as dust in the balance beside him and his votes. I think and I hope that the Government steps are going to be in vain, and that they are going to add another proof to the long list of proofs already given, that the confidence of the country has been withdrawn from them largely because they persist in treating great national problems like this alone in the light of their own party interests.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think everyone who sits on this side of the House will approach this question in a spirit different from that which has been exhibited by the hon. Member who has just sat down. We are all heartily glad and desire to thank the Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet for the decision which they have arrived at with regard to this important matter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is at all just or fair to those who know, as well as he does, the difficulties of this matter. The decision to withdraw from the Convention was arrived at, as my hon. Friend below me has just said, some time ago. The Convention itself was agreed to by the Government in March, 1902; it was not previously communicated to the House, which was only asked in November following to discuss and sanction the entering into that Convention. In 1907 our own Government, I admit, in that case, completed the renewal of the Convention, which was not discussed until June, 1908. I say that the course which has been taken in this matter is entirely in accordance with precedent, and that, in fact, no charge can be made against the Government. In regard to

  3241
  the Foreign Secretary to whom the hon. Member referred in his closing sentences on this subjects the right hon. Gentleman did make it perfectly clear on the 7th of December last, in a Paper which was circulated, that the Government would take this action, and therefore no complaint can be made. The Foreign Secretary used these words:—
  "In no circumstances will Great Britain continue to remain a party to the Convention after the expiry of the present period for which it has been prolonged unless Russia is allowed permission to export Westward during the current year at least 500,000 tons of sugar, in place of 200,000 tons to which she has been restricted."
  The hon. Member asked when the Government arrived at its decision. It arrived at its decision in December last, and the decision is strictly in accordance with the pledge which the Foreign Secretary gave in 1908, when we agreed to the renewal of the Convention.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If that was so, why did the right hon. Gentleman keep putting questions on the Paper asking the Government at what decision they had arrived?
  Mr. LOUGH: I will explain that. In June, 1908, my right hon. Friend said:—
  "The economic interests of this country are in our view bound up in having complete liberty with regard to the import of sugar. We cannot compromise that liberty. Oar ports remain open."
  Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman when agreeing to the renewal of the Convention. We had no evidence before us that sugar was shut out in this country, and the answer of the great Powers was to agree to the Russian demand, and my right hon. Friend had good ground for believing that it would be acceded to. The negotiations continued through January, February, and March, until at last the astounding decision was arrived at that Russia would only be allowed to export about half the amount of sugar that was intended. No charge can be brought against the Government in regard to this matter. With regard to my own part in this matter, if it is of any importance to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I may state that I take a somewhat strong view upon it. I opposed the Convention originally. I thought that the Liberal Government should have taken the earliest opportunity of getting out of it. But perhaps as an unofficial Member I did not know all the difficulties that might impede the Government in taking that step. Therefore, today, it is not for me to complain, but to express my gratitude
  3242
  to the Government. What they have done is in accordance with their pledges in this matter, and their dealing with the Convention now is in accordance with the dual policy of Free Trade and open ports, to which every Member on this side of the House is absolutely pledged. For a long hour the hon. Member has been dealing in half-truths and incomplete statements, and he has never dealt with the points of the price or production of sugar in the world. He has dealt with a number of abstractions of which no man knows the meaning. He spoke of the natural price. Nobody knows anything about the natural price. People pay what is asked for the article at the moment, and if there were any argument about the natural price the customer might regard the man as a thief and go to some other shop. When the hon. Member came to deal with the price of sugar at present, I did expect that he would give us something bearing upon the ease, but he did not mention the price of sugar.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, I did.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He said he took the average of ten years now and compared that average with the average of the ten years previous. There is no such thing as this average price, either over the present ten years or the preceding ten years. There is a definite price paid for sugar. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the price of 9s. 3d., and immediately afterwards appeared to withdraw it. He said that allowance would have to be made for amortisation when he mentioned the price of 9s. 3d. But the price was 12s. and 15s. Can he show me a word in the Convention to keep the price of 9s. 3d.? There is not a word; there is no restriction on the price, which might be 18s. or 27s. Dealing with this question of prices, the hon. Member said that the Convention has existed through a very unfortunate period. He said there had been droughts, and that there was a falling off in the production of sugar. He did not quote figures to show that there was a falling off. He spoke of a falling off in 1910, There was no falling off. He spoke of a great falling off in 1911. There was no falling off whatever. The production of sugar in 1911 was greater than it had ever been before, yet, notwithstanding that fact, we had sugar put up to famine prices.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the right hon. Gentleman challenges me, I may say that I mentioned the fact that there was a shortage of 1,700,000 tons of beet sugar.
  Mr. LOUGH: I have said nothing against that. It is another example of the childish fallacies with which the House has constantly to deal in such a matter as this. The hon. Member may say that in this country or that there was a shortage, but that proves nothing. If we are suffering when beet sugar is short and when cane sugar is abundant, that proves that we would not have suffered at all if the ports had been open, and it is only this wretched Convention which enables us to be cheated even in the most favourable circumstances. I am going to give accurate figures for the last four years from the hon. Member's own return. The total world production of sugar was 14,600,000 tons in 1907; 14,300,000 tons in 1908—only a reduction of 300,000 tons; 14,800,000 tons in 1909; 15,300,000 tons in 1910; and 16,800,000 tons in 1911. The truth is that there has been a steady increase of production of sugar in the world. I have quoted from the hon. Member's own return, and he knew those figures, yet he played with the House, and with these thin fallacies about average prices and shortages at Timbuctoo, or countries like that, instead of giving the House the simple facts.
  I would like to take the House back to realities for a few moments. The hon. Member gave us some history of this Convention, and I would like to supplement it. What was the object of this Sugar Convention? It had four objects, three of which were alleged and one of which was the real object. The first alleged object was to get rid of bounties. It did get rid of the bounties; but that was not the object those countries had in view. Those countries gave bounties only because they were for their own advantage, and they only wanted to get rid of them for their own advantage, and they had quite a different object in this Convention. The real object of the Convention was to substitute for free competition, which would have reduced it, a combine to raise the price of food to the poor people throughout all the countries of Europe and of the world. Let us look at the matter of bounties. The hon. Gentleman has dealt with my arguments in his speech, and has thrown at me the great authority of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Gladstone. I have
  3244
  great respect for those names; but we have got to fight our own battles in our own way in these days, and I never believed that this country should sacrifice one penny to prevent foreign countries giving bounties. What did Mr. Gladstone do. He urged arguments against bounties, and he proved that he should not give them. And he was quite right, and I would oppose any Gentleman on the Front Bench giving bounties. It is quite a different thing for us to go to foreign countries to make great sacrifices at the expense of our people to induce them to abolish bounties, while we leave untouched their whole protectice system except the bounties. If we look at a protective system where tariffs exist, and bounties are granted, the bounties are the only redeeming feature of the system, especially in the case of the production of food, as they stimulate the production of that which all the people want. Bounties are, of course, not desirable, but tariffs are the real evil, and, therefore, when we went to those foreign countries and did nothing to get rid of their protective system, and simply induced them or helped them to abolish bounties, we were really taking a step very foolish and costly for ourselves.
  I said that there were four reasons and the second was to improve the condition of the West Indian Islands. I expected the hon. Member opposite to deal with the question of those Islands, but he made as vague and general references to the West Indian Islands as to the questions of price and quantity and everything else. I will give the House the facts. We were told that those Islands would practically supply us with sugar if we went into the Convention. When the Convention was set up they sent us about 4 per cent, of our sugar and now they send us only 2½ per cent. The hon. Member may, of course, say that the condition of the Islands has improved. It has, but it has improved because they took the advice we gave them ten years ago. We told them not to rely on sugar but to cultivate other things, and to send out a variety of products, and they have been doing so. Barbadoes and the other Islands have greatly improved because they have ceased to rely on sugar. Let us deal with sugar. The total production and export of sugar in the Islands has gone down in ten years by 25 per cent. It is 25 per cent, less today then it was when we went into this Convention. The Convention we were told was intended to benefit the West Indian Islands. It has entirely

  3245
  failed to do so and the proportion of sugar they send us now is smaller than it was then.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Why do they protest?
  Mr. LOUGH: That is a thin question. No one knows better than the hon. Member that there is nothing so faked in the world as these protests. We have a thick White Paper circulated today, and I believe I could get up such a White Paper in three months if I liked. It is simply a protest of greedy planters who have known how to induce little groups of trades in the Islands, just as I read that Greenock has made a protest that it would be destroyed. We have to take a broader view of the matter than is taken in Barbadoes, Trinidad, and Jamaica. Greenock, I think, has about a couple or three thousand men engaged in sugar refining, and this Imperial Parliament has got to think of the interests of the 45,000,000 of people, and therefore very different reasons appeal to us. I have dealt sufficiently with the West Indies, and let me say a word about sugar refining. We were told, in eloquent tones by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that sugar refining would become a great industry if we went into the Convention, and that it would employ tens and hundreds of thousands of workmen in this country. What is the truth? The refineries have decreased from fifteen to thirteen, and sugar refining would not give employment to more than a few thousand men. But I do not admit at all that refining will be injured now that the Government has decided to go out of the Convention. The Convention was an arrangement in favour of the European beet-producing countries. Those countries now send us refined sugar. France used to send us the very best refined sugar. To-day France sends us nothing, and we draw our supplies of unrefined sugar in great quantities from countries in different parts of the world. I believe that the refineries, instead of suffering, will do a better business when the natural state of things is restored.
  Those are the three alleged reasons which were given, and all of which were false reasons and had nothing to do with the matter. The real reason, which was not put forward so openly, and yet could be found in the documents for the Sugar Convention, was to effectively protect the industries of the sugar-producing countries, and to raise the price that the
  3246
  British people Would have to pay for their sugar. I want to recall to the House one or two prophecies that were made by the Prime Minister at the time when the Convention was entered into—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour)—and it was that the price of sugar would not be raised by the Convention. In fact, he said it would be reduced. That was the sort of prophecy we had from the Prime Minister on the last night of the Debate when they pressed through the Convention Act. Let us look at the question of price. I will not give average prices for ten years before, or ten years afterwards, which have no existence and which do not affect the person who buys a pound of sugar. I will give the exact prices. I will take the same standard as the hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that of the price of 88 per cent. beet at Hamburg. In 1902 the average price for the whole year was 6s. 8½d. per hundredweight. That was the year in which the Convention was signed. That price of course never became the price in this country, as it must have added to it freight and duty and other matters, but still it is the standard price that everybody accepts. In 1903, it was 8s. 3½d. Coming events were casting their shadows before. In 1904, it was 10s. 4d.; 1905, 11s. 1½d.; 1906, 8s. 8d.; 1907, 9s. 6d.; 1908, 10s. 5½d.; 1909, 11s. 0½d.; 1910, 12s. 6½d. 1911, 12s. 10½d.; and this year so far, taking the seven months, 13s. 2d. Some hon. Members may think those figures small, and that they are only a matter of shillings and pence, but let me explain that one shilling in the price of sugar means a tax of £1,500,000 on the people of this country. Therefore it might be assumed that the effect of this Convention was to put up the price of sugar by 5s. a cwt., which is a tax of £7,500,000 on the people of this country. That has been a burden not easy to be borne in the days that have gone by. The thing was palmed off on this House by its being said that if the people of this country made that great sacrifice, it would go to our own Colonists and help them in their dire emergency. Nothing of the kind. Most of it went to Germany, and perhaps helped the Germans to pay for those great battleships which they have been building against us. I should think the House will be pretty Well satisfied by those figures as to the harm done to British commerce.
  I want to allude to one or two other aspects of the question to make the matter still clearer. This question of sugar is one

  3247
  of intense interest, to the people of this country. Although the industry of sugar-working has not the romantic character of the cotton or woollen industry, yet the history of the sugar industry in this country is really a splendid chapter in our commercial experience. In the year 1842 we used about 15 lbs. of sugar per head of the inhabitants. That was the same as in France and Germany. Then France and Germany began to grow sugar. We grew none, but we adopted Free Trade; we opened our ports, received sugar from France and Germany, and made that sugar into a multitude of industries, of which a good deal has been heard in these Debates in past times. Our consumption of sugar rose from 15 lbs. per head in 1842, to 60 lbs. in 1870, and to 86 lbs. in 1902. For sixty years before the Convention was entered into our consumption of sugar rose steadily by an average of about 1¼ lbs. per annum. What have we found since? We have found that, as with an iron hand, as if we had been conquered by a foreign foe, all the progress of that great British industry has been stopped. In the ten years which have passed our consumption has not only not increased, but it has diminished. I will give the figures: The total imports of sugar in 1901, were 1,596,000 tons; in 1911, they were 1,622,000 tons—that is an increase of 26,000 tons. But we have 4,000,000 more people. Therefore it means a decrease per head of the population I will now give the figures per head of the population. In 1901, it was 86.07 lbs.; I could give the figures for every year, but I will simply say that in 1911 it was 80.20 lbs. There has been a fall; we have made no progress in the consumption. Contrast our rivals, Germany and France. In France in 1901 the consumption of sugar per head of the population was 24 lbs.; in 1911 it had increased to 38.63 lbs., so that the French consumption has increased by 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, per head of the population. In Germany the consumption in 1901 was 26.54 lbs.; in 1911 it was 41.63 lbs.
  The House can now see what a blow was given to our great industries by this Convention. We have this extraordinary phenomenon: sugar has been made dearer to us and cheaper to our rivals in France and Germany. The House will ask how that can be. There is no magic about bounties. They could be paid only to certain firms, and so, when bounties were created, a duty was laid upon the sugar
  3248
  consumers in France and Germany to enable them to be paid. In Germany in 1900 the price of sugar was 4¼d. a lb. and the duty was 3.23d. Immediately the Convention was passed the duty was reduced to 1.44d. and the reduction of 1¾d. went straight into the pockets of the German people. In the same way in France the duty was 2.18d., and when the bounties were abolished it was reduced to 1.02d. The result was that the consumption of sugar in those countries bounded up, our industries were taken away from us, and the figures which I have given to the House, were the result.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what industries were taken away from us?
  Mr. LOUGH: I am alluding to the sugar industries. Supposing the progress in the consumption of sugar had continued in this country, an increased consumption of 1 lb. per head of the population represents 20,000 tons per year. At the beginning of the Convention we were consuming more sugar in this country than all the beet-sugar producing countries in Europe. We were not consuming it in the sense of eating it, but by making it into a variety of manufactures, at which a deadly blow has been struck by this Convention. The right hon. Gentleman asks what industries? The first industry is the carrying industry. The carrying of 20,000 tons of sugar would employ British shipping and British workmen. If the increase in the consumption had gone on, so that we were using ten or twelve pounds more per head than in 1901, we should be consuming 240,000 tons a year more to-day than we are now consuming. The right hon. Gentleman asks what industries have been endangered? Every industry.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said, "Our industries have been taken away." I asked him what industries have been taken away. I am still waiting for the answer.
  Mr. LOUGH: Any industry that we lose is taken away. There is the shipping industry, for one thing, and all the variety of uses to which sugar is applied. Before the Convention a little child could buy two ounces of sugar for a halfpenny. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "That is not an industry."] Hon. Members laugh, but sugar is a most important article of food to the people of this country. It is far more important than meat to the young. Sugar is used in the making of biscuits

  3249
  and confectionery, and in fifty industries that I could mention. I cannot detain the House by going into too much detail, but I think I have satisfied Members that our industries must have received a very serious blow when the growth of consumption was stopped and the progress which had been made for sixty years was checked. I want to take another point. The hon. Member opposite spoke of the effect of the Convention on the production of sugar throughout the world. As far as I could understand him he said that the effect of the Convention had been to increase the production of sugar and to put the industry on a stable basis. I took from the "Times" newspaper a very interesting article dealing with this matter some six months ago. My calculation is based upon these Returns. The article took eighteen years in three periods of six years. The first six years was 1890–6, the second period 1897–1903, and the third period 1904–10. If the House will consider for a moment it will see that one of these periods, in fact the first two, were well before the Convention, and the last period was after the Convention. The increase of the second period over the first in cane-produced sugar, in the production of sugar throughout the world, was SO per cent, and of beet sugar 32 per cent; but the increase of the third period in cane sugar was only 20 per cent, and in beet 15 per cent. I say that is the broad argument, not based on any country, and the best proof that the effect, of the Convention was not to increase the production of sugar, but rather to set it back. It must be so. At any rate, all we who sit on this side of the House believe that Free Trade and the open port, that the leaving of our industries unshackled by any arrangements of this kind is the way to develop business. I think that experience has proved that that is so.
  There is one other aspect of the case that I would like to refer to. Supposing the Convention is denounced, what effect might it have on the production of beet sugar in this country? I think it would not be a very calamitous effect. Everyone sitting here must welcome any new industry in any part of the United Kingdom, but let it be established on a fair basis. There was a Debate in another place with regard to this setting up of the beet sugar industry, and it was asked there that no Excise Duty should be levied on beet sugar produced in this country. This House could not assent to such a principle as that. If
  3250
  we extended protection to sugar, why not to cheese, corn, and every other article of food produced in this country? Indeed part of the silliness of this Convention, one of the great elements of folly in it, which has been embedded in it from first to last, is that it helps no British industry. We could understand Protection if honestly—I do not mean that term opprobriously—but boldly introduced from the opposite side of the House. But the idea of protecting an industry like sugar which we have to obtain from abroad, the idea of making the British people pay that the Germans may get rich, is an idea so foolish that I could almost appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite for once to desert their side and to give a vote in favour of the wise step we are now taking.
  I am reminded of a most interesting incident in connection with this matter. One of the greatest Protectionists in this House before the present day was a namesake of your own, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lowther, who represented the Isle of Thanet. When we were fighting the Sugar Convention in its early stages Mr. Lowther used to vote with us. He was a man greatly respected and esteemed, and he said to me on more than one occasion, "I cannot understand the fellows on my side voting the way they do on this sugar question. Give me corn, cheese, butter, bacon, eggs, and I will give any of them any protection you like, but the idea of making us pay more for our sugar is as bad as making us pay more for our tea." I quote that Gentleman on the other side as a sort of last appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to put themselves right on this matter before it is too late. I want to touch upon only one other subject. What are we doing to-day? I commence by thanking my right hon. Friends for withdrawing from this Convention. What effect will this withdrawal have? I should like to say that this is only the first step in the campaign. Personally I am not satisfied with the mere withdrawal. I hope my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not be satisfied either, or, for the matter of that, the Government. We want to get rid of the Sugar Convention Act of 1903. If we do not get rid of it, then supposing this Government is defeated at the polls, and hon. Gentlemen opposite come in. They would renew this wretched Convention. We want to make a clean job of it, and to get rid of the whole thing at once.

  3251
  As to the effect of withdrawal, my first answer is that I think we may now begin what I may call a sane policy. Having first withdrawn from the Convention we will open our ports in every way; we will get rid of the Sugar Convention Act, and will return to the safe paths of Free Trade which we have deserted for a short time. Supposing we do that, how will it affect our sugar supply? I would like to say that notwithstanding the high prices which the Convention has produced, the great consumption that has sprung up in France and Germany has to a large extent solved that question. Now we get from Germany 25 per cent, less sugar than we got in 1901, the reason being that the German home consumption has increased so much that really I believe a few years hence Germany will use almost all her sugar at home. France is already in that position. I know nothing about Cabinet secrets, but I think that in 1607—the hon. Gentleman below me will tell us, for he knows everything—the real reason the right hen. Gentleman renewed the Convention for a few years was at the request of France. In 1902, we imported from France 3,975,000 cwts. of sugar; in 1911, we only imported 121,000 cwts.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That was the drought year.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think I have shown in my remarks that 1911 was the greatest year of sugar production the world has ever known.
  Mr. BIGLAND: Cane and beet together.
  Mr. LOUGH: I agree, but does the hon. Gentleman know that cane sugar and beet sugar have exactly the same chemical constituents? I do not believe he knows when he puts a lump of sugar in his tea whether it is cane or beet. It does not matter a straw to us whether it is cane or beet, so long as we get good sugar at a low price. As to the fallacy that 1911 was a drought year, let my hon. Friend go to Mincing Lane and consult the sugar market. The Convention means that more money has been taken out of the pockets of the innocent British people. I can assure hon. Members that the quantity of sugar we take from both Germany and France is rapidly decreasing. Where are we to turn to then for our sugar? In the first place, with regard to Russia, in 1902 we only took from her 6,000 cwts. In 1911 the quantity was 2,219,000 cwts.
  3252
  Russia has a wide field for the cultivation of sugar, and I hope that that great country will in every sense follow our example, and withdraw from the Convention. Then I think a mighty trade will spring up between this country and Russia in sugar. But apart from European countries, there are other countries to which we can look for sugar. In 1902, we got no sugar from Java; in 1911, we got 3,337 cwts. In 1902, we got none from Cuba; in 1910, nearly 2,000,000 cwts. Came from Cuba. From Peru we get a very large quantity; and finally we have ten times as large an importation from India as we had in 1902. I only mentioned that to show the House that we can get abundant supplies from other countries. We are not tied up to this Combine that has been established in Brussels. The hon. Member opposite said in the early part of his speech that I had made a charge against the Convention. The one charge that I made against the Convention was that it was a secret body. Can he deny it? He does not deny it.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A secret body sitting for the purpose of raisings the price of sugar.
  Mr. LOUGH: A secret body sitting for the purpose of raising the price of sugar. We call it Vehmgericht in 1902, and now, after ten years, it is Vehmgericht still. There has been only one sitting of the Convention during the last ten years, one on which some light of public opinion was let in. And that was the last sitting. The first meeting in this connection was held on 22nd October, and that meeting was about a very simple point, whether Russia should be allowed to send us 400,000 more tons of sugar. You would have thought the question would have been answered in a moment. The Convention felt that. They said we assent to the principle, but they postponed the matter until December, and they postponed it in order to put money in the pockets of their own producers, because Germany and other Powers knew that every month and week that they put off this permission they were reaping a rich harvest out of the British public. The Convention met again in December, and they postponed the matter until the 27th January. On the 27th January they again met, and they discussed the matter for thirteen days. What were they talking about during these thirteen days? I wish we knew. I wish we knew what bribe was offered to Russia to withdraw

