Sitting of 9 December 1912

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Perkins, (42 petitions) containing 8,221 signatures.

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Second Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence, 25th April to 2nd August, 1912, with Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES AND QUARRIES.
Copy presented of General Report and Statistics for the year 1911. Part II., Labour [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Cheltenham, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (COLONIES).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the several British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates, in each year from 1897 to 1911 (Forty-ninth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG).
Copy presented of Eleventh Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie and

3
Mallaig Railway, the Rates and Charges for Traffic, and the Receipts and Expenditure of any Company in working the Railway, for the year 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5027 and 5028 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 22, 1912.).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting the North Atlantic Fisheries. Signed at Washington, 20th July, 1912 (Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 15th November, 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PANAMA CANAL ACT (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 12, 1912).
Copy presented of Despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington respecting the Panama Canal Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection, that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pilotage Bill): Mr. Attorney-General and Lord Henry Bentinck; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr Douglas Hall.
Report to He upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the Constitution, Powers, and Duties of District Insurance Committees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 388]
DURATION OF BUILDINGS FOR SMALL HOLDINGS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire and report as to the probable Duration of Buildings and other works required for the Equipment and Adaptation of Land for Small Holdings, with Copy of the Minute appointing the Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Marriages Provisiónal Order Bill, without Amendment.

IRELAND (AVERAGE PRICES).
Return ordered, "showing, as far as-practicable, for Ireland as a whole: (1) annual Average Prices for each year 1881–1911; (2) annual Average Prices for each period comprised in the period 1881–1911, of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, and for the period of 4 years 1908–1911; such prices to be compiled from the Returns of Prices of crops, livestock, and other Irish agricultural products heretofore published from time to time by the Irish Land Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, or from other information in the possession of these Departments."—[Mr. Newman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give the House any information as to the arrest and trial of the Grecian labour agitator Zachos: and whether His Majesty's Government will represent to the Grecian Government that it would alienate British sympathies if the Grecian Government could be suspected of taking advantage of the present patriotic war fervour to have this man shot?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information upon this subject.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is now in a position to say when the normal conditions of trade in cattle, sheep, and pigs between Ireland and Great Britain may be resumed in the event of no further outbreak of disease occurring?
  Mr. FIELD: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that question, may I put one to him—a question of which I have given private notice: Whether in view of recent developments he is prepared now to state what arrangements will be made to allow the importation of fat Irish livestock, cattle, sheep and pigs, for immediate slaughter at foreign animals wharves in Great Britain; and whether he has received requests from British meat trades asking that such facility for supplies be immediately granted?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): In reply to the supplementary question put, I have received a request from the meat traders in the terms stated. I can perhaps best reply to the first part of the question of the hon. Member and the question on the Paper together. I regret to say that the position as regards the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland is much too obscure at the moment to enable me to make any definite forecast as to the modification of the existing restrictions. My hope is that so soon as the efforts which are now being made by the Irish Department to trace back to their place of origin, not only the infected animals which have arrived at Birkenhead, but all which have been in contact with them in course of transit, it may be possible for a line to be drawn between the suspected and dangerous districts in Ireland and those which it may be hoped are free from infection, and to allow animals to be sent from the latter districts for slaughter at the foreign animals wharves on this side, so as to minimise the consequences of the loss of the Christmas markets both in Ireland and Great Britain. I am in communication with the Irish Department on the subject, and hope to be able to make a definite announcement to-morrow or on Wednesday.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any cattle in contact with these cases in transit ever contracted the disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should require to have definite notice of that question; but I believe that some of the animals which came over in a vessel from Newry have shown signs of foot-and-mouth disease since they were landed at Birkenhead.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us as to whether there is any truth in the statement of Lord Lucas that there is to be a permanent quarantine upon Irish cattle, whether diseased or not?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No Sir, Lord Lucas did not say that there was to be a permanent quarantine on Irish cattle an England. What he did say—and I have carefully verified the remarks he made—was that in future the normal trade must provide for inspection in England as well as inspection in Ireland. Of course there must be a little time lost whilst the inspection is taking place in this country.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does not that practically amount to a protective tariff in England against Irish cattle?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, no, not in the least. Inspection takes place not only in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, but for other purposes also. I am only extending to foot-and-mouth disease what has been done with regard to other diseases for some time past.
  Mr. FIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to state definitely to-morrow or Wednesday the course to be pursued—for time is the essence of this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite aware of the fact that loss of time, especially at this season of the year, is of very great importance to the dealers and farmers concerned. I should hope to be able to make a definite statement on Wednesday; but we must have the position cleared up, and know from what centre of Ireland the diseased animals came, so that we may take no undue risk in opening the ports.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not permit the ports of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and Belfast to be opened for the shipment of cattle to Great Britain, seeing that there has been no disease, and is no disease, within a fifty or 100 miles radius of these places, and that a large number of stock are lying——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting an argumentative point.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can give any more information regarding the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Kent; and if it is known from whence the disease came?
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there have been any fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease or swine fever in East Kent since he made his last statement to the House; whether there have been any fresh cases in the district first affected; and whether he has been able to permit a fat stock market to be held in the county of Canterbury on Monday, 16th December, in addition to those already sanctioned in other unaffected centres in the neighbouring county of Kent?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No further outbreaks of disease have occurred in East Kent since I made my last statement to the House, but in the course of slaughtering out the contact animals, one cow, two calves, and one sheep have been found to be affected, making seven in all. An Order has been issued authorising the movement of animals from outside the scheduled area by rail into Canterbury, Folkestone, and Hythe. The inquiries made with a view to ascertain the cause of infection are being proceeded with, but no information has as yet been obtained which throws any light on the matter. No foreign hay or straw has been purchased, and only home manufactured cake and other home-grown fodder has been fed to the cattle or sheep on the farm. So far as the Board have been able to ascertain, there is no reason to think that in this case the infection came from Ireland. The Board hope to be able to allow a fat stock market to be held at Canterbury on Monday, 16th December, provided, of course, that no further outbreak of disease occurs.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask whether the Kent farmer is suffering anything outside a fifteen-mile radius from this outbreak, and, if not, why should not the same system apply to Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret to say that the Kent farmers are greatly inconvenienced by the arrangements which of
  8
  necessity have been made, and that the traffic of their animals to and fro has been naturally and of necessity interfered with.
  Mr. BATHURST: Do the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman share the view that the disease has been carried into Kent by motor cars coming across from the Continent?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no definite information that I can give the House. We are making inquiries as to every possible source from which infection can come.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many boxes are available for livestock at the farm at Pirbright where the animals are to be tested before exported; if any more boxes are being built; and how much accommodation will be available by next summer?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board did not obtain possession of the farm until Michaelmas last, and no buildings have yet been erected. It is hoped that about fifty boxes will be ready for use early next summer.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in the opinion of his expert advisers, there is a variety of foot-and-mouth disease, properly so-called, the symptoms of which are similar, but which is wholly non-infectious; and, if so, why no evidence to this effect was placed by the Board's many witnesses before the Departmental Committee which lately sat and reported upon the said disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board's veterinary advisers are not aware of any variety of foot-and-mouth disease which is wholly non-infectious.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in the neighbourhood of Ashford or elsewhere in Great Britain since last Wednesday; and whether he proposes to alter or extend the orders of the Board in reference to the admission into Great Britain of Irish stock as the result of the discovery at British ports of evidence of the. disease existing but previously undiscovered in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, perhaps

  9
  the hon. Member will allow me to refer to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for North Westmeath.
  Mr. GUINEYasked whether, in view of the fact that no case of foot-and-mouth disease or any other infectious disease in cattle has occurred in the provinces of Munster and Connaught for the past thirty years, he will recommend the immediate removal of the restrictions on the landing at English. Welsh, and Scotch ports of hay and straw shipped from these provinces?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In view of the uncertainty of the position as regards the existence of the disease in Ireland at the present time, I regret that I do not see my way to withdraw the restrictions to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease, both in England and Ireland, the serious present and prospective loss and anxiety in both countries resulting therefrom, and the opinion prevalent among British stock-owners that such outbreaks are likely to continue unless and until there is identity of administration and control in respect of this disease throughout the United Kingdom, he can arrange for joint action and administration on the part of the two Departments with regard to all outbreaks of the disease in both countries during the continuance of the present epidemic?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consider whether it is desirable to take any such steps as the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. FALCONER: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether, in considering that question he will keep in view the fact that if inspection of cattle took place in Ireland the whole of the difficulty might be removed, all the cattle from the unaffected areas might be sent over to this country and sent through the ports without detention and without risk of the deterioration and great extra cost caused by the present system?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That, no doubt, would be taken into account.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how long after the last outbreak of cattle disease the restrictions imposed by the Department may safely be removed;
  10
  whether this period has now elapsed in Westmeath; and whether the Department will now allow the free movement of cattle, sheep, and pigs there?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department has never considered the restriction of a scheduled area before the lapse of twenty-eight days from the occurrence of the last case of disease in the district. But the question of restricting any area is entirely within the discretion of the Department, and must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Until the origin of the latest case of disease is discovered it will not be possible to allow any fair to be held in county Westmeath district.
  Mr. GINNELL: As soon as the origin of the present outbreak has been discovered will this county, if not infected, be freed from the restrictions?
  Mr. RUSSELL: As soon as the origin of the last outbreak is discovered, the question of Westmeath will be at once considered.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: In regard to the investigations the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out in that part of the country from which these animals discovered in Birkenhead to be suffering from the disease came, is it not a fact that by no possibility could these animals have come from Connaught or Munster, where no foot-and-mouth disease exists?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have received notice of a private question on that subject.
  Mr. FARRELL: Having regard to the fact that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in county Longford, where the fairs are held up by the Westmeath Order, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to withdraw the Order so far as Longford is concerned?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I must ask the hon. Member to exercise a little patience until the immediate trouble is passed.
  Mr. FARRELL: It is too much patience we have.
  Mr. LARDNER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether there is now any justification for continuing to schedule Monaghan Rural District as an infected area, in view of the

  11
  fact that the twenty-eight cattle, forming part of a cargo held up at Birkenhead last week, which were traced to Monaghan, are now admitted to be free from disease; that after careful investigation by the Department's inspector for the past four days in the district around Monaghan no trace of disease has been found anywhere, and that no part of the county Monaghan was involved in any of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland?
  Mr. RUSSELL: In reply to the hon. Member's question I have to state that the cargo of the steamship "Iveagh" consisted of 73 cattle, 143 sheep, and 525 swine, all of which were fat animals for slaughter. The cattle have been traced to the following places: A lot of twenty-eight to Rossmore Park, Ballinode, Aghalish, and Monaghan; a lot of twenty-seven to Lurgan, Ballymacully, Caledon, Killylea, Keady, Killeen, Tynan, and Drumcrib; a lot of seven to Banbridge; and six of a lot of eleven to Ballymacor-mott and Newry. The remaining five of this last lot of eleven have been located, but the report as to the precise places has not been received. The five cattle found affected at Birkenhead were stated by the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture to belong to the twenty-seven lot.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in any of the places in county Armagh he has just mentioned any trace of foot-and-mouth disease has been discovered?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That gives me the opportunity of saying that the investigations carried out by the officers of the Department during the last four or five days covered every place where these cattle came from, and we have been unable to find a single trace of the disease.
  Mr. FALCONER: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that, while two spurious cases of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in Dublin, the cattle in the cargo from Newry to Dublin, which were actually infected, were not detected at Newry?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir, for the last three or four weeks, since the store cattle trade became a very large trade, an arrangement was come to between the Department in Ireland and the Board of Agriculture in England that the fat cattle
  12
  should be mouthed, i.e., critically examined in the mouth, on this side, and not examined in Ireland, and that store cattle should be mouthed, or critically examined, in Ireland. These fat cattle from Newry to Birkenhead were not mouthed and examined in that critical way in Ireland, and the disease was discovered when that operation took place at Birkenhead.
  Mr. LARDNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue the embargo on the Monaghan district in view of the fact that no disease has been found in that district at any time, and that the cattle traced to that district have been admittedly free from the disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That is a question which will require most careful consideration at once.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why that, arrangement was entered into between the Departments? Are we to conclude that the staff of the Irish Department is inadequate to have a full inspection on the Irish side?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the number of store cattle crossing at certain seasons of the year is enormous, and it may be quite true that pressure on the staff made the examination of both classes of cattle of this critical kind impossible. But at all events the arrangement was come to, and when I say that 600,000 animals have crossed since 30th June, and that this is the first animal that has been detected, I think the hon. Member will admit that the examination must have been pretty critical and pretty close.
  Captain MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the suggestion which I made some days ago as to a belt of buffer counties, and will he consider that along with the President of the Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend and I consulted about that very point. It will be a very difficult thing, because of this fact: We have been utterly unable to trace the disease in these four counties that I have scheduled as a precautionary measure, but it is undoubted that an animal reached Birkenhead in a diseased state from these districts, and I am perfectly certain Irish Members will be willing to give us time to get at the facts and to act accordingly. The question of a line of buffer counties was made some time

  13
  ago, and I know the Department was quite willing to consider it then, and is no less willing to consider it now.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Although one of these shipments was from Newry, is it not a fact that the officers of the Department have been unable to find any trace of the disease in any part of County Down?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I have just said so. In the four counties affected we have found no trace of the disease.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May not the disease Lave been contracted in Birkenhead, then?
  Sir J. LONSDALE: In view of the serious situation which has arisen in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for a further discussion on foot-and-mouth disease?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious matter which ought to be taken into account, and I think it might conveniently be raised on the Adjournment tonight.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that only half an hour is at the disposal of the House for a discussion on the Adjournment, and as this is a matter of vital importance to Ireland, costing the country thousands of pounds per week, does he not think that two or three hours at least might be spent on a discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think we might see whether the discussion is adequate or not. At any rate, it is an urgent matter, and it had better be taken to-night.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ask the permission of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond)?
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Irish Members next Saturday and we will come and discuss it?
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider whether the question might be raised before the Adjournment is moved to-night, and then there will be a little more time without much inconvenience to Members?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: This telegram has just reached me: "Following my previous telegram, report now received that all the farms from which the seventy-three
  14
  cattle shipped on 'Iveagh' have been inspected, and all animals thereon found perfectly healthy."

  Shipping of Horses to Ghent (Conditions of Voyage).
  Mr. FIENNESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that seventy horses were shipped on 30th November per the ss. "Truro" at Hull, consigned to Ghent, and arrived there on 3rd December in bad condition, six having died on the voyage; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have inquired into the case to which my hon. Friend refers. Six out of seventy-three horses shipped on board the ss. "Truro" for Ghent on 30th November appear to have died on the voyage. All the horses were carefully examined before shipment, but I am informed that the vessel experienced exceptionally heavy weather, and I have no doubt that this accounts for the six deaths.

  Improvement of Bovine Stock.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is his intention to supply out of the Development Fund, for the improvement of the bovine stock of a locality, one bull for each group of farmers whatever be the breed of cattle they keep or require, or whether he will consider the advisability of setting up district depots with sires of all the chief breeds represented in the district?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall, of course, be glad to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member, but there are many difficulties in the way of its adoption. I do not think that, under existing circumstances, it is likely to commend itself to the Development Commissioners as being the best means of securing the improvement of bovine stock generally. The negotiations which have been proceeding between the Board and the Commissioners on the subject are nearly complete, and I hope very shortly to announce the conclusions at which we have arrived.

  Big Ben (Cleaning the Clock-work.)
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state when the clock-work

  15
  in the Clock Tower was last cleaned and regulated; what was the total cost; and whether the result has proved satisfactory?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The clock-work in the Clock Tower was last cleaned and overhauled in May, 1907. It is constantly regulated and corrected, and minor repairs are made as required. The cost of this repairing work is included in the annual charge of £105 for maintenance. The result has proved satisfactory.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAME OF NEW CRUISER.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state whether one of the new cruisers will be named after the city of Cardiff?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The names for the new cruisers have not yet been assigned.

    KILLINGHOLME PIER.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to ask a selected number of firms to tender for the erection of the new pier at Killingholme, or whether it is proposed to publicly advertise for tenders from all contractors who choose to tender and to publish the amount of each tender submitted, as is done by all other public bodies?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): A sufficiently large number of representative and competent firms on the Admiralty list to secure the fullest competition will be invited to tender for the erection of the new pier at Killingholme, and the usual procedure of publishing the name and address of the successful contractor will be followed.

    ROYAL MARINES (NEW SYSTEM OF PAY).
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the new system in regard to full pay and wages in the Royal Marines will have the effect that a major entered under the new system, and being of four years' seniority, will receive £27 7s. 6d. per annum more than a lieutenant-colonel entered under the old system, no matter how great his seniority may be; whether he is aware that similar inequalities are likely to arise in other ranks; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is likely to be
    16
    created by reason of the fact that officers entered before the 31st August, 1911, are excluded from the increase in pay; and will he take steps to put all officers of similar rank and seniority on the same footing of pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative. These arrangements were made some time ago. As regards the third and fourth parts, the anomalies referred to will not begin to arise until the first officers entered direct complete their course of training in about three years' time, and it may then be necessary to review the scale of pay of officers entered under former conditions to prevent any injustice being done. At the same time it must be stated that a higher scale of pay for officers entered after August, 1911, was deliberately adopted in view of the naval qualifications which these officers will possess.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an officer entered in the Royal Marines shortly before the 31st August, 1911, and having the same rank and seniority as a brother officer entered shortly after the 31st August, 1911, will, by reason of the fact that the increased full pay and wages table of the new system is limited to officers entered after the date named, so operate that the former will, assuming similar progress in promotion, be at a disadvantage in full pay varying from about £65 per annum, when both are lieutenants with four years' seniority, to £246 7s. 6d., when both are lieutenant-colonels with four years' seniority; and whether he will take steps to remove this inequality of treatment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The second part of this question is covered by the answer I have just given.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked why Marine officers were left out of the scheme for increasing the pay of officers and men of the Navy; if he is aware that cases exist under the new scheme where a lieutenant of the Royal Navy would be in receipt of 12s. a day, while a lieutenant of the Royal Marines would only receive 7s. 6d. a day; and if he will take this matter into consideration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is receiving consideration.

    CANADIAN GIFT OF BATTLESHIPS.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked when it is proposed to place the orders for the three first-class armoured ships offered by the Canadian Government; and when it is estimated that they will be completed and ready for commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Questions on this subject appear to be premature. The assent of the Dominion Parliament has yet to be given to the measure now before it.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that the gift by Canada of three heavy armoured ships to the British Government will be regarded as over and above the number the Admiralty consider necessary to construct for European waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In introducing the Supplementary Estimates on the 22nd July last, I said that it was the wish of the Canadian Government that the aid of Canada should be an addition to the existing British programme, and that any step which Canada might take should directly strengthen the naval forces of the Empire and the margin available for its security. To that I have nothing to add.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that Canada is to be the judge of what is required for Great Britain's naval needs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is more a matter for argument.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Prime Minister what conditions, if any, have been attached to the offer of the Canadian Government to provide three first-class armoured ships for the strengthening of the British Fleet; and is it to be understood that these ships will be in addition to the programme for several years ahead already adopted by His Majesty's Government and announced on 22nd July, 1912?
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister (1) if the three "Dreadnoughts" to be presented by Canada will have the effect of relieving the British taxpayer in connection with Navy expenditure; and, if so, to what extent; and (2) if his attention has been called to the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada that the conditions disclosed in the Admiralty memorandum were such as rendered it imperative that the effective naval forces of the Empire should be strengthened without
    18
    delay; and will he explain why the Government hand over that obligation to Canada?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certain arrangements of a general character have been agreed to between the Admiralty and the Dominion Government with regard to the transfer of the Canadian battleships to the Royal Canadian Navy on notice sufficient to allow for their replacement if necessary being given, and with regard to the placing by the Admiralty of orders for some light cruisers in Canada, the training of Canadian Naval Cadets, and other minor and incidental matters. Papers on these subjects will be laid when the Bill now before the Dominion Parliament has received the Royal Assent. As to the second part of the question, it was stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Supplementary Estimates in July last, that any ships given by Canada at this juncture would be additional to the forecast of annual construction already announced, and that this was the wish of the Dominion Ministers.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHShad given notice to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the interest felt throughout the country and the British Empire in the emergency contribution to the Navy proposed by the Dominion Government, he will, immediately upon official notification of the assent of the Dominion Parliament to the Right Hon. R. L. Borden's Motion, make a pronouncement to this House and give all its Members an opportunity of expressing their gratitude?
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I understand it would be more convenient to answer this question to-morrow, and I therefore postpone it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I also propose to-postpone a question on the same subject of which I have given private notice.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MARTIN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Observations are not permitted at Question Time.
    Mr. MARTIN: On a point of Order. I understood the Prime Minister to say he would answer Questions 62 and 63 along with 59, but he did not answer either of those questions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to have asked a supplementary question.
    Mr. MARTIN: I could not hear very well, and I thought I must have been mistaken. Surely I am entitled to ask those two questions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had answered them. I gave the best answer I thought desirable under the existing circumstances.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (NAVAL WING).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what are the extra rates of pay of the Naval Flying Corps, and how many aviators have been definitely appointed at such increased rates of pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The extra rates of pay for Naval and Marine officers belonging to the Royal Flying Corps are as follows:—

    Per Day.

    Ordinary Pay.

    Flying Pay.

    Squadron commander

    …

    25s.

    8s.

    Flight commander

    …

    17s.

    8s.

    Flying officer

    …

    12s.

    8s.

    The commanding officer of the Naval Wing receives £800 a year, with quarters. Flying pay is paid continuously to aeroplane fliers, but only on the days of ascent in the case of airships. Thirteen Naval and Marine officers, who are qualified aviators, have been appointed to the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, with the increased rates of pay. Four officers are serving on the staff of the Central Flying School, with increased rates of pay. Five other officers have just graduated, and will be graded flying officers immediately.
    Mr. CROOKS: Are these men university trained?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the fact that they are not university trained is a source of danger?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have all been trained in the naval colleges and have entered the Navy in the regular way, which does not include training at a university.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how public notaries, who are at
    20
    present appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, will be appointed after the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The powers of appointment would appear to remain with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
    Mr. KING: Is it intended that the power should be retained?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.

    Dock Strike (Sentences at Autumn Assizes).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to review the sentences passed on certain dock labourers at the Essex Autumn Assizes; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any remission?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have now had an opportunity of carefully considering all the facts in connection with the convictions at the Essex Assizes for riot and endangering the safety of passengers in a railway train to which my hon. Friend refers, and I regret that I can find no sufficient ground for interfering with the sentences passed on the prisoners.

    Speltermen at Swansea.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the men employed as speltermen in the Swansea district are employed in the only trade or avocation scheduled as a dangerous trade under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and regularly work seven days a week without a break the whole year round?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I do not quite understand the first part of the question. Twenty-four industrial diseases in all have been scheduled for the purposes of the Compensation Act, and many of these, like lead poisoning, occur in a variety of industries. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my predecessor gave him on the same subject on the 18th of November, 1910, and in which he stated that the process was one that required to be carried on continuously throughout the week and that the speltermen's hours of work averaged from fifty-six to sixty weekly.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any other case where lead workers are employed for such excessive hours?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could give many cases in which men are employed fifty-six to sixty hours.
    Mr. WARD: But in lead works?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say without special inquiry.
    Mr. HODGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one firm of manufacturers in the district who do not work continuously, and whose furnaces are idle at the week end?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of the fact, but will make further inquiry.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any power by way of regulation to put an end to the sacrifice of health and life resulting from the unreasonably long hours of employment in a poisonous atmosphere by the speltermen in the Swansea district?
    Mr. McKENNA: This industry was made the subject af a careful inquiry in 1910, a Report of which was presented to Parliament, and regulations for the purpose of safeguarding the health of the workers were subsequently made and came into force in October of last year. The Report did not recommend any limitation of the hours of adult men, and it is too early yet to form any judgment on the working of the regulations, but the matter will be carefully watched.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the amount of compensation paid to the dependants of the four workmen who died of lead poisoning since the year 1907 whilst following their employment as speltermen in the Swansea district?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Home Office is not in possession of this information.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiry into the seventy-seven cases of lead poisoning which have occurred since 1907 in the spelter trade in the Swansea district, with a view to ascertaining how many of those so suffering have been permanently disabled from following their usual employment; and whether he will inquire as to whether any cases of wrist-drop have occurred in the cases reported?
    Mr. McKENNA: The information in the possession of the Home Office shows that ten of the cases were reported as severe, thirty as moderate, and thirty-seven as slight, and that wrist-drop was reported in seventeen. My Department has no means of ascertaining in how many cases the workman may prove to be permanently disabled from following his usual occupation.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever had any figures showing the average life of those engaged at this work?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I have not.

    Shops Act.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the uncertainty which has arisen in the minds of small traders who usually have their half-holiday on Wednesdays as to their ability, under the provisions of the Shops Act, 1911, to keep their premises open after one o'clock on Wednesday, 18th December, being the Wednesday before Christmas day; and whether he proposes to issue a statement relating to the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a question of the hon. Member for East Marylebone on the 20th November. A letter explaining the whole matter has been communicated to the Press and widely published.

    Death Sentence (Central Criminal Court).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the ease of William Beal, a boy of nineteen, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, on the 11th November last, of the murder of his sweetheart, Clara Carter, and who was strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, he is prepared to advise the respite of the prisoner in view of his youth, and the fact that two of the principal witnesses for the prosecution contradicted at the trial the evidence they gave at the coroner's inquest, and that the medical evidence showed that the prisoner's story that the girl committed suicide was not impossible?
    Mr. McKENNA: The evidence referred to by the hon. Member was fully before the jury at the trial and the points raised in the question were specifically dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

    23
    Neither tribunal appears to have had any doubt as to the prisoner's guilt, and I regret that I have been unable to find sufficient grounds to justify me in advising interference with the sentence.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is there any modern precedent for a case in which the extreme youth of the convicted prisoner and a strong recommendation to mercy by the jury have been ignored and the execution of the sentence has been carried out?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes, Sir, there are several cases in which convicted prisoners have been executed in circumstances not very dissimilar from this present case.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is there any such instance as that of a youth of nineteen, with a strong recommendation to mercy?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, there was a quite similar case in the last two or three years.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate it?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.

    London Traffic.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he possesses any power to insist that, during at all events certain hours of the day, vehicles should stand, not in the main street, but in by-streets, in the case of certain notoriously narrow and congested London thoroughfares?
    Mr. McKENNA: Directions to this effect may be given by the Commissioner of Police, when special circumstances in his opinion make it necessary to do so, under the provisions of Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839.