  3253
  her demand. Is Russian sugar to be destroyed. On the 13th February they had not arrived at a decision, and after adjourning till the 17th March, which was a Sunday, they decided, after six months, to allow Russia to export about one-third of what she was asked for. And then our Government, seeing that further truckling with this Convention was not in the interests of this country, ultimately came to a decision. I heartily congratulate them upon that decision, and I believe it will be approved by the people of this country, and I believe it will be an example to other nations to have no further truck with any arrangement of this kind.
  Mr. ACLAND: I think it will be for the convenience of the House and for the discussion of this matter that a statement should be made to the House at this stage as to the actual decision arrived at, and as to what the position will be so far as we can judge in the future. I shall try to make that statement without going into any controversial matters, for really if we were to begin to discuss this question as portion of the fiscal question our discussion may well be endless, and even though we were to rise at the end of that discussion and meet again on the 7th of October, I do not think we should have so long a holiday as we expect. I think this matter can be discussed with very much less heat if dealt with apart from the fiscal controversy altogether. There were only two points raised in the speeches to which we have just listened to which I want to refer at the beginning. I must correct the view of my right hon. Friend that this is a secret body which issues no Reports. I have in my hand a series of Reports which have been laid before Parliament in the form of White Papers recording one after another what happened in each of the important meetings of the Sugar Convention which have taken place. The proceedings are fairly fully reported in a number of documents, and I think my right hon. Friend must acquit us of the charge of trying to keep secret the proceedings of the Convention when we were parties to it.
  Mr. LOUGH: I have read all the documents. I am sick of them. I can find nothing in any one of them, in any one of the voluminous records, that throws any light upon the matter. I appeal to anyone who has read these Reports to say whether that is not so.
  Mr. ACLAND: I quite agree, if my right hon. Friend wants to find evidence as to how much money some one put into his pocket as a result of each decision, that is not information he will find in the Report. But so far as recording the real proceedings we have done our best to lay before Parliament what has actually occurred. The only other point of controversy arises out of the first speech we heard to-day. I agree with a great deal of that speech and I shall perhaps throw a light upon some of the matter mentioned in that speech. But I must really protest against the attack that we have suddenly produced our decision on this matter in order to influence a certain by-election. Really that is not justified. The suggestion seems to be that, believing no doubt we were very likely to lose North-East Manchester, we sat down and thought what can we rake up in order to save that election. Really I cannot accept that, and I think it rather unworthy of the rest of the speech which the hon. Gentleman made. Surely the facts of this particular matter are very well known. We wanted to get as much Russian sugar out as we could. We decided in December last that unless we could get out a certain amount of sugar we would be bound to give notice after I September, when the five years had elapsed, and that was known to all the important interests concerned, ever since the White Paper was laid in January, this year, they all knew perfectly well that we were going to give notice of withdrawal. There has been nothing now. All the people who count—namely, those engaged in industries connected with the sugar trade knew, although the matter would be summarised as the time approached when a decision would have to be come to. But to say that it was a sudden decision taken to influence a by-election is not justified. It was the inevitable and only outcome of the decision taken months before. What would hon. Members opposite say if, as we might have done, we had not given notice of withdrawal until the House adjourned for the holidays. There surely would have been a great deal of denunciation of our attitude.
  These are the only two controversial questions I want to touch upon, because it is right that the House should know how the position stands at the present time. But the question of the effect of our withdrawal of course depends almost entirely upon the prospects of the revival of the system of giving bounties upon the export

  3255
  of sugar by European countries. If these bounties are restored, we may have on our side an unending vista of cheap sugar for our own people, which, from the point of view of many persons, will be a very pleasing development, and, on the other hand, there may be a great disturbance of legitimate trade interests at home and abroad which may be disastrous, but unless and until you can say whether these bounties are likely to be revived or not, you cannot really tell what the result of our withdrawal will be. The question whether the bounties will revive depends upon our understanding what the bounties originally were and what was the effect of the bounties on the agreement. The bounties were different in different countries. In France, for instance, the bounties cost about three millions a year, and arose from this cause. France gave a remission of the Excise Duty on any refined sugar which might be made from home-grown beet. The remission of the duty was calculated on a scale of which the basis was a unit of beet sugar treated, and the actual amount of refined sugar which was made from the unit of beet became very much greater than had been expected when the unit was fixed. And therefore the claim for repayment of excise very much exceeded the original excise paid upon the units of beet treated. So it became a very burdensome matter to the French Government, and they were very glad to get rid of that system, and we may be perfectly certain that no system of that kind will ever be restored. In countries like Austria and Germany, bounties were rather different and they were higher. Bounties depend primarily upon the difference between Customs Duty and Excise Duty. Under a high surtax it is to the advantage of the home producer of sugar to force up the price for internal consumption by a high surtax, and that system encourages an artificial amount of production in the countries so protected.
  4.0 P.M.
  If all that is produced is put upon the internal market the cartel operating under the operation of the surtax, it is likely to be broken; it cannot be allowed to rot in the country, and it is in order that the price may be kept high or internal consumption in the interests of the producers may be met, that the surplus over the internal consumption have to be forced out, which is done either by State bounties or more commonly by the bounties given by the cartels themselves,
  3256
  in which they use and share the high profits made to force outwards the surplus of production. One of the principal points of agreement in the Convention was that the surtax in future instead of being 10s. or more per hundredweight, should never exceed 2s. 6d. per hundredweight, and that broke the monopolies in Germany and Austria, because they could not secure a high price for sugar. That broke the bounty system. It was not possible or desirable to go on giving bounties when once this tax had been dropped. The result of the consmption of sugar in those countries was really very interesting. France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, and Holland had previously altogether been consuming about as much sugar annually as the United Kingdom. Since then the price of sugar, as well as the consumption, has slightly increased. While the total increase of import into this country has only been 8 per cent., the increase of consumption in those countries I have named averages 40 per cent, and 50 per cent. The total consumption in the foreign countries I have named went up from about 1,600,000 lbs. to 2,400,000 lbs. last year. I wish to call attention particularly to this point, because it is an outstanding matter of importance in deciding what the probable result of our action will be. Foreign countries have, on the whole, because of what followed the formation of this Convention, become accustomed to reasonably cheap sugar, and when once people have really become accustomed to getting cheap sugar, and treating it as a necessity rather than a luxury, it is humanly speaking impossible that they can be forced back under the regime of high sugar under a high surtax and a high profit of cartels in those countries. The conclusion I draw is that foreign countries having got Cheap sugar, there is little prospect of the bounties being restored, because they result in a high surtax, and no one in those countries could now reimpose the high surtax which resulted in dear sugar. Besides that, we have the fact that those countries have actually agreed, although they knew we were going to withdraw from the Convention, to prolong the Convention for another five years, thus securing the continuance of reasonably cheap sugar, and preventing the imposition of a high surtax. It should be remembered that if the Convention were to come to an end, the

  3257
  surtax in Germany would rise automatically from 2s. 6d. to 10s. a cwt.; and it is to avoid the great difficulty that would arise that the German Government have come to the conclusion that it is clearly in their interests to keep the Convention going and to keep sugar reasonably cheap in that country. What follows? If I am right in thinking that there is every prospect of the Convention continuing, so far as Continental countries are concerned, it follows that we must practically face the certainty that nothing we can do now, so far as we can see as to what is likely to happen in the future, will provide this country with artificially bounty fed sugar. I do not think we shall get that by our withdrawal, even if all the countries agreed to break away from the Convention, because I do not think those countries could maintain their position under the dear sugar regime which alone makes the bounty system possible.
  If there will not be a revival of bounties, it also follows that the cane-producing industry has every security and every chance of gradually increasing its production, as it has been doing in the last few years. I do not believe that there need be any anxiety felt by any persons who are interested in the production of cane sugar in any part of the world. They will not be artificially under-cut by bounty fed beet, and, as long as that is so, they will get a perfectly good profit on whatever cane sugar they produce. I say that, with a special view to our own industries interested in the manufacture for machinery for treating cane sugar, of which no less than £2,000,000 worth was sent out last year. There is naturally, or would be, great anxiety in that industry if it were to be thought that bounties would be restored, but, as things are, I believe that industry can be perfectly certain that the steady demand for their machinery from England which has developed in recent years ought to continue, and I hope it will. Another result that follows is that those who are interested in home-grown beet sugar need have no anxiety. I have been interested in this matter in my own Constituency, and I believe, and the producers of beet believe, that they can make quite a good thing out of the home-grown beet sugar unless they are undercut by bounty beet from the Continent Given a fair field, just as is the case with cane production, the producers of beet in this country need have no anxiety if they are given an equal chance and compete on equal terms.
  3258
  Under those circumstances they will be able to do reasonably well.
  Having therefore looked at this matter simply from the one point of view that the Convention will continue, and the bounties will not be restored, and that being the view which I very strongly hold, I must at any rate say something on the other hand in regard to the possibility that I am quite wrong, and that the bounties might be revived. I want to say on that point that the action that we have at present taken will not prejudice or prejudge the future policy which we might have to adopt if and when bounties were to be restored. I do not think that is in anyway likely, but it is right to say our hands would not be tied if it were to happen. Now I come to the special point dealt with by both speakers in the Debate. It is the position of Russia and the desire to get more sugar from Russia which has been the direct cause of our announcement that we should have to withdraw from the Convention. It must be remembered that ever since 1907 we have said if Russia or any other country chose to send us bounty fed sugar we should certainly take it. That has been our position, and nothing that has happened, or seems likely to happen, makes it seem at all probable we should desire to alter that position. But in spite of our having definitely said, as one of the terms of our continuing to be one of the parties to the Convention, that we would take all the sugar Russia or any other country would send to us, we did not get Russia to break away from the terms under which they joined the Convention, namely, that they were to be allowed to retain their high surtax and to export a certain amount of bounty fed sugar, that export of bounty fed sugar to be very definitely limited. In most years there has not been such an excess of production in Russia as to result in any great demand there that they should send out a great quantity of sugar. In most years they have not reached, perhaps not really reached, the extra 200,000 tons they are allowed to send out, but, of course, last year was very, very exceptional. It is a fact, no doubt, as my right hon. Friend says, that the total crop of the world was greater. I have not got the exact figures.
  Mr. LOUGH: One and a half million tons.
  Mr. ACLAND: But, of course, as my right hon. Friend will admit, and as the hon. Member said, the production of beet sugar on the Continent was very short,

  3259
  owing to the quite exceptional drought that we had last year. It was not so in Russia, partly because Russia had a better crop, and partly because Russia had been piling up a surplus for years. There was undoubtedly a large surplus of Russian sugar which Russia wished to send us. That Russian surplus, it should be noted, is not quite a natural surplus. It is an unnatural surplus due to the high surtax which Russia puts on and which has the effect of unnaturally inflating the production in Russia, because their system, as I understand it, is that each producer shall be allowed to put on the market only a certain proportion of the sugar which he produces in a particular year. That naturally makes each producer try to produce the very maximum he can in order that the amount he may put on the internal market, and on which he will get a large profit, may be as big as possible. But whether it be there has been an unnatural surplus of sugar accumulating in Russia because of a forced production by reason of the high surtax, or because in Russia the beet crop last year was much less of a failure than it was in Austria, Germany, or France, there is no doubt Russia had about 400,000 tons extra of sugar they wanted to export, over the 200,000 tons they were allowed to export. We did say from the beginning that, as this state of things had arisen, and as we wanted this sugar to cut down the very high price there threatened to be in our country, we would not continue to remain parties to the Convention unless Russia were to be allowed not only to send out an extra 300,000 tons in the sugar season 1911–12, but unless also a reasonable arrangement were made for the future whenever Russia had an excess of sugar which they wished to send out. That, of course, was the strongest action we could take, and other countries were so anxious we should not leave the Convention that to a large extent they took up our demand. Long negotiations took place, which are all recorded in the White Papers that have been presented.
  At the end we did not succeed in our full demands, and the inevitable consequence followed. Russia preferred not to reduce her surtax which would have enabled her to export as much as she liked. Russia, being under the control and influence of the producer rather than of the consumer, preferred to retain her high surtax and her high prices for internal
  3260
  consumption, with a limit to the amount which she might, export. The opposition to the proposal which we made and which other countries were ready to agree to, came very largely from Germany, and the result of the long negotiations which took place was that instead of getting an extra 300,000 tons last, year with reasonable provision for the future, we shall only receive 150,000 tons, with an extra 50,000 tons in the two years following, and no more definite condition for the future than is embraced in these conditions. It is the opinion of those who represented us at these meetings that it is only because of the strong line taken, only because we said so definitely, "if you will not do this Great Britain will have to withdraw," that we succeeded even to the extent of liberating an extra quarter of a million tons of Russian sugar, and this has been liberated largely owing to the action we took. That is of course the justification for our action. We wanted it, and we asked that Russia should send us at least as much as possible. We wanted to be sure, if there were a scarcity in the beet crop, that as Russia had a large surplus, nothing should be left undone to secure that Russian surplus if Russia chose to send it to us. The only thing we could say was: "If you will not liberate this sugar we must withdraw from the Convention." The sugar was not liberated, and, therefore, the withdrawal was bound to follow.
  That is not quite the whole story, and I may finish the description of the present position in order that the whole story may be put before the House. I have tried to make two points, first, that there is no likelihood of a revival of the bounty system, and therefore our industries, which depend on not having competition with cheap, bounty-fed sugar, may be perfectly safe for the future. Secondly, that our action had considerable effect in getting this considerable gain of an extra 250,000 tons of Russian sugar, which we might not have obtained at all had we not taken the action we did. But other things followed. By withdrawal from the Convention, we, of course, are technically allowed to do many things which, while remaining a party to the Convention, we could not do. We are allowed to give a bounty on the export of sugar, and, if we please, to give a preference to cane sugar over beet sugar, or we can give a preference to sugar coming from the Colonies or other places. On the other hand, if we take that sort of action, other countries have a weapon which they will

  3261
  use against us, and it has been suggested that other countries, and particularly France, would take that opportunity, if we acted on our freedom in this way, of putting a very high duty on the sugar products which we send them. The value of the sugar products which we send to France and other countries is not very great, but still, of course, it would be hard upon the manufacturers of those sugar products, if they had very high duties to pay upon them owing to any action on our part. Therefore we have thought it right to say, in the notice of withdrawal which is being sent to the countries which are parties to the Convention, that this Government has no intention of giving bounties on the export of sugar, or of giving preference to cane sugar over beet, or of giving a particular form of that preference, a preference to sugar from the Colonies, or of imposing a higher Customs Duty on beet sugar than on cane.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? I am not certain that the case about which I am going to ask him is a careful omission or a careless one, but he said nothing about giving a bounty to the home growers of sugar. Has the Government made any statement on that point?
  Mr. ACLAND: We could give, as I understand it, a remission of the Excise Duty on home-grown sugar to the extent of 2s. 6d. a cwt. My point on that would be, that if we only did what we should have been justified in doing under the Convention, no country could take exception to the use we made of our freedom because of our departure from the Convention. We could not do more than give that reduction in the Excise Duty of 2s. 6d. a cwt., compared with our Customs Duty, without other countries saying to us, "You have done something because of your freedom which you could not have done while you were parties to the Convention, and therefore we will take retaliatory action."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it does not quite answer ray question. He is explaining that we could give a preference to homegrown sugar of 2s. 6d a cwt., under the Convention, and that we could do it still. What I wanted to ask was whether the Government have made any statement as to giving bounties to sugar growers? Have they precluded, for instance, or have they considered, whether
  3262
  the Development Commission should now be authorised to give a bounty to start the industry.
  Mr. ACLAND: I think the simplest thing I can do is to read exactly what we have said:—
  "His Majesty's Government has, therefore, no intention of departing from the fundamental principles of the Convention by themselves giving bounties on the export of sugar or by giving a preference to sugar produced within the British Empire on importation into the United Kingdom, or by imposing a higher Customs Duty on beet sugar than on cane sugar. They will, moreover, be prepared to maintain the present system of giving Customs certificates to any refiners or exporters of sugar not using bounty-fed materials who may desire such certificate with a view to enabling those sugars to be imported into the countries of the Sugar Union at the lowest possible tariff. His Majesty's Government will not depart in any particular from the policy laid down by them without giving due notice through the usual channels to the other states of the Sugar Union."
  That is the letter which is now being conveyed to the countries which are parties to the Sugar Convention.
  Mr. HEWINS Mr. HEWINS asked a question which was not heard in the Gallery.
  Mr. ACLAND: We had a pretty clear intimation that consequences would ensue if we did not make it clear that we did not intend to do the things which legitimately might entail the consequences.
  Mr. HEWINS: Then what consideration has the Government received?
  Mr. ACLAND: The consideration is obvious. We believe that, as we have no intention whatever of giving a preference to the Colonies, and no intention whatever of giving bounties, we are not departing from the policy which this Government, at any rate, would be absolutely certain to follow, and therefore we are not tying our hands in any way whatever, and in return for that we shall hope to effect this—that these countries will not do what they would be entitled to do otherwise and that is to put heavy retaliatory duties on our exports of sugar and sugar products. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) asks what business we have to give pledges of that kind to other countries and not to this House? We have guarded ourselves in that matter by saying so definitely as we have (hat it is not a pledge. We say we have no intention at present. If the House were to decide that it ought to give a preference to the Colonies, or ought to give a bounty on sugar production or sugar exports, we have made it quite clear that we should not do so without intimating that fact to the countries whose policy might be influenced

  3263
  by our action. Of course, it is open at a moment's notice for this House to change the policy which this Government has announced as its policy, and in that case the other countries could not find fault, and no Government would find itself pledged in any way, because we have only said, "This is our intention, and we will let you know as soon as our intention changes." Therefore the House is not fettered either from the point of view of what my right hon. Friend might want to do or the right hon. Gentleman opposite might want to do. Having made this declaration of our intentions, it is cur hope, and we have good hopes, that no other country will take the line which they would be justified in taking on the mere fact that we have given notice of withdrawal, of penalising our sugar products. This letter from the Foreign Office giving instructions to our representative at Brussels was only dated 2nd August. That was, I think, the same day on which the announcement was made. We did not think it was courteous to the other countries, at any rate, not immediately to give those countries the notice of withdrawal that we had announced in this House. That letter will have been sent by our representative in Brussels through the Government there to the other countries concerned, but clearly we have not had time to receive any answers at all as to what view the other countries concerned take of the matter. The representatives on the Sugar Commission of the other countries have aways known that it was not our intention to break away in order to give a preference to the Colonies, or in order to give a bounty on exports, and they have been quite ready to act accordingly, and not to penalise our sugar manufacturers.
  I have only, in conclusion, to say that the action that has been taken is justified. We believe that in the main the position of things in future will be summarised in the phrase "as you were." The Convention will continue, the bounties will not revive, the cane sugar industry will not be disturbed, and the beet sugar growing in this country will have just as good a chance as it has now, but we were bound, when there was an extra 400,000 tons of Russian sugar going that we wanted, with the price going up month after month against our people, to do everything we could to obtain that sugar, and it is undoubted that the announcement of our intention to withdraw had a real effect, and
  3264
  did obtain for us far more of that Russian sugar than would otherwise have been the case. As, of course, it has been our policy ever since 1908 to say that if any country will send bounty fed sugar we will be glad to take that sugar, we were only following out that policy in the ordinary direct course in making our position in that matter even more certain than before by clearing out altogether. It makes it quite clear to all the world that if we can get cheap sugar, wherever it comes from, we shall be glad to receive it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is it any part of the policy of the Government to maintain the Convention?
  Mr. ACLAND: No; I do not know that that is any part of our policy. It is bur contention that the Convention is going to maintain itself quite independently of what this Government may or may not do.
  Mr. LOUGH: We set it up.
  Mr. ACLAND: It has recently agreed to prolong itself for another five years, knowing as they did that we were going to go out. Indeed, foreign countries knew perfectly well when they agreed to continue the Convention for another five years that we must withdraw. The actual announcement of withdrawal was only a formal step made necessary by announcements previously made. The question of our policy with regard to the Convention does not arise, for the reason that the Convention will continue, and, as it will continue, bounties will not be restored. There are two questions with respect to the matter of policy. You may say that if we could get back to the system by which we could get cheap sugar from France and Germany, that would be an advantage. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that under any system there is no security for continuing from year to year to get bounty fed sugar at the expense of other countries. I would only add that, whatever we do, or do not do the Convention will continue, and therefore, whether we like it or not, and whether it is on the whole better for our industries or our people that they should have artificially cheap sugar, we are not going to get artificially cheap sugar, but sugar at the natural price.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The matter has been simplified by the speech we have had from the Under-Secretary. Whether it is as satisfactory to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) as

  3265
  it is to myself and friends, that is not for me to say. I wish to make one criticism as to the time and manner the Government have announced their decision. I asked the Prime Minister on Thursday last, when he made an announcement of the Government's intention, why we had not been told earlier. He gave two answers. He said it was the first time, since the Government made up their minds, that any Member had asked the question. I think the House has a right to demand in a matter of this importance, on which the Government have been frequently questioned, that when they came to a decision they should spontaneously communicate it to the House. The second answer was that he could not give earlier information to the House because the Government had only come to that conclusion. There was—I do not say a passage of arms, but a passage of argument between the lion. Gentleman opposite and myself, as to whether what he said in the course of the speech was compatible with what the Prime Minister had said.
  The Prime Minister has said that he could not communicate the decision to the House because it was not taken until just before; exactly when, I do not know, and he would not tell us. The lion. Gentleman tells us that the decision was practically taken last December. It follows inevitably from what was then said that if the Conference did not relase the sugar, therefore, our decision to withdraw followed automatically and necessarily on what had passed in December. But when did they finally refuse to permit all Russian sugar to come out? In the month of March last. Since then no new fact has arisen which could modify the decision of the Government in any way. Therefore, if it be true, as I think it was, as stated by the Under-Secretary, that the decision to withdraw followed necessarily from what they had said in December, it at once became known in March, when the other Powers would not agree to their terms, and there was no earthly reason why the Government should not have made up their minds or taken a formal decision on all that was required in the month of March, or at any rate in the month of April. Why was not that decision announced then? It is the flimsiest of flimsy excuses for the Prime Minister to say he could not make any announcement to the House because the Government had not made up their minds. They had made up their minds
  3266
  at this time, though they had not formally recorded their decision either in the Cabinet or in the Foreign Office or elsewhere.
  The result is that the only opportunity which the House has for the consideration of this most important question is the last week of the Session, and as far as this House is concerned the last day. That is not fair treatment of the House. The Government, to more than one interest, to the West Indies, the refiners and others, said that they should have ample opportunity of making representations before the Government committed them. The Government have forgotten this undertaking, and they only allow us to bring on the question on the very last-day of the Session; and then neither the Prime Minister, nor the Foreign Minister, nor the President of the Board of Trade, nor a single Cabinet Minister, nor the head of any of the Departments primarily concerned, thinks it worth his while to attend the discussion. If it had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, like others of us, had to sit up until four o'clock on Tuesday morning and three o'clock this morning, who was absent, or if there was some cause like that, I could make every excuse for their absence.
  But I think there is no excuse for the absence of any responsible Minister from a very important Debate of this kind. It is simply because it is the last day of the Session, and this is the only day on which they dare to do it. They could not have dared on any other day of the Session to leave the House to discuss this matter without the assistance of the presence of a Cabinet Minister. I come now to the merits of the question. The position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) is quite clear. He thought the Convention bad from the beginning, because he thought it" object was a wrong one. The right hon. Gentleman, in the name of Free Trade, demands, not the free exchange of commodities at their natural price, but the admission of goods at artificially low prices to this country without any free exchange on their part for the goods shipped that we send out. What that has to do with Free Trade I cannot conceive. The view that the admission of bounty fed products is a necessary part of Free Trade was repudiated by all the great Free Trade statesmen. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cobden himself, and I believe every one of the leaders of the

  3267
  Free Trade movement denounced the bounty system. It is only this latter-day representative of the movement, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) who really believes that Free Trade is served by the encouragement of bounties in other countries.
  Mr. LOUGH: That does not represent at all what I said. I said that the giving of bounties by other countries was the business of those countries, and that it was none of our business to go and purify their stables.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said he was convinced that Free Trade strikes at the bounty system. I say the contrary is the fact, and that the bounty system strikes at Free Trade, and is the negation of Free Trade. But I am not going to pursue that further, because it is not necessary. What is interesting is the right hon. Gentleman's object, namely, to preserve the bounties. He thinks this country pursued a suicidal course when it did anything to bring the bounties to an end, and when they entered into the Convention with the result of bringing them to an end. I do not wonder when the Under-Secretary sat down that the right hon. Gentleman asked him what is the view of the Government about that. I never heard a better defence than that which was made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and I am content to rest the case on the view which the Government took of his speech. He does not argue, as Members of his party have habitually done, that it was wrong to abolish the bounties because that produced dearer sugar, and to denounce the Convention because that would give us cheaper sugar. That is not the contention of the Under-Secretary. But it continues to be the contention of hon. Members opposite on the platform. The argument of the hon. Gentleman's Friends is wholly inconsistent with what he advanced. His defence of the action of the Government is that the Convention had not itself worked well, and that they now withdraw from it without any fear that the bounties can be, or will be, imposed again. That really leads me to another and damaging criticism of the attitude of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that if we had not had the weapon of threatening to leave the Convention unless Russian sugar were let
  3268
  out, we never would have got permission for Russia to export in the last three years the additional 250,000 tons. You used that threat for all it was worth. What you hoped to get was permission for her to export 400,000 tons.
  Mr. ACLAND: The ordinary 200,000 tons plus 300,000 tons.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the hon. Gentleman spoke of 400,000 tons. But I will take any figure he likes. He never hoped to get more. If they had not used the threat they would have got nothing. They used the threat, and extorted a compromise by which they got 250,000 tons. But it is hoped that at a future time they may get more, yet they have deprived themselves of the power ever to use the weapon by which alone they got anything. When next the question arises the Government will not be represented in this Convention, and the threat to leave the Convention will have no terrors for the other Powers, and instead of getting 250,000 tons through our position in the Convention, we will get nothing at all because we have gone out of it. As far as there is any justification for the action of the Government given us by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it is that the Convention did its work so well and so thoroughly that not only did it kill the bounties for the time we have been parlies to it, but that it dealt them a permanent blow from which they will never recover. What more justification do you want, and what then is to be said of the Convention? It did not decrease the growth of beet; on the contrary, the growth of sugar beet has increased. It did not decrease the growth of cane; on the contrary, it increased the growth of cane. It increased the refining business in this country. It increased the very important trade in the export of sugar machinery for the plantations in the West Indies and elsewhere, and which amounted last year to no less a sum than £2,000,000. It did not decrease the export of confectionery. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington talked loosely of the industries of the country, but he could not make that out in the case of confectionery, the export of which has steadily increased under this Convention.
  All those things increased. Stability was given to the West Indies, which was the one thing they lacked. They needed capital, and as long as you had the uncertainty, the bounty system, they could

  3269
  not get capital, and they were going from bad to worse, and this House was often forced, year after year, to pass Grants-in-Aid of the expenses of their administration. The Convention restored confidence and caused improved machinery to be set up and improved methods to be employed, and put the industry in the West Indies on a sound footing and relieved this country absolutely of any necessity for giving Grants-in-Aid. That is what the Convention has secured. What is the cost of the Convention? It did that without any real appreciable rise in the price of sugar. The price of sugar fluctuates. When you have a bad crop under the Convention, it sends prices up, just as when you have had a bad crop without the Convention, prices will go up, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington has still got to find a means of keeping prices down when there is a scarcity of the article.
  Mr. LOUGH: There is no scarcity.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If you take the five years before the Convention and the five years after the Convention, there is only a difference of a few pence in the average price of standard sugar f.o.b at Hamburg. Take the result of the ten years working of the Convention, and take the whole arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary that, whilst producing these results in the ten years it has once and for all killed the bounty system, and I say I want no better defence of the Convention. I do not quite understand even now the attitude of His Majesty's Government. The first great blow to bounties was struck not by this country but by the Indian Government. It is curious that the people who have attacked it most and who have been most conspicuous have been Free Traders before all things. The first blow was struck not by this Government, but by Lord George Hamilton when he authorised and carried through the imposition of countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar in India. What are the Government going to do about countervailing duties in India? Are they going to carry pedantry to the point of repealing them? Perhaps they have not considered that question. I think we are entitled to know what they intend to do. If they contemplate repealing the countervailing duties, are they going to give the Councils in India, as far as they are representative of public opinion, the Chamber of Commerce there, and others
  3270
  interested, an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject before any action is taken? If they do, I venture to say that they will find, if they repeal those countervailing duties, which would be the natural consequence of the action they are now taking, they will have against them the whole of Indian public opinion, whether native-Indian or Anglo-Indian. More than that I cannot say until I know the intentions of the Government. If the expectations of the Government, as explained by the Under-Secretary, are fulfilled, if, as is probable, Russia and the other countries being bound, we get no more Russian sugar than we could have got under the Convention, and we have no bounties any more than we should have had if we had remained in the Convention, then, although I think our Government will be playing a rather shabby part in this transaction, and one which will not enhance our reputation in the eyes of other nations, still no harm is done. The Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs even says that there are some advantages. We are now free to give a preference to our Colonies, which we were not under the Convention. We are as free now as we were under the Convention to give a preference to the home grower if it does not exceed 2s. 6d. a cwt. We are free, as I understand, to give bounties to our own producers also; but whether the Government mean to give bounties or not I could not elicit from the hon. Gentleman. The matter is one upon which I should really like to know the mind of the Government, because one of their organs in the Press, in an article on this subject, said that the matter was of the very greatest importance; the matter which was, above all others, of value in the action of the Government in denouncing the Convention was that they would now be free to give bounties on the growth of home-grown sugar beet. Do the Government intend to give those bounties, or do they not? No doubt a bounty is one form of preference; but, in my opinion, if you want to give a preference it is the worst form in which to give it. It is more liable and more likely to lead to corruption than any other form of encouragement that you might give. I observe that Members on the Treasury Bench agree with me. Since I am happy to have their assent on that point, I must observe that it is singularly curious that a Government who hold that view should have abolished the preference on Irish tobacco, and substituted for it a bounty paid by the Development Commissioners.

  3271
  It only shows in what watertight compartments the Government works. The Prime Minister continued the preference and refused a bounty; but his successor who is more sensitive to the appeals from Gentlemen behind him, who said that it was a preference and therefore very heterodox, cancelled the preference, and immediately gave back in the form of a bounty what he had taken away in the form of a preference. In other words, he adopted, as the Prime Minister agrees, the worst possible form of preference, and the form which is most likely to lead to political corruption.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. The right hon. Gentleman himself was, I remember very well, responsible for giving a rebate of duty on Irish tobacco; but I am afraid his Protectionist principles would object to the new arrangement, which is just twice as good as the old one.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I see what exactly the hon. Gentleman means. I think perhaps it has some bearing upon the size of the bounty. He has got just twice as much money under another name from the Government.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: It is nothing to do with the Government. It is the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is too thin. But let me return to this Convention. If we had to use bounty fed sugar in this country I do not think that it will innure to the advantage of the confectioners and the other manufacturers doing export trade, about whom the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) is so anxious. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs announced that the Government had volunteered the statement that they had no intention of giving bounties on exports in any form. He was asked what consideration he had got, and he replied that the Government wanted no consideration and had received none. He was asked why the Government had volunteered these assurances, and he said that it was intimated pretty clearly to His Majesty's Government that if these assurances were not forthcoming disagreeable consequences would ensue. I am not going to develop this point. I merely wish to draw the attention of the House to the immediate consequences produced, even
  3272
  in a Free Trade country, by the slightest threat of retaliation. Down the Government come with a run and volunteered assurances of the most satisfactory kind, which they are asked for under threats. They give up at once.
  Mr. ACLAND: What did we give up that you wanted us to keep?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You gave up your freedom. You gave it up because you were threatened with retaliation if you did not. There is some value in retaliation after all. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has made a speech for which we on this side of the House will, I think, feel more sincere gratitude than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not think it was from any want of respect that I did not take an earlier part in the Debate. I do not propose to say more than two or three words upon the question of our withdrawal from the Convention, the importance of which is greatly exaggerated both upon the one point and upon the other. I do not know that it will have very much effect for practical purposes on the policy of this country. The really important step, in which I think a new departure was taken, when we might really have become amenable to criticism from those who were responsible for the authorship of this Convention, was four years ago. Four years ago we were taking a decisive step when we were entering upon a renewal of the Convention, and when we said that so far as we were concerned we were not indisposed to remain parties to the Convention provided that from that time onward our ports should remain perfectly open, and since the year 1908 sugar, from whatever quarter of the world it has come, or to whatever bounties it was subject, has had perfectly free entrance into the ports of the United Kingdom. That was a really important step, and, to my mind, the real objection—I will not say the only objection, but the most formidable objection—was our agreement to unite with other Powers who were parties to the Convention either by contravailing duties, or bounties, restricting our own sources of supply in regard to one of the most important articles, and an article which is one of the necessaries of life, and the raw material of several important industries.

  3273
  I have never been a defender of the Convention. I have taken part in this controversy for a great many years, and I am sure nobody can ever produce a statement or speech of mine in support of the policy of bounties. It is a suicidal policy on the part of any country which pursues it, and I do not think in the long run it is of advantage to the world, and so far as the destruction of bounties are concerned I should never shed a tear. But I did think and do think it is a most serious thing for this country to enter into a Convention which places it at the discretion of the vote of a majority of Powers to say whether or not we are to freely import into our own country for the purposes of our own markets one of the necessaries of life. And when we got rid of that, in 1908, which to my mind was the vicious, and far and away the most vicious, feature of the Convention, I look upon this as comparatively unimportant. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked why we are now withdrawing. We are withdrawing in pursuance of the most definite and specific undertaking given in the autumn of last year, of which Parliament and the country had the fullest possible cognisance for months past that if the Conference by which the Convention was amended refused to place at the disposal of the markets of Europe the surplus supplies of Russia we should no longer be parties to that restricted instrument.
  The conditions of last year were extraordinary and anomalous, and almost unique. There was a shortage of sugar supplies in most of the sugar-producing countries. There was a very large surplus supply in Russia. The prices of sugar ran up—I forget for the moment precisely how much—and there was this large surplus stock in Russia capable of being used in the other markets of the world. But, through the operations of this Convention, that sugar was not available for the purposes for which it ought to be available. I think we were not only entitled, but we were bound, with these conditions to say, unless you set free, and fully set free, this surplus Russian supply we can no longer be parties to what is a protecting and restricting instrument. We made that perfectly plain, and the Powers had it under their consideration for months. It was perfectly well known to Parliament. In the result the most inadequate response was made to our appeal. We should be violating the undertaking we had given, and I think, further, we should have made
  3274
  ourselves parties, and active parties, to a restricting policy had we in these circumstances any longer remained parties to the Convention. I will not go into the side topics which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to in his speech, such as the question of Irish tobacco. I followed his policy in that respect.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But the right hon. Gentleman is a Free Trader.
  5.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all sure that he and I were wrong; but my successor took a different view. I do not think any matter of real principle was involved in that. I am glad to hear that the development of the Irish tobacco industry is proceeding apace. As regards the cultivation of beet in this country the withdrawal from the Convention leaves our hands—and that is an important matter from my point of view—perfectly free. It will enable the British Government, if so minded, to give a preference to the products of our own Colonies. That is one of the results, but everybody must agree that that would be a result in the direction of which I need not say His Majesty's present advisers do not intend to advance. In regard to the cultivation of beet sugar in this country, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that giving bounties is not the form in which it should be encouraged, but I see no reason why this nascent industry—I am expressing no opinion of my own—should not receive assistance from our development fund in its early stages. Whether that would be I described as a bounty or not by foreign countries I do not know. Of course it may be, and without expressing any opinion of my own, and still less without giving any pledge, I should think that it I would be a monstrous thing that the Government of this country should have its hands tied with regard to the development of a domestic and local industry by an arrangement with foreign countries. What we want and what we have got by the withdrawal from the Convention is complete economic freedom, and we have sacrificed nothing. Four years ago we opened our ports to the absolutely unrestricted importation of sugar from whatever source it might come, or under whatever domestic conditions it might be grown. That was a real gain from the position of comparative servitude which the Convention itself imposed, and whatever has followed afterwards is relatively unimportant.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the net results of the steps the Government are now taking are not very important. Certainly I do not understand, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing to explain, why it was necessary for them to take this step. What do they gain by it? From any possible point of view what could be gained. The Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, whose speech the Prime Minister had not the advantage of hearing, gave as a recommendation of the course taken that things were precisely as they were. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the gain of freedom for our markets. After all nobody feels more strongly than he does that in a practical question of this kind it is not freedom in the air, it is not sugar in the air, but sugar in the country. He cannot contend, and no one can contend, that as a result of what they are doing they can by any possibility get one ton more sugar in this country than they get under the Convention so long as the other parties adhere to it. We gain nothing, but have we not run the risk of losing something? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises that. Under the Convention as I remember it, and I used to take a great interest in it at the time it was started, the nations which are parties to it would feel themselves free to penalise not only sugar but the products of sugar coming from any country which did not adhere to the principles of the Convention. In order to meet that difficulty the Undersecretary told us that they have done the very reverse of that which the Prime Minister claims they have done: that they have given up with one hand the freedom which they have obtained with the other, and have come under an obligation that they will do none of the things the Prime Minister says they have a right to do. More than that, by taking the course they have taken, they have only the hope—they cannot say they have the assurance—that our sugar products will not be penalised in those countries which are parties to the Convention. What do they gain? They have not gained one ton more sugar for this country, and they cannot by any possibility lower the price of sugar by what they have done. They run the risk, however, that these countries may say to our confectioners and others, "You are not parties to the Convention; we will put penalties on your sugar products when they come to our country." The hon. Member
  3276
  cannot tell us he has any assurance that a a step of that kind will not be taken.
  What have they gained? They have gained something which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. They have gained freedom on the platforms to shout again, "We have abolished the Convention and given you the hope of cheap sugar." That is all they have gained. I would like to say I was greatly interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the growing of beet sugar in this country. I have long felt that as a nation we have been acting foolishly in not encouraging the growth of beet sugar in this country. It has been proved to demonstration that it is within our power to grow it at least as well as any other country in Europe, and it is the one kind of industry needed in this country more than any other. It has two sides to it: it is agriculture, and at the same time it gives employment to people on the land. It is the one thing we ought to do. Why have we not done it? I know people say, "If it can succeed, why is it necessary to have any special measures to ensure its success?" The. Prime Minister has himself given the reason. In a case of this kind where a nascent industry is competing with a full-grown industry, and where the cost of transit is so small, it is obvious that that industry cannot successfully compete until it is firmly established. That has been proved in another way.
  The Under-Secretary incidentally mentioned the very striking fact that the amount of sugar extracted from beet increases to the extent of nearly 100 per cent, as the result of experience in growing it. It is perfectly obvious we cannot in starting this industry step in where France and Germany have ended. Our experiments must be made here, and we must judge different soils and treat them in different ways. Whilst that experience is being gained, it is utterly impossible that our industry can compete with those industries which are fully developed. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is an industry which is worth fostering. I am quite sure he would not have said what he did say if he was merely expressing a pious opinion and unless he means in some way to encourage the industry. I do not much care what form the encouragement is to take, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in supposing we were not free to do it under the Convention. We could have put no Excise Duty on home-grown sugar while

  3277
  having a duty upon imported sugar. That would have been at least as effective as any grant of money from the Development Fund. It would have had this great advantage, that if you are going to encourage native industries in that way it is far better to have the largest possible amount of freedom, and, if the encouragement takes the form of freedom from duty which is paid by foreign sugar, everyone is on a footing of equality; there is complete freedom and complete confidence, and the best possible results follow for the country. I think that would be the better way. I am perfectly certain that agriculturists all over the country will be delighted to read the statement made by the Prime Minister today that in one way or other a serious attempt will be made to establish this great industry in this country.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure my Constituents will gladly read the declaration made by the Leader of the Opposition that he does not anticipate any real disadvantage from this step, but I want to enter a protest, with all respect, against the method of the Government when they made their statement last week in this House. No attention was drawn to the fact that foreign countries had signed an agreement in 1907 to renew the Convention until 1918, and, as a consequence, the impression got abroad that the bounty system, as we knew it in the past, may be renewed in the future. As we have heard this afternoon, it is anticipated by all sides of the House that the position of the sugar industry for the next six years will be exactly the same as it has been during the last four years. This agreement was signed on 17th March without the signature of Great Britain, thereby showing that all these countries came to a voluntary agreement among themselves, which they are very unlikely to go back upon. Fear has been expressed that the bounties may be revived in the future, but there seem to be good reasons why they will not be revived.
  The first is that the people abroad today are able to purchase cheap sugar and appreciate the benefits of cheap sugar in comparison with the higher prices of the past. They are, therefore, very unlikely to press their Governments to go back to I the old bounty days. The second reason is that the Governments of foreign countries have discarded the system of bounties. It may be said they have thrown over the yoke and bondage of bounties, and are not likely to place their necks
  3278
  under that yoke again. The system was well described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in a dispatch he wrote in 1897, when he said it was a system under which, out of the pockets of the foreign taxpayer, the British public were provided with cheap sugar. The foreign Governments now know this fact, and they are not likely to go back to the system of bounties. Another reason is that Governments are increasing rapidly their burden for armaments, and, therefore, they are unlikely to seek out fresh channels of expenditure, having once appreciated the benefit of the discarded system. My Constituency has suffered from the bounty system, and they were afraid when they read the notice last week that that system might be revived. I have come to this House pledged to maintain the Convention of 1907, which was the Liberal attitude of that year, and I regret that this question will not go to a Division so that I can record my vote against the Government upon this matter. But, after what has been said this afternoon, I believe the fears that have arisen will be dispelled when they read the different speeches made in this House.
  Mr. BIGLAND: The speech of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was really a plea for "cheap, cheap, cheap sugar." I am one of those who years ago spoke on the exchanges, whore enormous quantities of sugar are handled, and declared that the policy of bounty fed sugar was one which we as an honourable trading people should resent. It always appeared to me that importing bounty fed articles into this country was to a certain extent on the same lines as importing convict made goods. I look upon it from a moral aspect. If a foreign Government pays sufficient money to enable workmen to be fed and housed the importation of the product of their labour into this country is a thing trade unionists will not allow, and we generally will not allow. What Germany actually did was to pay roughly one-fifth of the cost of feeding and housing a great number of workmen. Therefore to that extent bounty fed sugar was in the same category as convict-made goods. There is behind this bounty system a moral question that we have the right to examine. What the late Government did was to abolish a bribe over a commercial transaction. I consider that sugar bounties were in the nature of the hugest international bribery ever committed. The Under-Secretary stated that

  3279
  France paid £3,000,000 a year. We were parties to that bribe. It was given by the foreign Governments of Europe, and accepted by the people of this country. The foreign Governments gave it, first of all, to encourage the industry at home. I do not think that when they gave it they thought they were wilfully taking away the means of subsistence from people in the tropical parts of the world, who were their only competitors in sugar, but they practically bribed England and closed her ears by offering something below cost. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) said, it drove the price of sugar down to 6s. 8d. a cwt. in the Hamburg market.
  At that time it was impossible, with the high rate of freights, for cane sugar to be advantageously grown and shipped to this country. When we took that bribe we were wilfully injuring tens of thousands of innocent people in different parts of the world, who according to our system of Free Trade had a right to expect from us equality of treatment. The first country that realised the morality of this question was the country which has always been spoken of as having no conscience beyond the almighty dollar. The United States was the first nation to say that if any country gave bounties on sugar they would raise their duties on sugar which was imported to an amount equal to the bounty that was given, so that the effect of it should be nil. India followed the same policy, and put on a countervailing duty equal to any bounty which might be paid. We recognise the moral position with regard to this matter, and our Government are now trying to force England to take anotherbribe, because the only country that is now a bounty paying country in Europe is Russia, and they are breaking up this Convention in order to enable the people of England to be bribed again, and there is no knowing but what in that vast territory, if Russia likes to go on bribing, she may produce enough sugar to send us the bulk of our requirements. How then can we hope for the advance of the West Indies and other cane-growing sugar countries?
  The next point I want to show is what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) would not allow for a moment, and that is that a scientific tariff increases production. When America fought Spain, and Cuba was made a Sovereign State, the duty between Cuba and the United States
  3280
  was arranged in this way. It was a bargain. The Americans said to Cuba, "if you will take our manufactured goods at 40 per cent, less than Great Britain and Germany we will pay you £2 a ton more for your sugar in that we will make our duty on sugar £2 less per ton for Cuban sugar than for German, British, or any other. The result of that was that it gave enormous confidence in Cuba for them to develop that industry, and they developed it from about that time. The average quantity of exported sugar from Cuba prior to the war was 600,000 tons. This year it will amount to 1,600,000 tons, which is an evidence that if any great buying Power will give a preference to a country well adapted to produce an article it will in the long run procure for itself a large increase in the trade, and that is what we on this side of the House claim in regard to this and other articles, that if we will give a preference to parts of the world adapted to the growing of any article it will give confidence; it will draw capital and labour into the industry; it will increase the total average production; and when you get the world's average production increased you get a stability of price; you get a reasonable price, and therefore are doing the very best you possibly can for the people who are at home requiring that article. My common-sense view of the business would be rather to give, now that we are free to do it, a preference to cane as against beet. The right hon. Gentleman talked about our shipping. If we gave a preference to cane, we should carry our sugar 6,000 miles on the average instead of 600. Would that be no advantage when you consider that we want practically 4,000 tons of sugar a day? If you say to our shippers, "We are going to give you a 7,000 mile haul instead of a short haul across from Hamburg," you will see at once that you are giving to the shipping industry an enormous increase of employment.
  From the moral aspect we are right to stop this bounty, and from the Colonial and Imperial aspect we have a right to encourage those parts of the world, and, from another point of view, not being able ever to become manufacturers, these must always be buyers of manufactured goods in exchange for money and work given to them. If we transfer £10,000,000 a year from the beet growing countries, all of which are keen competitors of ours, to people who do not manufacture for themselves, and we pay them £10,000,000 a