    Flannelette (Deaths from Burning).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the returns form by coroners to the Registrar-General of inquests contains any column for cases of death by burning due to flannelette, or whether it is purely optional on the part of coroners to supply such information?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the latter part in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether, notwithstanding the figure of sixty-seven given from the Registrar-General's Returns as the number of deaths from flannelette clothes in 1910, the Coroners' Committee report that in the month of January alone in that year there were eighty-nine of such fatalities and a total of 176 in three months; and whether, out of the total of 1,681 deaths by burning in 1910, over 1,000 were due to the wearing of flannelette?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures eighty-nine and 176 which the hon. Member quotes are taken from tables given in evidence before the Coroners' Committee, and published among the appendices to the Committee's Report. These tables were prepared by the proprietors of "non-flam" flannelette from newspaper reports, and their accuracy was not investigated by the Committee. As regards the total number of deaths in 1910 due to the ignition of flannelette clothes, I have no information other than that in the Registrar-General's Report, to which I have already referred the hon. Member, and which gives the total number of deaths from burning clothes of all descriptions in that year as fifty-seven.
    Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: Had the Coroner's Committee any reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of these figures, and, if not, seeing how different they are from the Registrar-General's, will the right hon. Gentleman direct an inquiry?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to say whether the Coroner's Committee had any reason to doubt that because the Committee did not report upon that subject at all.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask one of his clerks to make that investigation?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Coroners' Committee which inquired into the deaths from burning owing to the use of flannelette; and whether he will be prepared to propose legislation in this or the ensuing Session to prevent this loss of life?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The only recommendation of the Committee was that the Merchandise Marks

    25
    Act, 1887, should be amended so as to make it penal to describe as non-inflammable material which will not stand certain prescribed tests. I understand this cannot be done in the way suggested, because the subject is entirely outside the scope of that Act; but I am ready to receive suggestions as to the prescription of practicable standards and tests with a view to the introduction of legislation.

    North British and Victoria Rubber Companies (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether the result of the inquiry, which commenced in May last, into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the North British Rubber Company and the Victoria Rubber Company?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The points raised by my hon. Friend were: (1) That these firms were employing girls to do work which had previously been done by men; (2) That the girls were underpaid; (3) That where these firms employed men they paid them less than the district rate. On these three points very careful and detailed inquiries have been made. As to the first, I understand that it has always been the custom in Edinburgh to employ women workers to perform the lighter and cleaner parts of the work, the heavier work being done by the men. As to the second point, it is difficult to determine how far the new Fair-Wages Clause is being fully satisfied inasmuch as for this class of woman labour there does not appear to exist any plan whereby agreement on the question of fair wages can be arrived at between employers and employed. So far as I can see, the piece-work scheme of the North British Rubber Company is more favourable to the employés than that of the Victoria Rubber Company, and I am communicating with the latter firm on this point With regard to the men, the standard which has been submitted to me as applicable to the case of Edinburgh is that of the Northampton trade. I do not think it would be competent, under the new Fair-Wages Clause, to impose that standard in this case. The whole matter will, however, continue to receive my careful attention in view of the possibility of placing other contracts.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the Admiralty consult the men directly affected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An officer went down and made very careful inquiries, and that is what he reported.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Member say what district he intends to take as a standard for the men's wages?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall have to consider that.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care, when he takes up this question, that it will be a levelling up and not a levelling down of wages?

    Marconi Committee.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has seen the statement made by Captain Charlton, A.D.C, R.N., before the Marconi Committee that, in advertising for wireless telegraphy experts, it was stipulated that applicants should have a university degree; and whether this represents the settled policy of the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Captain Charlton's statement has not been fully reported and has been misunderstood. The advertisement was for a candidate with university education, and having a wide knowledge of electrical theory and of general electrical manufacturing methods. The candidate selected was educated at Nottingham High School, in the engineering schools of the University College, Nottingham, and obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering (London).
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is more important that an applicant should have a university degree than that he should be an efficient applicant?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the steps taken in this case have been admirably conceived to secure the most efficient men for the posts in question.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can we have an assurance that such a qualification as this will not be included in the qualifications for any other posts under the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly not. I could not give any assurance of that kind. I think in this case the right course has been followed, and I daresay there may be other cases in which a similar course may be followed. There is no question of limiting it to any particular university.
    Mr. CROOKS: Are we to understand that these posts are kept entirely for university men, and only for those with a double first in lawn tennis?
    Mr. BOOTH: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider it preferable to stipulate that the applicants should be passed by the Electrical Institute rather than have degrees in science and arts?

    Government Printing.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is an established practice that documents and forms required exclusively for use in Ireland and Scotland are printed in one or other of these two countries; and whether he will extend the same system to Wales?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Documents and forms required exclusively for use in Ireland and Scotland are printed, whenever practicable, in one or other of those two countries. The same principle will be applied wherever possible in Wales as circumstances permit.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SUM RECEIVED FROM INSURED PERSONS IN IRELAND.
    Mr. FELLasked what is the explanation of the small sum received under the National Insurance Act from insured persons in Ireland compared with the sums received from them in Scotland and Wales; if the contributions paid in Ireland will be kept distinct from those paid in England, Scotland, and Wales, and be applied only to benefits for insured persons in Ireland; and if the sanatoria benefits for the insured persons and their dependants will, under the circumstances, be possible for Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The comparative smallness of the receipts from contributions under the National Insurance Act in Ireland is partly due to the fact that the contributions are smaller, in the absence of provision for medical benefit, and partly to the fact that the proportion of persons working on their own account and therefore not liable to compulsory insurance to the total population is much higher than in Great Britain. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, and that to the third is also in the affirmative so far as insured persons
    28
    themselves are concerned. The extension of sanatorium benefit to dependants, if it takes place, will, of course, be governed by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The fact that a smaller number of persons are insured relatively to the population than in Scotland and Wales does not mean that the money available for sanatorium benefit for each of those persons is less.

    LEAFLETS (WELSH TRANSLATIONS).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if the thousands of leaflets, etc., issued by the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales) were translated by Mr. Evans, the late assistant secretary, who is a Welsh scholar, or if some other person was employed to do this work?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The leaflets in question were translated by Mr. Beriah J. Evans, the official translator to the Commission.

    NUMBER OF INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. LEACHasked for the number of insured persons who are now members of approved societies; how many of them are women; and how many persons are now receiving the benefit of treatment in sanatoria?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Exact figures as to the number of male and female members of approved societies cannot be given until the first quarter's cards have all been scheduled, and this process will still require some time to complete. With regard to the latter part of the question I am obtaining a return from the Insurance Committees as to the number of persons who have already received sanatorium benefit.

    INSURED PERSONS (TRANSFERENCE FROM ENGLAND TO IRELAND).
    Captain CRAIGasked if, under the National Insurance Act, an insured person coming from England to Ireland, after paying the higher contribution, and, taken ill, being debarred from medical benefit, must forfeit to the State the whole of the accumulated difference between the higher rate paid by him in England and the lower rate payable in Ireland, though he may have contributed for months or years at the higher rate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If an English insured person moves his residence to Ireland there is no such "accumulated

    29
    difference" as the hon. and gallant Member suggests between the higher rate he has been paying in England and the lower rate which he will at once begin to pay in Ireland. While in England he will have been insured for medical benefit and this insurance is fully equivalent in actuarial value to the extra 1½d. a week which he has been paying.

    CONSTITUTION or DISTRICT COMMITTEES.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked whether, under the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners providing for the constitution of district committees, it is open to the insurance committee to provide in their scheme for representation of the county council upon district committees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. The Regulations require the insurance committee to provide for the representation of the bodies set out in the First Schedule to the Regulation, but it is open to them in addition to provide in their scheme for the representation of any other bodies that they may think can usefully be represented on district committees.

    DOMICILIARY TREATMENT FEES.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the Resolution passed at a representative conference of Scottish county and burgh insurance committees, representing over 70 per cent. of the total insured persons in Scotland, held in Glasgow on the 2nd December, protesting against the proposal of the Government to allocate to the doctors for domiciliary treatment of consumption 6d. out of the 1s. 3d. provided by the National Insurance Act in respect of each insured person for defraying the cost of sanatorium benefit in each year, on the ground that such allocation will seriously affect the administration of the sanatorium benefit; and whether, having regard to the strong expression of opinion from Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, he will consider as to making other arrangements so as to avoid encroaching upon the sum assured under the Act for sanatorium benefits?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is receiving a deputation from Scottish Insurance Committees on this subject this afternoon.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT (INDUSTRIAL WORKERS' ASSOCIATIONS).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the formation of workers' associations in connection with collieries and other large industrial works on the lines of the existing works' doctor system in order to provide medical attendance for dependants along with medical attendance to insured contributors under the National Insurance Act; and whether, as the matter is one closely affecting the administration of the medical benefit under the National Insurance Act, he will see that every assistance is given by the Insurance Commissioners in the formation of such associations and in securing their recognition by the Insurance Committees as providing proper medical attendance and treatment under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 15 of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The attention of insurance committees has been called to the necessity for making provision for such cases as are referred to in the question, and model forms of application for approval have been issued.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (WALES).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state which of the private secretaries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who received promotion was not already a member of the permanent Civil Service; what was his employment before becoming the Chancellor's private secretary; and what was the post to which he was promoted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The gentleman referred to in the hon. Member's question is Mr. Rowland, who prior to his appointment as assistant private secretary in 1906 was an elementary school teacher. In January last he was appointed a Welsh Insurance Commissioner.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Are the qualifications of an elementary school teacher consistent with those of a Welsh Insurance Commissioner?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should think there could be no better preparation.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether accommodation in a sanatorium has yet been provided for Mr. Branson, who applied for treatment in August last; and whether any additional accommodation has been placed at the disposal of the Essex Insurance Committee to enable the other nineteen applicants, who have been refused treatment owing to want of accommodation, to obtain the sanatorium benefit to which they are entitled under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that accommodation has now been provided and that Mr. Branson is being removed to-day. Additional accommodation for other cases has also been secured, and I am informed that a scheme for the provision of a temporary sanatorium for the treatment of about fifty cases is now under consideration.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accommodation offered is in an infectious hospital, where there is no resident medical officer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will make further inquiry if desired.

    GERMAN BENEFITS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the total cost of medical and sanatorium benefits under the German insurance scheme for sickness, invalidity, and accident insurance amounts to approximately 14s. per insured person per annum, inclusive of drugs and the treatment of the sick in hospitals and institutions; and whether the Government Memorandum said to be in course of preparation in July last, giving explanations on these questions, is yet ready for publication?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any attempt to give the total cost of the benefits mentioned under the several German schemes would be misleading without further particulars than can well be included in an answer to a Parliamentary question. I hope to issue the Memorandum as a White Paper during the course of next week.

    Royal Mint (Scarcity of Copper Coins).
    Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has become apprised that
    32
    there is an increasing demand for coppers and threepences; and whether he will consider the issue through the Royal Mint of a neat nickel coinage for one, two, and three pence, respectively, thus relieving the public of the bulk and inconvenience of the present issue of copper coins and of the present threepenny silver coins?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not satisfied that there are any sufficient grounds to justify so vital and expensive a change. I greatly doubt whether the substitution of nickel coins for the existing bronze coins would be popular with the large majority of those who use small denominations.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, owing to the operation of the National Insurance Act and the paying of wages in an increased number of cases in odd money, there is a deficiency of copper coinage; and whether the Royal Mint will be instructed to issue low denominations of the coinage to supply the current needs?
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused by the scarcity of copper coins in circulation; is he aware that banks can only supply their customers with difficulty; and whether he will cause an adequate quantity to be coined forthwith to avoid this inconvenience to traders?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My attention has been drawn to the very large demand for bronze pence since July last. Special measures of an exceptional kind have already been taken to meet the difficulty, which, I trust, will only be of a temporary nature. The total issue of bronze coinage this year to date is nearly twice the amount issued during the whole of last year, no less than £202,555 of bronze having been issued since 15th July last, and every possible source of supply has been and is being utilised.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of farthings coined at the Mint in each of the last ten years; and whether he has any information showing those parts of the country where farthings are in common use and those parts where the use of them is comparatively rare?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will circulate a statement showing such information as is available on this subject.

    Imperial and Local Taxation Committee.
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the Imperial and Local Taxation Committee is carrying on the investigation for which it was appointed, and when its Report will be presented?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the date when the Report may be expected.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH APPEALS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Clause 28 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which substitutes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the House of Lords as the ultimate court of appeal from courts in Ireland, was passed without any opportunity for discussion; and whether, as the result of this Clause, there will be two ultimate courts of appeal within the United Kingdom itself, the decisions of neither of which will be binding on the other, and which may both have to decide the same questions, and the question whether the ultimate court in any particular case is the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may depend on purely accidental and fortuitous circumstances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council formed the subject of various debates, during which this point as to the two ultimate Courts of Appeal within the United Kingdom was made. I hope there may an opportunity, if it is desired, to raise the question again on Report. Although the decisions of neither of the two courts will be technically binding upon the other, that is equally true at the present day in reference to appeals from the Oversea Dominions and the United Kingdom which might, and sometimes do, raise the same point. In practice there is little or no difficulty since the Lords of Appeal fit in the Judicial Committee as well as in the House of Lords, and on an appeal from Ireland Clause 28 (2) of the Bill provides that not less than four Lords of Appeal shall be present.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the particular point as to an appeal in all ordinary cases apart from constitutional cases has never been discussed at all, and does he not think the creating of so anomalous a position, as
    34
    having two ultimate Courts of Appeal in the United Kingdom, is deserving of discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have already had a discussion as regards appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I have said, if an opportunity for further discussion is desired, I hope it will be found on the Report stage.

    IRISH PEERS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, although English Peers have no Parliamentary vote, they are able to take part in any public affairs by reason of their seats in the House of Lords, Irish Peers, under the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill, having neither vote for either House of the Irish Parliament nor the right to a seat in the Irish Parliament, are prohibited from taking any part in Irish affairs unless they are elected members of the Irish House of Commons or Irish Senate; and whether he proposes to remove this disqualification on Irish Peers by extending the franchise for election of Members to either House of the Irish Parliament to Irish Peers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not proposed to make any change at present in the qualification of electors for the Irish House of Commons, but it will be open to the Irish Parliament to do so after three years from the passing of the Act.

    IRISH ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. MacCAWasked whether, under Clause 1, Sub-section (2) of the Government of Ireland Bill, it would be possible for the British Parliament, on the Motion of any Member of that Parliament, to disallow any Act passed by the 'Irish Parliament; and, if so, would such Act in consequence become void and of no effect in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be possible for any Member to move an Address to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Act passed by the Irish Parliament. It will also be possible for the British Parliament, at the instance of any of its Members, to pass an Act overriding any Act passed by the Irish Parliament.

    IRUSH OFFICERS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether, under Clause 36 of the Government of Ireland Bill, officers

    35
    of the Marlborough Street, Dublin, training college, including the principal and teachers of that college, will be deemed to be Irish officers, serving or employed in Irish service within the meaning of the Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    Parliamentary Recess (Christmas).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wish in all quarters of the House that the Christmas recess should be extended over the New Year; whether he has come to any decision in the matter; and whether, in the event of any prolongation of the recess being decided on, it is the intention of the Government to expedite the passage of measures of importance by taking the same on Saturdays in addition to Fridays on the reassembling of the House?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that New Year's Day in Scotland is celebrated in precisely the same way as Christmas Day is in England; and whether, in view of that fact, he will consider the advisability of altering the date on which the House rises from the 20th to the 23rd or 24th December, in order to carry the resumption of business over New Year's Day, and so not only suit the convenience of all Members of the House, but make an equable concession to the national sentiment of all sections of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I can hold out no hope of an alteration of the arrangements already announced with regard to the Christmas recess.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us adequate notice if the Government determine to have Saturday sittings?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said nothing about Saturday sittings.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Are we not to have them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, not mine.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Lords Amendments to the Scotch Temperance Bill are to be taken after Eleven o'clock on the night of the 31st December?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the answer.

    Cabinet Ministers (Police Protection).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the force of detectives, plainclothes officers, and others, who are required to observe the mansions and residences of Members of the Cabinet and accompany them on private or official visits to other parts of the country, and to the force of police now employed to maintain order on the occasion of any public meeting being addressed by a Cabinet Minister; whether he is in a position to give a rough estimate of the cost incurred by the employment of detectives and other agents in thus observing Members of the Cabinet; and whether an opportunity will be afforded the House of discussing the outlay of public money on the above services?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. From time to time the public interest may demand that the police should devote special attention to a particular form of lawlessness, but it would be undesirable as well as impossible to state the extra cost to the public thereby involved.

    Established Church in England.
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister whether he is going to propose a measure for the Disestablishment of the Church of England, and, if so, when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was expressing the views of the Cabinet as a whole in stating in a recent speech that the question of dealing with the Established Church in England would be considered in certain events: if he was authorised to suggest a bargain in the matter and to intimate that drastic measures would be applied to the English Church if the Government's Welsh Church policy was frustrated; and to what extent the grounds for dealing with the English Church are regarded by the Government as dependent on the passage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend tells me that he made no such speech. He was reported to have made certain observations with regard to the Established Church in England in the course of a conversation, but the report,

    37
    he tells me, is absolutely inaccurate, and it shows the inadvisability of departing from the rule of not giving publicity in the Press to statements alleged to have been made in the course of private conversation.

    Land Values Committee.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the secret Land Inquiry Committee are carrying out their investigations in the county of Surrey?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's question.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Committee to investigate the case of a large estate near Hindhead which is being laid down in grass in order to form a deer park for a Radical Peer, and will he ask them to enquire whether in this case the pheasant is to replace the peasant or the peasant the pheasant?

    Price of House Coal.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, as he has declared the inability of the Government to hold out any hope of legislation for regulating the price of house coal and thereby putting an end to the prices now being charged in South Wales, he will appoint a small Special Committer to find out why prices are so high, and to recommend some action, either by the nationalisation of mines or otherwise, to protect the public against such robbery?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot hold out a hope of the appointment of a Committee.

    Imperial Defence Committee.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the proposal that a Canadian Minister should be appointed as a permanent member of the Imperial Defence Committee has been definitely accepted by His Majesty's Government; and whether it is proposed to extend this principle so as to include representatives of the other self-governing Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The proposal that one or more representatives of the Dominions should be invited to attend the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence was put forward last year by His Majesty's Government in the proceedings
    38
    connected with the Imperial Conference, and was accepted as desirable in principle by all the Prime Ministers.

    Bankruptcy Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Bankruptcy Bill is needed in the interests of the commercial community; and whether he will arrange for this to be passed into law during the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully aware of the importance attached to the Bill by the commercial community, and the Government would be glad if the Bill could be passed as early as possible. But, in view of the lateness of the Session and the pressure on Members, I fear I cannot afford facilities for its passing this Session.

    Coinage (Fourpenny Pieces).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of reissuing the old fourpenny pieces with a view to avoiding the abnormal use of copper coins owing to the Insurance Tax demands?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think it would be convenient or desirable to reintroduce the old 4d. piece, which would be very liable to confusion with the 3d. piece.

    University Grants (Scotland).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked when the fixing of an inclusive fee was first imposed as a condition of the payment of Grants to the Scottish universities; whether the decision of the Treasury was arrived at after consultation with the Scottish Education Department; and what considerations were before the Treasury when coming to their decision?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Treasury letter of 14th July, 1910, announced that the additional Grants which Parliament was being asked to provide would be subject to the condition, inter alia, of the adoption of an inclusive fee, uniform in the four universities, for degree courses. This decision was made after consideration of the observations of the Scotch Education Department on the Report of the Elgin Committee. It would hardly be possible within the limits of an answer in the House to state all the considerations before the Treasury, but I may refer to

    39
    the approval of the inclusive fee expressed by the Elgin Committee, and to the evidence given before that Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has there been any consultation with the Scottish Secretary on the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General the number of clerks in the provinces transferred from the National Telephone Company, Limited, who have been or can be called upon to work additional hours over and above those worked under the National Telephone Company without receiving any additional increments?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Under the National Telephone Company the gross hours of attendance of the provincial clerical staff were forty-nine, and the net working hours

    Year.

    Receipts.

    Royalties.

    Working Expenses.

    Balance available for Dividends, Interest. etc.

    Payments to Reserve Fund.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1907

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,702,228

    257,919

    1,530,092

    914,215

    275,000

    1908

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,951,000

    283,758

    1,687,535

    979,707

    295,000

    1909

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,149,126

    302,984

    1,183,490

    1,032,651

    320,000

    1910

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,422,423

    329,494

    1,987,356

    1,105,572

    375,000

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,685,402

    353,322

    2,103,033

    1,229,046

    501,536

    Totals

    …

    …

    15,910,179

    1,527,477

    9,121,506

    5,261,191

    1,766,536

    The income, working expenses, and balance of the Post Office telephone system during the same years, were as follows:—

    Year.

    Receipts.

    Working Expenses

    Balance available for Repayment of Capital and for Payment of Interest.

    £

    £

    £

    1906–7

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,135,480

    655,355

    480,145

    1907–8

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,351,872

    864,541

    487,331

    1908–9

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,528,955

    963,815

    565,140

    1909–10

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,704,566

    1,030,622

    673,944

    1910–11

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,938,329

    1,146,629

    791,700

    Totals

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7,659,202

    4,660,942

    2,998,260

    forty-four or forty-four and a-half a Week. In the Post Office the gross hours are forty-eight and the net hours forty-five; but a relief is given on Saturday afternoons when the state of the work admits, and the net working time in actual practice is often less than the net working hours under the company. The number of officers concerned is 1,350.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the loss on the General Post Office telephone system for the five years preceding May, 1911, and the profit made by the National Telephone Company, Limited, for the last five years of their licence, together with the total amount paid in that five years by the National Telephone Company to the State as royalties, and the total amount during those five years placed to their reserve fund?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The following table gives particulars of the gross and net income and working expenses of the National Telephone Company with the amounts paid as royalties and carried to reserve fund during the last five years, as stated in the company's accounts:—
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether, seeing that the present inefficiency of the telephone service, as evidenced by the complaints, is due to the shortness of funds at the disposal of his Department for working this service, he will take steps for obtaining larger Grants for this purpose; (2) whether, seeing that the funds at his disposal for dealing with rural party telephone lines are exhausted, he can state whether any of the other funds placed at his disposal for dealing with other branches of the telephone service are similarly exhausted; and (3) whether, when applying to the Treasury for funds for providing rural party telephone lines, he received the full amount he applied for?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no justification for the suggestion that there is any lack of funds which is the cause of inefficiency. The funds at my disposal have been adequate for dealing with any branch of the telephone service other than rural party lines. These lines wore in the nature of an experiment, and a Grant of £ 5,000 only was asked for in the first instance, which was sanctioned by the Treasury. The experiment has, I am glad to say, been more successful than was anticipated, and the Treasury have now consented to make a further Grant.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Postmaster-General whether representations have been made to him to establish a telephone rural party line in the Alness district of Ross-shire; and, if so, in view of the fact that it is essential for the agricultural interests of the district that there should be such a line established at once, whether he will consider these representations favourably?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have the ease in question under consideration; and I hope to be able in the course of a few days to make a definite proposal to those who wish to participate in the service.

    Post Office Guide.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked how many copies of the "Post Office Guide" were sold during 1911; how many of these were disposed of through wholesale sources, and how many were sold direct to members of the public; and how long a time usually elapses between the receipt of a request for the guide and its dispatch?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number of copies of the Post Office Guide sold during 1911 was 98,776, of which 82,178 were sold direct to the members of the public over the counter and 16,598 were delivered to subscribers at their addresses. The Guide is not sold through wholesale agents. As a rule, when a copy of the Guide is asked for at the counter, it would be delivered at once, and if written for it I would be dispatched on the day on which the request is received or on the day after.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a case in which an individual wrote for a copy of the Guide on the 18th November and on the 28th November had not yet received a copy, although he had had two communications from the Department respecting the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to a case reported in the newspapers to which no doubt the hon. Member refers. There has been a very remarkable run on the Post Office Guide owing to a competition which is taking place under the auspices of some newspaper in which the towns mentioned in the Post Office Guide have to be taken into account.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to see the proper number are printed in order that the desires of the public may be complied with?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is very difficult to foresee a demand of this kind, however desirable it may be from the point of view of the National Revenue.

    Overtime in Post Office (Inland Section).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on Saturday, 2nd November last, the sorters employed in the Inland Section, and due to leave duty at 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m., and 8.15 p.m., were compulsorily summoned to deal with heavy posting, of circulars, most of which were from the National Insurance Commissioners; and whether he will devise some other means of dealing with such work without depriving officers of their only relief from late duties, and provide that a Government Department whose servants enjoy the Saturday half-holiday should post its correspondence at a time less likely to inflict hardship on Post Office servants?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the date in question no officers due to leave duty at 8 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. were detained compulsorily, but thirty-eight officers due to leave at 6.30 p.m. were detained until 8.15 p.m. All the other extra duty was performed by volunteers. The circumstances on that date were exceptional, inasmuch as no fewer than 751,000 articles were posted specially, 200,000 of which came from the National Insurance Commission. In addition, three foreign and Colonial mails were received in the evening. The Insurance Commissioners have been good enough to undertake that longer notice of large postings shall be given in future, and arrangements will be made to collect it in smaller batches.

    Highland Railway Mail Contract.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General what sum is paid to the Highland Railway Company by way of subsidy for the conveyance of mails; if two passenger trains per day, namely, the 11.15 a.m. and the 3 p.m., going South, are scheduled as mail trains; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to all the counties north of Inverness, especially Orkney, he will enter into negotiations with the company for the dispatch of one passenger train, to be scheduled as a mail train, to leave Inverness after the arrival of the Orkney mail?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The company's remuneration is £ 55,526 a year, with a small additional payment for special services. Two passenger trains which leave Inverness for the South at 11.5 a.m. and 3.50 p.m., respectively, are scheduled as mail trains. The mails from Orkney are due to reach Inverness at 9.30 p.m.; and since the end of October last, when the 10.50 p.m. passenger train from Inverness to Perth was suspended, they have been conveyed by a new mail train leaving Inverness at 10.30 p.m. to Avie-more, and thence by a goods train to Perth. The Orkney mails are thus secured against delay. There are no funds at my disposal to meet any additional expense for providing facilities for passengers.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Seeing that the whole country north of Inverness is very much interested in this question, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation on it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid if it is a question regarding the provision
    44
    of additional accommodation for passengers, the matter does not come within my province.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Board of Trade on the subject?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will convey the desire of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.

    Post Office (Select Committee).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to bring before the Select Committee sitting under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hexham the pay and conditions of the female and male cleaners in the service of the Post Office; and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made into the conditions of this class of Post Office workers with a view of bringing their pay up to the level of ordinary labourers employed in the same districts or by local governing bodies?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is for the officers in question to make application if they wish to be heard by the Select Committee, and it is within the competence of that Committee to decide what classes of Post Office servants they will hear.