  3281
  year, the reflex action of our industrial life here at home would be very marked. There is no doubt that if you give a preference to cane sugar, the increase in the demand for plant bought in this country would be enormous. An expert friend of mine said that if we made the change, we would have orders for £40,000,000 worth of plant in order to carry out the crushing and concentrating in the tropical countries where the cane is grown. Therefore, I say while our withdrawing from this Convention has some good points about it, there are other points which I think are rather to be deprecated, particularly the admission into this country of any bounty fed sugar. I do hope, shall I say, that a moral feeling will pervade the people of this country, that they will not accept a bribe, but that they will put a countervailing duty on any sugar coming from any country in the world where bounties are paid in order to build up their own export trade at the expense of the natural courses of business, which would leave cane sugar to fight its way in British importing centres.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: There are one or two occasions on which a man may in this House express opinions with reference to matters on which he may not find many followers. Motions for the Adjournment of the House provide opportunities when that can be done, and I ask the indulgence of hon. Members while I lay my views before them on a subject regarding which I have long thought and upon which I have come to a conclusion. I wish to impress on the House, as far as I can, and on the public, the immense advantage it would be in the cause of peace and in the interest of the poor if our foreign policy were absolutely open and straightforward, and if all treaties entered into between this country and foreign Powers were laid on the Table of the House for ratification. I will not enter into the arguments which I have frequently put before the House in reference to this, but I would say that these views have been powerfully enforced by the recent explanations given on behalf of the Imperial Committee of Defence, and likewise by the exposition given a few days ago by the Prime Minister as to the effect and value of conferences on Foreign Affairs between the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Ministers of our Dominions and Colonies. I do not know any way by which the pre-
  3282
  sent system can be logically defended. The statement is utterly unanswerable when I say that it is wrong on the face of it to allege that theoretically this House has discussed every line of a Bill regarding some matter of which it knows nothing whatever, but which may involve international obligations. I have stated, and I believe it to be a fact, that if Parliament had had full cognisance of the circumstances before the South African war, that war would never have taken place. I have been in this House for a quarter of a century, and as a student of history the conclusion I have come to is that wars are not the work of the people of the countries which engage in them, but are the work of five or six individuals, and that they generally owe their origin not entirely remote from the Stock Exchanges of the countries. That being so, and when we recollect that over the face of Europe the working classes are not as a rule disposed to war, I cannot help thinking that if we had the exposition of foreign policy before the House, we should have fewer wars and fewer rumours of wars. It is perfectly plain that if the people were fully possessed of the facts as they ought to be, the whole tenour of foreign policy would be altered. But these Debates on Foreign Office Votes very properly, of course, turn on individual cases and the relations between this country and different foreign Powers, and, of course, the chief object of the discussions is criticism of the Government and of Government action. I have got no criticism whatever to make except favourable criticism in reference to the present Foreign Secretary. I think, having regard to the difficulties of the situation, he is really the very best Foreign Secretary we have ever had, and it is a great advance that we have had a Foreign Secretary who has held the office without interruption for a greater period than any other Foreign Secretary since the Rform Bill, and that we have him in this House instead of the House of Lords. It is likewise a very great advance, for the communication of knowledge of foreign policy to the people, that we have in this House not only the Foreign Secretary but likewise the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that both of them, as far as they can, and so far as the practice of the Foreign Office allows, have been very anxious to take the people into their confidence.
  But something more is wanted. This House, which controls the Executive Government, should likewise have some

  3283
  control over its foreign policy. At present it has none whatever. I am not speaking without authority upon this point. In Mr. Bryce's book upon the American Commonwealth, he speaks of the power of the Senate over foreign treaties, and says that the time will probably come when a voice will be raised against the all but unlimited control of our Executive Government independently of Parliament over foreign policy, and that then the American example may be studied in order to form our own system on it. On 19th March, 1886, a Motion was proposed in this House that treaties should be laid before the House fourteen days before being ratified. That Motion was rejected only by a majority of four. The subject has never been thoroughly and formally raised from that day to this, though frequently on such occasions as this, individually, I have raised it. Lord Palmerston openly said that Parliament need not be consulted about peace or war, and that the highest constitutional authorities have always said that once war is proclaimed it is their duty as patriots to vote supplies for that war. I think that my contention has been very much strengthened by the exposition which the Prime Minister has given of the Imperial Defence Committee.
  The creation of the Imperial Defence Committee establishes a, completely new doctrine in regard to foreign affairs. Its members do not go into the Cabinet, but they are presided over by Cabinet Ministers, who constitute a contingent amongst them. It has always been said that foreign policy, or at any rate the executive policy, cannot be publicly discussed; but it would be utterly impossible for any body of military or naval gentlemen, or any body of great merchants, to go into that Committee with advice and to arrange matters of defence of the Empire, or in reference to our communications, without becoming clearly and distinctly aware of what is the policy of the Government; a policy which is concealed from the people. Recently the Prime Minister discussed our foreign policy with foreign Prime Ministers. Surely if the Prime Minister of a foreign country may know something of our foreign policy, why should the people be denied knowledge of it. Burke in this House urged that there should be a representation in the Imperial Council of the American Colonies, and Joseph Hume, who for fifty years took an active part in this House, again and again
  3284
  asked that our foreign policy should be communicated to the Colonies.
  All that is good. But what is to be said of a Debate on foreign affairs in this House, when those who take part in its have no general conception or idea of the basis of our policy? Last November I put a question to the Foreign Secretary on the occasion when there had been some reference to the Treaty of Paris. Certain complications have occurred which make it necessary that a treaty between this country and France should be disclosed. It was not a commercial treaty; if it had been it would have been debated by the Senate. The question I put to the Foreign Secretary was whether there were any other secret treaties between this country and other countries of which we knew nothing. He said there were. Therefore we are in the dark with reference to foreign policy. No one in the House of Commons had the slightest idea that on the 21st July, 1911. we were on the eve of war with Germany. It is literally absurd that we should be deprived in this way of any idea of what is our foreign policy. It is one of the great anomalies of our Constitution that we are deprived of all power in this matter of foreign policy. In my judgment it inflicts a great injustice on the poor, on whom fall, in the end, the onus, burden, expense, and misery of war. I thank the House for their kindness in giving me the opportunity to refer to certain matters which were uppermost in my mind.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I rise to call attention to the system under which I understand the Government propose to admit animals from Ireland, from certain ports in Ireland, to foreign wharves in England. Under those circumstances, and remembering the conditions under which that fell disease has been reintroduced quite recently into this country from Ireland beyond all possibility of contradiction, I feel bound to enter my protest against this course being taken at the present time. I need not assure the right lion. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture that in the difficult position in which he is placed the last thing in the world that ever entered my head is to do or say anything whatever to embarrass him in the struggle which he is making, and which he will still have to make in order to extirpate this great calamity again. On the other hand I am bound to consider the interests not only of the community, but the agricultural interests as a whole on this side of

  3285
  the Channel, as well as the interests of the agricultural industry in Ireland. Speaking with a long experience on this question, and having had all those difficulties to encounter myself in former days, it would be most distressing to me, as it would undoubtedly be to him, to see this disease widely spread over the country again. I feel it even more than he does, because I know from experience the intolerable loss and annoyance and difficulty in which it places the whole agricultural interests for years. That is not only because of the immediate money loss which is suffered, but the annoyance which arises from the necessity of imposing the strictest regulations and restrictions on the movement of cattle and sheep in all parts of the country in order to get rid of it again. It is for that reason only that I ask permission to say a very few words upon this subject. Once more I desire to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that I do sincerely hope that this step will not be taken unless he is absolutely satisfied with regard to the condition of affairs in the sister isle. I have been looking into this matter and the few observations I wish to make are founded upon two documents in particular. One is the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself in this House on 1st July, and the other is the report of an action just undertaken by the Board of Agriculture of Ireland against certain people for concealment of the fact that this disease was in existence when they knew or ought to have known—I am perfectly satisfied that they did know—that it was in existence and had undoubtedly been in existence for some considerable time. When I compare a few passages from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with statements in the Report of this trial I think the House will agree, if the Report be correct, that I am justified in complaining of the lax administration on the part of the Department in Ireland which has allowed such a state of things to come to pass. On 1st July the right hon. Gentleman told us:—
  "On Thursday last, the 27th ult., the Board received information that the lesions characteristic of foot-and-mouth disease had been discovered in the tongues of two beasts which had been slaughtered in the abattoirs at Liverpool. … Inquiries were immediately set on foot in order to ascertain the origin and destination of the diseased animals. … It was ascertained that the affected animals had been bought in Stanley Market, Liverpool, on Monday the 24th ultimo, to which they had been brought on the previous day by an Irish dealer who buys cattle in the Dublin marker. … These cattle formed part of a consignment which had arrived from Ireland viâ Dublin and Holyhead on the previous Sunday. There was therefore abundant evidence that the outbreaks had their origin in Ireland,
  3286
  and I am informed this morning by the Irish Department that the disease has been discovered there on a farm near Swords in the County of Dublin, twenty-four cattle being visibly affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st July, 1912, col. 769, Vol. XL.]
  That was the information afforded to the Board of Agriculture on 1st July. Now what do I read in the Report of this trial? It is very desirable that it should be contradicted if it is inaccurate. I understand that the Report is the same in all the newspapers. I am quoting it merely to show that there have been circumstances in Ireland connected with these outbreaks which, to say the least, are most unsatisfactory—especially if the statement I am about to quote is true:—
  "Mr. William Malone, Veterinary Inspector to the Department, deposed to visiting a farm on 30th June and finding more cattle suffering from the disease. The man in charge, named Maguire, at first said nothing was wrong with then), but subsequently said that one or two cattle might have tinber tongue, and had been treated for that disease by a cow doctor. On being examined that evening, 30th June, seventy-four cattle were found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and they were slaughtered on 3rd July."
  We were told in the House of Commons on the afternoon of 1st July, that there were only twenty-four, and that information must have been communicated to lie President of the Board of Agriculture in England by the Irish Department. That is a matter which, unless there be some reason of which I am not aware, certainly does not show the kind of administration of these Acts, and circumstances connected with them, which would give me great confidence in the Department; sufficient to justify me in agreeing to the export of animals from ports in Ireland at a distance from the inspected district so small as that which is proposed now. I do not want to dwell upon this a moment further than it is necessary. I pass now to the next point. I sent an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman, and I asked him if he could tell me how far the ports in Ireland from which the animals are now to be sent are from the infected district. I have been trying myself with such maps as I possess to make out as well as I could how far in a straight line they are. Swords itself, which is the centre of the disease, is considerably north of Dublin. I understand that the whole of the county of Dublin is scheduled as an infected district; that is so?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Yes.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The nearest point in the county of Dublin does not appear to be more than twenty-five or thirty miles at the very outside from the port from

  3287
  which it is now proposed to export these animals. The question suggests itself to my mind: What other country in the world would dream of doing such a thing as this, especially if you knew that the disease had been concealed, must have been concealed, for a considerable number of days? Over seventy animals on a farm do not become infected immediately. They would not be found by the inspector altogether infected unless there had been disease about the place for a very considerable time. What other country in the world, under these conditions or circumstances would think of exporting animals from a port in that country within a very short distance from the infected district itself? That is the first question which occurs to me to which I should like an answer much more satisfactory than anything I have heard up till now. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday told me that no guarantee could be given, or at any rate was given, that the slaughter of the animals would prevent the introduction of this disease. He said that he entirely disagreed from me. He used the word "safeguard," but "guarantee" was the word I used. I used it on purpose, because I wished something more than what is supposed to be a safeguard. I wish every possible step to be taken to prevent this disease coming back again. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he could not take any steps or adopt any policy which would result in a meat famine. Why should there be a meat famine? Ireland is not the only source from which our supplies of meat are received in this country. There are millions of tons of dead meat imported, and these can be distributed in all parts of the country at short notice. If it be necessary to do so—although I acknowledge it might involve a certain amount of loss of profit— that is a matter for the producers in Ireland to consider for themselves. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that I am at all indifferent to this, or that I do not recognise fully and completely what a strain this may place for the time upon the farmers in Ireland, and from all I know about it I have the utmost and most complete and fullest sympathy for them. But if this disease was permitted to spread in Ireland, they would have to face all the troubles and difficulty again which I very well remember a great number of years ago. On the other hand, in the public interests and in the interests of the whole of the community, and, above all, in the industry of
  3288
  agriculture in the United Kingdom, I felt I could not reconcile it with my duty to leave this Parliament for the Recess without the least doing my best to raise these questions and to submit them to the right hon. Gentleman, that even now it would be wiser and better and right, at all events, to postpone this special Order for some longer period than he has given in view of the disastrous results which might quite conceivably and quite possibly occur if, in view of this new proposal, fresh seeds of infection were imported, and a further spread of the disease was possible.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The fears of the right hon. Gentleman are I believe largely unfounded. Indeed, if I believed anything else, I should certainly not have taken the step to authorise fat cattle to be brought to the foreign animals' wharves for immediate slaughter. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that that is a recent decision of mine, but I have informed the House several times during the last three weeks that I would allow fat cattle to be brought to the foreign animals' wharves at Bristol, Glasgow, Birkenhead, and Deptford, from one or two selected ports in Ireland, under severe restrictions, and I believe if that had not been done, it would have been impossible for the meat supply to be maintained, partly in the North-West of England and to some extent in the immediate districts round about Glasgow. I admit at once that there is no absolute guarantee against the introduction of disease, not only from Ireland, but from other parts of the world. Anyone who knows anything about the insidious nature of the disease, knows it may be carried, not only by animals, but by persons and birds, and I have heard it suggested that it may be disseminated by foxes. From Cheshire representations have reached me from the farmers with a view to preventing foxes running about in areas affected. We must draw the line somewhere. We cannot prevent persons, for instance, passing to and fro; and it is past the powers of the Board of Agriculture to prevent migratory birds passing. All we can do is to apply such restrictions as we think possible and as we think will result in the extirpation of the disease and in preventing its introduction. So far as I know no one member of the Departmental Committee, presided over by Mr. Aylwin Fellowes, expressed one word of dissent from the restrictions applied against outbreaks in this country. The suggestion that

  3289
  the foreign animals' wharves might become a source of infection I believe to be utterly unfounded, and my reason is that during the sixty outbreaks during the last five weeks not a single one of them has been traced, either directly or indirectly, to the foreign animals' wharves. Most of the cases we know were traceable to the infection having come in from the county Dublin. It was possible that the market of Dublin may have been infected by animals that passed through from Swords, but it is certain that nearly all the outbreaks were attributable to the infection carried from this one centre and disseminated throughout the country before it was known that the disease was coming in at all. Immediately it was discovered the most prompt action was taken. I would point out that promptitude of action is of the very first importance. Indeed I shall make a comparison between the promptitude of action which is considered necessary now and what used to be considered necessary in the old days. Let me, first, take the risk of disease coming into the Foreign Animals' Wharf. Cattle used to be put on trucks and shipped to Holyhead, thus carrying the infection into our markets, and practically affecting a whole consignment of cattle before it was noticed in the country at all. Animals that come into the Foreign Animals' Wharf now are not allowed to be scattered in this way; they are kept within circumscribed areas, and not a single fat animal is allowed to come from a scheduled area, and only from centres that are certified free from all disease. They are carefully inspected by veterinary surgeons at a small number of ports from which we are receiving fat cattle, and when they come to this side to the Foreign Animals' Wharf the animals are all placed in charge of an inspector of the Board.
  At other times the animals coming over here used to be subjected to inspection of and put in charge of officers of the local authorities. I have not seen fit to allow that in the case of the Foreign Animals' Wharf, because our own officials ought to be responsible for what we are doing under these exceptional circumstances. The animals are examined as soon as possible in daylight by an inspector of the Board, and in the meantime they are not allowed to come into contact with any animals except those that came in the same ship. Therefore not a single one of these animals at either end of the journey have been suspected of being diseased
  3290
  after the closest possible examination. If the animals are all found to be free from disease, they are retained for a period not exceeding ten days, after which they must be slaughtered, and under no circumstances are they allowed to proceed outside the lairs on the Foreign Animals' Wharf. The inspector has the power to order the immediate slaughter of any animal, or of all the animals, if he thinks it is necessary. To prevent infection being carried about by persons we provide that no person shall be allowed to enter or leave the wharf without a special permit. He must specially disinfect himself, and his working clothing have to be removed before he leaves the wharf. Manure may not be removed without the inspector's permission, and before it is removed it must be disinfected to his satisfaction. I venture to say a set of safeguards so complete as this provides us with all practical measures which are necessary to enable us to bring in fat animals from areas in which there is no disease at the present time.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:—

  1. Appropriation Act, 1912.

  2. Finance Act, 1912.

  3. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1912.

  4. Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1912.

  5. Public Works Loans Act, 1912.

  6. Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1912.

  7. Public Offices (Sites) Act, 1912.

  8. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1912.

  9. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1912.

  10. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1912.

  11. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1912.

  12. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1912.

  13. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1912.

  3291

  14. Military Lands Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  15. Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  16. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Essex, etc.) Act, 1912.

  17. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kent, etc.) Act, 1912.

  18. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London, No. 1) Act, 1912.

  19. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London, No. 2) Act, 1912.

  20. Land Drainage (Lincoln West) (South District) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  21. Land Drainage (Billingham) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  22. Land Drainage (Pitsea) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  23. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Act, 1912.

  24. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1912.

  25. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1912.

  26. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1912.

  27. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1912.

  28. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1912.

  29. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1912.

  30. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1912.

  31. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1912.

  32. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1912.

  33. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1912.

  34. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1912.

  35. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1912.

  3292

  36. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1912.

  37. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1912.

  38. Sea Fisheries (Conway) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  39. Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1912.

  40. Exe Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  41. Tramways Orders Confirmation Act, 1912.

  42. Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1912.

  43. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1912.

  44. Arbroath Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  45. Dunbar Water Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  46. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  47. Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  48. Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Act Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1912.

  49. Brighton and Hove Gas Act, 1912.

  50. Ystradfellte Water Act, 1912.

  51. Stockport Corporation Act, 1912.

  52. Taft Vale Railway Act, 1912.

  53. Windermere District Gas and Water Act, 1912.

  54. Annfield Plain and District Gas Act, 1912.

  55. Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Act, 1912.

  56. Great Eastern Railway Act, 1912.

  57. Derwent Valley Water Act, 1912.

  58. Cardiff Railway Act, 1912.

  59. Southgate and District Gas Act, 1912.

  60. North Middlesex Gas Act, 1912.

  61. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1912.

  62. Lea Bridge District Gas Act, 1912.

  63. Maidenhead Gas Act, 1912.

  64. Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Act, 1912.

  65. Brodsworth and District Gas Act, 1912.

  66. Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Act, 1912.

  67. Australian Agricultural Company's Act, 1912.

  68. Stepney Borough Council (Spital-field's Market) Act, 1912.

  3293

  69. Bedwellty Urban District Act, 1912.

  70. Belfast Water Act, 1912.

  71. Port of London Act, 1912.

  72. Scunthorpe Urban District Water Act, 1912.

  73. Tavistock Urban District Council Act, 1912.

  74. North Ormesby, South Bank, Normanby, and Grangetown Railless Traction Act, 1912.

  75. Shipley Urban District Council Act, 1912.

  76. Brighton Corporation Act, 1912.

  77. Great Central Railway Act, 1912.

  78. Bawtry and District Gas Act, 1912.

  79. Hove Corporation Act, 1912.

  80. Houghton-le-Spring District Gas Act, 1912.

  81. Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity) Act, 1912.

  82. Fleetwood Gas Act, 1912.

  83. Ivybridge Urban District Water Act, 1912.

  84. Metropolitan District Railway Act, 1912.

  85. London and North-Western Railway Act, 1912.

  86. Christchurch Gas Act, 1912.

  87. Herne Bay Gas Act, 1912.

  88. Wakefield Gas Act, 1912.

  89. Swanage Gas and Water Act, 1912.

  90. York Gas (Consolidation) Act, 1912.

  91. Dover Corporation Act, 1912.

  92. London United Tramways Act, 1912.

  93. Gas Companies (Standard Burner) Act, 1912.

  94. Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Act, 1912.

  95. Tees Conservancy Act, 1912.

  96. Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Act, 1912.

  97. London Electric Railway Act, 1912.

  98. Llanelly Rural District Water Act, 1912.

  99. London Trust Company Act, 1912.

  100. Midland Railway Act, 1912.

  101. Birmingham Corporation Act, 1912.

  102. Ashborne Urban District Council (Gas) Act, 1912.

  103. Barry Railway Act, 1912.

  104. Edgware and Hampstead Railway Act, 1912.

  105. Great Western Railway Act, 1912.

  106. Great Northern Railway Act, 1912.

  107. Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Act, 1912.

  108. Ericht Water and Electric Power Act, 1912.

  3294

  109. South Suburban Gas Act, 1912.

  110. Woking District Gas Act, 1912.

  111. Lanark County Tramways Act, 1912.

  112. Manchester Royal Exchange Act, 1912.

  113. Nottingham Mechanics Institution Act, 1912.

  114. Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1912.

  115. Glasgow Water Act, 1912.

  116. Fylde Water Board Act, 1912.

  117. National Electric Construction Company, Limited, Act, 1912.

  118. Swansea Corporation Act, 1912.

  119. Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Act, 1912.

  120. West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Act, 1912.

  121. Metropolitan Railway Act, 1912.

  122. London County Council (Money) Act, 1912.

  123. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1912.

  124. London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912.

  125. London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Act, 1912.

  126. Keighley Corporation Act, 1912.

  127. Bordon and District Gas Act, 1912.

  128. Blyth Harbour Act, 1912.

  129. Bishop's Divorce Act, 1912.

  Mr. RUNCIMAN: When the interruption took place I was pointing out the great distinction there was between the introduction of animals under ordinary conditions and the introduction of fat animals for immediate slaughter. I fear, from what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday, he thinks that any restrictions, however severe, are irreconcilable with the introduction of fat animals from any part of Ireland until Ireland itself is certified to be entirely free from disease exactly in the same way as if Ireland were a foreign country. The right hon. Gentleman again to-day emphasised the same view. I am afraid I cannot treat Ireland as though she were a foreign country. She is still an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I cannot undertake to treat her as if she were a foreign country any more than I can treat Scotland as a foreign country.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That was not my intention or the view I intended to convey. In the form of a question across the Table it is not always very easy to put in precise

  3295
  terms exactly what you wish to convey. But the great objection I took to-day was this: When I used the words "a foreign country," I said "from what other country in the world would you admit animals into this country when the port was something like 25 miles from what is still an infected district, and in which you knew the disease had risen, and been concealed for some time."
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We should certainly admit animals from Scotland under exactly the same conditions as we are now admitting them from Ireland. It has been done in the past and no exception was taken to it on the other side of the House. On the occasion of the Leith outbreak animals were brought to London by steamer from Grangemouth and other parts of Scotland, and no exception was taken, and I know of no reason why the present safeguards being adequate, it can be suggested that any risk is run by treating Ireland in the same way as Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that one way of getting over the difficulty would be for the animals to be slaughtered in Ireland and imported here as dead meat. That has been done to some extent. I think he also went on to say that if that could not be done there were a large number of countries from which chilled beef could be got for this country. I do not feel inclined to encourage the importation of foreign meat into this country if, within the British Islands, we can get as much as we require. The whole impression given by the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, and the statement he made to-day, is that undue risks are being taken in the administration of the Act as regards the safeguards against disease during the present outbreak. I really think, in justice to the Department, and with the idea of soothing those who may have been alarmed by this statement, I ought to point out how enormously, during the last few years, the administration on this side of the Board's work has improved. The right hon. Gentleman invited me to look back on the past history of epidemics in this country. I had already done so. I went back some twenty years to the time when the right hon. Gentleman himself was, with great popularity, administering the Department. I find that the kind of thing that was then considered quite adequate we to-day should consider quite inadequate. The disease was dis-
  3296
  covered in 1892 in the London Cattle Market. That, I believe, was early in the morning of February 4th. An Order prohibiting movement out of the district concerned was not issued until two days later, and an order prohibiting markets and sales was not issued until no less than four days later. I think the agriculturists of England ought to know that what was considered safe in 1892 is not considered safe to-day. In a parallel case an outbreak in Surrey occurred among pigs which belonged to a clergyman. Being an honest clergyman, he at once communicated with the police. I think that was on the Friday evening. Communications passed with the police, and on the Saturday morning we had our chief veterinary inspector on the spot. He examined the animals, confirmed the disease, and before 3 o'clock in the afternoon every one of the animals had been slaughtered. That, I venture to say, compares favourably with the four days in the parallel case before the order was issued in 1892. Take the cases of Kent, Cheshire, or anywhere else, and you will find that what the administration then thought adequate provided for delay before the movement of animals was stopped. We have made an enormous step in advance since then.
  The next point in which we have greatly improved is the promptitude with which action is taken in resorting to slaughter. It was much less general in 1892 than now. The total number of animals attacked by foot-and-mouth disease in 1892 was 5,200, the total number of diseased animals slaughtered was 586, and the total number of healthy animals slaughtered was 1,409. Now every animal which is found to be suffering from the disease is slaughtered immediately, and a great number of healthy animals which may have been subject to infection are also slaughtered. We have slaughtered during the recent outbreaks 4,600 animals. In that respect promptitude of action of a thorough going kind has very much diminished the spread of the disease. These are three heads under which there has been great improvement over the very period the right hon. Gentleman invited me to cast my mind back. In regard to the restriction of movement, the regulations were much less severe previously than they are now. In 1892 there was no prohibition of movement within the scheduled areas. There was prohibition of movement out of the scheduled areas, or into the immediate vicinity,

  3297
  except for slaughter. In the scheduled areas animals circulated quite freely. Now we have a stand still Order. If we had not had a stand still Order in operation recently, we should have seen, not sixty outbreaks but hundreds. In that respect also we have vastly improved the administration and screwed up the restrictions. We have succeeded in isolating the disease mainly within two great areas, stretching from Liverpool across to the Humber, and from Cumberland across Northumberland. One or two outbreaks have occurred outside these areas, but we appear to have come to the end of them. I express the hope that during the coming recess we shall have no need to reimpose any of the restrictions which have been relaxed, and that the efforts made to isolate the disease will prove to have been effective.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I be allowed to make a personal explanation in regard to the administration in 1892? I fully admit that the Board of Agriculture has made great advances since then. They have profited by the considerable experience which they have had. But in 1892 it was an entirely new office with a new staff. We were all of us new to the job. The disease at that time was detected in the Metropolitan Cattle Market—one of the most dangerous in which it could have occurred—on the 4th February among Danish Cattle which had been previously exposed in the Market on the 1st of that month. There was a Cabinet that morning, and the news, I remember as well as if it was yesterday, was brought to me there by the Chief Veterinary Inspector about one o'clock. I was at the Office in half an hour afterwards myself, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks of promptitude, speaking from memory, I can say I think with accuracy that all the animals in the London market which had run any risk of contracting the disease were traced and all of them slaughtered. But in spite of this and although the infection (carried no doubt by animals which had left the market before the disease was detected) spread into fifteen or sixteen counties, the country was free again by the middle of June.
  In some respects no doubt great improvements have been made, for as I have said we were then only beginning; but seeing that in four months with an entirely new staff we successfully dealt with a task of such magnitude, I hope that for any shortcomings of which we may have been
  3298
  guilty at that time, though I am not aware of them, we may be leniently judged.
  Mr. BARNSTON: As an agricultural Member I wish to refer to the activity and energy which the right hon. Gentleman has shown during the last few weeks when we who are agricultural Members must have been a great nuisance to him, but I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman seems so to set his face against preventing Irish cattle from coming into this country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the great precautions that he has taken, and I am sure that he is doing his best; but at the same time he must admit—though this has nothing to do with him—that there was undoubtedly most lax administration in Ireland, and however great his precautions are there might be cases where disease could very easily spread. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point about disinfecting clothes, but he must know perfectly well that people have been summoned and have gone away without having their clothes disinfected at all. He told us that things have been brighter within the last few days, and of course we are glad to hear that. But I do hope that if we have a renewed outbreak he will not let political or party considerations come into his mind, and that he will not shut his eyes to the necessity of shutting Irish cattle from coming into this country, because his first duty is to protect the cattle here.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: As I see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, the opportunity is too good to be missed to ask him to give us if he can the latest figures in regard to the operation of the Insurance Act? I am sure that it will be an immense gratification not only to Members on this side of the House, but to hon. Gentleman on the other side who so warmly supported the Insurance Act, if my right hon. Friend can assure us that it is working smoothly, and give us, approximately, the latest details as to the number of insured persons, and any other particulars which he may have.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to put a further question on this matter: Whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider what is due to the employers throughout the country, because it seems to me that he should make some acknowledgment of

  3299
  the cooperation which the various business firms throughout the country have rendered in accommodating themselves to this new legislation, especially in view of the fact that they have to make large payments on behalf of the workpeople? I would ask, further, if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to one or two cases which are in violent contrast to those in wihich ready help has been afforded in the working of the Act? I wish to refer to the case of a laundry in Hull, of which the proprietress has issued a wild and absurd manifesto against the Act, saying that it will cost her £50 per annum, and yet she herself has been deducting the whole of the contributions, both her own and the workwomen's— sixpence a week—from the poor women in her employ, who are not in any trade union. From some of these women she deducts a penny a day, that is sixpence a week for six days, and as a consequence some of them are denied the privilege of riding in the electric car, and the poor women do not know whom to blame.
  They are in that unfortunate position owing to what I consider the most deplorable action, of a tyrannical employer, without any justification. Another case which I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman is mentioned in the "Daily News and Leader" of to-day. It gives a copy of a circular which it says was sent out broadcast to business firms in the City, where some Insurance Tax Resistance Society, of which Mr. H. Vernon Carey is the secretary, is practically inviting employers to connect themselves with it in order to resist the Act of Parliament. They undertake to defend actions and pay fines and costs, and so on. That seems to me to be an illegal and disreputable combination, and I do not think that any self-respecting employer will identify himself with such a concern, whether it is in the form of a company or a voluntary organisation. I draw attention to these cases because they are in such strong contrast to the cases of the great business firms throughout the British Isles who administer the Act irrespective of politics. Within the last few weeks I visited a large colliery where everything connected with the working of the Act was in perfect order. All the cards were kept in special boxes, lettered and numbered, and the workmen through their check weighman, or anyone they select, have free access every day to see that the cards are all in perfect order. The action there
  3300
  struck me as being typical of that of most of the large firms of the country, and it is in strong contrast to the instances that I have given. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to make some announcement as to what is the view of the Insurance Commissioners of the loyal way in which the great captains of industry have met this new legislation.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In reply to what has fallen from my hon. Friends, I am able to give some additional information as to the way in which the Insurance-Act has been worked up to date. It has been in operation only a little over three weeks, and the testimony of the Insurance Commissioners is that the Act has been worked with extraordinary smoothness and absence of friction. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), has invited me to say something about the conduct of employers of labour in regard to the working of the Act. I have nothing but praise of the way in which they are working the Act. It would have been impossible for the Commissioners to have done their work with such almost unparalleled success, in administering a great and complicated measure of this kind, without the ready and loyal support they have received. I include, of course, the Scotch Commission and the Irish Commission and the Welsh Commission. They all bear testimony to the assistance, and the ready assistance, which employers have given in all quarters of the United Kingdom. It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that there are exceptions, but they are almost too trivial to mar the general harmony and co-operation which we have received from employers and employed in this respect. But there are a few cases, cases of petty vindictive spite, for there-is no other name for them, but they only accentuate the loyalty with which the great mass of employers of labour have accepted the Act. Whatever their own views may be as to the Act, they recognise that it is an Act of Parliament and is the law of the land, and instead of placing obstacles in the way they have helped to-make it a thorough success. The case which my hon. Friend has referred to is a case which I will look into, and the same-thing applies to the circular he refers to—the Insurance Tax Resistance Circular. That seems to me to be a circular about which legal opinion ought to be taken, because it seems to be an attempt to

  3301
  organise resistance to an Act of Parliament. I am glad to say that all those attempts up to the present have been conspicuous, dismal, and contemptible failures, I should think due to the general common sense of the community.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. C. B. Harmsworth) as to whether I had any figures which I am in a position to give with regard to the working of the Act, I have some very striking figures as to the stamps. They only came in this afternoon, and I think it will interest the House to know what stamps have been sold in the course of the last three weeks. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has already explained, all the arrangements for stamping are not included in the purchase of stamps at the Post Office. There are cases where arrangements are made through the Labour Exchanges for stamping, and by which employers send their cheques. I am including these in the figures which I will give. Up to the present the arrangements made with the Labour Exchanges and otherwise for quarterly stamping, cover 1,300,000 workmen in this country. The total number of stamps, including those arrangements, sold in the first week was 16,548,960. The total number of compul-sorily insurable persons is 13,180,000. That shows that a very considerable number of persons must, in the first week have bought stamps for more than the week. In respect of many of those persons the time for stamping had not arrived. The wages in some cases are only monthly, as in the case of domestic servants and others, so that during the first week there were a good many employed persons in this country in respect of whom no stamping was required by the Act. In the second week the number was 10,903,134, and last week is was 15,178,594. When it is borne in mind that the total number of compulsorily insurable persons is a little over 13,000,000 I think my hon. Friend need not worry very much about the circular to which he has referred.
  There is only one other figure I should like to give; that is with regard to the number of persons who have already joined approved societies. As the House knows, the term within which insured persons are obliged to join approved societies under penalty of becoming deposit contributors, expires on 5th October. But in spite of the fact that they have another couple of months before they are compelled to join an approved society, already
  3302
  nearly 11,000,000 insured persons have joined various societies. The vast majority have joined friendly societies. In the second place, come industrial insurance companies, and then come the trade unions; but up to the present the friendly societies are well ahead. Our estimate was that something like 1,000,000 persons would be deposit contributors. That means that we reckoned that probably a little over 12,000,000 persons would join approved societies. Out of the 12,000,000 11,000,000 have already joined, so that there are about one million and a quarter still left before we come up to our estimate. My own opinion from all that I have heard is that there would be nothing like 1,000,000 who would become deposit contributors. In fact, the number will be a very limited one, and it will be confined to those who deliberately prefer to be deposit contributors. There is a feeling among a certain class that they would prefer to be deposit contributors. I think they are mistaken, and sooner or later they will probably reconsider their opinion on that point. I shall be very much surprised if our estimate of the probable number of deposit contributors is anything like realised. That estimate was based on the assumption that the friendly societies would demand medical examination or medical inspection as a preliminary to joining the various societies. As a matter of fact, they have not demanded it at all, and I am very glad of that. They are taking insured persons frankly for better or for worse, and I think it is right that they should start by doing so. I am not sure whether there is any society demanding medical inspection as a condition precedent to membership.
  Mr. BOOTH: Very small ones.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There may be some very small ones, but I am sure that the great friendly societies, trade unions, and industrial insurance companies are not demanding medical inspection. The result of that will be that the deposit contributors will be a very limited number indeed. There will be a certain number who deliberately prefer to become deposit contributors, and there may also be some who do not think it worth while to join. These will have to be shepherded into joining. The Germans have taken a good many years to do that, and have not altogether succeeded up to the present moment. We have taken much less time undoubtedly than the Germans to secure a very large

  3303
  proportion of the casual population of this country—a class that stands more in need of the Act possibly than any other. There is a prospect of a very considerable portion of them coming into the Insurance Act. I never thought that we would get them all in within the first few months or the first few years. There may be defects in the Act, but whatever they may be, and whatever may be the desirability of amending the Act in any particular, the unity is really doing its best to work the Act and it is only in that way that defects will be discovered. You may point out in argument how an Act of Parliament needs amendment, but you have to discover the weak points of legislation by experience. It is a great experiment. It contains novel proposals. It is a matter of very great gratification that without question the Act has worked in a great measure with that success which I will not say was a surprise to those in charge, but which has been extraordinarily encouraging to those who have worked so hard in connection with it.

  ELECTRICITY PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Viscount WOLMER: After that very interesting "last trumpet," I apologise to the house for returning to another subject, which I am bringing forward by courtesy of the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. I wish to raise the question of the refusal of the Board of Trade to sanction an Order on behalf of the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council to enable them to manufacture and distribute electricity in their area. This matter is not only of purely local interest, but is important, because forty-one urban district councils have taken the matter up with some keenness and petitioned their representatives in this House on this subject. The point I wish to make is that the Newton Urban District Council in 1903 obtained an Order from the Board of Trade, which was then under different management, empowering the manufacture and distribution of electricity in their district. The council did not take advantage of that Order; they did not feel themselves warranted; they went into the question in great detail and they discovered that there was a danger of financial loss upon the transaction, and they did not avail themselves of the Order, and it was withdrawn by the Board of Trade in 1909. The council applied again this year for an Order to manufacture electricity, and the Board of Trade refused to grant it. The reasons
  3304
  given by the Board of Trade appears to be that in their opinion it would not be a paying proposition, and, consequently, the Order was refused. I want to make this point, the fact that the Newton Urban District Council did not avail themselves of the Order in 1903 shows that they were as they are still a council composed of business men who are in no way anxious to plunge the ratepayers into any financial loss. In 1903, after a close examination, they felt sure that the scheme would not pay. Hon. Members may ask what has happened since then to warrant the supposition that the scheme would be a paying one. In the first place, the population of the district has increased largely, one or two works have come into the district, and, more important than anything else, the manufacture of electricity is a great deal cheaper than six or seven years ago. That is a fundamental fact which has entirely altered the situation and which the Board of Trade refuse to recognise.
  7.0 P.M.
  I urge that the Newton Urban District Council is composed of business men who are large ratepayers and who have no conceivable object or desire to place the burden upon the rates, and that the former caution they showed in this matter is an additional reason why they should be trusted, and that it is not the business of the Board of Trade to step in and prevent them carrying out their own administration as they desire. The rates are very low; they are only 6s. 3d. in the £, and the rate of the urban council itself is only 1s. 10d. In gas and water enterprises they have been exceedingly successful; they have every facility for the manufacture of electricity in the district, which is on the top of a coalfield and the manufacture can be carried out at the minimum of cost. One of the reasons for refusal alleged by the Board of Trade is that there is no sufficient guarantee that a definite amount of electricity will be taken if the local council manufacture it; but a definite guarantee is a very difficult thing to get, and I would like to ask the representatives of the Board of Trade how many urban councils have obtained guarantees before they could get an Order for a like purpose, and what were those guarantees, because, after all, what the Newton Urban District Council desires to know is what standard it is they have to fulfil before they can be successful in their application to the Board of Trade. As it happens, the council have got very considerable guarantees, and guarantees which, in their opinion—and after all they

  3305
  are the people who stand to lose if the proposition is not successful — absolutely justify them in undertaking this scheme. The Vulcan Foundry have promised to take 2,000,000 units per annum if it can be supplied at ¾d. per unit. The Council can supply electricity in bulk at 2,000,000 units for two-thirds of a penny per unit, and they are absolutely satisfied with this The Vulcan Foundry would be prepared to make a contract with the council for the supply of electricity at that price extending over a certain number of years. The Undersecretary said, in answer to a question, a few weeks ago, that in the opinion of the Board of Trade this council ought not to be dependent upon the custom of one or two big consumers, but if you have a contract with them you are absolutely sure of their custom. I should like to ask what further guarantee the Government want. What guarantee can anybody setting up an enterprise, of this sort get which is superior to the one which the Newton Urban District Council have been able to get from the Vulcan Foundry in this matter. Other large works have also intimated that they will take a supply of the electricity. The whole, district is growing; new factories have been started, and rows of houses are being erected every year. Surely that is ample guarantee that the demand for electricity will not be less to-morrow. The point I want to put to the House is that you have got here the Newton Urban District Council, composed of business men and large ratepayers themselves desirous of supplying electricity to the big works, and with every facility for doing it; you have big works desirous of purchasing electricity from the council, and the Board of Trade steps in, and says it shall not take place.
  On what principle of Local Government can that attitude be justified? Surely with all their wisdom they cannot know as much of the circumstances of the case as the man on the spot. As the men on the spot are prepared to take the risk, and have the largest stake in the matter, and have shown that they are not gamblers and prepared to speculate, but are cautious men, and individual members of very big firms in the district, or have been connected with local government for a great many years; as they have shown they can be trusted not to abuse their powers, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade by what right do the Board of Trade interfere with this elementary piece of local self-government?
  3306
  Another complaint I have to make against the Board of Trade in their attitude with regard to this matter is that they have refused to tell £he Newton Council what guarantees they have to get before the Order is granted. They have refused to say what supply they consider a reasonable one; what cost of electricity they think would be safe, and they have simply said that the estimates put forward by the Newton District Council are not satisfactory, and they have refused to give any indication as to the direction in which they should be altered or in which the Board of Trade would like to see them amended. The Property Owners and Shopkeepers Associations in the district have passed resolutions approving of the application of the urban district council, and I have here a large petition which I shall present to the hon. Gentleman, signed by several hundred ratepayers in the district, petitioning the Board of Trade to grant the application. I am informed the council are ready to have a referendum and to have a special ballot of the ratepayers on the subject, and surely, if the ratepayers are anxious to supply their own electricity, why on earth should the Board of Trade step in and stop it? I think the desire of the district council to manufacture its own electricity is a very reasonable and a very proper one. They have every facility for so doing, they know the district is growing, and that whoever gets the monopoly of manufacturing electricity in the district, will get a very good piece of business. It is much better the local authority should make the profit and that the ratepayers should be relieved thereby than that it should go into the pockets of some individual persons. I am all in favour of municipal trading in matters of that sort, and always have been.
  The council's estimates as to the cost of manufacturing electricity have been prepared by most experienced firms, but, if the Board of Trade think those estimates are not on sound lines, and they mention any other experts who ought to be consulted on the subject, I am certain the Newton Urban District Council would be grateful. If they would give it the slightest lead, the slightest explanation, or the slightest help in the matter, I am sure the council would follow it up. It is because this is such an opportune moment that I am bringing it before the notice of the House. The manager of the Vulcan Works, which employs over 1,700 men, has stated that, if they are unable to get

  3307
  their electricity from the urban district council, they will have to set up new plant to manufacture it themselves. At the present time the London and North Western Railway Company are hesitating as to how they will get their supply of electricity. They want a very big supply, I believe it is over 2,000,000 units, and I am not aware that they have decided how that supply shall be obtained. Therefore, if the council are prevented from supplying electricity at this juncture, some of their best customers will be shut off, and they will lose a great opportunity. If the Order is granted there will have to be a Local Government Board inquiry in order to raise a loan to set up the plant, and the whole thing will have to be gone into there and then on the spot. It is really not an extravagant demand that the Board of Trade should grant an Order which they granted nine years ago when the circumstances were far less favourable. I think it is a small request that they should grant that Order now, and that the almost unanimous desire of the people of Newton should be allowed to be given effect to in this matter. About ten years ago, when the council started manufacturing their own gas, many of the local firms in the district were manufacturing their gas, but, as the council have done it so efficiently they have given up their private supply. The same thing would happen in regard to electricity, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his non-possumus attitude and to allow the ratepayers to express their view in this matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I congratulate the Noble Lord on the pertinacity with which he has spoken for a very pertinacious section of his constituents. But the Board of Trade cannot admit that mere importunity should be allowed to override principle. In the first instance, this district council circularised a number of other councils in order to bring pressure to bear on the Board in the hope that it might induce it to do what, after due deliberation, it had come to the conclusion it should not do. The Noble Lord speaks of the Order granted in 1903 which was never used. I do not know under what circumstances that Order was granted, or whether the Noble Lord's predecessor brought his influence to bear on the Board at the time, but the fact remains that for six years after the Order was granted the Board
  3308
  did not use its powers, and that surely justifies the Board in being a little more vigilant before granting another Order.
  Viscount WOLMER: I ought to have said that the Board undertakes to make use of this Order at once if it is granted.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am alluding to the fact that the Order formerly granted was not made use of, and therefore the Board of Trade is bound to be more careful about the issue of such Orders in the future. The Noble Lord has given a very ex-parte statement of the case. He has told us at least five times over that the council have every facility for manufacturing electricity. Can the Noble Lord have gone into the question of facilities? I ask that because on investigation we find that they have no facility for a cheap water supply, and that is a very essential facility. The Noble Lord made allusion to the position of the Local Government Board. Does he know that that Board absolutely concurs with the Board of Trade as to the inexpediency of granting this Order?
  Viscount WOLMER: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The fact is so, at all events. What does the Noble Lord's argument amount to? It amounts to this. The members of the district council are business men. They want this Order, and they wonder why on earth the Board of Trade should intervene to prevent it being granted. My answer is that the Board of Trade interferes by right of its statutory powers. The Noble Lord is a warm advocate of municipal trading—of speculative and unrestricted municipal trading. He suggests that these people have money to lose, and may be trusted to do nothing reckless. But is he prepared to say that this speculative municipal trading should be put in the power of any authority in the land? I can only reply that his argument seems to imply that there should be no supervision on the part of the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board. I cannot agree with him. Those bodies have certain duties, and they must exercise them. The Noble Lord says that his friends can give guarantees, and he complains that the Board of Trade do not state what guarantees are required or what standard is required. It is not the business of the Board of Trade to draw up a table of ready-reckoning for the municipal authorities, stating the exact amount of support they