    Belfast Post Office.
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the heating system in the main building of the General Post Office in Belfast is defective; if it is within his knowledge that the hot water installation in these buildings has been totally cut off for three weeks past: if he is aware that the temporary expedients of heating, provided by oil stoves and gas radiators, are totally inadequate to conservate health or comfort amongst the employé s, being so far defective in this respect that the officials and staff have been obliged to wear their outdoor clothing while engaged at work; whether any report has been obtained from the local medical officer on this subject; if so, what is the nature of this report; and will he issue instructions that alterations and repairs to the heating apparatus shall in future be carried out in the summer months instead of in winter, as at present?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has recently been found necessary to replace the boilers for the heating apparatus at

    45
    the head Post Office, Belfast, by new boilers of greater capacity. The main heating system was cut off on the 19th of November, and the new installation was brought into operation on the 7th instant. In the meantime temporary arrangements were in operation for providing heating by means of radiators, etc. No report was obtained or was necessary from the local medical officer. Alterations and repairs to heating apparatus are in ordinary course carried on in the summer months; but in the present case the necessity for repairs was not known in the summer, and when it was discovered the repairs could not be postponed. The old boilers proved to be no longer fit for service, and the staff were complaining of insufficient heating.

    Education (Montessori System).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether inquiries are being made into the methods and results of the Montessori system and its applicability in this country; and, if so, how it is proposed to introduce a system under which children are admitted at two years, whereas most local education authorities now exclude them till five years of age, and fifteen superficial feet per child are required, whereas our standard of nine superficial feet has not been attained in many schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board published, on 1st November as an educational pamphlet, a report upon the Montessori system made by Mr. E. G. A. Holmes. In publishing the report the Board were careful to state that they did not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed in it. They have not suggested the introduction of the system into public elementary schools.

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received complaints from the Highlands of Scotland calling attention to the fact that though applications for land under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act have been numerous, and the applicants are suitable, the Board of Agriculture has so far not attempted to satisfy these applicants?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): A few such complaints have been received. One can hardly expect that all the applicants will appre-
    46
    ciate the fact that the work of finding land for a large number of applicants and the performance of the necessary preliminary work by the Board of Agriculture and the Land Court cannot be completed within a few weeks. It must be remembered also that at the beginning of the administration of the Act precedents are being created, and that it is of great importance that the necessary time should be taken to secure that these are the best precedents. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board is making every effort to overtake the work before it.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what has been done with regard to the promise he made that he would circulate at regular intervals information as to how much land has been applied for and how much granted?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have circulated the information at certain intervals, and I propose to continue to do so.
    Mr. HOGGE: Where has it been circulated?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I gave the information a few weeks ago to Members of this House, and it will be again given in a similar way.
    Mr. HOGGE: I never heard of it.

    Housing Accommodation for Workmen (St. Andrews)
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the condition of the housing accommodation for the workmen employed upon the new waterworks now in course of construction for the borough of St. Andrews; and whether his Department propose to take any action to remedy the same.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention had not been called to this matter, but in view of my hon. Friend's question I have communicated with the Local Government Board for Scotland on the subject.

    Stone Workhouse (Case of Bridget Burke)
    Mr. J. WARDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the case of the woman named Bridget Burke, who was found dying on the road side a few hours after her discharge from Stone workhouse, he will lay before the House the sworn statement of the police officer who said that before her discharge the woman had complained of being ill

    47
    and wished to see a doctor; and whether he will send an inspector or other official of his Department who has had legal experience to inquire into the treatment and circumstances of the discharge of Bridget Burke and, if she discharged herself, into the circumstances which induced her to take her discharge while in a dying condition?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have requested the coroner to supply me with a copy of the sworn depositions in connection with this case. As soon as I have seen them I will give further consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Knighton Estate (Rates and Taxes).
    Mr. STANIERasked if any answer has been sent to the Adbaston Parish Council with reference to the resolution submitted to the Board, asking the Board's support to the removal of the exemption from rates and taxes of the works occupied by Messrs. Cadbury on the Knighton estate; and whether the Local Government Board will support any Bill which may be promoted to attain this end?
    Mr. BURNS: I have given further consideration to this matter. As intimated in my reply to the hon. Member for West Staffordshire on the 21st ultimo, legislation would be necessary to give effect to the resolution of the parish council. I have caused the resolution to be noted, but I am not in a position at the present time to promise to introduce a Bill on the subject. I am informing the parish council accordingly. I will give careful consideration to any Bill which may be promoted to secure the end in view.
    Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, in which I asked if he will support any Bill?
    Mr. BURNS: That will depend upon its contents.
    Mr. RAFFAN: If any Bill is introduced will the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is extremely undesirable that works and buildings should be rated, and will he rather support a proposal that they should be relieved throughout the whole parish?
    Mr. BURNS: That is one of the many factors that will have to be considered in connection with such a Bill.

    Abertillery Waterworks (Accommodation for Labourers).
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether there is any provision in the Act authorising the construction of the Abertillery Water works as to the provision of housing and hospital accommodation for the navies and labourers employed upon the same; and, if not, what he proposes to do to see that such accommodation is provided?
    Mr. BURNS: There is no provision on the subject in the local Act in question. I will communicate with the local authorities concerned.

    Repair of London Roadways.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he possesses any power to insist that, when operations are in progress necessitating the taking up of the roadway of a London street, these operations should be prosecuted vigorously and continuously until effected, in order that the inconvenience, danger, and disturbance caused may be as limited as possible?
    Mr. BURNS: No, Sir. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is very desirable that works of this kind should be carried through as expeditiously as possible, and I am glad to say that local authorities are becoming increasingly alive to the importance of this being done.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. DILLON: I did not say that the national teachers were quite satisfied. How could I say that on behalf of all the teachers? What I said was, as far as my knowledge goes, nobody entitled to speak for the teachers had applied for this protection.
Mr. BONAR LAW: That makes the case very much weaker than I thought it was. We have surely a duty towards these people apart from their making clamant demands on us. I think that the very last precedent which we should set up is that we are to pay no attention to the grievances of anybody who has a claim upon us until he makes himself so disagreeable that we cannot help ourselves. I do not think that is a strong case. We do think there is a great danger at least of many of these people being deprived of their employment. We do not believe that there will be any great expenditure of money unless there is a wholesale discharge of teachers. If there is that wholesale discharge, they have a claim upon us. The mere fact that some form of compensation, however small, had to be given,

141
would make it less likely that these men should be dismissed on trivial grounds. All that we ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should give it consideration, but not in the way in which he considers other things. As he pointed out, his method is to consider them constantly and whenever the Clause is passed to forget all about them.
Mr. BIRRELL: When have I done so?
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman said he was always considering.
Mr. BIRRELL: The case of the teachers.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen no result of that consideration.
Mr. BIRRELL: I got £100,000 for them.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that that is true. I know enough about Ireland to know that that is one of the things in which the right hon. Gentleman has been greatly interested, and that he has done his best, but then I think that that should make him more inclined to consider whether or not there might be some legitimate grievance in. the arrangement proposed, and whether or not it is the duty of this House to try, so far as it can, to protect people, who are placed in a certain position by our action, from being placed in a worse position by the action which we are now taking.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 279.

Division No. 399.]

AYES.

[7.29 p.m.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Fell, Arthur

Mount, William Arthur

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Newton, Harry Kotingham

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fletcher, John Samuel

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Baird, John Lawrence

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Perkins, Walter Frank

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, Georgo Abraham

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baldwin, Stanley

Gilmour, Captain J.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Randles, Sir John S.

Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (Glouc., E.)

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bird, Alfred

Harris, Henry Percy

Sanderson, Lancelot

Blair, Reginald

Harrison-Broadley, H. B

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boyton, James

Hoare, S. J. G

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanier, Beville

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stewart, Gershom

Butcher, John George

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Swift, Rigby

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ingleby, Holcombe

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cator, John

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Touche, George Alexander

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Larmor, Sir J.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Croft, Henry Page

MacCaw, Wm, J. Mac Geagh

Yate, Col. C. E.

Daiziel, Davison (Brixton)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, Sir George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir P.

Duke, Henry Edward

Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

Magnus and Mr. H. Barrie

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Armitage, Robert

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Arnold, Sydney

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Guiney, Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Barnes, George N.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Barton, William

Hackett, John

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Hall, F. (Yorks, (Normanton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hancock, John George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O' Doherty, Philip

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

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

O' Donnell, Thomas

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O' Dowd, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ogden, Fred

Black, Arthur W.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O' Grady, James

Boland, John Pius

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

O' Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O' Malley, William

Bowerman, C. W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O' Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hayden, John Patrick

O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brace, William

Hayward, Evan

O' Shee, James John

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

O' Sullivan, Timothy

Brocklehurst, William B.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Brunner, John F. L.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Bryce, John Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Burke. E. Haviland-

Henry, Sir Charles

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Buxton. Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

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

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hinds, John

Pointer, Joseph

Cawley. Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Hodge, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Chancellor, H. G.

Hogge, James Myles

Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pringle, William M. R.

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Radford, G. H.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Reddy, M.

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Jowett. Frederick William

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Crean, Eugene

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Crooks, William

Keating, Matthew

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;

Crumley, Patrick

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cullinan, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

King, J.

Robinson, Sidney

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Dawes, J. A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Rowlands, James

De Forest, Baron

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

Delany, William

Leach, Charles

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Dickinson, W. H.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Dillon, John

Lundon, Thomas

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lynch, A. A.

Sheehy, David

Doris, W.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Shortt, Edward

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McGhee, Richard

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Macpherson, James Ian

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M' Curdy, Charles Albert

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

Essex, Richard Walter

M' Kean, John

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Esslemont, George Birnie

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sutherland, John E.

Falconer, J.

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Sutton, John E.

Farrell, James Patrick

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Masterman. Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Fiench, Peter

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, Harold John

Field, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, James Henry

Fitzgibbon, John

Menzies, Sir Waiter

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Thome, William (West Ham)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Molloy, Michael

Toulmin, Sir George

Gilhooly, James

Molteno, Percy Alport

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gill, Alfred Henry

Mooney, John J.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Ginnell, Laurence

Morrell, Philip

Verney, Sir Harry

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Morison, Hector

Wadsworth, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus cleophas

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Goldstone, Frank

Muldoon, John

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Munro, Robert

Wardle, G. J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C

Waring, Walter

144

145

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Whyte, Alexander F.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wiles, Thomas

Young, William (Perth, East)

Webb, H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Chelsea desire to move?
Mr. HOARE: I beg to move in Subsection (1), alter the word "Section" ["last preceding Section"], to insert the words "including teachers in model schools."
I simply move this Amendment for the purpose of asking the Chief Secretary a question. I think what he said on the previous Amendment was that the model school teachers are included in the scope of the Bill. What I want to ask him is whether they are included in Part I. or Part II. of Schedule 3?
Mr. BIRRELL: In Part I.
Mr. HOARE: I beg to ask leave lo withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the word "remuneration" ["including conditions as to remuneration,"], and to insert, instead thereof the word "salaries."
The object of leaving out the word "remuneration" and inserting "salaries" is because the latter word is an inclusive one, while "remuneration" is not so. The object is to secure the continuance of existing conditions in regard to emoluments as well as remuneration. The word "salaries" is a wider term than "remuneration," and appears in Clause 47 as including remuneration, allowances and emoluments. By that definition we decide that the word "salaries" includes remuneration and emoluments. Many Civil servants have called attention to the point, because they were dissatisfied with the word "remuneration," and accordingly I have inserted the word "salaries."
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right lion. Gentleman referred to the definition of the word "salaries," but I would point out to him that in the Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, the word "salary" is used. The right hon. Gentleman has put the word in the plural, and, since, he has referred to the definition Clause, may I
146
point out to him that the word in that Clause also is in the singular. There may be some Delphic reason for the difference.
Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all. It is only a grammatical reason, because there are several offices in the Clause, and the word "salaries" appertains to each office.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I presume there will be a consequential Amendment in the definition Clause seeing that the term used there is "salary."
Mr. BIRRELL: No, I think not.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous."
I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). This Amendment bears more directly on Clause 34, but I think this is the first occasion in the Bill in which we have any mention of this tribunal which is to be set up to adjudicate upon these questions, namely, the Civil Service Committee. Unlike the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, I am not quarrelling with the setting up of a tribunal for this purpose. I say quite frankly and at once that I do not see how many of the complicated questions you have to-settle could be settled in any other way than by setting up a tribunal of this kind. I believe that when the Act of Union was passed a similar body was constituted. I am not sure, but I rather think there was a similar provision, or something similar, in the Bill of 1893. At the same time I confess I was struck by the force of the observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) when he was making his speech, and that was that it is rather a remarkable thing that this Board, which is being set up to decide questions which vitally affect the existence from the monetary point of view of various Civil servants, as to their status, should consist of three members of whom one is to be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Irish Govern-

147
ment, and one by the Lord Chief Justice, and that those Civil servants have no representative on it.
The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We are in the same difficulty here, which is one of drafting, as we were in with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board. In that case we were dealing with provisions which said that the Joint Exchequer Board was to do this or that, before we set up or denned the Board. In the same way here we have to deal with what the Civil Service Committee has to do before we formally set it up. I think Civil servants might possibly feel in hard cases, which are sure to arise, that they were receiving a greater measure of justice if they had representation on the Committee. This Committee is to declare whether the duties of Civil servants are or may be described as analogous. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me a satisfactory explanation I do not want to press this Amendment to a Division, but I really do think before he asks us to pass this provision he might, at all events, give us some sort of idea as to the sort of cases which it is intended to meet. There are many cases which one might suggest where Civil servants are performing certain duties, and where they might be asked to perform other duties not quite of the same character, but something of the same character. For instance, a man in the postal service employed in the telegraph department might be transferred possibly to the Telephone Department. I should like to know whether a transfer of that kind would be described as being analogous. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay down any general classification at all, but I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind when he puts these words in the Bill. It is quite obvious that a Civil servant might be placed in a position of some difficulty if he were asked to perform work for which in his opinion he was not qualified, and which he did not like, and which yet was declared by the Civil Service Committee to be analogous. He would then be placed in the position of either having to do the work, which ex hypothesi he does not like, or to go. If he goes, then under the conditions of the Bill he would go under very much worse conditions than would otherwise have been the case. There is no appeal from the decisions of this body as to what is or what is not an analogous
148
service. I do not ask that there ought to be at the moment. I think it is very difficult to say that these questions of fact can be decided by any other body. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman could at least indicate to us the sort of thing he has in his mind. If his explanation is satisfactory, then, so far as I am concerned, I should not want to press the matter to a Division.
Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member has put his point very fairly. The Amendment, of course, would have the effect of stereotyping the duties of any Civil servant to those which he performed on the appointed day, which would be a little bit unreasonable. We do provide that, though the duties may not be in all cases precisely the same, the Civil servant is not to be required to discharge duties which are not similar or analogous. He has his appeal to this tribunal to determine the matter, and if the tribunal come to the conclusion that they are not similar or are not analogous, he can retire with compensation, just as if he had been dismissed. The hon. Member asks, "What do you mean by similar and by analogous?" In other words, he asks me to discharge the delicate duty which will fall on this Committee. I can quite imagine cases in which the duties would be clearly analogous. Take the case of the man doing a particular kind of duty, say fixing of rents, and then by some readjustment of the duties of the office he is not only required to fix fair rents, but possibly he has to come to some decision or to examine some titles relative to the land. I should have thought if, on reference to his qualifications, it appeared that he had been chosen as a legal gentleman, there would be nothing unanalogous or dissimilar in asking him possibly to enlarge the scope of his duties in that particular way. If, on the other hand, being a legal gentleman and qualified to deal with questions of title and so on, he were asked to discharge duties of a non-legal character, which would require an expert in agriculture, or somebody who was competent to go on an estate and to assess its value, then I should say he would be reasonably and properly entitled to say that those duties were not analogous or similar, that they did not- fit in with his training, and that it would be sending him to school again to learn his business. I cannot pretend in exact language to say what is an analogous duty, but I should imagine there would be no more difficulty

149
in deciding that than there is now. Duties are pretty nicely differentiated nowadays. The duties of a parlourmaid are different from those of a housemaid. They know and appreciate what those differences are, and people know what it would be to be called on to discharge duties outside their particular professions or callings. I think that is the sort of thing we have in view. I cannot get much nearer to it. In one sense it would be a matter for deciding whether the duties are of a kind that the person with his training and qualifications can easily assume without in any way imposing a burden upon him by the acquisition of new qualifications.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I wonder why the Government draftsman, in dealing with this Clause, did not go back to the words of the previous Bill, "perform the same duties or duties of a similar rank."
Mr. BIRRELL: I do not like the word "rank."
Mr. BARRIE: You might have a case, say in the Post Office, where an assistant has been for many years in charge of counter work and where he might be transferred to the telephone service, which might involve great hardship. If that applies as regards the Post Office it applies with even greater force to duties of the great Departments in Dublin, where you might perhaps find Civil servants called upon to perform duties in connection with the Land Commission. You might have people in the Customs after years of service suddenly relegated to the Land Commission, and by that very great hardship would be involved. Perhaps it is not too late to press on the Chief Secretary to reconsider whether better words might not be brought in.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I desire to make one suggestion which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may accept, and we may pass on. The only objection I have to the words proposed to be left out is the use of that curious word "declare." You say, "such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous." I would suggest the word "determine." It should be a judicial matter, involving the exercise of discretion.
Mr. BIRRELL: I will accept that and move it as an Amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman. I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Amendment made: in Sub-section (1) leave out the word "declare" ["may declare to be analogous"], and insert instead thereof the word "determine." — [Mr. Birrell.]
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words, "If this Act had not passed," to insert the words, "Provided that if an existing officer agrees with the Irish Government to accept a salary less than that which he is receiving at the passing of this Act, he shall retain his rights as an existing officer under the Act, and his pension when he ultimately retires shall be calculated on the amount of his salary as it stood before it was reduced by the Irish Government."
8.0 P.M.
There is only one point involved in this Amendment. Supposing that a Civil servant after the passing of the Rill agrees with the Irish Government to a reduction of salary; for instance, if he has been getting £500 a year and he agrees with the Government to accept £400 a year: the point of the Amendment is that ha should not on that account lose his right to a pension on retirement. It is quite conceivable that if he accepted a reduction of salary it might be said that he put himself outside the four corners of the Bill and rescinded the original contract between the Government and himself as a Civil servant.
Mr. BIRRELL: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not put the Amendment on the Paper and that therefore I have not, been able to consider it. Personally, I should not have thought there was any need for the Amendment. If there is an agreement between the parties they can incorporate in their bargain the new terms which the hon. Member desires to put into the Act of Parliament. It seems to mc that it is a little out of place in an Act of Parliament to contemplate an agreement between A and B and to say that it shall be a condition of this outside bargain, the contents of which we do not know, that the man shall be entitled to a pension. Moreover, it is possible that the Amendment might work a certain amount of hardship.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is quite possible that, although there may be an agreement with the Irish Government, the reduction of salary may be practically

151
forced upon the Civil servant. He may find that his situation is impossible unless he consents to accept a reduction of salary, and I feel that in that ease the pension to which he would have been entitled ought to be secured to him under the Hill.
Mr. BIRRELL: I do not see how he can be forced in any sense of the word. If he docs not want to go on he can retire under the terms provided in the Bill.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This is not an Amendment out of my own head. It has been put down at the request of a very distinguished Civil servant, and a large section of the Civil servants of Ireland are in favour of it.
Mr. BIRRELL: I had not heard of it before, and as it was only handed in at the last moment I have had no opportunity of considering it. I am perfectly willing to consider it on Report if there is anything in it, but I do not think there is. I am afraid, however, that it involves an increased charge.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The increased charge, if any, would be not on the British taxpayer, but on the Irish Government. So far as I can see, it would be perfectly possible under the Rules of Order to impose on Report an extra charge on the Irish Government, though it would not be possible to impose an extra charge on the British taxpayer.
Mr. BIRRELL: If it is possible I will consider it.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am glad to hear it, because I think there is something in the case. The right hon. Gentleman is a little hard on my hon. Friend when he complains that Amendments are put down at a moment's notice. I have never known an important Bill in connection with which so few manuscript Amendments were handed in during the Committee stage. As a matter of fact, if anybody has put down Amendments at a moment's notice it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. Every day the Paper is flooded with Amendments, and at this moment there are standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman on a subsequent Clause Amendments which are mutually inconsistent one with another, and which appeared on the Paper at the same moment. As I say, I think my hon. Friend has made out a case. I do not think it is extremely likely to occur, but judging from
152
what happened in South Africa it is quite possible. I hope that if an opportunity offers on Report the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter. If it turns out to-be a point of substance, I think it is quite possible by the exercise of a little ingenuity to meet it without imposing an extra charge on the Irish Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that if possible the point shall be met on Report, I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
Mr. BIRRELL: I do not want to give the hon. Member the idea that his Amendment commends itself to my mind. It does not though it may be that on consideration, if I am placed in communication with the distinguished public servant who thinks the Amendment is desirable, my opinion may be altered. If so, I will do my best.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry): It does not appear to me that any extra burden will be imposed either upon the British or the Irish taxpayer. A case might certainly arise in which it would be very desirable that there should be no doubt as to the status of the official who had accepted a lower salary. It might be suggested to him that if he did not moderate his salary he would not get promotion or something of that kind, and once his contract was broken it might be said that he was outside the provisions of the Act. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give more than a perfunctory consideration to the matter.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do. If he can pledge himself that he will carefully consider the matter, and that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with it on Report, I will not press the Amendment.
Mr. BIRRELL: T cannot give an undertaking. I cannot guarantee that this particular Amendment shall come on on Report. What I will undertake is that between now and Report I will give it such consideration as I can, but I want time to consider it; that is all.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words:

153
"Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure, of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant."
The object of this Amendment is to delete the Sub-section under which in future the power of removal in respect of Irish officers is to be taken out of the hands in which it is vested at present and placed in those of the Lord Lieutenant. This is a very important matter, because it raises the whole question of the future status of Irish officers. It is quite clear from the terms of the Clause that Irish officers at present are removable as to some by the King, as to some by the Chief Secretary, and as to some by persons other than the Lord Lieutenant. The effect of this Amendment would be, I take it, to leave the power of removal in future in the hands of the Civil Service Committee, because in Clause 36 (2) these words occur:—
"If any question arises whether an officer is an Trish officer as so defined, or otherwise as to any claim or right of an officer under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, that question shall be determined by the Civil Service Committee."
My reading of that Sub-section is that the question whether or not a man should be removed from his office would certainly involve a question of his claim or right which it would be for the Civil Service Committee to determine. But I am not very much concerned as to that. I do not very much care whether the power of removal remains in the hands in which it is at present or whether it is put into the hands of the Civil Service Committee. What I am concerned to provide is that the power of removal shall not in the future be put into the hands of a purely political officer. I am in a little doubt myself as to what the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is to be. On Thursday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made one of his passing incursions into the Debate, incidentally told us, in simple English, that he anticipated that in future the Lord Lieutenant would be a political partisan. A short time afterwards the Prime Minister also making an unusual incursion into the Debate, told us that the one thing the Gov-
154
ernment desired to guard against was that the Lord Lieutenant should be a partisan, and he even accepted an Amendment to provide against such an utter disaster. We are therefore in some doubt as to what the position of the Lord Lieutenant will be. The one thing we do know is that he is to act on the advice of his Executive; that is to say, the Ministry of the day are to advise the Lord Lieutenant, who will act according to the majority in the Irish Parliament. What will be the result of that? You are providing very fairly in the earlier part of Clause 33. You are going as little as possible to affect in the future the position of existing Civil servants. You safeguard their duties, their remuneration, and you safeguard that in the future they are not to receive any smaller remuneration, than at the present time. Both the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford have showered pæans of praise upon distinguished officers in Ireland, and vied with each other in their desire for the future; but you are going to make them removable by a purely political vote! Is that right? It is difficult to raise questions of this kind in the hearing of Nationalists representatives, because we are told that it is so offensive to Ireland. I never think that is a very just criticism, because the conditions under which this Lord Lieutenant is going to carry on his work, indeed under which the Irish Parliament is going to exist, are wholly different from the conditions in any Parliament in the civilised world.
There is no record in history of giving self-government to a country and initiating a Parliament under circumstances such as that which obtains in Ireland, for you have there the violent opposition of a considerable section of people to your scheme. Therefore, the conditions are so dissimilar that Irish Members ought not to throw it in our teeth that we are offensive to suggest that this purely political power which is going to lie in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant in future threatens the existence of the Irish officer. I press this Amendment upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I suggest to him that if he is, as I am sure he is, bonâ fide in his desire to protect these people, the terms of office under which they have got their work should be left as they are at the present time. These officers have been appointed under certain conditions, one of which is that they are only removable in one case by the right hon.

155
Gentleman himself, in another case by the Lord Lieutenant, and in the third case by some other dignitary of Ireland. That being so, if you are going really not to prejudice them in the future, leave the power of removal in the hands where it is now; or if that does not satisfy, then at any rate let it be under the Sub-section which I have read, vested in the hands of a Committee which you are setting up. One thing you ought not to do, if you really intend to deal fairly by these people; that is to alter the terms of their removal from their appointment, and place this most drastic and fatal power in the hands of an officer who will act upon a purely political vote in the House of Parliament which might unfortunately be antagonistic to the officer and all his class.
Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot accept this Amendment. The proviso which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to omit is to the effect that every existing officer at the time of the passing of the Act, and removable from his office by His Majesty or Chief Secretary, may be removed from his place, after that date, by the Lord Lieutenant. I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that all these persons hold their office at pleasure. For example, take one of the cases referred to. The Vice-President of the Local Government Board, Sir Henry Robinson, is removable by the President. The President of the Local Government Board, in the Irish Cabinet, is the President of a Board which is one of the most important Boards in Ireland, having great work in connection with rural and municipal institutions. That the Vice-President of that Board should be removable, not by his chief, not by the authority of Parliament, but by these three gentlemen who have been referred to, and who have been set up not to exercise power in high political matters of that sort, but simply to determine certain questions of compensation, salary, duties, and the like, which they can very properly discharge, is not to be thought of. It seems to me to be involving the whole question, which I do not want to go into, of Home Rule. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not shrink from that. He deliberately mentioned these persons—not that they are very numerous. There is the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, the Commissioners of the Local Government Board, the members of the Con-
156
gested Districts Board, and persons of that sort, who were not appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. Some of them—not many—were appointed by me in my capacity as President of the Local Government Board. These are the officers who are aimed at by this Clause. I say they must be transferred to the Irish Government. It is part and parcel of the Irish Government, or any Government, that officers of this kind should hold their offices at pleasure, and in such Departments of the State that they should be subject to the control of their chiefs. The idea of interfering with them is one which very seldom occurs, and I do not think that people of that kind need be under any misapprehension that their chiefs will be anxious to use the power in their hands. But the power ought not to be in the hands of any third party. I think, therefore, that this proviso is absolutely essential, having regard to the changes that we contemplate in the Irish Government. It is all very well at present to have this threefold power—the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Crown—but the moment you hand over to the Irish Parliament control of its own affairs, and place subject to Parliamentary control Parliamentary questions, to my mind it goes without saying that, whatever the difficulties appear to be, you must face them and allow the appointments made— to subordinate offices all the same—to be taken away from the persons mentioned, and to be given to the Lord Lieutenant as the responsible head of the Executive Government.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. I do not know whether I quite correctly gathered that the object of this Amendment is to transfer the dismissal of these people from the Lord Lieutenant to the Civil Service Committee, or rather from His Majesty and the Chief Secretary, to the Civil Service Committee in place of the Lord Lieutenant. If that be the object of my hon. and learned Friend, I say frankly that I do not agree with him.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: What I desire is to leave the power in the hands where it is now.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am glad my hon. Friend has explained it, because I would not have agreed with him if his proposal had been to transfer the dismissal of these people from His Majesty and the

157
Secretary of Suite to a body of three. I quite agree with the Chief Secretary that that would be very undesirable, but I gather from my hon. and learned Friend that that is not his view, and therefore I agree with him most emphatically it is very undesirable to make this transfer of power in this particular Clause. I do not refer to officials appointed by His Majesty. It does not appear to me to be of vital importance so far as the constitutional question is concerned as to whether removal is exercised directly by His Majesty or through His Majesty acting through the Lord Lieutenant. But what strikes me as a constitutional proposal of the first importance is the proposal you are making to take the power of removal, which at present resides in the Chief Secretary, and to transfer that to the Lord Lieutenant. I ask the Committee to realise that this is really a big constitutional question, because the Chief Secretary is a man who, in popular language, we can take and hang in this House. Strictly speaking, the Lord Lieutenant cannot be touched in this House; that is a well-known practice, and lion. Members interested in the matter will find in the eleventh edition of Erskinc May, which says that—
"Unless a discussion is based upon a substantive Motion drawn in proper terms—"
Of course that means one of the ordinary. Motions which a private Member is at liberty to place upon the Order Paper, and that could only be discussed if the private Member was fortunate enough to prevail upon the Government to give a day for the discussion. In my experience the Government never do give a day for the discussion of such Motions. Therefore "a substantive Motion drawn in proper terms" is entirely illusory.
"Unless a discussion is based upon a substantive Motion, reflections must not be cast in debate either on the Heir to the Throne or members of the Royal family, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means. Members of cither House of Parliament, or judges of the Supreme Courts."
Hon. Members know that that rule in regard to Members of Parliament is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but it is adhered to with regard to the Lord Lieutenant, and I think you, Mr. Maclean, ruled against me the other day, when I was making some reference to the Lord Lieutenant in his official position, and told me it was not in order to question the act of the Lord Lieutenant in any way. If that is so, it is really rather a serious matter that the removal
158
of these officials should be taken out of the hands of the Chief Secretary, who is responsible, and placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who, as my hon. Friend said, may be a political partisan, but whose conduct cannot be impugned in this House. You may say you could raise it on the Lord Lieutenant's salary, but there again that supposition is wrong, because the Lord Lieutenant's salary never comes before this House. There is an expenditure for the Lord Lieutenant's household, a paltry sum, which includes the Lord Lieutenant's chaplain and various subordinate officers. I do not think it would affect the Lord Lieutenant enormously if Parliament by way of protest did stop that sum. It is nothing in comparison with the salary of the Lord Lieutenant. You cannot question the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant upon the question of his salary, because it comes upon the Consolidated Fund and is not part of the votes of this House. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while I am prepared to agree, so far as I am concerned, that with regard to people removable from office by His Majesty it does not make much difference whether you remove them directly or indirectly through the Lord Lieutenant, I do think there is an important change made by taking away this power of removal from the Chief Secretary and giving it. to the Lord Lieutenant. The Chief Secretary is a man whose conduct we can question and criticise, and who, if we believe to be wrong, we can control. The Lord Lieutenant is a person whose conduct we cannot criticise; he cannot be controlled by any other means than that of a substantive Motion, which depends upon the Government of the day whose nominee he is, and whose partisan he is. It is in the power of the Ministry to prevent us questioning the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant in these matters. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry): I think, having regard to what the Chief Secretary said, the Committee ought not to resist this Amendment. The Chief Secretary said that the class of officers referred to are officers removable at pleasure. If you consider that, you will find that the only protection these officers have it the protection in the person who has power to remove them. You provide that for other officers they should be treated exactly in the same way in the future as in the past

159
but the officers here are merely removable at pleasure, and such officers have protection in the fact that the persons who had power to remove them at pleasure are persons in whom they could trust. Remember you are dealing here with existing officers removable at pleasure, not with future officers, and whether they like it or not, you transfer those existing officers from that position of security which they believe they enjoy and you place them under a new power or authority which is to have power to remove them. How is that new power and that new person to act? The Lord Lieutenant in future will act upon the advice of the Executive Council and the Executive Council will be the Ministers in Ireland. The gentlemen who are at present in office removable at the pleasure of His Majesty or the Chief Secretary entered upon that service upon the condition that that power of removal would continue to be vested in His Majesty or the Chief Secretary, as the case may be. You now create a new body of persons and you hand over to them that absolute power. I do not understand why that should be done in regard to existing officers. It may be that when this Bill becomes an Act that at some future time the vested interest of those gentlemen who hold these offices will have ceased and that new persons are to be appointed who may come in with full knowledge, but they are to be subjected to removal by or on the advice of the Executive Government. That is a different matter. I think this House have always endeavoured, whether it has succeeded or not is another matter, to be careful not to interfere with vested interests or with the position of persons who may have reasonably anticipated that their position would be preserved and continued, and all that is suggested by the Amendment here is that those gentlemen—existing officers removable at pleasure—should remain in the same position as when they entered into service, namely, that that power should remain vested in the Sovereign or the Chief Secretary, as they had every reason to anticipate it would.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words now in further explanation of the absolute necessity of this proviso which it is proposed to leave out. Clause 33, in the first Subsection, says —
"Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown, who are not provided for under the last preceding Section and are
160
on the appointed day serving as Irish officers, shall after that day continue to hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions as theretofore."
Consequently if it became necessary, unfortunately, to dismiss an officer of the Irish Government guilty of some misconduct, he could only be dismissed by the same authority as now has the power to dismiss him. Take the case of a postman in Ireland guilty of drunkenness. Such cases do occur, although I am happy to say they are exceedingly rare, as the Post Office staff are remarkably sober, and the proportion of dismissals from this cause is very small. Nevertheless such cases do occur sometimes, and supposing after this Bill came into operation a postman has been guilty of drunkenness on duty and after due warning it became necessary to dismiss him. Supposing this proviso were omitted, what would occur? The Postmaster-General would issue an order that the dismissed servant would no longer be required. The postman would say that by Clause 33, Section (1) of the Government of Ireland Act of 1912, "I can only be dismissed by the same authority that, had power to dismiss me before, namely, the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom, and I appeal to him." The Postmaster-General would say that he knew nothing of the circumstances, and that it was ridiculous to appeal to him in the case of an officer over whom he has no control, and probably, as a matter of form, he would give his assent to the dismissal, while everyone would say that no more ridiculous provision was ever made in an Act of Parliament, and they could not understand why Parliament omitted this proviso.
Mr. JOHN GORDON: The Chief Secretary stated that the only officers referred to were those who were removed at the pleasure of His Majesty or the Chief Secretary, and he gave as an instance Sir Henry Robinson, the Vice-President of the Local Government Board. So far as the postman is concerned, the Postmaster-General knows ver ywell that he does not come within the persons mentioned.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think the Chief Secretary said that. He mentioned the most important offices and gave two or three examples, but he did not exclude others. The hon. and learned Member has only to look at the words of the very proviso he proposes to omit, and

161
he will see that it disproves his contention. The words are:—
"Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers, any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any other person other than the Lord Lieutenant."
Now the Postmaster-General is a person other than the Lord Lieutenant, and an Trish postal servant would be an Irish officer within the meaning of this Bill after the Home Rule Bill comes into operation, consequently the whole purpose of this proviso is simply that any officer of an Irish Government Department is to hold his tenure at the will of the head of his Department, who would then be an Irish Minister, just as now he holds his office at the will of the head of his Department. There is this difference, that while now my supposed intoxicated person is dismissible by the Postmaster-General without any appeal, under our provision his tenure is more secure. In the first place, he can be dismissed under this proviso by the Lord Lieutenant, who will, no doubt, act upon the advice of his Minister, but he must be consulted before the dismissal takes place. But, more than that, he has an appeal which he does not now have to the Civil Service Committee, because the Trish Government has power to dismiss a man for incapacity or misconduct. But if the man says he is not guilty of misconduct, that he was wrongly charged and was not intoxicated, and that the evidence was false, and he claims his pension on the ground that while he was dismissed for misconduct he was not really guilty of misconduct. Then another question arises as to whether the claim related to an existing officer or not, and that would have to be determined by the Civil Service Committee. This man would claim his pension and gratuity on the ground that he has been wrongfully dismissed, and that is decided, not by the Irish Minister, but it may be referred to the Civil Service Committee.
Mr. JOHN GORDON: How would they reinstate him?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not say they would reinstate him, but he can claim the same compensation on retirement as if ha had been dismissed. Hon. Members will quite realise that it would be absurd to omit this proviso, which would mean
162
that if these various Departments of the Irish Government have any case of dismissal, it must be dealt with, not by the head of the Department, but by the person who would have been the chief of this Department if the Home Rule Bill had not been passed into law.
Mr. POLLOCK: I am sure we all welcome the explanation of this proviso which has been given by the Postmaster-General. The Chief Secretary indicated that this Clause was useful in dealing with a very considerable number of officers, and he gave as an illustration an officer of very high rank. Now, the Postmaster-General has taken his illustration from an officer of very humble rank. But the position of all officers, whether high or humble, deserves grave consideration by this House before they are handed over to a new system. Perhaps the Postmaster-General may be satisfied from this point of view, that what we desire is to leave the more humble officers of the State who at present enjoy his jurisdiction to him,, because we feel more confidence in him than we should feel if these men are handed over to some other officer or Postmaster-General, even though they are given the seductive opportunity of an appeal to the Civil Service Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may feel a little flattered that there are public servants in Ireland who at the present time would like to remain under his jurisdiction and remain as they have been in the past. There is this particular point underlying the arguments which have been presented from this side of the House. You must always remember that in the case of the Civil Service, the State to a large extent makes a contract with the servant it employs. If the servant is employed in the higher ranks, he has the right to his salary, and in a certain time he has a pension. The same is equally true of servants who serve in a lower capacity. But in each case it is a contract, and when an applicant for the public service is deciding whether he shall enter that service or take some other course in life, one of the things he looks to is the certainty and confidence with which he can enter the public service as one of the attractions which leads him into that walk of life. This proviso vitally alters the position with regard to a number of public-servants, and it is not right that that contract should be altered and a much wider question involved, namely, the permanence of the contract between the Civil servant

163
and the State. That is the real question at issue under this proviso. Just let us see what is the difference that is made. At present officers of the State who know what Government under the Union of Great Britain and Ireland is are quite content to take service in the various Irish offices. I know the Postmaster-General regards the security and the happiness of their position under an Irish Minister to be exactly the same as at present under an English Minister, but he must recognise there are a large number of persons who will not place the same confidence in an Irish Minister hereafter as they place in an English Minister to-day. They have entered into a contract, and they are rendering duties with the security of feeling that they are under an English Minister and a United Kingdom Parliament. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have a right to have that contract respected, and it is not right, without their consent, to hand them over to an Irish Minister and to take away what has undoubtedly been a protection to them in the past, namely, service under an English Minister.
Who is the person to have control of them? It is to be the Lord Lieutenant as advised by his Irish Ministers. It sounds very well. The Lord Lieutenant, it no doubt may be said, will be a very impartial person, but he can only act upon the advice of his Irish Ministers. So you do not get rid of the fact that you are taking away that confidence persons have when they are employed under an English Minister and handing them over to employment under an Irish Minister, which they regard as a weaker position. It is all very well to offer an appeal to the Civil Service Committee. People in the public service, whether in a high or a low position, do not look with very much confidence on an appeal. They want a decision given directly by persons responsible to this Parliament. They do not want an uncertain position with an appeal to some other tribunal. This Clause strikes at the root of the confidence of the public servants of the United Kingdom. We are breaking a contract with them, a contract they have enjoyed in the past, and without their consent Parliament ought not to hand them over to be dealt with by another person. There is really no difficulty in leaving the matter where it is. Supposing a letter-carrier unfortunately were not sober, and his case had to
164
be dealt with, there will really be no difficulty in handing the matter over to be dealt with by the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think it will have to be dealt with by him, because, inasmuch as service was originally taken while he was in power, application will have to be made to his office to get the record of that service and to ascertain the conditions and regulations under which the man took service. The right hon. Gentleman may personally get rid of the matter, but his own officials and staff in London will be concerned just as much in the future as they have been in the past by looking up the records and getting the details of the case. It will be quite easy for the matter to be still dealt with as at present, and I see no reason whatever for passing this Clause and striking a real and serious blow at the system under which the Civil servants of the United Kingdom are employed, and. if my hon. Friend goes to a Division. I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
Mr. CASSEL: I should like the position made clear with regard to a good many Civil servants who will be discharging duties both in connection with services which are reserved to the Imperial Parliament and in connection with services which have been transferred to the Irish Parliament. I will take the case of someone discharging ordinary duties of the Post Office and also duties in connection with the Savings Bank. Supposing that person misconducted himself in connection with his Savings Bank duties, who would dismiss him? I cannot find any provision in the Bill which makes that clear. Section 36, Sub-section (3), which appeared to me to be the Section relative to the point, provides:—
"If in any case the Civil Service Committee are of opinion that the service or employment of an officer is such that he is partly an Irish officer and partly not, that Committee shall determine any question which arises as respects the proportions in which any allowance, gratuity, or compensation payable to that officer is to be paid as between the Exchequer or Consolidated Fund of Ireland and of the United Kingdom respectively."
That appears to me to deal simply with the question of allowances, gratuities, and compensation. It does not follow at all that it deals with the question who has the right of dismissal in the case of those

165
officers. I imagine this is not a matter of an isolated case here and there. There will be hundreds and thousands of officials who will at the same time be discharging reserved duties in the strict sense of the word—duties altogether excluded from the Irish Parliament—and duties which have been transferred to the Irish Parliament. It may be I have missed some Sub-section in the Bill which deals with the case, but I do not for the moment see it, and I would ask the Postmaster-General to tell us exactly what the position is with regard to those persons: first of all, whose misconduct is in connection with a matter which is reserved to the Imperial Parliament. Would they be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant, or would they be dismissed by the officer by whom they could previously have been dismissed? Would it still be the Postmaster-General if the misconduct on the part of the officer took place in connection with the Savings Bank. I take that merely as an illustration. There must be numerous cases which could be given, and T should like to have the matter cleared up.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Member by dint of long practice has become apt in putting conundrums, and the further we advance the more subtle his conundrums appear. He puts the case of an officer discharging duties in connection with a reserved service and in connection with a transferred service at the same time, and suggests that one portion of him might be dismissed while the other portion of him might continue in office. The question might appear as difficult as the one with which Solomon had to deal when two women claimed the same child; but, as a matter of fact, the case will not occur, and, even if it did occur, there are means of dealing with it in the Bill. In the first place, the illustration is not one which applies, because an officer of the Post Office who is doing Savings Bank work one minute, the Savings Bank being a reserve service, and postal work the next minute, the postal work being an Irish service, is not quâ Savings Bank in the employ of the Imperial Government at all. The Postmaster-General will have nothing to say either to the appointment or to the dismissal or to any of the conditions of service of Irish postal clerks on the ground that they are part of their time doing Savings Bank work. The matter will be dealt with by the two Departments by arrangement between them under Clause 44. The Postmaster-General of the United
166
Kingdom will arrange with the Postmaster-General of Ireland that the ordinary Savings Bank work shall be done by the Irish Post Office as a Post Office in such and such a way, under such and such conditions, and for such and such terms. The Post Office of Ireland will undertake the Savings Bank work, while the management and control of the Savings Bank will remain in the hands of the Comptroller of the Savings Bank at West Kensington, with possibly a branch in Ireland. Therefore the postal clerk in Ireland will be simply in the employment of the Irish Postmaster-General, and will be dismissed by him. If some other postal clerk takes his place another postal clerk will do the work of the Savings Bank, and the Postmaster-General will have nothing to say. It is not a question of thousands of persons who may have a double capacity—being both Imperial and local officers—but it will be an exceedingly small number, if any. There maybe some. Certain officers in the Land Department may, possibly, after the Act has been passed, have to do some work under the Land Purchase Act, and some work under the Land Acts transferred to the Irish Parliament. I think it is improbable, because the Land Commission will in all probability divide itself into two departments, according to the division of functions made under this Bill. It is conceivable, however, that an officer may be at one and the same time, in a few individual cases, doing both Imperial and Irish local work, and, in that case, if there were any doubts as to whether or not he was dismissible by one Minister or another, the question would arise under Clause 36, and the matter would be dealt with by the Civil Service Committee.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: As a North of Ireland representative I look on this from the point of view of friends of my own—I do not mean personal friends—people who come from the part of the country from which I come, and who are supposed, if they have any politics at all, to have Unionist politics. These people, I am afraid, would, under the powers given to a Lord Lieutenant, appointed by a Radical Government, which naturally would appoint a nominee of its own to act as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, be placed in an unfair position. We know that the Radical party at the present time do exactly what the Nationalists tell them to do, not only with regard to Ireland, but with regard to other matters. We know, therefore, that if

167
for any reason the Government in Ireland is dissatisfied with the conduct or work of any of the officers included in this scheme, or if, for any reason, they desire to get rid of them, they have only to express a desire to the Lord Lieutenant, and it is very improbable indeed that the Lord Lieutenant, if he is given these very sweeping powers, will fail to comply with their wishes. Therefore we submit this Amendment in the interest of any person who comes within the purview of this Section, and whose services it may be desired to dispense with, at a time when the Lord Lieutenant is amenable to the wishes of the Irish Parliament and of a Radical Government in this country. We do not trust our fellow countrymen under a Home Rule Bill. But it is not necessary for me to consider the matter from that point of view. I need not suggest that they would desire to do anything unfair. But suppose they desired to cut down some of these Departments—suppose it be said, and it may be truly said, that economies can best be effected in a certain public Department by cutting down the officers at the top instead of those at the bottom. It has often been said—I do not agree with it—that many of these superior officers have very little to do, and that the real work is done by the humbler members of the staff. It has been said that in many Departments two or three of the superior officers could be dispensed with. That is a statement often made by hon. Members below the Gangway when asked how economies are to be effected. The fact remains that they only have to say, when they desire to get rid of certain officials, that they consider, under the altered circumstances, their services are no longer necessary, and that the work they do can be equally well done by subordinates, and the result will be that the Lord Lieutenant will be unable, or unwilling at any rate, to say it is not so. We shall then have this position, that men who have been in the service for twenty, thirty, or more years, who were appointed on certain fixed and known conditions, and the condition of whose appointment was that so long as they behaved themselves and did their duty properly they would remain officers of the King, will be liable to dismissal by a Lord Lieutenant, who may take his orders from a Radical Government, and may say to these men, without being able to adduce one single instance of dereliction of duty on their
168
part, that, for certain reasons, he is determined to dispense with their services, and they must therefore give up their posts. I say that is absolutely unfair. Every one of these officers has accepted a position in the Civil Service in Ireland under certain definite conditions, and, even if it costs this country or the Home Rule Government an extra payment, we are in honour bound to see that they receive the utmost consideration during the remainder of their term of service and get as good treatment and remuneration for their work as they have done up to the present. I shall most certainly vote for this Amendment. I do not claim that, in all its technicalities, it is correct. I admit that the Postmaster-General has succeeded in picking holes in it, but the principle underlying it is absolutely sound, and I think the Government ought to give us at least a pledge that they will bring up some words on the Report stage which will meet these cases. This Committee, and the House of Commons, and the Government are in honour bound to see that the terms upon which these people originally accepted service are faithfully carried out.
Mr. HEWINS: I hope that the Government will make the position a little clearer than the Postmaster-General has succeeded in doing to-night. This Amendment seems to turn very largely on what is an Irish officer? I find there is a definition at the end of the Bill which says that the term "office" includes "any place, situation or employment, and the expression 'officer' shall be construed accordingly." I suppose we might, by introducing the word "Irish," define what is an Irish office and an Irish officer on those lines.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Clause 36, Section 1, deals with that.
Mr. HEWINS: I am coming to that. An Irish officer is clearly a man discharging an Irish service. The determination of what is Irish service, if I may judge from what the Postmaster-General said, rests with two bodies: first there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, secondly, the Civil Service Committee, and the decisions of the latter body are to be final and conclusive. But if you decide what is an Irish service, you must decide also what is an Irish officer.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Civil Service Committee has nothing to do with deciding what is an Irish service.
Mr. HEWINS: I know that. As the light hon. Gentleman says the Civil Service Committee is to determine whether it is an Irish office. I say than an Irish officer is obviously a person discharging an Irish service. The body which decide what is an Irish service is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is no appeal provided for from the Civil Service Committee to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman where we are? Who is to decide the matter? Supposing my reading of the Bill is correct, I ask the Postmaster-General whether he wants this proviso in at all. What is the use of it? We have already, in Clause 4, dealt with the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive power. The Lord Lieutenant is only exercising functions delegated to him by His Majesty. When you hand over to the Irish Government certain Irish services, you clearly hand over to that Government, and to the head of that Government, the Lord Lieutenant, the powers delegated to him by His Majesty under this Bill. It therefore seems to me that you do not require the proviso at all. I am always amazed at the constitutional theories underlying the expressions of the Government. I confess I do not like the drafting of this proviso; I do not like the expression
"by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner."
Who is the Lord Lieutenant? Is he not a Minister of His Majesty? He does not exercise any authority of his own, and he is not a separate isolated person exercising special functions and powers. All the powers he exercises are derived from one source. If you have the proviso at all it is quite enough to say "by His Majesty," and then go on to deal with the Lord Lieutenant. You do not want the words "by the Chief Secretary or by any person other than." I very much dislike this method of drafting, and I cannot help thinking that if the Government—I suppose they have consulted the Law Officers of the Crown— had had a little more consultation they could have made the proviso more in accordance with the constitutional usages and the constitutional doctrines under which we live. If I may say so, the Chief Secretary is nobody, except so far as he derives certain powers from, the functions imposed upon him.
Mr. BIRRELL: He is in a good many Statutes.
Mr. HEWINS: The fact that mistakes have been made in other Statutes is no reason why you should now add another to them. I maintain that the proviso is not necessary at all, or, if you must have it, that you should redraft it so that there should in no case be a conflict in the functions you are assigning to the Judicial Committee and those you are assigning to the Civil Service Committee.
Mr. CASSEL: I do not think the Postmaster-General has met the point I made. The difficulty to which I alluded was the case of an officer in a dual capacity, partly dealing with an Irish service and partly with an Imperial service. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave an instance of a person dealing with land purchase and the other branches of the Land Commission. In the case of that officer the right hon. Gentleman said that the question by whom he was dismissible would be determined under Clause 36, Sub-section (2). The Civil Service Committee have no power under that Sub-section to deal with the question, because it is obviously clear that so far as he is dealing with land purchase he is not an Irish officer. The only question they can deal with under Sub-section (2) is whether or not he is an Irish officer. If any question arises whether an officer is properly so denned they can deal with it. There is no question of that kind in this case, because it is clear that in so far as he is dealing with land purchase he is not an Irish but an Imperial officer. There is nothing in the Bill, notwithstanding all that the Postmaster-General has said, that makes it clear to my mind what is the position of the person who is in that dual capacity. I should like to emphasise the argument that you are leaving the Civil Service Committee to deal with, and making their decision final and conclusive upon the same question which, in another part of the Bill, you have referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think we are entitled on these grounds to a more satisfactory explanation from the Government. The Postmaster-General says that this will apply to a few isolated cases. I venture to think it will be more than a few. Even if the cases are few, it will be very important to the persons concerned. The matter is now in a state of hopeless confusion and fog. Further explanation is certainly required. We have elicited that in the view of the Government, so far as these services which are reserved to the Imperial Parliament are

171
concerned, the power of dismissal will rest, not with the Imperial Government, but with the Irish Government. That is a very important fact. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in regard to the Savings Bank, although that is reserved to the Imperial Parliament, the power of dismissal of the officer will not rest with the Imperial Parliament.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not Savings Bank officers, but postal servants who incidentally do Savings Bank work, acting as agents for the Savings Bank Department.
Mr. CASSEL: In some cases the Imperial service may be the most important part of the Irish work. Take the case of land purchase and other branches of the Land Commission. It may be that the Irish service is incidental to the Imperial service, just as an Imperial service may be incidental to an Irish service. We have now a statement from the Government, even with regard to an Imperial service and a reserved service, that officers dealing with them can be dismissed not by the Imperial Government, but by the Irish Government. If that is the view of the Government it is an important admission, and one of which we ought to take notice. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before we go to a Division, to clear this matter up.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am very pleased to have an opportunity of speaking to a full House, because I have noticed during the last hour that there were about ten Members present on the Government side. [HON. MEMBERS: "There were only six on yours; there are only ten now."]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that this has anything to do with the Amendment.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I only said I was glad to have an opportunity of addressing a full House. I think, having regard to the importance of the question, and considering it from the point of view of the number of speeches delivered by Cabinet Ministers, it was at least worthy of consideration. As a matter of drafting, I cannot understand what is the meaning of the proviso. It says:—
"Provided that not withstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of
172
the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant."
Honestly, I do not know what that means. It may have some occult meaning in Irish legislation, and the Chief Secretary no doubt appreciates its value, but the Committee ought to know what "in any special manner" means? I also do not understand where the proviso says, any existing officer may be removed by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant. Certainly on the point of drafting, and understanding the proviso, we ought to have some understanding about it.
Mr. BIRRELL: There are a variety of ways in which a number of these persons are appointed. Some are appointed by the King, some by Statute, some by the person for the time being in the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, some by the Lord Lieutenant, and some by Order in Council, and I have no doubt the words, "or in any special manner" have reference to that mode of appointment. There may possibly be some other mode of appointment. I know not.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: That is provided for already. What I want to know is, what is the meaning of the words, "or in any special manner."
Mr. BIRRELL: By Order in Council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then say so."] It may be there is some other mode.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish the right hon. Gentleman to state what will be the position of a very worthy class who have been subjected to very undue obloquy in the past. I refer to the resident magistrates. When I first took an interest in politics I used to find the Liberal papers of the day full of attacks upon these gentlemen whom they designated by the name of removables. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) was foremost in their support and defence in those days. I should not be surprised if the pamphlets which were issued under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman in former times did not also contain references in the nature of obloquy to these gentlemen. I would ask the Chief Secretary whether they will be removable at the pleasure of the Government in future, because I am not at all certain that they will not enter upon

173
their duties under the new Government with a good deal of suspicion attaching to them. Many of them are men who have served the public very well for a great period of years, and I am sure it will be a satisfaction to all those who have appreciated their efforts and who wish the Irish Government to start with a fair field before it, to know that no injustice would be done to these very worthy public servants. I would ask the Chief Secretary to state what their position will be.
Mr. BIRRELL: I have already answered that question. They are Civil servants, and will be entitled to protection.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: They will be entitled, I understand, to the same terms as the other Civil servants, but will they be removable by the Irish Executive?
Mr. BIRRELL: They cannot be more removable than they are now.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Irish Government have the same power of removing them as the Imperial Government has had?
Mr. BIRR ELL: Certainly.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 90.