  3309
  need for any scheme they want to run. I do not see how any such arithmetical standard could be drawn up in that connection at all. The Board of Trade must pursue a broad, common-sense policy, and must make an inquiry as to what are the chances of any given scheme succeeding, and what is the evidence for any facilities for the scheme. What are the facts in connection with this matter? After the Order was first refused, a deputation came to the Board of Trade, which I met. In the course of that discussion I put this question to the consulting engineer, who, I take it, was the most important mouthpiece of the council in the matter. I put this point:—
  "Observe on your statement of the improved position of the Council"
  —The district council had argued that their position had improved—
  "that if the Vulcan Foundry fail you, you are practically derelict, because you are dependent very substantially on one big consumer."
  The engineer replied:—
  "If terms could not be arranged with the Vulcan Foundry, there would be no proposition to spend £26,000 or anything like that amount."
  I said:—
  "Then you are staking your municipal expenditure on one customer?—On obtaining that customer, yes, so far us that expenditure is concerned. If that consumer were not obtained the expenditure would be very considerably diminished."
  There was no evidence of a general demand for electric light.
  Viscount WOLMER: They offered to make a contract.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No such statement was made to me. The manager made a conditional promise. There was no guarantee. It depends on the rate at which electricity could be supplied.
  Viscount WOLMER: If a promise in writing is made of a contract by the foundry, will the Board of Trade reconsider the matter?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is a conditional contract of which the Noble Lord talks.
  Viscount WOLMER: They cannot make a contract until they get the electricity.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Quite so. What is the Board asked to do? It is asked, if one big consumer will promise to take so much electricity on the condition that it is supplied at a certain rate, to authorise this locality to set up works to undertake to do it, when we have no reason to believe
  3310
  that they can supply it. All other consumers are in a still more speculative position than this particular one. Who would give a municipality, depending for success on the undertaking of a single consumer, a contract for an indefinite period? On the withdrawal of that one supporter from the municipality the scheme would be derelict. There is no general demand for electricity. The district has a cheap gas supply, owned by the municipality. So far as I can see, looking at it from the outside, this desire for electric light is not so much a desire to supply electric light to the inhabitants. The engineer did not suggest that there would be more than 500,000 units wanted for the whole of the private consumption of the district. This appears to be more a matter of preventing some other supply. If there is an indication that there will be a certain number of consumers, and if the undertaking should really rest on the possibility of a number of different, consumers, the Order may be reapplied for. The Board of Trade would be a very careless guardian of the interests of the ratepayers if, on the speculation of getting one large consumer—
  Viscount WOLMER: I have given the names of three considerable firms.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have all those names before me. The engineer could not say in a single case that there was anything like a certainty of getting a supply, and I have read from the report of the interview of the deputation my own express proposition:—
  "if the Vulcan Foundry fail you, you are practically derelict, because you are dependent very substantially on one big consumer. If terms could not be arranged with the Vulcan Foundry there would be no proposition to spend £26,000 or anything like that amount."
  I am not casting any doubts on the business faculty of the members of the council. They say very frankly, "We are hoping to land a big fish, and if we do not we will spend less money." But this speculative state of things is not a state of things that the Board of Trade desires to see encouraged in regard to municipal electric supply. The object is that municipal authorities should be free to supply electricity when there is a fairly widespread demand and a reasonable prospect of solvency on the part of the concern. In the circumstances I have described, going on with the undertaking would mean a possible mortgaging of the interests of the ratepayers for a scheme which might fail, and which might become insolvent, and it is the duty of the Board of Trade to

  3311
  prevent any such risks taking place. When the Noble Lord said the Board refused to give any guide at all to the council as to what is required he is surely misrepresenting them. We discussed the matter quite amicably. We let the council understand that what is wanted is a reasonable security and a certain distributed consumption. As business men they are well aware that one large consumer is not enough for a municipality to run an undertaking on when there is no prospect of general support from other big consumers or from private consumers of electric light. These are the main points in the case, and I am sure the House will agree that the Board has acted as it ought to have done.

  IMPERIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.
  Captain MURRAY: At Question Time to-day I asked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Imperial Legislative Council of India would be provided in the new city of Delhi with a building of its own, and the hon. Gentleman, in reply to my question, said:—
  "It is proposed that the Legislative Council should meet in a hall which will be situated in one wing of the building which also contains the Governor-General's official residence and the Durbar hull."
  In my opinion the Imperial Legislative Council should be provided with a separate building, detached altogether from the Viceroy's residence. This may appear to be a small matter, but it is not really so. The building of a new capital for a country or an empire is a project which must at all times stir the imagination and receive the most careful and serious attention, but the creation of the new Delhi as the new capital for India goes still further, because it comes at the commencement of a new epoch in the history of our Indian Empire. I do not think that proposition can be denied even by those who most strenuously resist the claim of certain Indians to constitutional government. It cannot be gainsaid that in India the old order is changing and giving place to the new. The reforms which were brought into being by the Indian Council of 1909 constituted a step in advance, the importance of which from the point of view of a springing-off ground for further developments no one who knows India well can possibly underestimate, and I submit that there is a new spirit abroad in India to-day. Whatever the aspirations of certain Indians may be, I consider that Parliamentary or constitutional government in India is now
  3312
  impossible, but that to my mind is no reason why we should blindly refuse to recognise that further political developments in India must take place. In my humble opinion no more fitting monument for the commencement of this new era could be devised than the erection in the new city of Delhi of a council chamber in which the meetings of the reformed Imperial Council would take place. I submit to the Under-Secretary for India that a very serious mistake will be made if the present designs of the Government of India, as conveyed in his answer to me to-day, are allowed to mature. The present, in my opinion, affords an opportunity which from every consideration of practical and political expediency should not be neglected. There must be, I assume, some very good reason why it is proposed that the council chamber should form part of the Viceroy's dwelling, but for my part I am quite unable to see what that reason is. If there was no objection, as I believe there was no objection, on the part of the Government of India to a separate council house in Simla—I regret that that scheme was abandoned—for the meetings of the Imperial Legislative Council, then for my part I am quite unable to see what objection there can be to a council house in Delhi detached from the Governor-General's residence. I hope the Undersecretary when he replies will explain fully the reasons why the Government are taking this step. With very great respect, I submit that in this matter those responsible are not moving with the times. I very much regret the decision that has been taken, and I hope it will still be possible to reverse the decision. A council chamber worthy of the dignity of the new city of Delhi would, while not necessarily hastening political changes for which India is still unripe, be an outward and visible sign of the new era of political development in which the peoples of India must be wisely guided to take an increasingly larger share.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Although I am afraid I cannot give a very satisfactory reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I can promise the House, at any rate, to be very brief. The decision of the Government, although the plan has not been finally decided upon, is practically the one which I gave my hon. Friend at Question Time to-day.
  Captain MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman state what he means by "practically." Is there still a hope that a separate council chamber may be erected?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No; I am going to explain. Roughly speaking, the design of the central building in the city of Delhi is that there shall be a separate Durbar Hall, on one side of which will be the official residence of the Viceroy, and on the other side, in the other wing, there shall be a hall for the meetings of the council, and the various apartments which are associated with a council chamber— library, reading room, and writing room. There will be a separate entrance, so that Members going up to that part of the building would not go through the Governor's house. Therefore the two sets of rooms are all under one roof. The rooms dedicated to the use of the Imperial Legislative Council are completely separate from the official residence of the Viceroy, and there is no foundation for the fear expressed in some journals that Members going into the Council Chamber will meet the servants of the Viceroy on the stairs, no more than there is any chance in this House of meeting Mr. Speaker's own establishment when we are walking into this House which like this Council Chamber is under the same roof as an official residence. The hon. and gallant Member ought to remember what the Imperial Legislative Council is. As I understand the Governor-General-in-Council consists first; of the Executive Council, and to members of the Executive Council are added other members for the purpose of making laws and regulations; so that the Imperial Council is really an addition to the Executive Council, and in fulfilling its functions no more proper site can be chosen than the site adjacent to the residence of the Governor-General. The hon. and gallant Member sketches a picture of future development of Council Government in India. At the inception of a new city it is impossible to build for all time or even for the distant future. We have there a very small Council meeting for a short time in every year as an addition to the Governor-General's Council. We are building a residence adequate for the present need of the capital of India. We have an area of something like eighty square miles of land. I submit to the hon. and gallant Member that the arrangements which we are making are quite sufficient for the needs of the moment, and that he will find in Delhi
  3314
  ample room for expansion should any of his prophecy in future be realised.

  SCOTTISH ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. MUNRO: The importance of the fishing industry in the national life of Scotland and the fact that owing to the intervention of the Debate upon the dock strike this year the fishery vote was not discussed, must be my excuse in asking the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I refer to one or two administrative problems and ask the Secretary for Scotland to give his attention to them. I need not emphasise the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland. One has only to remember that last year there were more than 89,000 persons employed in one capacity or another in connection with the industry in order to appreciate its moment to the welfare of the country. There have been certain events since last year, both outside the industry itself while intimately affecting it and also within the industry, which give rise to certain problems in connection with the administration of the Scotch Fisheries. As regards events outside the industry, I will only refer to the passing of the Insurance Act, and while I am quite aware that one must not press on the Motion which we are now discussing, any legislative topic, I would ask the Secretary of Scotland to keep a watchful eye upon the administration of that Act in Scotland, in particular as it affects the fishing interests of the country. One matter in connection with the working of that Act to which I would like to refer for a moment is the Committee of Management of the National Seamen's Union which has just been formed in connection with the Act. I am aware that the Secretary for Scotland has no direct responsibility in this matter, but I would ask him to make strong representations in the proper quarter with regard to this, that on that Committee, which affects Scotland as well as England, there is not a single direct representative of Scotland at the present time. I raised the matter by means of a question to the President of the Board of Trade in the course of this Session, and I ask the Secretary for Scotland that he should make representations on behalf of the Scotch fishermen to the President of the Board of Trade with the view of seeing whether a direct representative of the Scottish fishing industry might not be added to the composition of that Committee.
  There are just one or two other matters within the industry to which I

  3315
  desire to allude—new since last year, or partially new. There is, first of all, the extraordinary development of mechanical propulsion in the matter of boats as distinguished from the old sailing vessels with which we are familiar. That has given rise to a variety of administrative problems in connection with the industry. One has only to remember that in the last six years the proportion of sailing boats to steam and motor-propelled boats has been inverted, namely, that while in 1906, 31 percent, of the herrings caughtwere in steam vessels and 69 per cent, in sailing vessels, in 1911, within six years, the proportion is 64 per cent, caught by steam and motor vessels, and 36 per cent, by sailing vessels. That at once gives rise to the administrative problem whether or no it would not be possible to give loans to fishermen in order to enable them to instal motor-propulsion in their boats. I am aware that at the present time a Commission is sitting to consider that subject, and I would again appeal to the Secretary for Scotland that he should see to it that that Commission reports as soon as may be in order that the Scottish fishermen may know where they are in this matter. At first sight one might be inclined to think that inasmuch as we have all these motor boats within six years fishermen do not require aid from outside by way of loan or otherwise. That is a short-sighted view. At present, under the existing system, fishermen in Scotland obtain these loans at exorbitant rates of interest, and only at exorbitant rates of interest. If my information is correct, they very often sacrifice their independence of action in obtaining these loans. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that the Commission in question should report on this subject at the earliest possible moment. Then there is the question of herring trawling, which has come to the front within the last twelve months. In the Fishery Board Report I see that it is referred to in this way, as being—
  "fraught with far-reaching possibilities, and, further, that it spread something akin to consternation in drift-net fishing circles."
  I am not surprised at that, and, although I am glad to see that that matter has been remitted to another Commission to inquire into, yet it is of such pressing urgency that I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to speed up, if possible, the Report of that Commission, so that one may have it at the earliest moment in order that the necessary administrative action may be
  3316
  taken on the Report. With regard to the composition of that Commission, I regret to say that it has not commanded the confidence in Scotland which one would like; but as the Minister specially concerned is not here, I do not press the matter further at this time. One other question in reference to the administration of the Scottish Fisheries to which I desire to refer is the Grants for Scottish Fishing harbours, and I am glad to be able to say that I am not in the least inclined to be critical in this matter. I am grateful to the Secretary for Scotland for the means which have been taken to secure those Grants, and I would ask him to continue the generous policy which has been obtaining during the past year in this connection. I would assure him that it is highly appreciated by fishermen, and is very necessary to their welfare. The only other topic on which I wish to say a few words is whether the Secretary for Scotland, by his good offices in the proper quarter, will endeavour to secure on future occasions that we should have more time for the discussion of Scottish topics upon the proper occasion, namely, when the Estimates are under review. I am aware that this is a matter for the Prime Minister to determine, but, if I might put it to the Secretary for Scotland, I would suggest that he might use his good offices in order that we should have, at the proper time, say, two days, for the discussion of Scottish matters, instead of discussing Scottish affairs at the fag end and in the very last hours of a dying Session. Those are the only topics which I desire to raise, and I ask the Secretary for Scotland to give them his sympathetic consideration as I am sure he will.
  Mr. MORTON: I am sorry to have to detain the House in considering Scottish local affairs, and I regret very much it is necessary to detain anybody at all; but it is an unfortunate fact, and I do not mean about party matters, that Scottish local affairs on which the happiness and the comfort of the people largely depend, are grossly neglected, both by the Scottish Office, by the Front Bench, and by Parliament. What we want the Scottish Secretary and Parliament to do, is something for the people of Scotland, and especially to prevent depopulation, and to take care that those 89,000 people my hon. Friend has just mentioned are not driven out of the country on account of the want of better administration in Scotland. I

  3317
  endorse every remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro). I know it may be said that this wants money, but there is plenty of money if the Scottish Secretary will only insist on having it from the Treasury. How he is to do that is a matter for him to consider. I see by the returns, that there is plenty of money, and that during the year ending March 31st, 1912, the revenue contributed in excess of local expenditure in Scotland, was £10,331,500, and in another country not so important as Scotland, namely, Ireland, instead of an excess of some ten millions, there is a deficiency of £845,500. If the Irish people can get money like that, why should not the Scottish people, supposing that it is proved, as it can be, that it is wanted for the benefit of the country. I see in that year that in Ireland £11,533,500 was spent on local affairs, whereas in Scotland during the same period only £8,311,500 was spent. I have noticed for a great number of years, no matter which Government was in power, that there was apparently no difficulty in Parliament providing money to spend by the million in Uganda, and all sorts of wild places, and for which very often there is no return. If it is useful I do not object to it, but I should like to insist that our own country should be thought of first, and if it can be proved that public money is wanted for the better government of these countries, then we ought to have it before they get it in Uganda and Lake Victoria. The matter was summed up by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it cannot be too often repeated, namely, that we want to colonise our own country, and especially the North of Scotland. We did hope when we got a new Secretary for Scotland that we should have a better state of things. I do not put this on party grounds, but I should like to see the Secretary for Scotland doing (what he has done to a small extent) namely, consulting the Scottish Members as to what is wanted. It is a curious thing, but it is worth noticing, that during the whole of the time from 1906 to the time when the present Secretary was appointed, the Scottish Liberal Members, as far as I know, were never consulted as to the requirements of Scotland. What I should like to see is the Secretary for Scotland consulting the majority of the Members. Of course the Liberals are in a large majority, and therefore they should be consulted, because they represent the bulk of the people. The present Secretary commenced well. He consulted them on some
  3318
  matters, but I am afraid he has been captured by the officials, and if we do not take care he may get as bad as his predecessor, who never consulted the Scottish Liberal Members at all. I want to try to save the present Secretary, and make him useful, not only to the party but to Scotland and the Scottish people. With regard to the fishing question, my constituents are very much interested in it, because three sides or more of Sutherland-shire are bordered by the sea or the Moray Firth.
  What the people want is to be allowed to carry on their enterprises, whether fishing or otherwise, without the interference of the great companies and trusts which annoy them at the present moment. What we have been demanding is that illegal trawling should be put an end to. With regard to trawling outside the three-mile limit, I have nothing to say, because they have a right. But we have utterly failed to get the Scottish Office to do their duty and put an end to illegality. Everybody should be compelled to keep the law, whether it be big trusts or poor fishermen. We have tried by introducing Bills to amend the law in accordance with what the judges in Scotland have told us is necessary to get an end put to this illegal trawling. What we have shown is that faster police boats or cruisers are required to capture the illegal trawlers, and, above all, that there should be a heavier penalty when they are caught. We have this extraordinary fact, that the Scottish Office and the Scottish Secretary not only do nothing, but oppose the attempts of my hon. Friends and myself to amend the law. I hope we shall have a better state of things in the future. I am speaking in the interests, not merely of the party, but of the better administration of the law, especially in Scotland, with a view to preventing the depopulation which the last census has shown has been going on so seriously in the rural districts, and especially in the northern counties. We are losing to a very large extent some of the best workers that you can possibly find in the country. I do hope, although it is a late part of the Session, and we have not time to-night to discuss the matter, that the present Secretary will endeavour to insist upon a very much better state of things in the future. We know that the Front Bench could not exist except for Scotsmen. Therefore if the Scottish Secretary will insist on what is right and fair to Scotland I am sure he will get it.

  3319
  No doubt it wants a little more determination amongst Scottish Members themselves. I daresay we want a little more backbone. We are going to have it in the future, and we certainly have commenced proceedings this year to show what we want, and we may exert ourselves more when we come back from our holidays. There is certainly no reason why we should not be treated as well as Irish or Welsh Members. I do not object to Home Rule for Ireland or reform for Wales. They want it badly enough. But we want something for ourselves. I have no doubt the people of Scotland will presently say that they are determined to have Home Rule for themselves, not for the purpose of damaging Imperial affairs or the Imperial Parliament, but for the purpose of a proper administration of the law in our own country. I have no doubt that during the Recess my right hon. Friend will see a good deal of Scotland. I hope he will come back in the autumn with a determination to do his duty, not so much to party, as to the Scottish people whom he represents.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I refer to a personal observation made by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs regarding the official representative on the Committee of management of the National Seamen's Union? I do so because there are several similar institutions which are really national in character, but on which, unfortunately, no representative of Scotland has been placed. The same thing applies to a great many Committees which are appointed by this House to inquire into different matters which affect the country as a whole, and upon which, I regret to say, no representative for Scotland has been placed. Take, for instance, the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the effect of railway amalgamation. It will be within the recollection of the House that last year the Scottish railways issued a circular on the question of demurrage. This caused great agitation all over Scotland, with the result that a meeting was called for the Board of Trade in the hope of bringing about some settlement. I am glad to say a settlement was brought about. At all events, the railway companies withdrew a great portion of the scheme which they had placed in the circular—to the great satisfaction of the traders. Immediately after this interview took place at the Board of Trade, a Committee was appointed to inquire into
  3320
  the effect upon the traders of the railway amalgamation and the pooling. Whilst in Scotland there had been great agitation regarding the effect of the pooling and the amalgamation I regret to say that no single representative of the Scottish people or the Scottish traders was put upon that committee.
  Take another case. Prior to that Committee, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the effect of accidents in connection with buildings. The inquiry into these accidents was brought about largely as the result of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On that Committee no single Scottish representative whatever was placed, and it was a Committee of national importance—one to inquire into accidents both in Scotland, England, and Ireland. I regret to say that no representative of Scotland was placed upon it. Anybody who knows anything about building in Scotland and England, as I do, knows that in the getting out of the schedules at the beginning, as well as in the form in which the procedure is adopted, the two systems are entirely different. But the result is that upon that Commission appointed to inquire into these accidents there was not a man capable of cross-examining a Scotch builder, because they did not know anything about the Scottish building trade. The result was it was unable to make any inquiry as to the cause of the different accidents in Scotland. I had letters from Scotland complaining about this. I wrote to the Board of Trade making suggestions, but the Commission had been appointed, and nothing could be done. Whenever a Commission is appointed of national importance in any way affecting the United Kingdom as a whole, the Scottish Office should see that some representative of Scotland was placed upon it. I think that is a perfectly reasonable and natural request, and it could be simply done. Whenever such a Commission has been appointed the Board of Trade should at once acquaint the Scottish Office and the Scottish Office should see that Scotland was represented. I discussed this matter with Lord Pentland at the time, but he said he was not aware that the Commission was formed, and therefore that he was unable to make any recommendations, but if the Scottish Office was informed that the appointment was contemplated, it would then be a simple matter for them to make their recommendation.
  8.0 P.M.
  The second point to which I want to refer is the fact that we only had four

  3321
  hours in which to discuss Scottish Estimates this year. I am quite aware it was the Government's intention that the whole of the day should be devoted to the discussion of Scottish Estimates and that it was not the fault of the Government that the whole of the day was not devoted to them. Unfortunately, a Motion was brought forward which took away the time from 8.15 onward. I knew that Motion was coming forward, as a matter of fact the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who is himself a Scotchman, told me. I pleaded very hard with him that he should not bring it forward on the only day that Scotland had to discuss her interests. But he told me he had been in the East End and he described the conditions there, and after hearing him I felt he was perfectly justified in bringing it forward, and, in fact, he told me if he could he would bring such a Motion forward every day of the week. We know that at a time like that, when men's feelings are highly wrought, Parliament should be the safety valve, and therefore, speaking for myself, after listening to what the hon. Member for Leicester said, I had not the slightest hesitation in supporting that Motion. I did so because I fell; that the grievances of those people were grievances that ought to be discussed. It is looked upon by some as rather a grievance that an inroad should be made upon the time given to Scotch Estimates. But I do not think it was such a grievance as that of the previous year, when the Government themselves brought forward a private Bill on the day allocated for Scotch Estimates. No wonder there was a grievance when the Government themselves bring forward a private Bill on such a day. I do not blame the Government this year that only four hours were given for Scottish Estimates, but I was hopeful that the Government would have found some time in which we could have discussed these matters. The trouble is of long standing. I am not an old Member of this House. I am only here since 1906, but I have raised this question every year, and pleaded for two days for the discussion of Scottish Estimates. Ireland gets two days, two and a half days, and sometimes three days for the discussion of their grievances; and when you think of the enormous number of things we have to consider—education, which is most vital to the Scottish people, fisheries, and other great problems and the problem of the land, two days is very little time in which
  3322
  to discuss the whole of these matters. I trust after the unfortunate experience we have had this year of only having four hours for Scottish Estimates, that next year the Government will take the matter in hand, and next Session allocate two days to the Scottish Estimates. There is another subject upon which I have been in communication with the Office of Works, and it is with reference to the building being erected by them in Inverleith Road. I regret that the Corporation of Edinburgh did not raise the question of the erection of this building when it was first proposed, because they had the by-laws which would interfere with the authorities erecting the building. Representations were made by the Edinburgh Corporation to the Office of Works to put that building further back and they declined. If there was any authority in the country which had a right to appeal to the Office of Works with some hope that their claim would be carefully considered it was the City of Edinburgh. The Botanical Gardens, which are now the property of the Crown, originally belonged to the Corporation of Edinburgh. The Crown did not buy those gardens, they were handed over free to the Office of Works. Subsequently to that some of the adjacent land came into the market, and a speculative builder had the option of purchasing it, with the result that that locality was threatened with the possibility of having factories built there and tenements erected alongside those gardens.
  An appeal was made to the Treasury to observe the amenities of the Botanical Gardens, but the Treasury made no advance in that direction. The Corporation of Edinburgh paid £10,000 for this property in order to save the amenities of this distract. In view of the fact that the Edinburgh Corporation spent £10,000 to preserve the amenities of this district, surely it was not too much to ask the Office of Works to put back a building a matter of three or four feet. I think their attitude from the first is a matter of very great regret. It is quite true that the Edinburgh Corporation unfortunately took the view which was at the time expressed by the Office of Works that no local authority had any power over any building or land which belonged to the Crown. I do not think that is a claim which ought to be maintained, for each local authority should have power to regulate the buildings in its own locality, whether it belongs to the Crown or