Division No. 400.]

AYES.

[9.20 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Addison, Dr. C.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts; Cricklade)

Ailen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Falconer, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Armitage, Robert

Farrell, James Patrick

Leach, Charles

Arnold, Sydney

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lewis, John Herbert

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Ffrench, Peter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barnes, G. N.

Field, William

Lundon, Thomas

Barton, William

Fitzgibbon, John

Lynch, A. A.

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Gilhooly, James

McGhee, Richard

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Gill, Alfred Henry

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ginnell, L.

Macpherson, James Ian

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone. W. G. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Boland, John Pius

Glanville, Harold James

M' Callum, Sir John M.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M' Kean, John

Bowerman, Charles W.

Goldstone, Frank

Mc Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Brace, William

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Guiney, Patrick

Martin, Joseph

Brocklehurst, William B.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Brunner, John F. L.

Hackett, J.

Meagher, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Burke, E. Haviland

Hancock, John George

Menzies, Sir Walter

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Millar, James Duncan

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Molloy, Michael

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Mooney, J. J.

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morreli, Philip

Chancellor, Henry George

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Morison, Hector

Clancy, John J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clough, William

Hayward, Evan

Muldoon, John

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Munro, Robert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Nannettl, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cotton, William Francis

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

Nolan, Joseph

Crawshay-Williams, William

Henry, Sir Charles

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Crean, Eugene

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Crooks, William

Higham, John Sharp

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Crumley, Patrick

Hinds, John

O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cullinan, John

Hodge, John

O' Doherty, Philip

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hogge, James Myles

O' Donnell, Thomas

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Ogden, Fred

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

O' Grady, James

Dawes, J. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

O' Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Delany, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

O' Malley, William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O' Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O' Shaughnessy, P, J.

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O' Shee, James John

Dillon, John

Jowett, Frederick William

O' Sullivan, Timothy

Donelan, Captain A.

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Doris, William

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Duffy, William J.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Kilbride, Denis

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

King, J.

Pointer, Joseph

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Scanlan, Thomas

Wadsworth, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sheehy, David

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Pringle, William M. R.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Radford, G. H.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Wardle, G. J.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Webb, H.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Reddy, Michael

Snowden, Philip

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Whyte, A. F.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wiles, Thomas

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Sutton, John E.

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Robinson, Sidney

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Tennant, Harold John

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Thomas, James Henry

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Rowlands, James

Toulmin, Sir George

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Verney, Sir Harry

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fletcher, John Samuel

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Forster, Henry William

Norton-Griffiths. J.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Gilmour, Captain John

Perkins, Walter F.

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baldwin, Stanley

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Randles, Sir John S.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Rolleston, Sir John

Barrie, H. T.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Beresford, Lord Charles

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bird, A.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boyton, James

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Stewart, Gershom

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Swift, Rigby

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Larmor, Sir J.

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagb

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duke, Henry Edward

Magnus, Sir Philip

Yate, Col. C. E.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Fell, Arthur

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morrison-Bell, Cant. E. F. (Ashburton)

Cassel and Mr. Rawlinson.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "passing of this Act" [" may be removed from Iris office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant"], and to insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
This is really a drafting Amendment, the object being to provide that this new power to dismiss officers who formerly were dismissed by other authorities is not to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant until the appointed day. That is the day the officers are to be transferred to the new Irish Government. There is no necessity for the Lord Lieutenant to exercise this power between the passing of this Act and the appointed day.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I am convinced by it. He says it is a drafting Amendment, and he gives as his reason for the alteration that it will not be necessary, in his opinion, that this Clause should become operative until the appointed day. In order to understand the Amendment one must look forward to the Amendment put-en the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman on Clause 46, which says the appointed day shall be
"the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed."

177
I said earlier in the afternoon that the Bill was rather complicated and not very easy to understand. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain exactly his particular object in leaving out the words, "passing of this Act," and inserting the words "appointed day." It seems to me to be almost the same thing.
Mr. BIRRELL: I can only explain by repeating myself The date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day are two different periods of time. The appointed day is subsequent in point of time to the passing of the Act, and therefore I do not want to interfere with the existing authorities in regard to appointments until the latest possible day, namely, the appointed day when the new Irish Government takes over the duties appertaining to the new Constitution. These executive acts are postponed under Clause 46, which fixes the appointed day. But for the insertion of these words the constitutional changes which the hon. Baronet wishes to accelerate, would come into operation after the passing of the Act, but being of a more Conservative disposition I say, "No, keep things exactly as they are until the fateful moment arrives when on the appointed day the Act comes into active operation."
Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to postpone the evil day as long as possible. If it is a good thing that this power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to dismiss these people, why should it be postponed for eight months? Taking the Sub-section as it will now read, what does the word "may" mean? Does it mean "shall"?
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is not proceeding regularly in this matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: When will it be possible to raise it? Will it be in order later on to move, an Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall"?
The CHAIRMAN: You might be able to do that if the Chief Secretary withdrew his Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment?
Mr. BIRRELL: No.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Chief Secretary says that the effect of this Amendment is to postpone the fateful moment. The Bill says that certain things
178
are to happen on the passing of this Act. The Chief Secretary says that that is too vague and uncertain, and that it would be well to put a definite principle into the Bill. He says that the words "the passing of the Act" indicate an uncertain period. I agree that it is a very uncertain period. He desires to put in the words "the appointed day." Then we should have to put the new definitions into the Bill in order to know what the fateful moment is likely to be. If the Amendment as to the appointed day is carried, Clause 43 will be as follows: I will read the whole Clause——
The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have that. We have had reference to that point before. When that matter was raised, I said that we must wait until that Clause comes, on. It, is based on Clause 42, and we cannot have it on this Clause.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I point out that since the Bill was introduced into Committee the Government have introduced an entirely new definition of the appointed day. When we dealt with the appointed day in Section 1 the appointed day meant one day in the view of the Government. It now means an entirely different day. Therefore I submit that we are at least entitled to point this out. The right hon. Gentleman was quite in error in thinking that the appointed day is a fixed definite moment. It is not so even in terms of his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman quite forgets that there is also power in that Clause, to which I will not further allude, to fix any period within seven months either before or after the eighth month, and not only that, but different periods may be fixed for different portions of this Act. Therefore, I do submit that when the Committee are asked to take out the words "passing of the Act" and put in the words "appointed day," they are entitled to have some further explanation of what the Government mean by the appointed day. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to commend this Amendment on the ground that it fixes a definite point, because it does nothing of the sort.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I call the attention of the Chief Secretary to what is an extremely practical point, especially in relation to these Civil servants, whose interests are affected. I ask him to say, not by exercising any special gift of prophecy, but in the course of ordinary political prescience, when the appointed day is likely

179
to be, and I trust that he will do so in the interests of these Civil servants who are specially affected by this Clause. Some persons seem to think February, 1915, and some September in that year as a likely date. It is really important in the interests of a worthy body of public servants to know what the representative of the Government, exercising his political sagacity on this point, thinks the most likely date.
Sir F. BANBURY: I admit that it is not a very important point as points go under this Bill, but it is important for the Irish Civil servants, whose pensions and term of office will be modified by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I see the Postmaster-General present, and would like to know what he thinks of this Amendment.
Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask a question on one point on which I am not quite clear. The Bill refers to superannuation, other allowances or gratuities, which may become payable after the passing of the Act. Now we are told it is to be after the appointed day. I wish to know whether it is not possible——
Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and gallant Member I think is referring to a further Amendment standing in my name in regard to the appointed day.
Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, South): I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words,
"Provided that so far as relates to the Grant and ascertainment of the amount of any allowance or gratuity under those Acts as respects any such officer who, at the time of his ultimate retirement, is serving under the Irish Government, the Civil Service Committee shall be substituted for the Treasury."
As far as I can see the meaning of that particular paragraph is that instead of the grants, gratuities, and allowances, which are to be made on the retirement of any officer or Civil servant, being fixed by the Treasury as is usual, they are to be fixed by this new body, the Civil Service Committee. I cannot understand why this change should be made in reference to existing officers. On the preceding
180
Amendment therefore I made some observations on the point, but the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General seemed to base his entire position on the fact that the new Executive in Ireland having control of the officers ought to have this power. But we are dealing here with existing officers. The whole section, as I understand it, merely provides for the rights of existing officers. Why these existing officers should be placed under the control of a new body for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the grants, allowances, and gratuities which may be made to them upon their retirement, is more than the ordinary man can conceive. The Treasury at the time of their appointment, was the body who had to fix the amount of those grants, gratuities, and allowances. The Treasury will still exist, and what we are doing here is to give them only a third of the power that they had at the time the appointments were made, because this new body will consist of one member nominated by the Treasury, one member nominated by the Executive, which will be the Ministry in Ireland, and the other by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
I should like to understand why men who have been appointed under certain definite terms should find that when they come to retire, the grants, gratuities, and allowances should be fixed by another body altogether. I respectfully submit that that is not a good thing for the Civil Service. If you are going to have changes made in every part of the country, if you are going to have eleven or twelve different local Legislatures established throughout Great Britain and Ireland, then you will have all these Civil servants in different places coming under different bodies, who will have to determine the allowances and gratuities, whereas when they entered the service they were under the control of the Treasury, and the Treasury were to ascertain those allowances and gratuities. There is no reason why the Treasury should not continue to do so in reference to existing officers. New officers appointed will be subject to the new state of affairs; they will know perfectly well that their rights have to be submitted to a different body, and if they do not like to agree they will not enter the service. But when men are already in the service, and to continue in the service, and provision is to be made in the Bill for the purpose of protecting them, why there should not be protection in reference to gratuities and allowances, as well as

181
salaries and duties, is very difficult for an ordinary man to conceive. I think the Government should at once accept the Amendment and strike this provision out. Their doing so would do no injury to anyone, and I hope existing Civil servants will be left as they were when they entered the service, namely, under the Treasury.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These officers whose position we are now considering are officers who, by the time they become pensionable or retire from service with a gratuity, have spent part of their service under the Imperial Government and part under the Irish Government. They are, therefore, to be allotted pensions in respect of service to both Governments, and it seems a right and proper thing that in the ascertainment of the precise amount of the pension the authority which is to determine it should be an authority which is representative of both Governments under which the officers have served. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Gordon) has asked why we do not give the same protection to the Civil servant transferred to the Irish Government in respect of gratuities and allowances as we give in regard to salary and other remuneration. We do give him the same security and even more, for his rights under the Acts, which are mentioned in this Sub-section, are statutory rights, and the Statutes will continue to apply to him. All that is delegated to the Civil Service Committee constituted under this Bill is the ascertainment or, I may say, the calculation of the amount which is due to the Civil servant under the terms of the Statutes. In the ascertainment of that amount it seems right and proper that a body which represents not only the Imperial Government under which he used to serve, but which represents both his earlier and his later employers, should be represented. I would point out, lastly, that we are not leaving it to the Irish Executive to determine this matter. It might have been left to the Irish Treasury perhaps, but we are not doing so. We leave it to a Committee which consists of one representative of the Imperial Treasury, who naturally will treat the officer just as fairly as he would now treat the officer, and the second the representative of the Irish Government, and the third will be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in whose impartiality I feel certain every Civil servant in Ireland and elsewhere will have the most complete confidence. For those reasons, I suggest
182
to the Committee it is better to keep the Bill as it is.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Postmaster-General stated that the reason for this Amendment was that the Civil servant will spend part of his time under the Irish Government and will have spent part of his time under the English Government. Under those circumstances he thinks the amount of the pension should be settled by both. There may be something in that argument, if that is really the position. It may be my stupidity, but that is not the reading that suggests itself to me. As I understand the Cluase and Sub-section, it is to provide that any Civil servant who is dismissed after the passing of this Act or after the appointed day, by the Irish Government, not on the ground of misconduct or incapacity, but for some reason known to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, either because he is a Protestant or because he is a Roman Catholic, or because he has some connection with the landlords, or is against the Nationalist movement, or has said something disrespectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, or something of that sort, that then the English Government is to step in to say that under those circumstances certain compensation in the form of a pension shall be payable to that Civil servant. Under those circumstances, if I am right in so interpreting the Clause, the argument of the Postmaster-General, if I may say so very courteously, does not apply, because he will not be dismissed by a Government under whom he has been serving, but will be dismissed at once or in a very short time, not for what we consider just cause, but for some reason which is apparent to hon. Members below the Gangway who want to get rid of the Civil servant. Under those circumstances the people to whom he proposes to give the power to say what the pension or compensation is to be, are the wrong sort of people. They ought to be the people—that is the Treasury—who appointed those Civil servants. Therefore I fail to see why a Civil Service Committee should be set up. It seems to me that the only possible argument for that is that the Government are so obsessed with the idea of appointing special Committees under every possible conceivable circumstance that they are obliged to set up another Committee. Surely we have got the Treasury, which has some experience. It is quite true we are not honoured with the

183
presence of any representative of the Treasury when we are discussing whether or not certain powers ought to be left to them. It is quite possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other representative of the Treasury, having dined, will presently stroll in to see what is going on in the House of Commons, and if he fortunately strolls in before the guillotine falls we may have the pleasure of knowing what his opinion is on the subject. For the present we are left to the guidance of one Member of the Government. There is not even at present an Under-Secretary sitting on the Treasury Bench. We have there the Postmaster-General alone in his glory, and, with the exception of a red box, there is not a single object or person supporting the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Chief Secretary has been here for nearly six hours.
10.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: I quite understand, but it is not our fault that we have to sit here and support the Government. Probably other Gentlemen will come in afterwards in evening dress. Under those circum stances I think we are entitled to some further explanation from the Government. There is a right hon. Gentleman opposite who is a prominent Irishman and a prominent London Member, and perhaps he can explain——
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet might direct his attention to the Amendment. I should not have selected this Amendment unless I thought there was going to be a pertinent discussion on it.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is really difficult to discuss matters connected with the Treasury when we had not any Member representing the Treasury. I have been endeavouring to show that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is no answer at all, because the real meaning of the Sub-section is to prevent the Treasury, who are the people who have appointed these Civil servants, settling the pensions they are to have, and that the whole meaning of the Clause is that the English Government shall not protect those people if they are moved capriciously by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question, and if he can show me I am wrong I will be perfectly willing to admit my error.
Mr. HEWINS: There is really a good deal to explain about this proviso. According to this proviso the Civil Service Committee is to determine the amount of these pensions, and they are to be deducted from the Transferred Sum. We understand that the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine the amount of the Transferred Sum. Then again the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine what are Irish offices—that is, what are Irish services. What I want the Postmaster-General to explain is the relation between the Civil Service Committee whose decisions are final and conclusive, and the Joint Exchequer Board whose decisions are final and conclusive, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to whom an appeal is permitted. We really do not know where we are at the present time, and I earnestly ask the Postmaster-General to explain.
Mr. LOUGH: I think this proviso is altogether in favour of the arguments of hon. Members from the other side. The fact that it should be, I was going to say obstructed, but I do not want to use any offensive phrase, but the fact that this concession should be treated in this way really does not encourage my right hon. Friends to put in Clauses for the protection of Gentlemen opposite as I might say.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Protection of us—how?
Mr. LOUGH: I will explain. The hon. Baronet said that according to the proviso this matter was left to the Irish Treasury and the British Treasury. It is not so left. That is the whole point. It is left to one Irish and two British representatives. The strength of the British side is double that of the Irish.
Sir F. BANBURY: I must have expressed myself wrongly, or else the right hon. Gentleman did not understand. What I said was that I would prefer to leave out the proviso, because then the matter would be left to the Treasury, which I thought was a better tribunal for the purpose.
Mr. LOUGH: I will explain again. Instead of being left entirely to the Treasury, there are on the Committee of three two British representatives, one appointed by the Treasury and the other by the Lord Chief Justice of England—that is, two instead of the one for which the hon. Baronet asks. The w7hole object of the proviso is to give extra strength to the opinion represented by the hon. Baronet. The hon.

185
Member opposite (Mr. Hewins) wants to drag in the Joint Exchequer Board and the Privy Council.
Mr. HEWINS: I want the Government to explain what the functions of this body are in reference to the points contained in the proviso.
Mr. LOUGH: I was not misrepresenting the hon. Member. He mentioned the two other bodies. He wanted to widen the discussion. Might I appeal to hon. Members opposite? They have had a most courteous, full, and complete reply from my right hon. Friend.
Sir F. BANBURY: We have had no reply at all.
Mr. LOUGH: And anything that my right hon. Friend did not say I have now added. Surely hon. Members opposite might be satisfied, and let us go on to some sensible point. There are many most interesting matters to be dealt with. We have three Clauses to discuss, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite waste time.
Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) has given us a good illustration of wasting time, because not a single Member could gather anything from what he has said. It is obvious that the Treasury have all the machinery for dealing with the intricate matter involved in this proviso. A great number of the Civil servants mentioned in this Clause will possibly and probably, although serving the Irish Parliament for a few days, have been engaged in the first instance on terms laid down by the British Treasury. They may have served for years under those conditions, and have been for only a short time in the employment of the Irish Government. Yet they are not to have their service computed on the old scale by the British Treasury, but are to be immediately handed over to this Committee of three, only one of whom is a Treasury official and knows anything at all about actuarial statistics. Can anyone deny that the Treasury which has hitherto computed the various services which qualify a Civil servant for a pension, is a far preferable tribunal under the circumstances than a newly appointed body with no experience whatever on this point? The proviso does not even say that the Treasury official is to be chosen because of his fitness to deal with this point. I take it that the Committee will have other duties to perform, and the Treasury official may
186
be chosen not particularly for his ability to deal with this matter. Besides the Civil servants who may desire to retire after trying Home Rule for a few days, there will be those who have served for years and years under British control, and who desire to stay on, but who would be in the peculiar position of being transferred perhaps against their will to the Irish service, and they would be put under this Board instead of under the Treasury. In the transferred services or in the Post Office and the Customs, there, would be a large number of Civil servants really servants of the Imperial Parliament or under their jurisdiction. It would be absolutely absurd that they should run the risk of being transferred from one control to the other before they know exactly what this Board or its personnel is to be. My hon. Friend was quite right in pointing out that you cannot be too careful in carrying out your bargain with the Civil servants. It is unfair to compel them to go to a different Board to settle their retiring pensions or superannuation allowances. The Acts involved apparently cover a period of seventy-five years. They have to be known and studied by the body which undertakes the computation of the superannuation allowance. Surely even the light-hearted Chief Secretary can see, when you are dealing with matters so intricate and with matters of law which are largely controlled by precedent, that by leaving out this particular Sub-section justice will be done and no harm inflicted on anybody. Unless we get a further explanation I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
Sir F. BANBURY: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough), I am not in the least objecting to the new committee qua new committee. I do not doubt that the persons appointed will form a good committee, but that is not the point. My point is that there exists at the present moment a body who understand the particular question involved, and I fail to see the object of setting up a new Committee. There must be some object. If the right hon. Gentleman could have told us what the object was I would have withdrawn my opposition if I had been satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman did not do so. Nor did the Postmaster-General. He merely said that the Committee was necessary because the Civil servants would serve under the. Irish Government. But a great number of these people will not serve under the Irish Government. I therefore think that argument is not to the point.
Mr. LOUGH: They have changed their mind.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is not a question of Civil servants changing their mind. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the point. He should really give a little more attention to the Amendment. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division, because the Amendment seems to me to be a proper one, and the answer to be one of a most perfunctory character.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I would like to utter one word of protest as to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard it repeated more than once that we ought to be grateful for alterations
made in the Bill. If the Government accept an Amendment from our side, or they introduce a necessary one, we are told we should be grateful. The Amendment is just or unjust; right or wrong! It is their Bill, not our Bill. It is their duty to put forward the Bill in a proper form. If the Government Bill is so bad that some Amendment we suggest is so obvious that it has to be accepted, why should we be grateful? That seems to me to be a ridiculous proposal. We have heard it over and over again, and I hope it will not be repeated in the future.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided; Ayes,287; Noes, 156.

Division No. 401.]

AYES.

[10.18 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dawes, J. A.

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

Addison, Dr. C.

De Forest, Baron

Henry, Sir Charles

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Delany, William

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

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Armitage, R.

Devlin, Joseph

Hinds, John

Arnold, Sydney

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Hodge, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dickinson, W. H.

Hogge, James Myles

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Dillon, John

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Doris, W.

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Duffy, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset,)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hughes, S. L.

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Barton, W.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Falconer, J.

Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts., Stepney)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Farrell, James Patrick

Jowett, Frederick William

Black, Arthur W

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Joyce, Michael

Boland, John Pius

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Keating, M.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Ffrench, Peter

Kellaway. Frederick George

Bowerman, Charles W.

Field, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Brace, William

George, Rt. Hon: David Lloyd

King, J.

Brady, J. P.

Gilhooly, James

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon. S. Molton)

Brocklehurst. William B.

Gill, A. H.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Ginnell, L.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Bryce, J. Annan

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Glanville. H. J.

Leach, Charles

Burke, E. Haviland.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goldstone, Frank

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Lundon, T.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Guiney, P.

Lynch, A. A.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Chancellor. Henry G.

Hackett, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

McGhee, Richard

Clancy, John Joseph

Hancock, J. G.

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

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Macpherson, James Ian

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardie, J. Keir

M' Callum, Sir John M.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon, Sir J.

Harmsworth. Cecil (Luton, Beds)

M' Curdy, C. A.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth. R. L. (Caithness-shire)

M' Kean, Jchn

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale)

McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cotton, William Francis

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

M' Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

M' Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)

Crean, Eugene

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Manfieid, Harry

Crooks, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Crumley, Patrick

Hayden, John Patrick

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Cullinan, J.

Hayward, Evan

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

Martin, J.

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Meagher, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Sutton, John E.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Radford, G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Millar, James Duncan

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Molloy, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Tennant, Harold John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Thomas, James Henry

Mooney, J. J.

Reddy, Michael

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Morison, Hector

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Toulmin, Sir George

Muldoon, John

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Monro, R.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Verney, Sir Harry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wadsworth, J.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Robinson, Sidney

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wardle, George J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Waring, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Rowlands, James

Webb, H.

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

O'Grady, James

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Malley, William

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

Whyte, A. F.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Wiles, Thomas

O'Shee, James John

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Sheehy, David

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Parker, James (Hallifax)

Shortt, Edward

Wilson, Rt. Hon J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Snowden, P.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Pointer, Joseph

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sutherland, J. E.

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Aitken, Sir William Max

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Joynson-Hicks, William

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Kerry, Earl of

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Croft, Henry Page

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Baird, J. L.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Larmor, Sir J.

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Dixon, C. H.

Law, Rt. Hon. A, Bonar (Bootle)

Balcarres, Lord

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Barnston, Harry

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Barrie, H. T.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droitwich)

Bathurst. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Forster, Henry William

Macmaster, Donald

Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest

Magnus, Sir Philip

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Gilmour, Captain John

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Beresford, Lord Charles

Goldman, C. S.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bird, Alfred

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Blair, Reginald

Greene, Walter Raymond

Wills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Boyton, James

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Mount, Wiliam Arthur

Bull, Sir William James

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Butcher, John George

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Harris, Henry Percy

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cassel, Felix

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Peel, Capt. R. F.

Cator, John

Hickman. Col. T. E.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Pole, Carew, Sir R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Chambers, James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Randles, Sir John S.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Houston, Rabert Paterson

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

190

191

Rolleston, Sir John

Stewart, Gershom

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Swift, Rigby

White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Sykes, Alan John (dies., Knutsford)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Wood, Join (Stalybridge)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Sanders, Robert A.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Sanderson, Lancelot

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Younger, Sir George

Stanier, Beville

Touche, George Alexander

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Valentia, Viscount

Hume-Williams and Mr. Hewins.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "passing of this Act."
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to make an appeal to the Government. They know perfectly well that under the Guillotine Resolution we can never discuss what the appointed day means. It has occurred here not for the first time, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the Guilltone Resolution for the Report stage, to try and provide that we shall have an opportunity of discussing Clause 46, which establishes what the appointed day is.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It can be raised on Clause 42.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: But the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to leave out the only operative part of Clause 42. I should like to know whether we shall be able to discuss the appointed day on Clause 42. I want to press upon the Government that by far the most important thing of all is the time at which this Act is going to come into operation. We have been told it will come on Clause 46, and it is obvious we shall not have any such opportunity.
Mr. BIRRELL: I will do my best to give that opportunity.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the following words:—
"(5) Where any existing Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown to whom the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, do not apply is on the appointed day serving as an Irish officer in a capacity which, in accordance with a condition of his employment, qualifies him for a superannuation allowance or gratuity payable otherwise than under those Acts, that condition shall after the appointed day have effect, subject to the following modifications, that is to say, any superannuation allowance or gratuity which may become payable to the officer
192
in accordance with that condition after the appointed day shall, if and so far as the fund out of which such allowances and gratuities are payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and any powers and duties of the Treasury as to the Grant or ascertainment of the amount of the superannuation allowance or gratuity, or otherwise in connection with the condition, shall be exercised and performed by the Civil Service Committee."
It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIEMAM proceeded, pursuant to the; Order of the House of the 14th October, i to put forthwith the Question necessary I to dispose of the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Are hon. Members not to hear what is the Amendment?
The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. If any hon. Member desires it, I will read the Amendment when I put the Question a second time.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's silting.
Government Amendment made: At end I of Clause add the words—
"and any terminable annuity payable in respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance."
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 178.

Division No. 402.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Macpherson, James Ian

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ffrench, Peter

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Field, William

M' Callum, Sir John M.

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Fitzgibbon, John

M'Curdy, C. A.

Allen, m. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Kean, John

Armitage, Robert

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Arnold, Sydney

Gilhooly. James

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gill, A. H.

M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines.,Spalding)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Ginneil, Laurence

Manfield, Harry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Glanville, H. J.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Goldstone. Frank

Martin, Joseph

Barnes, G. N.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Barton, w.

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

Meagher, Michael

Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Guiney, Patrick

Menzies, Sir Walter

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Gulland, John William

Millar, James Duncan

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Molloy, M.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hackett, J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Black. Arthur W.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Mooney, John J.

Boland, John Pius

Hancock, J. G.

Morison, Hector

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bowerman, Charles W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hardle, J. Keir

Munro, R.

Brace, William

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Brady, P. J.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brocklehurst, W. B,

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nolan, Joseph

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Burke, E. Haviland

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hayward, Evan

O'Doherty, Philip

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Ogden, Fred

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, James

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Chancellor, Henry G.

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Malley, William

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clough, William

Hinds, John

O'Shee, James John

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hodge, John

Outhwaite, R. L.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hogge, James Myles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cotton, William Francis

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

Hughes, S. L.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Crean, Eugene

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pointer, Joseph

Crooks, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cullinan, John

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcilffe)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Davies, Timothy (Louth)

Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney)

Pringle, William M. R.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Dawes, J. A.

Joyce, Michael

Raff an, Peter Wilson

De Forest, Baron

Keating, M.

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Delany. William

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Devlin, Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, Michael

Dewar, Sir J. A.

King, Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dickinson, W. H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Dillon, John

Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Doneian, Captain A.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Doris, W.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Duffy, William J.

Leach, Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, otley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Robinson, Sidney

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lundon, T.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lynch, A. A.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Esslemont, George Birnle

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Falconer, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rowlands, James

Farrell, James Patrick

McGhee, Richard

Rowntree, Arnold

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifle)

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

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Tennant, Harold John

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

Scanlan, Thomas

Thomas, James Henry

Whyte, A. F.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wiles, Thomas

Scott, A. Mac Callum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Thorne, W. (West Ham)

Wilkie, Alexander

Sheehy, David

Toulmin, Sir George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Shortt, Edward

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Verney, Sir Harry

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

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

Snowden, Philip

Walton, Sir Joseph

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Wardle George J.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Waring, Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Sutton, John E.

Webb, H.

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner. James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Altken, Sir William Max

Gastrell, Major W. Hougton

Newman, John R. P.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gibbs, G. A.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gilmour, Captain John

Nicholson, William G. (Peterslield)

Ashley. Wilfrid

Goldman, C. S.

Nield, Herbert

Baird, John Lawrence

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Greene, W. R.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balcarres, Lord

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peel, Captain R. R. (Woodbridge)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnston, Harry

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barrle, H. T.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Harris, Henry Percy

Randles, Sir John S.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Rolleston, Sir John

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bird, Alfred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Blair, Reginald

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rutherford. Watson (L'pool, Derby)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

Hills, John Waller

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyton, James

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sanders, Robert A.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Stanler, Beville

Butcher, John George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Hume-Williams. William Ellis

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cassel, Felix

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stewart, Gershom

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Swift, Rigby

Cator, John

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Knight, Captain E. A.

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

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chambers, James

Law, Rt Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Touche, George Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lewishem, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. Sq.)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Croft, Henry Page

Lyttelton, Hen. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Macmas'or, Donald

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Younger, Sir George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Shirley Benn and Mr. S. Roberts.

Forster, Henry William

Neville, Reginald J. N.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is there any business to be taken to-morrow night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In view of the fact that the Committee stage of the Home Rule Bill is timed to finish on Thursday, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to ask the House to proceed to the consideration of the Bill on Report before Christmas?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so, but we have first to pass a Resolution for the allocation of time on Report.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Government proposals for the allocation of time are put on the Paper at an early date before the Committee stage finishes, otherwise we shall have no time to consider it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We cannot do it before the Committee stage finishes, because we do not know what will be discussed and what will not.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    CLERKS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To reduce the number of Principal Clerks of the Court of Session in Scotland. "Presented by the LOKD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 334.]
    SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Sheriff Courts(Scotland) Act, 1907."Presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 335.]
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  TWENTY-FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 4th December.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 33.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, "Existing Officers.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown who are not provided for under the last preceding Section and
  80
  are on the appointed day serving as Irish officers shall, after that day, continue to. hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration and superannuation) as theretofore and shall be liable to perform the same duties as theretofore, or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous, and while performing the same or analogous duties shall receive not less remuneration than they would have received if this Act had not passed:
  Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant.
  (2) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, shall continue after the appointed day to apply to any such existing Irish officer to whom they then apply, and the service of any such officer under the Irish Government shall, for the purpose of those Acts, be deemed to be service in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown and in a public office within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1892:
  Provided that so far as relates to the grant and ascertainment of the amount of any allowance or gratuity under those Acts as respects any such officer who at the time of his ultimate retirement is serving under the Irish Government, the Civil Service Committee shall be substituted for the Treasury.
  (3) The provisions as to compensation contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any such existing Irish officer.
  (4) The superannuation and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable after the passing of this Act to existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, and any compensation payable to any such officers under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but any sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (5) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882 shall apply to any person to whom an annual allowance is granted in pursuance of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers as they apply to a person who has retired in consequence of the abolition of his office.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper raises the question of the relation of this Clause to the Third Schedule of the Bill. I think I shall be meeting the convenience of the Committee on that Amendment if I allow a somewhat general debate on the subject of this Clause as read with the Schedule—that is to say the conditions of service and compensation to existing Irish officers. Probably that discussion will dispose of some of the detailed Amendments which appear following on the Paper, and therefore I shall have to reserve my decision on this until I see how far they are disposed of in the earlier discussion. I think the same thing applies to all the next succeeding Amendments. They may or may not be determined by the result of the first discussion, so I had better not for the present announce what I shall take further.
  Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Subject' to the provisions of this Act."
  I do so for the purpose of raising a general discussion and giving the Government an opportunity of stating how they are going to deal with several of the interests which are directly involved by these Compensation Clauses. For some time past I have been sitting for two or three days a week upon a Royal Commission which is concerned with the organisation of appointments of the Civil Service in the United Kingdom, and that has taught me that in dealing with questions which concern Civil servants you will have to act with the greatest care and precaution. I am sure that all Members of this Committee are anxious that whatever may be the result of this particular measure no personal injury should be done to those Civil servants who have entered the public service under the impression that their career is a fixed and established one. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to remove the fears, or at any rate go some way towards removing the fears, which are at present in the mind of several sections of public servants in Ireland. Take one case, the case of the model school teachers. There you have a class of men who are teaching in schools
  82
  entirely supported out of public funds, who are appointed in open competition and who, in every sense of the word except the technical sense, are Civil servants.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): They are included.
  Mr. HOARE: If that is the case, that removes the difficulty. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will also inform me whether other sections are also included, as for instance, solicitors in. Government Departments.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That depends. I will deal with that.
  4.0.P.M.
  Mr. HOARE: There, again, you have the case of men who are really public servants. There are a number of solicitors in Government offices in Ireland who, although technically servants merely of officials, are equivalent to public servants generally. I move the Amendment, in the first place, for the purpose of having several points cleared up with reference to the conditions of compensation of the established staff, and, secondly, of giving hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of bringing to the knowledge of the Committee certain unestablished classes, some of which the right hon. Gentleman says are included, and about some of which we are not quite so-certain.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a general discussion on this question is to be allowed, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions with regard to persons who will be included. In the first place, I wish him to tell the Committee exactly what treatment will be given to inspectors of National schools, because I think he will agree that the position of these inspectors is somewhat exceptional. Their position is exceptional in three ways. In the first place, since the year 1890 they have been selected without competitive examination by the Commissioners of National Education itself. In the case of all other Civil servants in Ireland, so far as I know, they are selected through open competitive examination, and the Civil servants are then drafted into the various Departments by the Civil Service Commissioners. But these inspectors of National schools are selected personally by the Education Commissioners, and therefore they are far more closely identified than other Civil servants with the people under whom they have to

  83
  work. The second exceptional point about them is that they are not really in the service of the Government Department, but under a body which is practically independent. The Commissioners as everyone knows, are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and they are under no particular Minister of the Crown, and therefore there is no responsible respondent for them in this House. Consequently the Commissioners have very large powers of administration, and they are not bound, so far as I know, by any particular Departmental restrictions. In the third place, the duties of these inspectors seem to me to be much more responsible than the duties of other Civil servants in Ireland for this reason: their duties are professional instead of clerical.
  As hon. Members know, there are practically no councils with any local authority over education. There is only individual management, and it is the Commissioners, and not the individual managers, who have to fix the salaries of the teachers. It is upon the reports of the Commissioners of national schools that increments to the teachers practically entirely depend. Therefore there is no buffer at all, as in this country, between the Board and the teachers. For these reasons I do submit that there are strong grounds for safeguarding the inspectors of national schools in Ireland. Not being under a Department, it is more than probable when this Bill passes into law that national education will be transferred to some quite different body from the body under which it is at the present moment, unlike other Irish Departments, which will be merely transferred from the British to the Irish Executive. There are very good reasons for anticipating this step. During the last few weeks a number of urban district councils in Ireland and corporations, too, including the Corporation of Dublin, and Boards of Guardians, have passed resolutions calling for the resignation of the existing Commissioners in Ireland. Only as recently as last August the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field), at a public meeting of the Royal College of Science in Dublin, said that one of the first acts of the new Irish House of Commons would be to pass a measure to that effect. If this happened there is not the slightest doubt that the inspectors who have to work under the Commissioners of Education would also go.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: No.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it is a very probable thing. At any rate, we want this point cleared up by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool seems to doubt it, but even if this extreme course was not taken, I think their position might be very precarious unless special terms were offered, because the very nature of their duties in Ireland has lead to a good deal of unpopularity. The teachers' increments are directly dependent upon the reports of these inspectors and naturally were they to carry out their duties conscientiously and faithfully, complaints are pretty certain to arise. Conscientious discharge of duty is frequently interpretated as harshness, and a lazy teacher very often gets a certain amount of sympathy which he does not at all deserve. Hon. Members below the Gangway know that a section of the Press during the last few weeks has been doing its utmost to exascerbate the relations between the inspectors and the teachers, and, so far as one can see, has been gradually preparing the ground for retribution when the present Bill passes into law and education is transferred to some other Department in Ireland. The Gaelic League is continually condemning the way in which these inspectors are working at the present time. Most or many of the inspectors, through no fault of their own, were appointed more than fifteen years ago, and a good many of them are ignorant of the Irish language. The Gaelic League is continually complaining that inspectors should be appointed who are not familiar with the Irish language. The League has considerable power in Ireland, because they forced the compulsory teaching of Irish on the Chief Secretary in regard to his new Irish University. Under Home rule it is more than probable that the influence of the Gaelic League will be even more powerful than it is now and they will do their utmost to force the then Irish Government to insist that all those inspectors of national schools should, at any rate, have a knowledge of the Irish language. Therefore, I do fee that the right hon. Gentleman ought to do his very utmost to facilitate the voluntary retirement of inspectors of national schools on fairly easy terms.
  I may mention that all those, inspectors at the present moment are equally divided between the two principal denominations in Ireland, but under Home Rule it is quite possible—I do not say it will occur—that

  85
  this arrangement may not find favour in certain quarters, and not only may this impartiality be abandoned, but the interests of the pupils, whose destinies, are in the hands of the teachers, may be endangered if any alteration is made in that respect. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may say all this is very unlikely to happen. There are several ways inspectors might be maltreated unless provisions to protect them are put in the Bill. They can be maltreated without any revolutionary or extreme procedure being adopted if the Irish Government wishes to get rid of them or make them retire. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the small centres of population are now used for the junior inspectors, but in future it is quite possible that an inspector with longer service and with a family growing up and to be educated might be sent from a centre like Dublin or Cork to Bally-shannon or Ballina, or to towns with less than 5,000 inhabitants, where there are far fewer opportunities of social life, and fewer opportunities of obtaining proper education. Again, an inspector with twenty years' service who, under present conditions, is entitled to expect promotion to the rank of senior inspector might be passed over in favour of some other inspector who might happen to have sent in more lenient reports with regard to the teachers in his district.
  I do say these inspectors have sufficient ground for fearing that their interests may be prejudiced by the Bill as drafted. They are not hostile to the Bill, so far as I know, as a class, and they hope and believe that they are going to work under the new Irish Government as disinterestedly as in the past, but they do feel that their position is an exceptional one, and they ask that special safeguards should be put into the Bill. I should like to point out that this concession would not cost very much. The number of inspectors who would voluntarily retire on expensive terms would be very small indeed. Ten of them will be eligible for full pensions before the end of the transitional period; eighteen have less than seven years' service and many of them would probably never be molested at all. Out of a staff, which totals 76, you may say that forty or fifty could be safely eliminated as most unlikely to ask the concession I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to make. There is one other point. These inspectors ask that their years of service as teachers before they were elected inspectors should be counted with their years of service as
  86
  inspectors for the purpose of pensions. These years were given in the same department for the benefit of the State, but they do not happen to count now towards pensions. This concession, as a matter of fact, would only affect fifteen junior inspectors, and therefore the expense would be very small. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the concession. I am sure if he does, he will do something towards eliminating the existing anxiety and showing the good faith not only of the Government, but of hon. Members below the Gangway when the Bill passes into law.
  I wish to ask one or two questions in regard to the position of the general Civil Service in Ireland. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with the remaining claims of the Irish Civil servants, because after all the Bill must vitally affect their livelihood in the future, and as they are not allowed to take part in political agitation, the only possible way of getting these concessions is by bringing them forward before the right hon. Gentleman in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has made certain concessions, but he has not met some very reasonable apprehensions on their part. They are three in number. I refer to those Civil servants who retire voluntarily, that is to say, under the statutory conditions of retirement. The Government is drawing a very ingenious distinction in the Bill between those Civil servants who retire voluntarily and those Civil servants who do not retire voluntarily. The abolition terms are granted in the second case, but they are not granted in the first. This distinction is quite illusory. When the Bill passes into law there will be practically no such thing as the voluntary retirement of any Civil servant, for his retirement will always take place owing to some change that comes along owing to the dissolution of the original contract between the Imperial Government and the Irish Civil servants, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in this respect to look to the proposals of the last Home Rule Bill of 1893. Lord Morley at that time said:—
  "I feel and think that it is not likely that it will arise, but there is an apprehension in the minds of some of these Civil servants that the Irish Government will be tempted either from what is railed revengeful feeling or the desire to make room for friends of their own, to make the place of the permanent Civil servant now serving in Ireland so disagreeable and so intolerable that it would be equivalent or amount to compulsory retirement. When we find these apprehensions entertained we are willing to introduce this provision which withdraws from the Irish Government any possibility of the kind that exists."

  87
  lie was referring to the distinction between voluntary and the compulsory retirement. Why has the Government taken up a totally different attitude in the year 1912. Under the Bill abolition terms are going to be granted practically only to those whom the Irish Government remove from office. All the others are going to be given a choice either of voluntary retirement or of working under the new Government, and if they retire voluntarily they are only to be given pensions equivalent to what they would get in the event of a permanent breakdown or if obliged to retire under a medical certificate. In other words, as the Bill is drafted, including the Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman, supposing a man wishes to go voluntarily and on the assumption that he will be allowed to go when he likes he can only reckon as addition to his actual service the transitional period of five years or such part of it as may remain when he actually retires. It is perfectly true that the Bill sets up a Civil Service Committee before whom after the transitional period a Civil servant can go "and take his complaints, and if he satisfies the Committee that his position has been materially worsened he will then be given permission to retire on abolition terms. But, after all, who is going to constitute this Committee? It is to consist of three members, a member of the Irish Government, a representative of the British Treasury and a member appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England. That is to say, the complainant would have absolutely no representation on the Committee, while the defendant would. What chance has the poor hard-worked Civil servant coming before this Committee when he has no representation and the defendant is represented by one out of three? Moreover, the Civil Service Committee under the Bill is given power to postpone the date of retirement if they consider it expedient. To my mind, this is manifestly unfair.
  At the beginning of the transitional period every Civil servant is entitled under the Bill to serve notice that he will not continue in office, but as his right to go is limited by the discretion of the Civil Service Committee to postpone his retirement to the end of the transitional period, one man may go at the beginning of the transitional period and get the whole five years added to his years of service, whereas another man may not be allowed
  88
  to go by this Committee. He may be kept to within a year of the end of the transitional period, and he will only have one year added to his years of service. This is considered a great hardship by the Irish Civil servants. It seems to me it can easily be put right by means of a provision that when the retirement of a man who wants to go has been postponed by the Civil Service Committee he should receive the addition of the five years, not from the beginning of the transitional period but from the date of his actual retirement. As against that the Government may argue that the Irish Civil servants have asked to be kept on under the same terms and conditions as exist at the time of the passing of the Act, and that that has been granted, and therefore there is no particular reason for giving this concession. But I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that every single Civil servant in Ireland is going to be willing to work under the new regime. It is quite likely that some of them, for different reasons, may not want to continue under the new regime, and the interests of these persons should not be left out of account. The Government may also say, that if they give concessions of this, sort these persons may be tempted to go, whereas if they did not give these concessions they may be willing to hang on. It. is quite conceivable, but- I think it extremely unlikely, unless the Irish Government go out of their way, as I am quite sure they will not, to be disagreeable to existing officials in Ireland. In any event, I do not think that that argument 11s one for the Government to use, because when a revolutionary scheme is being passed they ought to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and also do their best to allay anxiety whenever possible.
  There are two other matters which I would like to mention. The Irish Civil servants ask that in cases of voluntary retirement the following further addition should be made to the years of service, reckoning from the end of the transitional period; where the years of service amount to twenty years and upwards, five years; and where they amount to fifteen and are less than twenty years, three years. Moreover, they say that if their retirement is postponed by the Civil Service Committee, the years of service should be allowed and the salary calculated as if the Civil servant had served up to the end of five years from the date of actual retirement. That Amendment is one by which the Civil servants set very special store. Under the

  89
  Bill, and after the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments, a man of twenty years' service, supposing he is allowed to go out at the end of the transitional period, would have twenty-five years service reckoned for his pension, five of these being added years, during which he would not have been serving, and if he were postponed for three years he would still have his five years' pensionable service, but only two years would be added years. But if the request of the Civil servants is granted, the same man would have thirty years' pensionable service, ten of which would be added years; and if the Civil Service Committee happened to postpone his retirement for three years, he would have thirty-three years' pensionable service, ten of which again would beaded years. When the Postmaster - General received a deputation from the Trish Civil servants the other day they asked him whether he would not support the proposals of the last Home Rule Bill in regard to voluntary retirements. He said it would not be just to the new Irish Government to throw upon them what might possibly be a heavy burden of expenditure. I do not believe for a moment that it would entail at all a heavy burden of expenditure. The same sort of argument was used at the time of the last Home Rule Bill in 1893 against the Government's proposals, and Lord Morley, who was then replying for the Government, said the Government had taken precautions that they should not embarrass the future Government or add any excessive or unreasonable load of financial responsibility, and he went on to add that an hon. Member—I think Mr. Storey—was very ill-informed when he said that by giving abolition terms to those who voluntarily retired the Irish Government would pay half salary by way of pension to a man who did nothing and full salary to another man who did the work. It seems to me that any one who uses the same argument to day is equally uninformed as the Gentleman to whom Lord Morley referred in 1893.
  The final point on which the Civil servants set great store in Ireland, and which so far has not been met by the Government is this. Under the Act of 1859 the Civil servants are entitled to a pension equal to one-sixtieth of their actual salary up to a maximum of forty years' service. At the instance of the Civil servants, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Parliament afterwards passed an Act in 1909 reducing that to one-
  90
  eightieth of the actual salary up to a maximum of forty years' service—that is to say they lessened the pension, but they gave additional benefits. In addition to this the Civil servants were given a gratuity on retiring equal to one-thirtieth of the actual salary for each year's service up to a maximum of one and a half years and in the ease of the death of the Civil servant before retirement a year's pay was granted to his representatives. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of Civil servants in Ireland accepted the new terms, but a considerable number of them did not. I am told that some of them did not on account of the fear of what might happen if this Bill passed into law. Under this Bill those who did accept the new terms in 1909 are given the right to revert to the Act of 1859, if they want to do so, and the Civil servants maintain that those few who did not accept the terms of 1909 should also be given the right of coming under the Act of 1859, if they wish to do so in future, although the time has expired for their acceptance under the Treasury Rules. It is quite possible the Government might say, very likely, "A few men did not accept the Act of 1909 for fear of Home Rule, while they now wish to accept it after Home Rule is passed into law. "But I do not think that is any real answer to the Irish Civil servants. If the Government is to carry out this great change, and if it is right to allow one set to come under the Act of 1859, I do think that right ought to be extended to any new Civil servants in Ireland, when such a very great change is being introduced. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look favourably upon these suggestions, and I am sure, if he does so, it will go a very long way to allay a certain amount of anxiety among public servants in Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree, if I may say so, with the preliminary observations made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), that it is very desirable that we should proceed with this matter in regard to Civil servants in Ireland with the greatest care and precaution, and that, whatever happens as a result of passing the Home Rule Bill, we should not leave any Civil servant in Ireland under a sense of injustice or under the sense that his case has not been fully heard and considered. I have felt that from the very first, and I have been for weeks past in constant communication with a Committee of Civil servants representing several Departments in Ireland, which was

  91
  at once formed as soon as the Bill was introduced, and which represents, in all, upwards of 5,000 of these admirable and, perhaps, naturally agitated persons. I have been in constant communication with them both myself and through my agents. I have had many interviews with them and a great deal of correspondence, and the Committee will discover, if they look at the Notice Paper, that I have introduced a number of Amendments with the object of meeting the various points that they have put before me. I confess I was very much under the impression, until I heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson)—and I am not quite sure that I do not remain under that impression still —that 1 had met their case, I do not say to the full, but that I had sent them away, if not full, certainly not empty, and satisfied with the various Amendments I proposed. I must say that these Amendments will cost money, a very considerable amount of money, and that money is to be borne by the new Irish Government, which everybody agrees is not well endowed under the provisions of this Bill; and I certainly think it speaks well for the general feeling in Ireland that there is a desire that the new Government should be established happily, and that no difficulty is being felt in any quarter in meeting the fair demands of Irish Civil servants.
  There are some things that could not be done—that is to say, we could not out the new Irish Civil servants in a better position as to pension and abolition pay, or anything else, than the Civil servants of the United Kingdom. Nor could we take the opportunity of this Home Rule Bill to remedy certain inequalities which, in the eyes of many Civil servants, affect them unjustly. All we can do is to see by every means in our power, in dealing with the existing Irish Civil servants, that the persons who are discharging their duties at the appointed day are protected in every way, not only from likelihoods, but from extreme improbabilities, so that they may not feel that they have given the best years of their lives under false hopes which this House has hastily destroyed. I would like the Committee to bear in mind what is the position of the Irish Civil servants. With a few exceptions, already dealt with by Clause 32, they are dealt with under this Clause. They hold their offices for the most part at pleasure. "We cannot and ought not
  92
  to be asked to alter that tenure. They are roughly divided into two classes. There are those who are established Civil servants—that is, who are on the establishment, and are therefore pensionable. They cannot, as they stand at present, retire on pension, except ill-health occur, until sixty years of age, and then their pension is calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of their salary for each year of employment. But we have in Ireland a large number of non-established officers, I think, considering the population of Ireland, a number out of proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a number of non-established or temporary officers, varying in every degree of claim upon the Government. Sometimes they are really odd-job men—men taken on for an odd job, with which they were perfectly satisfied, while they were also satisfied with the remuneration they received.
  But many of these non-establishment men have, as a matter of fact, given their lives to the work of the Departments to which they are attached, although they are not pensionable. We certainly consider that although they are not entitled to any pension, they are entitled to a gratuity, having regard to their large numbers and to the very great service which they have undoubtedly done in the past in connection with the new Departments which have been sometimes hastily created by this House in its desire to grapple—not always with the fullest degree of information— with the circumstances of Ireland. We certainly consider those officers are entitled to the fullest possible consideration. Civil servants then are divided into two classes, established and non-established, and are treated separately. Every established officer is entitled to a pension on a fixed scale, but the temporary or non-established officer is not entitled to pension, but receives a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts. I now come to the scheme under the Bill for dealing with Irish Civil servants. We agree that a scheme is necessary, because there is a change of master. Existing Civil servants, if they remain, will be handed over to a new master—" Got a new master, be a new man "—and they are entitled, fully-entitled, to have a scheme elaborated and made statutory to secure them from what they may conceive to be injustice, caused by hasty legislation, if you like, or what at all events they will consider alterations of their duties. In the first place, under our

  93
  scheme, we allow the official who objects to having a new master, to retire with compensation. That involves, under this Bill, from the Civil Service point of view, a novelty in Civil Service law. That a man can retire from the Civil Service before the fulfilment of his obligations, with compensation, is unknown in our Civil Service law. If a man wants voluntarily to leave before he is entitled to pension or previous to the statutory age, he can do so, but without compensation, and his salary is calculated up to date of retirement. But under this Bill we do more than that—we secure compensation to the officer who objects to the change of master.
  With regard to those who remain on we secure that their duties shall not be altered. We secure to them continuance of the character of their work, and that they should not have new duties put upon them, and we secure that by a grant of compensation in the event of departure from the present conditions. The mere substitution of an analogous duty for another would not interfere with the peace of mind of Civil servants. Civil servants are not to be changed from the duties of one office to the duties of another, nor are more laborious new duties to be put upon them. As the law stands, when a Civil servant in Ireland attains the age of sixty, his chief might—dismiss is not the right word to use—he might intimate that as the Civil servant had, by the grace of God, attained the age of sixty, he could go. That is a useful power to put into the hands of heads of Departments, but as a matter of fact in Ireland, at all events, such is the salubrity of the climate and the general willingness of everybody to discharge his duty, it has been found that nobody goes until sixty-five years of age, which is accepted as the age when a Civil servant thinks he ought to go. We recognise, and the country recognise, the Irish temperament, and we change the law so that persons shall not be liable to go by effluxion of time until they are sixty-five years of age. That is a kindly and sensible, and at the same time a generous provision.
  Where the alteration of conditions is to the officer's detriment, and the question of compensation arises, we set up this independent tribunal which has been described by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, to fully determine points of the kind. I do not think that anybody can complain, because this is precisely the kind of
  94
  tribunal that has always been contemplated before to deal with these questions. It is composed of three persons, one to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice to-act as chairman. I do not think we need take the view of the hon. Member for Sal-ford about the poor, despondent, bullied Civil servant who will appear quaking and trembling before this terrible body, and will not be able to state his case or be likely to receive justice. I am sure from my experience of what goes on in Ireland-that will not be the case at all, but that Irish Civil servants will receive kindly consideration, and probably get the benefit of any doubt. Anyhow, you have got to have something of that kind. The hon. Member will be the first to perceive that it is impossible, in the case of officers of this kind, to dispense with the tribunal. You could not go to a Court of Law, because-there are no legal rights whatsoever. It could not be for a Court of Law to determine of what character the new duties put upon them were, and how far they were entitled to resent or accept those-duties. A tribunal of that sort is absolutely necessary in order to determine those questions, and to determine the measure of compensation.
  Here, then, you have got a scheme-which enables officers to retire voluntarily, with compensation, and a scheme which enables them to appeal to this independent tribunal if their duties have been altered. I really do not know how much further you could carry that. The pension of the established officer is, of course, fixed by the Superannuation Acts, and there is an arithmetical method of calculation. In the case of non-established officers the position is wholly different. Their duties are very varied, and are sometimes of a comparatively slight character and sometimes of a heavy character. They may sometimes have been in their positions only for a very short time, while in other cases they may have accepted the appointment, temporary in name, as the real business of their lives. Therefore you have in questions of that sort to leave them to some tribunal or another. I am quite willing to discuss this when we come to it, although I really do not think anybody could devise, try as hard as they might, a better kind of tribunal than the one we have set up. A tribunal of some sort has got to judge the infinite variety of questions which will arise when dealing with unestablished and temporary offices. I think these proposals in themselves are fair. There are