  3323
  anybody else, and the Crown ought not to be exempt from local by-laws. I regret very much indeed that the Office of Works has taken up such an attitude antagonistic to the corporation, which has met them in a very handsome manner, and although I understand the subject is still open, I hope a wide and generous view will be taken of the claims "which the corporation represent.
  Mr. HOGGE: As the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh has referred to the building in Inverleith Road, I shall begin my remarks by adding a few arguments in favour of the Board of Works doing something to put back this building line, so that the amenities of that particular district will not be destroyed. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh referred to the fact that this particular ground belonged to the Crown, and that the Crown claimed to be outside the by-laws of the city of Edinburgh. I do not think there is much in that argument, however much law there may be in it, because technically I believe it is the case that all the land of the country is held in the first place from the Crown, so that if you care to push that argument to extremes, then no town can be subject to its own by-laws. Therefore, I think we might put that argument on one side and allow this building to be set back. There is one other reason why the city of Edinburgh has a claim upon the Board of Works in this particular instance. The Corporation of Edinburgh have already submitted plans to the Board of Works showing how they could get exactly the same amount of accommodation as if they persisted in their original plan by even setting back the building line of the second part of the building, but up to the present moment the Board of Works have refused absolutely to consider those plans unless the corporation will consider the question of setting back the whole building line—that is, the building which is now standing and the building which is to be erected, and purchase some adjoining property so as to compensate the Board of Works for what they imagined they will lose. I should like the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East to contrast that request with the information which he gave this House not so many days ago with regard to the building line on the Embankment in London. He pointed out how, on representations from various quarters in this House, the Government were prepared to
  3324
  sacrifice a very large superficial area on the Embankment—I think, if I remember rightly, the cost of that area was put at £40,000—in order to preserve the amenities of the Embankment. Put tersely, that means the Government are prepared to drop £40,000 for a London scheme, while in Edinburgh they insist, in order to preserve the amenities of one of the best approaches to the city, that the corporation must compulsorily purchase, because it could not be obtained voluntarily, adjoining property at considerable cost. My colleague suggests a sum approaching £5,000.
  Surely the capital of Scotland is entitled to similar treatment to the capital of England, and, if you can lose that amount of money in order to preserve the amenities of the Embankment in Londn, something ought to be done to preserve the amenities of that particular building in Edinburgh. If the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East has not yet selected his holiday resort, he might take advantage of the Recess in order to go to Edinburgh and visit the Botanical Gardens. He would then find for himself that there is no absence of land and there is no difficulty at all in providing the accommodation required. If he took back the building line the five feet or so that was requested, it would not seriously encroach upon the ground of the gardens. It is rather interesting to note at this late hour to-day that the Opposition benches are absolutely empty. I did not see a single Scottish Unionist Member taking any interest in Scottish affairs, and that, perhaps, may explain why Scotland returns Liberals so consistently.
  I want to join in the protest made as to the allocation of the time of this House to-Scottish business and to the treatment dealt out to me the other night on the Motion for Adjournment. I think I have-more reason to make that complaint than any other Member of this House. I gave notice to the Scottish Secretary and to the Prime Minister that this question would be raised on that particular evening, and it may be within the recollection of the House that although the question was raised, no one could be found sufficiently interested to remain on the Front Bench to give any sort of reply to the issues raised by the Scottish Members. Contrast that with the treatment meted out to other interests at Westminster. The paltriest little row in London, or any little matter dealing with the administration of the

  3325
  Home Office, suffices to keep the Secretary on the bench in order to reply to any discussion that may be raised. But when we venture to bring up a Scottish issue, then we are treated in a fashion which is derogatory to the dignity of this House as well as to the dignity of responsible Members representing Scottish constituencies. It is monstrous, I think, that when we give notice of questions right hon. Gentlemen have not the courtesy to attend and listen to our protest. While I am complaining on this score, I should like to make a further protest with regard to the nature of a reply given by the Scottish Secretary. I do not know what specific right individual Members of this House have with regard to getting information from the various Departments, but I do know that, in view of the discussion which was to take place on the Adjournment respecting Scottish business, I asked a very reasonable question in regard to what had occurred between 1900 and 1912. I asked to be informed what Scottish Votes had been discussed, respectively, in those years, how many hours had been devoted to the respective Votes, and the amount of the Votes. In reply, the Secretary told me that I had access to the same sources of information as himself, and the inference was that it was my duty to go into the library, hunt up the volumes of "Hansard" for a period of twelve years, and ascertain facts which, in my judgment, ought to be already in the office of the Scottish Secretary.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My statement was that I had no other information than that which was contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman told me I had access to the same sources as himself. He cannot remember his reply surely?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do remember my reply. I said I had no further sources of information than those to which the hon. Member had access.
  Mr. HOGGE: Assuming that that is so, which I accept, it is of course contradictory to what the Scottish Secretary has said now, that there are no other sources of information. If there are no sources, there can be no further sources for him or for me to consult. Here, again, we have a contradiction. It may not be the fault of the Scottish Secretary, but
  3326
  Home the fault of the arrangements of the Scottish Office. In all the other departments of activity there are special departments-which deal with Parliamentary questions, and if you look at the replies to questions you will find Members of this House getting information, which they could get themselves if they took the time and trouble to obtain it—they would be neglecting their other work if they did it —which is supplied from the Government Offices. This is not the first occasion ort which this has been done. It occurred with regard to an answer of the Scottish Secretary to a question dealing with the Council of Education in Scotland. Several questions were put in it, but practically only two of them were answered. That is symptomatic of the kind of treatment meted out to Scottish representatives in this House. I shall deal with the question later with regard to the subject of education, but I want here and now to protest strongly against the way in which time is allocated in this House by the Government in regard to Scottish affairs. After we had had the customary twenty days of Supply for this Session the Members of the Opposition were able to obtain another two days to discuss questions of Supply. But the House was so badly attended on those two additional days that I was able to call attention to the fact that there were not sufficient Members present to make a House, and we had to wait until they came in.
  Surely the representatives of Scotchmen ought to have some weight with the Government and the Scottish Secretary. That we have no weight at all is perfectly obvious. We sent to the Prime Minister a memorial signed by forty Scottish Members asking for another day for Scottish business, and although the Government gave the Opposition, who do not support them, two days to discuss business for which they could only keep a House with difficulty, they cannot grant to their supporters from Scotland the time-which we think is all too little for the discussion of Scottish affairs. Surely there is no place more than Scotland to which the Government ought to turn with some sense of gratitude. It is the sanctuary for every Liberal Minister who has committed the political indiscretion of being beaten at a by-election. We have furnished, as they did in the old country of Judæa, cities on the plains, where defeated Liberal Ministers can go for sanctuary. It seems that because of that fact, and also because of

  3327
  the fact that there would not be the present Front Bench if it were not for Scotland, that the business of Scotland is totally neglected. I do not think that statement can be gainsaid. There are eleven separate services for Scotland, all of them more or less important, some of them very important, which have been down for discussion on Supply for the last twelve years, and in no one of those years has more than a third of those services been discussed in this House. When they have been discussed, even the Government itself has been one of the chief offenders in introducing, as a kind of debating sandwich into the discussion, a private Bill.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is not the Government.
  Mr. MORTON: It is done by the chairman of Ways and Means, who is practically a member of the Government.
  Mr. HOGGE: Whoever is responsible for it the fact remains that on a Scottish day— it is unfortunately due to the practices of the House—a private Bill may and frequently does appear. That is surely very hard lines for Scotland. There are a great many questions in connection with those services which we can only raise properly on Supply that we never have an opportunity of raising. I myself, to-night, feel that one is keeping the House unduly long on the Adjournment Day in order to draw attention to those grievances which we have when really we are all wanting to be away. There is no one in the House, and one could have a considerable amount of fun in a House of this sort, but that is not what we are here for. We are here to take the only opportunity we have of raising these questions, because we are questioned about them in Scotland. We are asked by our constituents, both by letter and by deputation, and when we are in Scotland, to get these things dealt with. They cannot understand why we cannot get them dealt with. We point out that the forms of the House shut us into a cul de sac out of which we cannot get. Until we have, as we are looking forward in the near future to having, a measure of Home Rule for Scotland, these questions will not be properly discussed. That is probably one of the best justifications for keeping the House a little longer on the Adjournment Day in order to give a practical object lesson of what a farce the whole thing is of attempting to discuss Scottish local affairs in this House. I do
  3328
  not want to keep the Scottish Secretary longer than any of his colleagues, but one is bound to do it in order to emphasise what a sorry proceeding the whole thing is. The review of the Scottish services is a mere farce, and the control of those services is practically nonexistent. Take, for example, the question of public education in Scotland. Not so very long ago the Scottish Secretary, in replying to a deputation of Scotsmen who waited upon him asking him to remove the Scottish Education Office from London to Edinburgh, refused to do so, although the vast majority of Scottish Members wanted it done. He asked himself and us this question, "What was the central education authority?" It was not Sir John Struthers, it was not the Office, it was not the clerks, it was not the educational experts." That may or may not be true, but it certainly does not agree with statements of other Scottish officers. The Lord Advocate, for example, in October, 1911, speaking at Bathgate, said:—
  "The Department was my friend Sir John Struthers."
  If the Lord Advocate says that the Department is his good friend, Sir John Struthers and the Scottish Secretary says it is not that Gentleman, who is right? What are we to believe with regard to the Department? My Friend the Member for North Aberdeen on Tuesday last asked the Scottish Secretary the following question:
  "With reference to the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, "who are known as My Lords, and which is composed of the following members, namely. Lord Morley, the Secretary for Scotland, Lord Haldane, Lord Shaw. Lord Reay, and Lord Elgin, what were the dates of their appointments, and the number of meetings they have attended, respectively; as also the number of meetings of the Committee held annually since 1606; and the date of the last meeting?"
  The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was—
  "The Committee of Council on Education in Scotland consists of the members named, together with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate. The Committee was appointed by Order of His Majesty in Council on the "2nd March, 1909; the present Secretary for Scotland being appointed vice-president by a similar Order dated the 29th February, 1912. No meetings have taken place since the date named."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th August, 1912, col. 2908.]
  This is the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland. Presumably the Committee was elected for the purpose of doing something in connection with education in Scotland, otherwise they would not have taken the trouble to add the Secretary for Scotland on this date in February, and yet according to the reply the Committee has not met at all since 1906. It is almost as ridiculous a Committee as the Board of Trade, which includes

  3329
  the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the Irish Parliament. That is not the way in which Scottish education should be controlled. Because Scottish Education is controlled in that and other ways, and because in this House we never have an opportunty of reviewing the policy of education in Scotland, there has been a great change in the policy of public education in Scotland in the last few years, and over that the Scottish Members here have had no control.
  There have been very few opportunities of criticism, and therefore I myself can come to no conclusion about it. It is out of touch with a great deal of opinion on education in Scotland which really ought to be recognised. Take, for example, the question of secondary education in Scotland. The provision for secondary education is extremely meagre—so meagre, in fact, that you have to make up for the absence of fácilities for secondary education by a liberal use of the trained services, particularly in the large counties in Scotland. I know cases myself where the children in order to enjoy the advantage of secondary education have to leave by train from the particular village in which they reside as early as half-past seven in the morning, and they are unable to return by train until well on to 7 o'clock the same evening. Many of those children have to walk several miles from the station to reach their homes after they have put in a long time at the secondary school. When we remember the children at that period of life, particularly girls, at the most formative period, are called upon to undergo those extreme physically fatiguing journeys to and from school, we must see that it is not good for the physical side of a great many of the girls of Scotland. It is not fair to them. The policy of the Department with regard to meeting the difficulty is to establish sub-intermediate schools. That is a good policy, and should be encouraged, but you cannot establish these schools without the provision of adequate means to supply buildings and staff. The money available for the purpose in Scotland is dependent mainly on what is known as the whisky money. It is a scandal that it should depend on that, and a scandal that has lasted too long, especially in view of the general disposition in Scotland to make sacrifices for that particular purpose. It would not be difficult to produce instances of localities in Scotland that have been prepared to erect sub-interme-diate schools to deal with the difficulty of
  3330
  secondary education in these particular localities, and who have had the money allocated to them by the county councils, but whose schemes have afterwards been overthrown by the Education Department. This is not the clerks; this is not the officers; this is not our good friend, Sir John Struthers. It seems to me that an effort could be made to provide money for those sub-intermediate schools, particularly in those districts which are ripe for their erection, and in which there are sufficient children, as is the case in many districts, to get this kind of education without undergoing the physical fatigue so injurious to their health.
  The question of bursaries is also a matter which ought to be looked into by the Scottish Secretary. What happens to-day in Scotland is that those bursaries are going to the children who are best able to do without them. They are not sufficiently large to induce the parents of some children to make use of them for the purpose of secondary education, yet they are large enough to be a very welcome addition to parents who are more favourably situated with regard to secondary education. Investigation should be made into this question so as to have a more adequate and appropriate provision of bursaries. The question of the appointment of inspectors in Scottish schools is one that has created more dissatisfaction among the teaching profession than any other in connection with education. The Board of Education in Scotland has departed, like the English Board, from the good old system of examination of pupils in our schools, and has adopted now purely and simply a system of inspection. I am not an advocate myself of either of those particular means of ascertaining what progress a child is making educationally. Under the old system of examination the inspector used to come to the schools and put all the children through what are known as the three "R's," and according as they passed or failed to pass in those particular subjects they sent them up to the higher standards or kept them where they were. That obviously had a great many disadvantages. It meant that a great many children who otherwise would have made educational progress if they had not been trammelled by examinations were trammelled by that process, and their education was greatly injured. But this new system of inspection that has been adopted is almost as bad—not quite as bad—as the old system of examination. First, of all, we

  3331
  have got to bear in mind that junior inspectors for these schools cannot be appointed until they have reached the age of thirty-five years—the present maximum age for their appointment, and the commencing salary is something like £150 a year. I submit that if you consider the type of man who is appointed to inspect the teaching profession in Scotland at the present moment you will see the value of the point that I am attempting to make. A great number of these men have had no adequate teaching experience.
  They are very frequently young men from the English universities, with good degrees, with good classical, mathematical, or scientific knowledge, but who are pitchforked into the schools in Scotland to inspect the work of men and women who have behind them years of experience in actual teaching in those schools, and whose teaching reputation depends very largely upon the report that they get from those inspectors. Bear in mind, too, that those inspectors only go to those schools very occasionally. You can find instances in which one of those inspectors may not inspect the class for something like eighteen months at a time. It may be, after a few hours in the school, he would examine the prepared work of the teacher of that particular class. He may, as is very frequently the case, be saturated with educational fads, and have no real idea of the work which the teacher in that class is putting in. If there is anything more irritating to the teaching profession than another it is surely having their work inspected by these young English university men; who are thrown into our schools with no knowledge at all of teaching in many respects, and many of them holding the teaching diploma by the minimum of three months that they can teach in a school in order to get it. They have never served an apprenticeship to the teaching profession; they have never gone through the training, and yet these men come in to inspect the work of those who are infinitely superior to them in very many ways. What is the result of this policy? It is that the average of Scottish teachers in our secondary schools in Scotland—many of them with extremely satisfactory university degrees, many of them with ten years' teaching behind them on the staffs of our school boards in Scotland, with rising increments of salary—when they reach the age at which they can properly be appointed to examine education in Scotland, find no inducement to make
  3332
  application for these posts. By the present policy in regard to these inspectorships, you shut up the one avenue of promotion to a great many excellent men on the teaching staffs of our Scottish schools. The only other post open to them is either the headmastership or the assistant mastership, but the whole of the ranks of the inspectorships are practically closed to this class of men. I think something ought to be done to open up a road of promotion to the average teacher in Scotland.
  Incidentally connected with that there is the question of the money which can be provided for teachers' holiday courses. If there is anybody in a Scottish school who-has a fad it is your inspector, and there therefore has grown up in the educational system of Scotland a desire for what many people popularly call fads, and the result is that very many school teachers give their summer holiday to a course of training at some convenient centre in some branch, such as woodwork or some other science. It has been the custom to provide money to meet the expenses of those teachers who give up their holiday in order to equip themselves better for their work. Last year that money was not available, and very many of those teachers actually enrolled in those particular classes and were then informed that there was no-money available. I should like if the Secretary for Scotland would tell us-whether that money is available in this particular instance, and whether those men may safely go to those classes in future or whether they will have to bear that charge themselves and so make their conditions worse.
  If it were not so late one could go on to a few other topics. I see that there is a certain amount of weariness on the Front Bench at the length of the discussion that is taking place. I would remind you again unless we get the opportunity for discussing Scottish business in the ordinary time of the House, then it is only proper to take this extraordinary time for driving the lesson home—that, at any rate, there are some Scottish Members who are in revolt against this system of the neglect of Scottish affairs by a Ministry which contains so many men from Scotland, and which really ought to concern itself more in the interests of that particular country. Though I could refer to a great many more topics, I only desire to ask the Scottish Secretary if he is able to give a reply with regard to the question of afforestation in Scotland. I am not going into the merits

  3333
  or demerits of a policy of afforestation for Scotland. I believe that is approved, but I understand that an Advisory Committee which has been set up has had certain opportunities of discussion, and there has been a rumour that matters have gone so far that the Scottish Secretary will soon be in a position to actually name a definite Committee, which will deal with this question in the same way as the Land Court is dealing with the question of the Small Landowners Act. If the Secretary for Scotland could tell us how far that matter has advanced, and if he has appointed this Committee, it would be a welcome piece of information. I renew my protest against the treatment that we Scotchmen receive. I have in my speech attempted to give you a sample of the kind of criticism we should like to make of a great many Scottish services, and I hope that the Scottish Secretary will sympathetically consider that those points have been put before him, and that he will attempt to secure other opportunities for Scotland, as he could do as a Member of the Cabinet, and that it will have more attention both from the Cabinet and the House.
  Colonel GREIG: There are some remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member about which I feel bound to say a word or two. I agree with him very largely that there are particular grievances from which Scotland does suffer under the present system of Parliamentary government. I agree with him that those grievances are worthy of very much more consideration than we are able to give to them, but I must confess that having listened to the hon. Member for the last half-hour that the impression was pressed home on me that the system under which we are at present working is not the result of any operation or any transaction or any action on the part of the Government. Those of us who have been here even longer than the hon. Member have realised this, that when a Parliament of this sort tries to do the business of four or five Parliaments it is almost impossible for any one Member to get the opportunity to deal fully with the grievances of Scotland, and to lay those grievances and make out his complaint. That that is entirely due to the arrangement of this House by the Government, I say there is not the slightest foundation for saying.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I say that if I used those words I did not mean to convey that meaning. I certainly referred to the
  3334
  fact that we had suffered from the arrangement of time in this House, and I spoke very strongly therefore that there could be no remedy until we had a system of devolution.
  Colonel GREIG: I quite agree; there is no difference on that point, but I do think it does not advance the cause of Scotland for Members who are all heart and soul and at one in their desire to advance the interests of Scotland, to continually complain and make it appear as if the Government of the day in this House could arrange such matters as to give us all ample time.
  Our energies, and the energies of the hon. Member who has exhibited so much vigour this evening, will, I think, foe well directed if we were to impress upon our countrymen at home—although I think they realise it—that the only remedy for the present state of things is the transfer to Scotland of purely domestic affairs, leaving this Parliament to other matters. If we had that, I am sure we should not have the unfortunate exhibition which we have had to-night of the apparent suggestion that the interests of Scotland are neglected by the Government. I, for one, do not believe that, and I have been, here for a longer time than the hon. Member who has just spoken. Up to the present time I know that we have not had full time for the discussion of Scottish grievances. The sole reason is the one I have indicated. I therefore quite acquit the Government, so far as I can, from any omission or commission with reference to Scottish matters.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. and learned Friend who opened this Debate began the important subject of Scottish Fisheries. I am glad to inform the House that the importance of Scottish Fisheries has by no means diminished. To-day I recived the figures from the Fishery Board as to the catch of herrings which has been made up to the 3rd of this month by the Scottish fishermen, and they are extremely striking and satisfactory figures. For this year 1,240,000 cran of herrings have been caught, as against 1,080,000 last year, an increase of 160,000. The value of that catch is even more satisfactory than the quantity, because the catch this year is valued at over £1,500,000, whereas last year the value was about £1,061,000— an increase this year of £456,000. These satisfactory figures are accompanied by equally satisfactory figures as regards the whole catch of fish this year. I will not