  95
  other proposals which I am bound to say Civil servants have not pressed on me with any degree of willingness, and I do not think they expect any further or better terms than the very kind terms—I do not like to use the word favourable—which are to be found contained in this Bill. All sorts of people group together and make proposals, and Amendments are down on the Paper seeking this opportunity to grant altered conditions of service. I say at once I am not in a position to accept any Amendments of that kind. What was good enough for the United Kingdom is good enough for the new Government of Ireland. That is a proposition which ought to commend itself to hon. Members opposite.
  I therefore cannot agree to any Amendment which makes an office pensionable which is not already pensionable. I proceed on the fact that an office is pensionable or it is not. I am not going by this Bill, if I can help it, to assent to any Amendment which will put a person in a pensionable office when he is not in one; nor am I prepared to accept an Amendment which gives absolute pension rights whereas those rights at present are only qualified and conditional. Nor can I assent, although I confess I do this with less positiveness than in the other two cases, though still I am positive, to proposals to add years to officers' service on Account of professional qualifications where those years are not, as the law at present stands, added. I do not think that would be a reasonable thing at all. I do not see why we should offer inducements to officers to retire voluntarily. I do not think that would be right. If they wish to retire, we fully appreciate that they are entitled to do so if they want to. Although we may or we may not sympathise with the motives which prompt them to do so, we recognise there is such a change, such an invasion of their con tracts as entitles them to do so, and for the first time we allow them to go voluntarily before they have attained the full age, and on terms of compensation. I do not think we could do better. Nor can I agree to include in the class of Civil servants people who are not Civil servants, because here is an opportunity which people avail themselves of. People say, "Hullo, here is a Home Rule Bill which provisions for Civil servants. We are just as good as Civil servants. Our offices are very similar to those of Civil servants. "Thus national
  96
  school teachers have come and said that they ought to come in. It is perfectly true that the salaries of national school teachers are paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, but who are their masters? Do they owe allegiance to the Government? Are they Government servants in the sense of belonging to a particular Government office? Who appoints them? They are appointed by the manager's of the schools, the local managers, sometimes Catholic, sometimes Presbyterian, some times Church of Ireland, according to the character of the children or the professions of religion of the children's parents. That determines who they are, and to include National school teachers in Ireland——
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. I wish to know, for the guidance of the Committee, whether, if the Chief Secretary develops this argument with regard to the position of teachers, that will preclude the moving of any Amendments later?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, not quite that. My view was that, as evidently the Government have a plan based on a principle, questions could be put now and answered, and those questions that are not met in the? Debate can be moved separately.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite see the force of j the observations of the hon. Member. I |do not, I am sure, in any way want to rule out anything, or even to seem to prejudge I arguments, but at the tame time I want to show what our scheme is. I will not I pursue that subject except to say that our scheme is to benefit Civil servants, and that we are not prepared to allow other persons who are not Civil servants to claim to come within the benefits we propose. There is the case of Petty Sessions clerks. That was the thin edge of the wedge. They are treated as Civil servants. That was so in former proposals, and we do not go back on it at all Petty Sessions clerks correspond to magistrates' clerks in England, and, although they are appointed no doubt by the local magistrates, they are under the direct control, to a very considerable extent, of a Government office, which national school teachers are not, and therefore we are not in any way interfering with the status which has hitherto been recognised of Petty Sessions clerks, although it is a little bit across the line, I quite agree. The hon. Member for Chelsea asked about model school teachers. Model school teachers, as distinguished from national school teachers,

  97
  are within the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Salisbury made a speech on behalf of the inspectors of schools. School inspectors are established Civil servants, and under the existing law are dealt with as regards salaries and pensions in the same manner as other Civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, not satisfied with their being recognised as Civil servants, put on the Paper an Amendment, which I do not wish to argue now, which goes to strengthen and better their position from what it is at the present moment. That comes within the rule which I have ventured provisionally to lay down, and does not fall within the scheme of the Government. He has an Amendment that if a school teacher who is not a Civil servant is appointed an inspector, he shall be entitled to include his ten or fifteen years' service in the school in the years of service which entitle him to a pension. The hon. Member may have the opportunity of moving that Amendment, but it seems to me to require a good deal of argument, which the hon. Member perhaps may produce, to show that a national teacher— not being a Civil servant—who becomes an Inspector ought to be entitled to clap on the benefits of the years when he was not a Civil servant to the years when he is one.
  That is the sort of attempt which is outside the scope of this Bill, and I think I am bound to press the proposition, and I really think that we have got within this Clause almost every kind of person who can possibly be expected to be included. I have a long list here of people who are existing officers, of people who are and who are not Civil servants. We are only dealing with existing officers, and only those who are Civil servants come within the scope of this Bill and the Schedule to it. I will not read the list now, but if anybody asks me questions I shall be happy to say who are and who are not. Resident magistrates, for example, are Civil servants, and Crown solicitors also, under Clause 33. Then there is the question of solicitors. That is a subject which excites a great deal of interest in my mind, and we shall have the opportunity of talking about it later. There are solicitors of different kinds. If a solicitor is the servant and the sole servant of a Department, and if he does nothing else except the work of that Department, and if he has to do all the work, all the legal work, as it tomes, why then he is a Civil servant within the meaning of this Bill, but a great
  98
  many heads of Departments employ solicitors as and when they require them. It is not strictly speaking right to say that a man has a solicitor. Very often you hear the question, "Who is your solicitor?" as though a solicitor was a person like your wife, to whom you are bound. Nobody has a solicitor in that sense. Everybody is free to choose his own solicitor as and when occasion arises. He may vary his solicitor according to the nature of the work he has got to do. In one kind of trouble he goes to one solicitor, and in another kind of trouble he goes to another. There are plenty of solicitors in Dublin and in Ireland who are employed not permanently, although it may amount to permanent employment, but on the job. They do the work as and when required, and they are paid fees. To include those persons as Civil servants and to say that they were entitled to compensation and to pensions would be extravagance run mad. I am quite sure nobody would suggest anything of the kind. For all that there are some solicitors who are within the scope of this Bill owing to the terms of their employment. I do not wish to preclude arguments which may arise on the Amendments. I wish to say that the Amendments which appear in my name have all been most carefully arrived at, after the fullest consideration with a very-representative Committee, and in that connection I can assure hon. Members, and in fact, many of them know, because what has passed between me and that Committee has not been secret, that those Amendments are of a kind which ought, I think, to go a long way to meet their wishes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask what the estimated extra cost of these Amendments will amount to?
  5.0.P.M
  Mr. BIRRELL: I confess I would sooner not say but a very large sum, tens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties of thousands of pounds. It is a very considerable sum, but it is very difficult to say because, of course, the actual amount depends on whether they continue on. That is one reason why I was most anxious to give generous terms in order to show that those men were not dealing with persons who would seek in any way to take advantage of them, and that if they wanted to go they should go on the fairest possible terms, but that we were anxious they should remain. Between this Bill and the Bill of 1893 there is this very great difference. The Bill of 1893 contemplated that everybody would

  99
  go in the five years. They were all to make fresh bargains, and fresh relations were t J be established. The 1893 scheme differs from the present scheme in that, while the present scheme provides for the continuance of the Civil servants under the Irish Government Bill in general terms, the Bill of 1893 provided for their continuance for five years only after its passing. At the end of that period the existing engagement of all Civil servants throughout Ireland would have come to an abrupt termination. It would have been open to the Irish Government to re-employ them, but it would have been on new terms of service. The termination of the existing terms of service would have led to great inconvenience. I rather hope to glide over the change, and by the terms we offer to existing Civil servants to induce those who want to go, it may be by reason of age or for family reasons or for other reasons, to go on fair and reasonable terms, and to hold out to others the hope of serving out their time under the new Government. Therefore, I do not think it is quite fair to press too hard the comparison between the two Bills. The object of this Bill is that people should continue. We assume that they are willing to continue. I have received many assurances of that kind; but a great deal depends on how things go and how people behave. We secure that if they want to go they can do so; and if they go before they are sixty-five, a calculation is made on the assumption that they would have remained the full period of their time, received increments, and the like. In that way they get, I will not say-extravagantly good terms, because I should not wish to give extravagantly good terms, but honest and straightforward terms; and we hope that the offer of such terms will induce a great many people to remain, or at all events to remain during the five years and see how things go. I hope that my Amendments will be discussed, but even if they are not, lion. Members will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have already been discussed with the persons most actively and zealously interested. I admit that that is not a complete answer to hon. Members opposite, but it is at all events some satisfaction to me that I have been able to discuss this matter with a great body of men, with many of whom I have the honour of personal acquaintance, and for almost all of whom—there are a few exceptions—I have the greatest possible respect.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I venture to hope that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will be received with feelings of gratification in all parts of the House. If there is any Clause in this Bill about which we may hope that there will not be acrimonious party discussion it ought to be this Clause dealing with the treatment of the Civil servants. The importance of this matter it is impossible to exaggerate. A question was asked regarding what these concessions announced by the Government would mean in point of cash. It is not really a question of cash at all; it is a question of something far more important than that. The success of the working of the new Irish Government and the new Irish Parliament will depend almost entirely on those who are responsible for the government of the country having at their back an efficient, contented, loyal Civil Service. Therefore, I think it ought to be the desire of everyone who looks forward to the practical working of this Bill to go a long distance to satisfy perhaps even the fears which they may regard as groundless of certain sections of Civil servant*, and certainly to be very generous in their treatment of every class of the Civil Service. I have never for one moment been animated by the fear that immediately this Bill is passed a large number of Civil servants in Ireland will desire to quit their offices because there is a change of masters. I take exactly" the opposite view. I believe that an overwhelming majority of the Irish Civil Service will be not only willing, but glad and proud to serve under their new masters, namely, a native Government in Ireland. But at the same time, if there are men in the Civil Service who are afraid that they may be forced to retire from that Service for one reason or another, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to meet those fears and to make generous provision for them.
  I have had the great advantage during recent months of meeting representatives of, I think, every class of the Civil Service in Ireland. I have discussed their views most fully, and, as they themselves would be the first to admit, in the most sympathetic spirit. I have discussed the Amendments which they thought ought to be put into the Bill, and I have discussed the Amendments proposed by the Government after they had consulted with the Government. In communicating with the Government on the question of these Amendments I raised no objection what-

  101
  ever to any length the Government might go to meet the views of these men. I admit that the more generous you are in dealing with these Civil servants the further distant may be the day when there will be anything like really large economies in the cost of governing Ireland. We all admit that the cost of governing Ireland at present is excessive, and that eventually there will be retrenchment; but the more generous you are in the treatment of the existing Civil Service the further distant will be the day when that retrenchment can be really large. But I put all these considerations on one side as of little importance compared with the vast importance of having a loyal, contented, and efficient Civil Service to undertake the working of this Bill when it passes into law. Therefore I have risen for the purpose of saying, that I congratulate the Government on the concessions they have made to these men and on the fact that they have met three-fourths or more of the claims put forward by all sections of the Irish Civil Service. I rose also for the purpose of saying that in making these concessions the right hon. Gentleman has had the complete sympathy of my colleagues and myself, who have been anxious to safeguard, even in the moat generous way, the interests of every class of Civil servant in Ireland.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: The Chief Secretary has gone a long way to meet the objections that have been urged in reference to this matter. At the same time, we are bound to call attention to the fact that the unanimity with which all branches of the Civil Service have found it necessary to make such representations to the Government is the best answer to the suggestion that they had nothing to fear under a Home Rule Parliament. I have no desire to make this a party question; on the contrary, I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for having, with the assent of the hon. Member for Waterford, made these concessions. There are, however, other branches of the Civil Service to which reference has not been made. I refer particularly to the Post Office officials. I am not aware whether the Chief Secretary has received a deputation from that important branch of the Civil Service; if he has, I shall be glad if later in the discussion he or the Postmaster-General will give the Committee some assurances in regard to the feelings animating the greater proportion of the Post Office officials in Ireland. We who represent the North of Ireland have had representations
  102
  made to us on behalf of these important and useful public servants, and we shall be glad if they can be included in the con-cessions which have been made. With regard to the national school inspectors, there is considerable discontent in Ireland with recent methods of school inspection, and it is especially necessary that these officials, occupying the unique position that they do, should receive some special concession under the Bill. Possibly there might be an addition of so many years' service, as is not uncommon in Ireland, in order that these men, who occupy a most important and delicate position throughout the land at present, may be permitted to retire on reasonable terms. The only other branch of the service to which I wish to refer is that of the model school teachers. The Chief Secretary is advised that their case is entirely covered by the Government scheme. I am happy to have that assurance. On a strictly non-political basis all sections of the service have made most important representations to the Government. The number of teachers concerned is somewhat limited, but they are doing a most excellent and valuable work in their particular form of education, and I shall be glad if the Chief Secretary later on will tell us what particular Amendment safeguards their position in the future.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to press a little further the question as to the probable cost entailed by these concessions. I am not objecting in the least to the increased provision. I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has gone so far, and I hope that in the course of the Debate we shall be able to induce him to go even further. I do not want to deal with the point acrimoniously. While it is impossible to avoid controversy entirely, I agree that the question of the Civil Service ought to be divorced, as far as possible, from all party discussion. At the same time I must point out that a measure of Home Rule has always been recommended to the consideration of this House on the ground that it would result in economies in the Civil Service in Ireland. It now turns out that before you can get the Home Rule machine into operation you have to spend a considerable amount of money—twenties, thirties, forties, or fifties of thousands of pounds, as the Chief Secretary puts it—in greasing the wheels of the machine to make it work. I say that by way of comment. It is really material that before we finally part with

  103
  this Clause we should get some estimate of the total extra charge likely to be involved in the cost of the Irish services. It has received a new importance since the Bill entered Committee. Since the Bill entered Committee a change has been made in Clause 26, at the instance of the Postmaster-General, by which has been introduced the theory of what I may call the "happy day."
  The happy day depends now—it did not before the Clause came into Committee— on what the cost of the Trish services is. Until the whole revenue in Ireland from Imperial taxes, from Irish taxes, from Irish miscellaneous revenue, and from certain other revenues which they shall draw, is equal to the cost of the Irish services, the happy day does not arrive, and the readjustment is postponed. We now hear from the Chief Secretary that an indefinite sum—it may be £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000—is going to be added by this Amendment to the cost of the Irish services. Since we discussed Clause 26 the happy day is postponed. Therefore I do think it is rather important, before we pass the Clause finally—I do not press for an answer at the moment, because it is a matter which the Chief Secretary may not be in a position to give—he may not have an acquaintance with the financial details of the scheme—to have cleared up. I really think the Postmaster-General might give us the information I ask before we leave the Clause. I hope he will be able to tell us, within some reasonable amount, what the estimated extra cost under this head is likely to be, in order that we may arrive at some conclusion as to the effect upon Clause 26, and the arrival of the redistribution period. There are a number of other matters which will come on on subsequent Amendments, and I do not want to delay the Committee, but I do think this financial question is important.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman told us that certain people are included and others are not included in this. No doubt he has given the statement to the House as the best advice that he has been able to obtain. The point I should like to ask is, who, as a matter for fact, will have to decide this matter if and when this Act becomes law? Will it be the Civil Service Committee—it appears to me it will not be —or the Courts of Law? The point upon which I should like to have simple information from the right hon. Gentleman is, who is going officially to decide this question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. Here is the Act of Parliament and the Schedules connected with it. It gives the Civil servants certain rights, and the question—which has been put to me—arises as to whether aye or no, a clerk in the intermediate education department is or is not a Civil servant. I quite agree that it is not a question for the Civil Service tribunal which is set up, as to what a man's rights may be in regard to superannuation. What are his rights in regard to a pension must be a matter of law—to be decided by a Court of Law. I am asked, how do I know that the list that I have here is a right list? For example, is the Registrar of Lunacy within the Act or not? If I were asked that question I would answer "yes" "Very well," it might be said, "no doubt he is in your reading of the Act, but perhaps in his own reading of the Act he will be found not to be." I know no other mode of determining that question except a Court of Law.
  Mr. CASSEL: Forgive me. My own point was this: there appeared to me a risk in a doubtful ease, and that is why I specifically mentioned it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You have a great long list here and the assumption is that those in it have a right to be there.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: By what words are the officials, like the staff of a training college, protected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Clause 33 I suppose it can only be a condition of their tenure, and the fact that they are entitled to pensions and the like, that entitles them to become Civil servants. The Clause says, "all existing Irish officers."
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I am afraid that is hardly satisfactory, because if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Clause it is "all existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown."
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised—and that is what we want information upon—for these gentlemen are rather uneasy about their position—has he been advised that these words will cover the case of the officials; for example, that 1 have mentioned—the staff of the Training College, Marlborough Street, Dublin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have been so advised, but I will look into the matter.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: The right hon. Gentleman was not present when I put a question to the Prime Minister this afternoon on this very question. He said distinctly that the staff, officers, and teachers of the Marlborough Street Training College are included in this.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL(Mr. Herbert Samuel): Two specific questions have been asked, one by the hon and learned Gentleman the Member for North Down (Mr.Mitchell-Thomson), and the other by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Hugh Barrie). Perhaps I may be allowed to briefly answer the first as to the additional cost thrown upon the Transferred Sum by the changes made in the Bill on the Motion of the Government. The additional cost must necessarily depend upon the extent to which the Irish Civil servant, on the one hand, and the Irish Government on the other, avail themselves of the powers given under this Bill. It is quite impossible to say in advance how many officers are likely to be dissatisfied owing to the fact that they are transferred to the new Government, and are, therefore, likely to retire. It is impossible to form any real estimate of the number. On the other hand, we cannot say how many persons the Irish Government may wish to dispense with on the ground that the number employed is excessive, and that the Civil service should be reduced in cost by abolishing certain offices. No definite estimate can conceivably be made. The Treasury did some time ago give me an outside figure as to what this might conceivably work out at. That figure is £100,000; we had it given in Debate. The right hon. Gentleman expresses surprise, but, as a matter of fact, that figure has been given to the House in the Debates on the Financial Clauses. On the question of the prior charges I mentioned the figure of £280,000,which I said might possibly be increasedbyanother£100,000beyond owing to changes in the Bill giving further optional powers of retirement. It must be clearly understood that I do not for a moment say that the figure of £100,000 is likely in any way to be reached. But suppose all these people were to take advantage of the powers in their hands; it is conceivable that so large a charge might fall to be made. We have no reason to anticipate it will be so great. The hon. Member for North Londonderry asked me what will be the position of the Post Office servants under this Clause. My staff
  106
  are very largely affected by these clauses. They number no fewer than 20,000personsinIreland.Ithas been my duty to go very carefully into these matters, and I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation representing a number of associations of Post Office servants. The whole question was gone into at great length and in much detail. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General also received a deputation from the Irish Post Office clerks— a separate association. They came to my hon. Friend and myself under some misapprehension as to what the Bill really proposed to effect. After the minds were relieved on certain points on which they were aggrieved in their misunderstanding of Clauses and Schedules of the Bill, they went away satisfied, or not dissatisfied, I suppose, because I have received from them no further representations on this subject. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who spoke said he was speaking on their behalf or that they had urged him to make further representations. Under these circumstances, my experience—and doubtless that of other hon. Members leads us to the conclusion that the associations of Post Office servants, who are never slow to express themselves if they consider they have any real grievance, leads me to think that we may take it that their minds have been relieved on all point son which they made representations.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: May I call the attention of the Chief Secretary to one Section?
  Mr. BIRRELL: You mean Sub-section (2)?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Yes it is a very important matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his attention. As I understand—I am not finding any fault with the right hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. BIRRELL: I was going to quote the Sub-section.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman behind me suggested to the Chief Secretary that in the scope and intent of this Bill the Civil Service Committee determines for all time and classifies for all time the position and status of the men referred to. That is why I put it as to what words brought the Civil servants within their meaning in these Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman,

  107
  I suppose, spoke on the spur of the moment his impression of the Bill, and said that no such power was conferred upon this Committee. As a matter of fact, power is conferred in express terms, if I understand and rightly interpret the language. In Clause 36, Sub-section (2), it says:—
  "(2) If any question arises whether an officer is an Irish officer as so defined, or otherwise as to any claim or right of an officer under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, that question shall be determined by the Civil Service Committee."
  Therefore it appears that this Committee is set up and is given complete power to determine, so far as I can see without appeal, finally the question as to the status of any particular gentleman. I do not complain because I think it is desirable that there should be a tribunal to deal with this matter, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the propriety of giving an appeal where the decision is adverse to the status of any-particular gentleman who believes he is in the. Civil Service (Crown) and conies under Clause 33. Where such an individual is claiming to hold such a position and the point is decided unfavourably to him by the Civil Service Committee, I think he ought to have—and so the right hon. Gentleman thought he had under the Bill—power to appeal or power to apply to the Courts of Law. It will be an extraordinary thing if the Committee have power to decide on points which really involves nice questions of law. I do not object that in all other matters of fact, the amount of the pension and so on, should be dealt with by that Committee, but I think in regard to questions of status there should be a further consideration.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. My conscience pricked me almost immediately I had spoken. What I had in my mind was Clause 34, Sub-section (4):—
  "(4) The determination of the Civil Service Committee on any claim or question which is to be determined by them under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers shall be final and conclusive."
  What I had in my mind was that the duties of this Committee would be confined to
  108
  determining questions which would arise as to the amount of the pension and so on. For the moment I overlooked—although I had it on my notes at one time—Subsection (2) referred to: —
  "If any question arises whether an officer is an Irish officer as so defined—"
  and so on. That is the sort of thing that the Treasury in England are doing every day, determining as to whether or not any person has the position of a Civil servant which entitles him to claim compensation or the like. What we are now considering is a written Constitution, and, supposing a Committee determined that a man was outside altogether and had no rights, although dismissed, I agree that in justice he should be able to go to a tribunal better cognisant of the facts, where the matter could be argued out at greater length.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that the phrase, "existing Irish officers," covers the case of clerks to grand juries appointed before 1877, who are not entitled to superannuation now?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I confess I am a little frightened by the date, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to look into the matter I will do so, but I cannot give a specific answer at the moment.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: The provision to which I referred is Section 16 of the Act of 1877.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, "put, and agreed to.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Crown" ["all existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown "], to insert the words "including solicitors to Government. Departments."
  There is an exact precedent, I think, for this Amendment in the Local Government Act of 1898. Before the passing of that Act the solicitors, who afterwards did the business of the county councils, were solicitors to the grand juries, who were appointed by a resolution of the grand jury, and whose employment could, of course, be discontinued by the grand jury at any time. As a matter of practice, they were usually continued by the grand juries for life or for very long periods of time. When the Local Government Act of

  109
  1898 was passed, which transferred the business of the counties from the grand juries to the county councils, the 115th Section of that Act provided for compensation in case of dismissal. It was recognised that it was practically a permanent office, and that the holder should be transferred to his new masters, and that was done in order to protect the officials of the grand jury from being dismissed for any unjust cause. The position of solicitor to any Government Departments, such as the Solicitor to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, the solicitor to the Congested Districts Board, to the Local Government Board, and various other Government Departments, are in positions exactly analogous to the position of solicitors to grand juries before the Local Government Act was passed. The rights of solicitors to grand juries were protected by that Act, and it was a very necessary protection, as was shown in the case of the solicitor of the Crown and Peace for the county of Sligo. He was dismissed from his office by that county council for no other reason alleged at the time than that he instructed counsel for the Crown in a prosecution under the Crimes Act of 1887, and it was held that he was entitled under the Local Government Act to compensation, and I think the result was that every county solicitor felt very much more secure after that that they would not be dismissed for such causes. The principle that a man is entitled to get compensation in such cases leads to the fact that they are not displaced from their office. The case I have mentioned, and I daresay there may be others, establish the fact that there was no prospect of their being displaced by the powers under which they are at present employed.
  Although it may be said in connection with the Amendment I have moved that they are no more solicitors to Government Departments than a solicitor to private individuals, still, such appointments have been looked upon as positions held during good behaviour, and unless some good cause for being removed can be shown they would not be interfered with. I do not know how many there may be, but some solicitors have so acted for a great deal more time than since I went to the Bar. They are not a large class, but I think it is perfectly plain if solicitors were entitled to compensation in such cases there would be much less desire on the part of the new authority to displace them in favour of
  110
  appointees of their own. I cannot see that there is much difference in the case of those gentlemen from that of the position of Crown Solicitors, whom the Chief Secretary has said are protected by the Section. A Crown Solicitor, after all, is only appointed at the will of the Attorney-General and may be dismissed by the Attorney-General any time he likes, but it is recognised always that apart from misconduct or some such ground the appointment lasts as long as a man discharges his duties. The case of the solicitor in Sligo is not the only case of harsh dismissal that followed upon the Local Government Act. The solicitors to district councils were given no protection, and people were dismissed for collateral reasons, such, for instance, as taking the unpopular side in politics. In Gal way, Mr. Blake, a solicitor well known, was dismissed because he acted as Crown Solicitor, and his successor, a gentleman named Clougherty, was dismissed because he acted as conducting agent for Mr. Martin Morris when he was elected for Galway. I do not think people ought to be dismissed from positions of that kind, which perhaps their fathers before them held, or that they should be liable to dismissal if this Bill passes. This is a small Amendment which cannot affect the rights of more than five or six people, and I think it might very-well be agreed to, so that these solicitors might be protected as well as Crown Solicitors.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I listened with interest and with some degree of alarm to the picture presented by the hon. and learned Member, which I am afraid would make a kind of hereditary office passing from generation to generation, handing down from father to son in a sort of strict tail-male the right of appearing in particular offices. That illustrates the difficulty there is in assenting to Amendments of this sort including solicitors to Departments, generally without any regard whatsoever to the terms of their employment. It may very well be, and is the case, in Ireland, for instance, in the Inland Revenue and Land Commission, that the solicitor employed is a Civil servant, and has rights as such having regard to the nature and terms of the bargain made with him, and does the work of a Civil servant. But the Amendment proposed by the lion, and learned Gentleman would include solicitors who do the work of a Department without any regard to the terms of their employment. I know a number of solicitors in Ireland who

  111
  are employed by Departments. The head of the Department knows who the solicitors are and he chooses them, and they are responsible to him and he pays their bill of costs. I suppose their bills are taxed in the right way, and he is free if he chooses to change the solicitors just as anybody in this House is free to change his solicitor or to have as many solicitors as he chooses. I think, therefore, we must refuse to accept the Amendment of the lion, and learned Gentleman upon that ground, not that there may not be solicitors who are Civil servants, but there is nothing in the fact that a man did the business of the Crown or that his father or grandfather before him did the business, to entitle him to a pension or to compensation if for any reason or other the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, for example, wants to go to another solicitor. Really this would be to give security of tenure, which I think would excite, I will not say ridicule, but alarm, and I think we must confine ourselves to the language of the terms or bargain between Government Departments and their solicitors. It may be that there are kept solicitors, not using the word in any offensive sense, who belong to the Department, and do the Department's work, and who perhaps do no other work, and who may on dismissal from such employment perhaps be injured or made less likely to pursue their practice. But there are plenty of other solicitors amongst the best firms in Ireland who regard the Departments as their clients and not their masters, and therefore I think to put in Amendments such as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, that all solicitors to Government Departments should be pensioned and not dismissed, except for grave causes, would be most improper.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I think the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has given for not accepting the Amendment are on the face of them good. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment is not definite enough, and that it does not say upon its face clearly what is intended. But that is what the whole Bill does. It is almost impossible to tell from the context of the Bill what it really means or what it is really going to do, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman "would only be too pleased to accept an indefinite Amend-
  112
  ment of this sort, which would enable him to say he was going to look after the lot of certain people, but which did not commit him to any particular line of action. I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is a little vague, because I think it would include, as the right hon. Gentleman said, any solicitor. I sympathise with my hon. and learned Friend in endeavouring to obtain better compensation for those solicitors. I will not say, as the right hon. Gentleman did, "kept" solicitors, but those solicitors who are devoting the whole of their time or part of their time to a Government Department. Those people ought to be compensated, but I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that any solicitor who is employed by a Government Department and who is not employed by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway, when they come into power, should not be entitled to come forward and claim compensation. I do not think that is the meaning of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, and I suggest to him that he should alter his Amendment so as to achieve what his real object is, in which case I should be glad to support him.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: We cannot hear.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather glad that the hon. Gentleman feels it is a grievance not to hear what I was saying. I was suggesting to my hon. and learned Friend that he should alter his Amendment to include solicitors who are really servants of Government Departments.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That would not be necessary, because they are already in.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman made that clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did.''] No, I do not think so. I followed with great attention the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, because for the first time for many years I agreed with his view. I am quite certain he did not say that. If the right hon. Gentleman is quite certain that they are covered by the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot support this Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Crown" ["all existing Irish officers in the service of the Crown"], to insert the words "(including all principal teachers in national schools in Ireland)."