  3335
  take up the time of the House by going into statistics on this question to-night. But I think it is important to point out how flourishing a thing this great industry is in Scotland. In connection with that I would refer to another point made by my hon. and learned Friend. There has been a sort of disposition to suggest that Scotland has not fared so well as regards her fisheries in the matter of Grants from the Development Commissioners as England has fared. I am sure my colleagues the Scottish Members will be interested to know what the real figures for Scotland are. I am sure the House will recognise that the great change that has been going on in the conditions of fishing, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs, the change from sail to mechanical propulsion, in regard to which he mentioned some striking figures from the Fishery Board Report, has rendered necessary the enlargement of the harbours.
  A few months ago I visited several harbours on the East Coast of Scotland. I found the people were all asking for more harbour accommodation for their new form of boat. The steam drifter is very rapidly taking the place of the sailing boat. My hon. Friend says that whereas six years ago, roughly speaking, about one-third of the catch was by steamers and two-thirds by sailing vessels, last year two-thirds of the catch was made by steamers and motor boats—chiefly by steamers—and only one-third by sailing vessels. That means a great difference in the conditions of harbour accommodation. This does not apply to England so much as to Scotland. I believe that in the case of Scotland it is a matter of great importance. It is impossible for fishing to be conducted without adequate harbours. I am glad to tell the House that we have secured from the Development Commissioners over £112,000 in Grants, and loans for the improvement of Scottish harbours.
  Mr. MORTON: How much is Sutherland getting of that?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sure I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice.
  Mr. MORTON: None at all.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can tell my "hon. Friend that England has not obtained anything. I think my hon. Friend is one of those who are under a misapprehension
  3336
  on this point, and I should be glad to give him the comparative figures. I quite agree that Scotland has, both relatively and positively, a more important fishing industry, and that it is quite right that Scotland should get more money. The money that Scotland has got from the Development Commissioners for fishery purposes is over £112,000. England has got £6,000. So that the comparison is not of the kind supposed by my hon. Friend, but the very opposite. With regard to the question of the fisheries, I should like to point out in two or three words that the Fishery Board has not confined its attention to these great fisheries, but has tried to foster fisheries which would be of immense importance and of pecuniary value to Scotland. The Board has been considering the minor fisheries— oyster, lobster, and other fisheries of that kind. They are making a proposal now for spending money upon the oyster fisheries. Some very striking figures were given in the report I have received from the Committee of the Fishery Board. They state that the Scotch Oyster Fisheries at one time were of great importance, and that the Firth of Forth beds once yielded about 30,000,000 oysters annually, which, if sold at present prices, would be worth from £200,000 to £300,000 a year, and they hope to revive that industry by careful cultivation, and by spending a little money upon it.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the question of trawling for herrings, and he quoted passages from the Report of the Fishery Board for last year, in which they recognised very fully the importance of that question in relation to other forms of fishing. I have made inquiries, and so far I have only heard of one case of trawling for herrings this season, and that was not a case in which pecuniary success was obtained. Of course, it is rather later in the year that that form of fishing is tried. I received a deputation of gentlemen representing Scotch fishermen on this question of trawling for herrings, and I found what they suggested is that an inquiry should be made. I asked them this question: "Would you desire that restriction should be placed upon Scotch and English fishermen, while the German and Dutch and other foreigners are free to use this method of catch," and they said "No," they did not desire that, and I think we agreed that this question could only be treated internationally. We must recognise that we are not dealing, except in a small degree, with inshore fishing, but that

  3337
  we are dealing with the open sea, and if this proves a method of fishing so successful as to be prosecuted to any great extent, and if it it proves dangerous for the fish supplies, then it can only be dealt with internationally. I recognise that, and I gave instructions to our delegate on the International Council that he should ask that council to make inquiry into the matter, which they consented to do. Besides that, a Committee has been set up by the Government for the purpose of considering the question of limits in territorial waters and this question of trawling for herrings.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: The same deputation asked that you should get power to prohibit the sale of trawled herrings.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: One Gentleman made that point; he made no direct suggestion in his speech, but when pressed he did give that answer. I am not at all sure that that is a practical proposal, but it is a matter which will be considered by the Committee, and having set up a Committee it is not right that I should attempt to lay clown its policy. There is another Committee dealing with the question of Grants to fishermen, and my hon. Friend urged that we should press this Committee to report as soon as possible. A short time ago I made inquiries as to when the Report was likely to be received, and I was informed that the Committee at that time were inviting the Scottish Members interested in Scotch fisheries to give evidence. I do not know whether any hon. Member has found it convenient up to the present to do so. But I think it was a reasonable thing, and I only express the hope that some of the Scottish Members will find it convenient to attend.
  Mr. MORTON: We have asked the Members of the Sub-Committee, of which I am Chairman, to give evidence. I and the hon. Secretary, Mr. Cowan have signified to the Departmental Committee our willingness to do so. We think that that will be enough, but have asked every Member of the Sub-Committee to give evidence if he chooses.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said, and that is an answer to my hon. and learned Friend on this point. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton) asks me to take steps to prevent depopulation. I cannot help thinking that a very important step
  3338
  in that direction was taken when the Small Landholders Act was passed. I trust I shall have the support of my colleagues from Scotland in the attempt which the now Board of Agriculture are making to give exclusive attention to Scottish interests, and to develop the Small Landholders Act and plant as many as we can of these excellent applicants now asking for small holdings. My hon. Friend also said that he hoped I should see a good deal of Scotland during the holidays. I thank him for that kind wish, and I may say that there is nothing more agreeable to my taste, and as soon as I get rid of this prolonged debate on the adjournment, and after I have had an opportunity of clearing up arrears at the Scottish Office I intend to go to Scotland. My hon. Friend, the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. O. E. Price) made an appeal to me with which T have a good deal of sympathy, and he narrated a number of cases in which there were no Scottish representatives on Committee. I cannot help thinking that a Committee considering national questions without a Scotsman upon it would be a very poor Committee indeed.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: In order to carry out this suggestion will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter before the Cabinet, and insure that, no Committee shall be appointed in the future without it contains a Scotsman. I do not want a Committee dealing with a national question appointed unless there is a Scotsman upon it.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. Friend's view on that matter. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) the point upon which he dwelt most was the question of the time given to the Scottish Estimates, and the time given for debating subjects in which Scotland is exclusively interested. Upon that subject I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig). Nobody denies, I do not deny and the Prime Minister does not deny for a moment that inadequate time is given to Scottish Estimates, but it is equally true that inadequate time is given to English Estimates in regard to which millions pass through without any discussion at all. Therefore the evils of deeper root than my hon. Friend has yet discovered, and it is a question of the system.
  Mr. HOGGE: I said so.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I admit that.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members must be content with one speech and not take up additional time with interruptions.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I agree with my hon. Friend a remedy ought to be found, and a remedy I think we are all agreed, is to be found in devolution to local centres. I must say a word on the specific charge which the hon. Member brought. For my own part, I was etxremely anxious more time should be given to the Estimates. There were certain items of information which I thought ought to be given to Scotch Members, and which I wish to state to the House, but which I had no opportunity of stating. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh knows that was my view at the time, and, when he spoke to me of raising the question on the Adjournment, I told him that, and I told him also that the arrangement of the business of the House was a matter outside my authority and jurisdiction. I thought that he assented to that view. If I had thought otherwise, I should have acted otherwise; but I thought he assented to my view, and in fact he did in words assent to it. With regard to the Prime Minister, whom he somewhat criticised, he answered that very question that very day. Take the attitude of the hon. Member himself. It was no fault of the Government that the Estimates did not have the whole day devoted to them. The Government set down that day, but a matter of pressing importance interrupted the discussion. My hon. Friend was one of those himself who thought it was of such pressing importance that the Scotch Estimates ought to be interrupted for it. He was one of the Gentlemen who rose in his place to support the Motion. I do not blame him for it, and I have no right to criticise him. I think the matter was of great urgency and importance, but surely after supporting the cause of the interruption it is not fair of him to turn round and blame the Government for the interruption. That is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable for my hon. Friend to do that when he was one of the hon. Members who told against giving two extra days for Estimates. That I think is a little inconsistent. I do not think it is very profitable to discuss that question, because on the general question we are all agreed that Scotch Estimates do not get nearly enough time. Neither do English Estimates, and the remedy is one which must be found in the wider solution to which I have referred.
  3340
  My hon. Friend talked about the Education Department, and he quoted a speech of my right hon. and eloquent Friend the Lord Advocate. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate—I do not know whether it was after a dinner or on an occasion of some ceremony—paid to the very able head of the Education Department a compliment, which was not original, but which was a very handsome compliment. "The Scotch Education Department is Sir John Struthers," by which he meant Sir John Struthers was the heart and soul of the Department. Sir John Struthers is the extremely capable head of the Education Department, a man thoroughly capable of administering education, and he has done an enormous amount for secondary education. The Lord Advocate did not mean there was nobody else who had anything to do with education but Sir John Struthers. My hon. Friend has taken the statement with that literalness which has given Scotchmen the reputation of not being able to understand a joke. I do not think there is any truth in that remark. I take Scotchmen to be the greatest humourists in the world. My hon. Friend said the provision of secondary education in Scotland was unequal. He must be aware that the Act which improved secondary education in Scotland and found more money for it is not of ancient date, but is the Act of 1908. He made one complaint which I do not think is altogether reasonable. He said Scotch children in rural districts could not obtain secondary education without travelling by train. You cannot put an adequate secondary school in every village, nor can you put one in scattered parts. It is necessary to travel by train. Really our fathers and grandfathers in Scotland would have thought little of that if they could have got for the same amount of trouble in travelling the kind of secondary education now to be obtained in Scotland. My hon. Friend talks about sub-intermediate schools. I do not like that phrase. The fact is that every elementary school can come into this class if it observes certain easy conditions. He told us there ought to be Grants for the purpose, but there are Grants for the purpose, and they are better than the old Grants. If you have scholars in these supplementary courses, receiving instructions in languages, mathematics, etc., they get 50s. instead of the normal Grant of 22s; and, in addition to that, when an additional assistant is employed for the ordinary work, to set free the master for higher

  3341
  instruction, a special Grant of £40 or £50 is given towards the salary of each such assistant.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh complained that we used to have examination, but that now we had inspection. Examination was bad, and inspection was not perfect; but, at any rate, it was better than examination, and, therefore, I do not understand my hon. Friend's complaint. I do not see what other alternative there can be. If the school is up to the standard he deprecates examination for that purpose, but there must be some system of inspection. He criticised the present system. I am with him in that, and I hope we shall be able to bring about a change by which we shall have experienced inspectors in all cases. He is a little in error in supposing that the junior inspector enters at £150 a year; he really enters at £200, and he rises to be senior inspector as vacancies occur; but our policy is to get rid of that class, and to appoint more experienced inspectors.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with the question which I raised with regard to illegal trawling?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly. There was rather a curious incident this afternoon. A Gentleman came to me and said he had been interviewed by the wife of the captain of a trawler who had been fined a heavy amount for illegal trawling, and he asked me if I could not do something to secure a mitigation of the penalty. I promptly replied that I could not, because my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland would strongly object to the mitigation even of a single shilling. In regard to this matter generally I may say I hope to get some personal acquaintance with the fishery cruisers during the recess, and to visit the Hebrides and the Northern Islands, and perhaps I shall be in a better position to discuss this matter when the House reassembles.
  The other two points raised were those relating to holiday courses and a Grant for teachers. That is not a matter for the Scottish Office or the Education Department at all. The Grants to teachers are matters which are within the competence of the secondary school committees, who give these Grants, or not, as they think right, according to the necessities of the people and the circumstances of the case. I do not think there is any reason why we
  3342
  should interfere with local discretion in these matters. I am not in favour of too much interference with local discretion where the work is being competently administered. The last point raised is the question of afforestation. What the hon. Member told me was entirely news to me. I have had no report yet from the Advisory Committee. So far as I know it has only met twice, and it certainly has not prepared any report. It has made some suggestions to me about augmenting its numbers, which I am at present favourably and sympathetically considering. The question of afforestation is part of the whole question of agricultural development in Scotland. We have a big work there, and we must not neglect one part of it for another. The question of afforestation is not a matter upon which we should come to any sudden, hasty resolution. It is a big question, involving time and careful consideration. I do not propose to announce any policy on the matter until I have had the benefit of the advice of the Advisory Committee which has been set up, and which includes gentlemen who are enthusiastic upon the subject. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by my hon. Friends as shortly as I can. I hope the House will not think I have taken too much time, inasmuch as we have only had four hours on the Scottish Estimates.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): There was one point raised by two hon. Members which was not dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, because it touched the Department for which I answer in this House—I mean the question of the new building in Inverleith Eoad. Perhaps I may recite the facts quite briefly, and state the present position. In 1909 the Office of Works prepared plans for the erection of additional laboratories and other buildings in the Royal Botanical Gardens. They went before the Dean of Guild Court and the plans were approved. In 1910 the building was erected, as regards the essential portion of it. At the time the plans were approved it was made quite clear that it was intended to complete the further part of the buildings as soon as opportunity offered and the money was voted by Parliament. In 1911 further application was made to the Dean of Guild Court. On 7th September the agent for the City Council was present and raised an objection to the new section of the building on the ground that the building

  3343
  line was not 30 ft. from the centre of Inverleith Road, but, the matter having been considered, the objection was withdrawn, and the plans were approved by the Dean of Guild Court. Some days afterwards, on 20th September, the City Council passed a resolution under an Act of 1906, with the intention of preventing the First Commissioner of Works from erecting buildings nearer to the centre of the road than the 30 ft. line. They applied to the Courts for an injunction for the purpose of preventing the First Commissioner from erecting the second half of these buildings. The reply made by the Lord Advocate was that the Crown was exempt from the provisions of the Act of 1906. The judge, in giving judgment, was of opinion that in respect of these new buildings the Crown enjoyed no right of exemption, because they were new buildings and wore not in existence at the time of the passage of the Act of 1906. On that decision the First Commissioner appealed, and the Appeal Court allowed the appeal—they did not go into the wider question of the rights of the Crown as regards local buildings—on the ground that these were the completion or expansion of existing buildings, and therefore the Crown enjoyed this right of exemption by Section 78 of the Act.
  That is the history of the case to-day. Now I come to what is the present position of affairs. It is that if the building has been erected at a distance of 25 feet from the centre of Inverloith Road there is no question that the First Commissioner enjoys the legal right to erect the other half of the building in the same building line at the same distance from the centre of the road. The First Commissioner, in answer to a question, said he would consult the city council before proceeding further. Consultation has taken place, and the position at present is this. The city council is anxious that the First Commissioner should set back one-half of the building, thus making two frontages to the same building, and to give land to provide the accommodation which would be lost by setting back that line. To that the First Commissioner replied that he could not agree to the suggestion for this reason, that to have two building lines on one building first of all would spoil the look, and secondly would not achieve the purpose for which the city council is standing out, namely, a new building line in the
  3344
  road. The case at present stands as follows: Either the First Commissioner will complete the building on the existing line, or, should the city council be willing to bear the expense, he is willing to remove the existing building, to set it back 5 feet, and to complete the second half of the building on that line. Of course, if the Office of Works is put to the expense of setting back the existing building, they will expect the city council of Edinburgh to meet the expense of that operation.
  Mr. HOGGE: Do they want any adjoining land?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: What the Office of Works require is the same accommodation as they have now and they require the cost of providing accommodation to fall upon the persons who wish the building destroyed and set further back. We have invited the city council to confer with us in the matter.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Mr. O'MALLEY: I am sorry that although I gave notice that I would raise the question of the Congested Districts Board in regard to land purchase in Ireland the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not thought fit to be present, but I am quite sure it is not because of any want of interest in the question. On the Motion for the Adjournment over the Whitsuntide holidays I pointed out that the Land Act of 1903, the great Act associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), which was passed practically unanimously and was intended to settle once and for all the Irish land question, has utterly failed to settle what is called the problem of the West. No sales took place under that Act. It was found necessary to introduce another Act in order to deal with the congested districts in Ireland. An Act was passed in 1909 for that purpose. I pointed out at Whitsuntide that although three years had elapsed since the passing of that Act, not a single estate was purchased in my Constituency in Connemara, and indeed very few estates were purchased anywhere in the West of Ireland. My complaint on this occasion is one I have frequently brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I complain of the delay by the Congested Districts Board in their dealings with the landlords. For example, there is a large and important estate called the Berridge estate in Connemara. It is notoriously the poorest estate, so far

  3345
  as land is concerned, in the whole of the West of Ireland. There are 15,000 or 20,000 people on the estate. Four or five months ago the Board made an offer to Mr. Berridge, the landlord of the estate. I understand it was fourteen years' purchase, plus the bonus. Mr. Berridge declined the offer, and negotiations have been going on ever since. I understand that a few weeks ago the Board made a new offer, giving him sixteen years' purchase and the bonus. I pressed the Chief Secretary for Ireland to ascertain whether Mr. Berridge had accepted this offer or not, and he informed me yesterday that the matter is in the hands of the Congested Districts Board, and that he could not give me the information. What I say to the Chief Secretary and what I wish the people in the district to realise is, that if Mr. Berridge had been informed when the original offer was made of fourteen years' purchase, and the bonus that it was final, it might have been accepted. It was a generous offer. In fact the price is very much beyond the value of the estate. Now that he has been offered sixteen years' purchase, plus the bonus, he hesitates. Why? Simply because he knows the methods of the Board are such that if he delays and the negotiations continue, they may increase the ofter. That is the system which has been pursued by the Congested Districts Board, and will be pursued unless something is done to bring public attention to these methods. If Mr. Berridge or any of the other landlords in the congested area were informed that a certain number of years' purchase was offered, and that that would be the final offer they would hesitate before they declined it. It seems to me that the Board imagine that they are going on for ever. I think everybody knows that the Congested Districts Board was created for a special purpose, and to deal with the problem within a certain limited time. The Board seem to be going on as if established for ever, and judging by their
  3346
  methods it seems to me that they will go on for ever, and that this problem will never be solved. I want the people of the West of Ireland to realise the fact, that although as I believe the individual members of the Congested Districts Board are fair-minded conscientious men, anxious to do the right thing for the tenants, still their efforts are such that land purchase is delayed and agitation may go on. As far as I am concerned, if I knew that Mr. Berridge was going to decline the last offer made to him, during my holidays in Connemara I would call upon the tenants to decline to pay any rent until the question is settled, and I believe that they would be perfectly justified in doing so.
  Mr. GULLAND: I am very sorry that the Chief Secretary is not here, but I shall take care that the views of the hon. Member are conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned accordingly, at Thirty-seven minutes past Nine o'clock, until Monday, 7th October, 1912.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  TUESDAY
  Unlawful Gaming—Petition from London and other places, for legislation.

  WEDNESDAY.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill-Petition against, from Haslingdon.
  Opium Traffic—Two Petitions from Liverpool, for suppression.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
  DEATH OR DESERTION OF SEAMEN.
  DEATH OR DESERTION OF SEAMEN.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  COUNTY HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  COUNTY HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  CIRCULAR LETTERS BY EMPLOYERS.
  CIRCULAR LETTERS BY EMPLOYERS.
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  Local Imperial Finances.
  Local Imperial Finances.
  Board of Works (Ireland).
  Board of Works (Ireland).
  Tobacco Duty.
  Tobacco Duty.
  Customs Officers (Allowances).
  Customs Officers (Allowances).
  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Secondary Education Scholarships (Ireland).
  Secondary Education Scholarships (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Male Population, Rural County Districts (Ireland).
  Male Population, Rural County Districts (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Cowsheds (Ireland).
  Cowsheds (Ireland).
  H.M.S. "Proserpine."
  H.M.S. "Proserpine."
  Royal Dockyards.
  Royal Dockyards.
  Royal Gun Factory.
  Royal Gun Factory.
  Limerick Army Clothing Factory.
  Limerick Army Clothing Factory.
  Seditious Writings.
  Seditious Writings.
  Gross Value of Property (London).
  Gross Value of Property (London).
  Housing and Town Planning Act (Rural Districts)
  Housing and Town Planning Act (Rural Districts)
  County Boroughs (Areas and Bates).
  County Boroughs (Areas and Bates).
  International Exhibition, Ghent.
  International Exhibition, Ghent.
  Tobacco Manufacture (Ireland).
  Tobacco Manufacture (Ireland).
  Irish Mackerel (American Tariff).
  Irish Mackerel (American Tariff).
  Sugar Convention.
  Sugar Convention.
  Wheat Flour and Meal (Imports and Exports).
  Wheat Flour and Meal (Imports and Exports).
  Labour Exchanges (Scotland).
  Labour Exchanges (Scotland).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Central Telegraph Office (Learners).
  Central Telegraph Office (Learners).
  Irish Day Mail (House of Commons).
  Irish Day Mail (House of Commons).
  Dublin Post Office (Stores Department).
  Dublin Post Office (Stores Department).
  Outdoor and Indoor Relief (Scotland).
  Outdoor and Indoor Relief (Scotland).
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS MANUSCRIPTS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Calendar of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume VI (New Series), in continuation of the Volumes issued under the authority Of the Historical Manuscripts Commission: The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 142.)
FINANCE BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read 1a,
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 143.)
  ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION),lb/> BILL. (No. 144.)
  Read 1a, and to be printed.
LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 145.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.
FINANCE BILL.
Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 2a (The Lord Herschell): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 2a (The Lord Herschell): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a,and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

Finance.

Isle of Man (Customs).

Seal Fisheries (North Pacific).

Public Works Loans.

Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).

Public Offices (Sites).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

809

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Military Lands Provisional Order.

Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles Provisional Order.

Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Essex, &c.).

Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kent, &c.).

Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London No. 1).

Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London No. 2).

Land Drainage (Lincoln West) (South District) Provisional Order.

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2).

Gas and Water Provisional Orders.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas).

Sea Fisheries (Conway) Provisional Order.

Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders.

Exe Fisheries Provisional Order.

Tramways Provisional Orders.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Arbroath Corporation Gas Order Confirmation.

Dunbar Water Order Confirmation.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

810

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation.

Kingston- upon-Hull Corporation Provisional Order.

Brighton and Hove General Gas Company.

Ystradfellte Water.

Stockport Corporation.

Taff Vale Railway.

Windermere District Gas and Water.

Annfield Plain and District Gas.

Dublin and South Eastern Railway.

Great Eastern Railway.

Derwent Valley Water.

Cardiff Railway.

Southgate and District Gas Company.

North Middlesex Gas Company.

City of London (Various Powers).

Lea Bridge District Gas Company.

Maidenhead Gas Company.

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas.

Brodsworth and District Gas.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas.

Australian Agricultural Company.

Stepney Borough Council (Spitalfields Market).

Bedwellty Urban District Council.

Belfast Water.

Port of London Authority.

Scunthorpe Urban District Water.

Tavistock Urban District Council.

North Ormesby, South Bank, Normanby and Grangetown Railless Traction.

Shipley Urban District Council.

Brighton Corporation.

Great Central Railway.

Bawtry and District Gas.

Hove Corporation.

Houghton-le-Spring District Gas.

Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity).

Fleetwood Gas.

Ivybridge Urban District Water.

Metropolitan District Railway.

London and North-Western Railway.

Christchurch Gas.

Herne Bay Gas.

Wakefield Gas.

Swanage Gas and Water.

York United Gas.

Dover Corporation.

London United Tramways.

Gas Companies (Standard Burner).

Staffordshire Potteries Water.

Tees Conservancy.

Preston, Chorley and Horwich Tramways.

London Electric Railway.

Llanelly Rural District Water.

811

London Trust Company.

Midland Railway.

Birmingham Corporation.

Ashborne Urban District Council (Gas).

Barry Railway.

Edgware and Hampstead Railway.

Great Western Railway.

Great Northern Railway.

Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board.

Ericht Water and Electric Power.

South Suburban Gas.

Woking District Gas.

Lanark County Tramways.

Manchester Royal Exchange.

Nottingham Mechanics Institution.

Glasgow Boundaries.

Glasgow Corporation (Water).

Fylde Water Board.

National Electric Construction Company.

Swansea Corporation.

Midland Railway (London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Purchase).

West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums.

Metropolitan Railway.

812

London County Council (Money).

London County Council (General Powers).

London County Council (Finance).

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Keighley Corporation.

Bordon and District Gas.

Blyth Harbour.

Bishop's Divorce.

THE RECESS.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): I beg to move that the House do adjourn until October 7.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday, the 7th of October next, a quarter past Four o'clock.