  113
  I must own I am not very strongly encouraged in moving this Amendment by the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. At the same time, I hope I may be able to adduce some arguments in favour of the Amendment which I have been asked to move which will induce the right hon. Gentleman to take a different view. I was very much encouraged to move this Amendment by the answer of the Prime Minister, in which he stated that the staff of the Marlborough Street Training College would be deemed to be an Irish service. I do not see that any very strong line of demarcation can be drawn between the teachers in such institutions and those of the national schools in Ireland. If I am to secure the support of the Government to this Amendment, I know it is necessary that I should adduce some specific arguments in favour of including the teachers in the national schools of Ireland amongst those who ought to enjoy the privilege of having pensions in the Civil Service. These arguments are generally included under two headings: One is that the conditions of their service may be fundamentally altered, and the other that the duties imposed upon them may be very much greater than or very different from those they are at present called upon to perform. I believe there is some ground for fearing that, under the altered conditions which must be set up by this Bill, and by the transfer of these duties to the Irish Parliament, the teachers will not enjoy the same security of tenure of office which they enjoy at the present time, and, if that be so, T think it will be agreed that there is some reason at any rate for the Amendment. I am moving.
  This fear on the part of the national teachers is not altogether groundless, but at the same time it does not arise from any belief that there will be a desire on the part of the Irish Parliament, or on the part of the Irish Executive to lessen the expenditure at present incurred upon elementary education. On the contrary, I believe there is a general feeling that the expenditure on education in the future under an Irish Parliament must be increased rather than decreased. I cannot help thinking that real ground for the fear that is felt is the belief that the entire system under which these teachers are at present appointed will be fundamentally changed. The Chief Secretary began by stating what the conditions are. Those conditions, I assume, are not generally known
  114
  to the Members of this House. So far as L have been able to ascertain, there are no local authorities in Ireland whose funds are employed in defraying the cost of teachers in elementary schools, nor are the teachers appointed by any education committee attached to any local authority. These teachers are really appointed out of funds provided by this Parliament, and to that extent certainly their position is somewhat analogous to that of ordinary Civil servants. They are appointed by managers in charge of the schools, and these managers are appointed by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, who are themselves responsible to the Chief Secretary for the discharge of their duties to this Parliament. It is on account of the difference between the conditions applying to the teachers in Ireland and in this country that I urge that they may be considered as being included in the category of Civil servants. The manager of an Irish school is generally a Roman Catholic priest, a Protestant clergyman, or a Nonconformist minister. [HON. Mr. MEMBER: "No."]
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are no Nonconformist ministers in Ireland.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Presbyterian.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: As a rule this gentleman is responsible for controlling the schools and for the appointment of the teachers, and he invariably appoints teachers of the same denomination as himself. The Committee will therefore see that the whole system of elementary education in Ireland is at present entirely-denominational. I agree that these teachers may be dismissed by three months' notice, but, at the same time, so long as they discharge their duties satisfactorily their position is fairly secure. It must not be supposed for a moment that under an Irish Parliament this state of things is likely to be continued. I believe that one of the first Acts of an Irish Parliament would be to introduce fundamental changes in the conditions under which the teachers in the national schools are appointed and under which they hold office. Following the example of what is the case in England and in Scotland, and latterly in Wales, we may assume that a Department or Board of Education will be constituted under the Irish Parliament with a Cabinet Minister in charge, and a whole staff of officials responsible to the Irish Parliament, and they will introduce a state of things entirely different from that

  115
  which prevails at the present time. Some ten or eleven years ago we were very desirous that there should be a Board of Education in this country responsible for all departments of instruction, but experience has shown us that all the results we expected have not been entirely realised. At any rate, it will be admitted that this is an entirely new departure, and from what we know of newly appointed Boards, we may assume that the energy and zeal of the officials who may be appointed to a newly constituted Board of Education will induce them to make some fundamental changes in the conditions under which the teachers are at present appointed, and that they will endeavour, AS education boards generally do, to enforce their own particular views upon the teachers in the various schools.
  Whatever economies may result from Home Rule—and we are assured that economies will be effected—I do not anticipate for one moment that any such economies can be effected in the region of national education. In many places in Ireland the school buildings are wholly unsuitable for their purpose. The heating, ventilation, and sanitation are most defective, and the school equipment, including furniture and the necessary appliances for teaching, is wholly insufficient. Considerable expenditure, therefore, must be incurred if elementary education in Ireland is to be put upon a proper basis. Moreover, the salaries of the teachers are very much lower than they ought to be. I think I am right in saying that the salary of a male teacher commences at £63 per annum, and at scarcely ever reaches the maximum. The reports of the inspectors go to show that the teachers in the national schools of Ireland are hard-wrorking, zealous, and fairly competent, although very few of them are properly trained, and generally they are endeavouring under adverse conditions to discharge their duties. I think the teachers are a body who ought to be free altogether from anxiety as to their future, and they ought to receive the sympathetic consideration of this House. I do not think any teacher can discharge his duties satisfactorily who works under any anxiety as regards his future. There is another consideration which must be borne in mind, and it is that although the majority of the teachers in the national schools are Roman Catholics, there is a very considerable minority of teachers of other creeds, and it is possible that an Irish Parliament, which, the Chief Secretary has already
  116
  stated, will consist almost exclusively of Roman Catholics, might differentiate between Roman Catholics and other teachers. [HON, MEMBEKS: "No."] At any rate, that is conceivably possible, although personally I do not believe for one moment that it would be the case. I feel sure that an Irish Parliament would not by any Act show or allow to be shown any want of tolerance for those professing other religious creeds. I am however by no means so certain that some of the teachers might not be seriously prejudiced as regards their position by a want of sympathy with Irish Nationalist sentiment, and that a National Parliament might legitimately so far as their own ideas are concerned use the powers they possess to enforce through the teachers Nationalist views on school children. I do not wish to be understood to say that they will be wrong in doing that because once set up an Irish Nationalist Parliament——
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is now going into a general discussion and he must confine his remarks to the question of superannuation.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I am endeavouring to show what would happen if these teachers are displaced, but I will not pursue that argument any further. I think it will be readily admitted that one of the surest means of encouraging Nationalist sympathy would be by making Irish the national language of the country, and by requiring all teaching in Irish schools to be conducted through the medium of the Irish language. If that were done, many teachers at present engaged would be displaced by teachers capable of carrying on the instruction in the Irish language. Very strong efforts are now being made, possibly in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, in the direction of enforcing Irish as subject of instruction in all Irish national schools. I came across this statement in a very interesting report on Irish national schools, written by Mr. Mangan, in accordance, I should say, with instructions received from the National Education Commission:—
  "To those who consider what the position of Irish Was, until quite recently, in national schools, the position it now occupies in them must appear respectable in comparison. And so it is."
  That evidently shows there has been a great advance made recently in the teaching of Irish in the national schools. The report shows very clearly the efforts that

  117
  are now being made to encourage this instruction, but I should point out that Irish is at the present moment an extra subject not necessarily taught by the ordinary school teacher; it may be taught by other teachers who are brought into the schools for the purpose, and it is not an obligatory subject throughout all the standards. The report on a summary of the evidence of several inspectors says:—
  "On the whole, therefore, the teaching of Irish as an optional subject seems to be of no benefit to the education of the children, and of no material help to the language or its cause."
  I cannot help thinking the very next step that would be taken under an Irish Parliament with regard to national education would be to make Irish the compulsory medium through which all other subjects would be taught, and, if Irish were made obligatory in all the schools as there is a strong tendency, many of the existing teachers unable to teach Irish might find it very difficult to maintain their positions, in those schools. I should point out there are many parents at the present time besides teachers who strongly object to the teaching of Irish.
  The CHAIRMAN: It would be quite out of order to go into the merits of that question now. The only question that arises here is whether "principal teachers in national schools" can be properly included under "Irish officers" in this Clause.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I am endeavouring to point out that one of the reasons for including teachers under "Irish officers" is that they hold their positions under this Parliament, and that their whole position is likely to be changed by the setting up of an Irish Parliament in Dublin. If such a Parliament is set up, then the conditions tinder which they at present hold their position as teachers might be considerably changed by their being required to make Irish the medium of their instruction to the children. If that were so, it certainly seems to me those teachers who might desire to resign their position should receive compensation. I was endeavouring to show that the tendency at the present time was in that direction, and that it would very likely be increased under an Irish Parliament. Anyone who reads this report and the remarks of the inspectors addressed to the Commissioners will see the very strong encouragement that is now being given to the Irish language. One inspector, in fact, says:—
  "There appears to be very little local interest in the language revival."
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really respect my ruling in this matter. He is entitled, of course, to refer to the fact, but to go into the merits of the question would obviously be quite another matter, and he must not go into arguments of that kind.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I think I have said sufficient to indicate that under an Irish Home Rule Parliament the teachers in national schools might find it difficult to carry out the requirements of any Irish Education Board that might be set up in Dublin. The qualifications which such a Board might require of teachers might, be altogether different from those required at present, and I think a case has distinctly been made out for including the teachers in these national schools among those competent and qualified to receive pensions.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member proposes that all principal teachers in Ireland, many thousands in number, should become Civil servants. I do not know quite what the effect of that would be. They would continue to hold their offices upon the same tenure, upon the same terms and conditions, as heretofore. Of course; they are appointed by the local managers, and they would still remain liable to dismissal by them.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: No. Look at Subsection (1) in your own Bill. These gentlemen in future would be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I really did not think the Amendment would go so far as that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: It must.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Is the proposal, then, that all the teachers in Ireland should be removable by the Lord Lieutenant, as representing the Irish Government?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I suppose so.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Then I should object to it strongly on those grounds. This is a Debate which really seems to me to stagger humanity. The proposal is that all the teachers in Ireland should become Civil servants and should be dismissible by the Lord Lieutenant acting in that respect at the bidding of the Irish Prime Minister. I confess I find it rather difficult to believe that 13,000 teachers who now, under a purely denominational system, carry on the work of education in Ireland, who are appointed by their local managers, and who are dismissed by them whenever they do

  119
  not give satisfaction, should by the operation of this Amendment become Civil servants and be dismissible by the Irish Lord Lieutenant, as representing the Irish Cabinet.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of a Board of Education being established under the Irish Parliament and these managers having no longer the powers they now possess? That is my supposition.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He has pursued the subject a little bit further than most hon. Members, and he contemplates the course of action the Irish Government will take with regard to the very vexed question of education. Having had some experience of trying to handle that question here in the House of Commons and in this country, I do not feel at all in any position to prognosticate as to the course any Irish Government would take with regard to the long-established system of education which works in Ireland. All I am concerned with is this actual Amendment, and I say it is perfectly impossible. These persons are not Civil servants, and they cannot be. They are appointed by local managers. It is quite true the money which pays them their salaries is voted by this House, but their masters are the local managers, and it is quite out of the question that this Parliament, without waiting for an Irish Parliament, should, while seeking to establish a Constitution for Ireland, upset and destroy the present tenure of teachers, the present arrangement in every village and town in Ireland, and the whole system of education in Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell), in the Bill in 1893, moved the Amendment which has now been moved by the hon. Member for the University of London. He proposed that all principal teachers should be included in the provision regarding Civil servants, and my right hon. Friend (Lord Morley), who was then in my place, in refusing the Amendment, said:—
  "The answer is a simple one, and I think a good one. The teachers are appointed by the local managers, and they are dismissible by them at three months' notice. They are in no sense in the public service. The position of model teachers is different. They are appointed by the National Commissioner, and are dismissible by the Lord Lieutenant."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Mr. Russell! Is he here?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. It seems to me therefore impossible to give 13,000 teachers the rank and status of Civil servants simply because the hon. Member anticipates that some time hereafter there may be established in Ireland, as I daresay there may be, a Board of Education which will take upon itself, as I hope it may have the courage to do, the difficult and thorny task of determining who are to appoint teachers to schools. I was asked to give some sort of an estimate of what the concessions we have already made upon this Bill would amount to. I rather shied at giving such an estimate, and I think I was right. All I can say is it will be a large and substantial sum, and it would be quite impossible for me or the Treasury or anybody else to estimate it with accuracy. But what would it be if these 13,000 teachers were also added to the pension list? I think it would be most staggering. We are trying to establish a pension fund for teachers, and we hope there will be such a fund in Ireland as well as in this country, but to place them upon the Irish Government now would really be an act of futility. It would be quite impossible for the reasons I have already staled. They are not Civil servants, they are not changing masters, they still remain responsible to the persons who appoint them, and to add them under this Clause would be absolutely out of the question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The way in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this Amendment shows how loosely he has studied the subject. He first said he could not accept the Amendment at all, because he was under the impression that if these teachers were included in this Clause they would still remain liable to be dismissed by the managers. That was his impression of his own Bill, which, however, says the very reverse, for it provides that when they are included this class will become dismissible by the Lord Lieutenant. Having that fact pointed out to him, the right hon. Gentleman again says: "I cannot entertain the suggestion," and he puts forward as a reason the fact that the power of dismissal will have passed from the managers to the Lord Lieutenant. I want to say a word or two on behalf of these teachers. The majority of them are men who are not at all in sympathy with my way of thinking on most Irish questions. I think those of us who come from Ireland, on all sides, will recognise that they are men who discharge their duties very faithfully and very well under very

  121
  difficult and arduous conditions, and perhaps the most arduous feature in connection with their class has been this fact, that they have been at the mercy of their managers. We all know—and I am not now speaking of one particular creed or class in Ireland—that this power of dismissal, vested in the hands of managers, has been in some eases exercised in a very arbitrary way indeed. I would have thought myself that one of the advantages gained by including these gentlemen in this Clause, would be that for the future, so far as regards existing principal teachers, the power of dismissal will be transferred to the hands of the Lord Lieutenant who would act, I presume, on the advice of the Irish Executive or of the Irish Parliament.
  It was a very remarkable extract indeed that the right hon. Gentleman gave us from the Debates of 1893. The present Lord Morley took that very point. He said, "We have included the model teachers, because the power of dismissing them is vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and therefore there is no objection to classifying them as Civil servants." Surely that is a tremendous argument in favour of this Amendment. If the Amendment is accepted these teachers will fall into line with the model teachers, and, like the model teachers, will be dismissible by the Lord Lieutenant. The very condition that Lord Morley said was wanting in their case would then be supplied. In so far as the Debate of 1893 assists at all, it shows even that such a convinced Home Ruler as the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell) was of opinion that they required some protection. Indeed, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Vice-President moved this Amendment in 1893. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the very reason given for refusing this Amendment on that occasion has no force or effect now owing to the proviso in this Clause that all persons included in this Section are in the future to be removable by the Lord Lieutenant. It seems to me that that covers the point. The right hon. Gentleman put a very proper point in reference to the great number of these men. He said they were a very large class, and that is no doubt the case, but it is also true that those who will get the benefit of this Section will not be very numerous. They will be only those who are removed. I believe there
  122
  are something like 13,000 of these people, but this Amendment would only afford protection in the isolated cases in which the arbitrary power of dismissal is exercised. While I have no desire to controvert the ruling of the Chairman and I think my hon. Friend when dealing with this particular point went rather too much into detail—I would suggest it is important, as bearing on this question, that, for reasons that may seem to them to be wise and prudent, the Irish House of Commons will very likely be very anxious to insist upon the teaching of Irish being made compulsory in the schools, and some of these teachers may either object to it or be incompetent to so teach, and it would be extremely hard if, under such circumstances, they should lose their positions. Remember that these teachers would have no other resources. They are not men who can turn to anything else. There is no other opening for them in Ireland. Man trained as national school teachers in Ireland are not likely, after years of such training, to be able to turn to anything else. They are not likely to be able to apply their hands or their brains to any other pursuit or industry. Therefore, I think it is important, in the interests of these men, who are very nervous about their position, that this security should be given them. After all, I do not think it will mean much.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You take away the power of dismissal.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: It would be handed over in just the same way as it was done in the case of the model school teachers, who can be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant. What harm can there be in transferring from the manager, who in the past in many cases have exercised it arbitrarily and unjustly, this power of dismissal to the Lord Lieutenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: You thereby raise the whole education question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is uneasy about it, because he is conscious that he was going to put forward an argument in exactly the opposite direction. He was going to put it to the Committee that, because these men remain removable by the managers, therefore they ought not to be made Civil servants, but with his usual agility and quickness of perception, when he realised the exact position, he at once turned his argument round the other way, and he says,

  123
  "We cannot do this, because it will take the power of dismissal out of the hands of the managers." It was hardly quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman to take that line of argument. I particularly put it to him: You are confronted by the view taken by Lord Morley in 1893, where he pointed out that the distinction between these men and the model teachers was that in the one case the power of dismissal was in the managers and in the other in the Lord Lieutenant. It was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that that distinction was covered by his own Bill, because it provides that all classes brought within this Clause are to be deemed to be Irish officers for the purpose of the Clause, and once they are included in this Section they are only to be removable after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant. I think, in the interest of the teachers themselves, in the interest of primary education in Ireland, it would be no harm if the power of dismissal, as distinct from the power of appointment and control while in the service, where transferred from the managers to the Lord Lieutenant. But, apart from that question, I think that, in the interests of these men, who have deserved well of their country, and who are an underpaid and very hard-working body, I think, in common fairness to them, they are just as much entitled, if not more so, to the protection of this Clause than any of the other classes who may be, in a more technical sense, Civil servants by reason of the fact that they are dismissible by the Crown.
  Captain CRAIG: I think the Chief Secretary, in his reading of the Amendment and the effect it will have, did not give the Committee all the information he could have done on such an important subject. I personally know no class in Ireland that deserves more consideration from the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee, and indeed, from this House than the principal teachers in our National schools in Ireland, and no class more deserves special attention at this particular time. These men, through long and arduous years, have worked themselves up to the position of principal teachers in our National schools. The right hon. Gentle-roan went too far when he said that the whole matter turned really on the question of the power of dismissal by the managers. After all, if you read the Clause through you will see that the Clause, if amended
  124
  according to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, will secure to the principal teachers in Ireland that they should continue—
  "to hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration and superannuation) as theretofore, and shall be liable to perform the same duties as theretofore, or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous, and while performing the same or analogous duties shall receive not less remuneration than they would have received if this Act had not passed."
  The result of the Amendment is that the principal teachers in our National schools shall not be any better off than now, and that, under no circumstances, should they be worse off under the Act than if the Act had never become law at all. That, I submit, is a fair and reasonable request to make on behalf of these deserving servants. The Amendment only refers to those who are principal teachers at the present moment. It does not go into the future. It does not say that all principal teachers in the future shall be appointed on a certain basis, but it says that the present principal teachers, who have worked themselves up into that position, shall continue under no less onerous terms than those under which they are at present serving. If this Amendment is not accepted—and I presume it is impossible, judging from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, for the Government to consider it—undoubtedly the inference will be on the part of those who hold the position of principal teachers in the Irish National schools that there is some expectation on the part of the Government that, under Home Rule, these servants of Ireland will suffer in some way. The Chief Secretary shakes his head, but we ask why, unless there is something at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, he cannot accept it? He tells us he cannot accept the Amendment for certain reasons. But when we point out that those reasons are already met, then he complains that it raises the whole question of the power of dismissal by managers, which he says, is essential, to carry on the work of the Commissioners of National Education. Nothing could be further from the fact. If the managers of Irish National schools desire to get rid of the teacher, all this Amendment says is that if, in future, they want to

  125
  get rid of a teacher that teacher shall not have any worse treatment than if he had been dismissed before the Bill became law. That is all there is in that. It is not for a moment supposed that the Lord Lieutenant or any other high Government official in this House could possibly keep track of the doings of all the principal national school teachers of Ireland. He could only do what the right hon. Gentleman does at the present moment, namely, consult the Commissioners, and the Commissioners would consult the managers, and affairs would be carried on as if no change had been made at all. Surely it it exaggerating tenfold for the right hon. Gentleman to suddenly suggest, as his only excuse for not accepting the Amendment, that in future whoever occupies the right hon. Gentleman's high position would have to keep in touch with the whole of the managerial details of the national schools. If that is the only argument against the Amendment, the Committee will consider that the Amendment ought to be accepted. Let us look at it from another point of view. The Commissioners of National Education tried hard to see him, and I believe the Prime Minister also, before the Bill was introduced.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, that is a mistake.
  Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman refused to receive the deputation.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Captain CRAIG: At any rate he did not receive a deputation which the Commissioners intended to send to London in order to put before him some of these very problems. What was the result of the non-appearance of the deputation at the Irish Office in London? That the Commissioners themselves took their courage in. both hands and made public what the state of the funds in regard to national education would probably be after five years of Home Rule. The Commissioners are the only persons, excepting, perhaps, the Treasury, who are able to judge of this enormous problem, and they showed that inside five years there would be no hope of any further extension in Ireland of those principles which are now going ahead so fast in England and Scotland in regard to better primary education because the funds would not be available. They showed that a sum of about £350,000 would be required at the end of five years. If that be the case, how can these principal teachers look forward to
  126
  fair treatment under this Bill, unless an Amendment of this sort is embodied in the Clause. It is a hopeless outlook for those men and women who have worked their way to the front in educational matters in Ireland when, on the one hand, they have no promise of protection from the Chief Secretary at the present moment, and the only financial authority in Ireland able to judge in the matter say that the financial outlook is deplorable. Whether the words of the-Amendment carry out the intention of my hon. Friend is a mere quibble. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that justice requires some protection to be provided for the principal teachers in Ireland, of course we must give up all hope.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have-done that already.
  Captain CRAIG: If, on the other hand, it is merely a matter of verbal expression, surely the right hon. Gentleman could hold out some hope that at a future stage of the Bill he would be able to give these principal teachers better terms and safeguard them. Does anyone deny that in many ways these men are more entitled to be treated as Civil servants than many of the Civil servants who have only recently joined the services in Ireland? We know of men who have given their whole lifetime to training the youth of our country. On the other hand, we have a young Civil service clerk who has come across front England or from Scotland—I am not objecting to that at all—and who immediately gets the protection of Clause 33 for his whole future, and is absolutely assured that whatever happens he, as a Civil servant, will receive protection during his term of service, and afterwards the pension which is due to him. Surely, as against that young clerk, it is only fair that the Committee should take into consideration the long and arduous career which the principal teachers have gone through in order to arrive at that present stage. We ought also to remember that they labour under grave disabilities at the present moment. They are not able to come forward and voice their own requests. They are forbidden many of the rights and privileges which attach to English and Scottish elementary teachers. They have no right to interfere in any way with elections or to take part in public meetings. Therefore their grievances are not so well known in this county as those of their English and Scottish brethren. They are practically voiceless in this matter. If the

  127
  Government refuse to recognise their case, the Committee ought at once to throw over the right hon. Gentleman and pass the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must feel that he has done himself—I say nothing about the Amendment—rather less than justice in the argument which he addressed to the Committee a few minutes ago. That argument had a substantial part and a technical part. The substantial part was that the Amendment, or any Amendment carrying out the same object, would be extremely expensive. I do not know, and I am quite unable to estimate how expensive it would be, but I recollect that earlier this afternoon the Leader of the Irish party below the Gangway made an eloquent speech in favour of what in earlier days he used to call "The Castle," explaining, in an admirable spirit, that he regarded a contented Civil Service as absolutely necessary to the initial stages of the new Home Rule experiment, and that, although it must throw some additional cost upon the new Irish Parliament, he thought that money so expended would be well expended in the interests both of justice and of the Home Rule cause which he has at heart. I think, therefore, if I may say so, that the Leader of the Irish party has answered the substantial part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which was the part based upon the cost. I put that, therefore, on one side, and I come to the technical part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He said, "You cannot treat these people and you ought not to treat these people as Civil servants, because in fact they are not Civil servants. They are not the servants of the State; they are the servants of the managers. The managers appoint them, and the managers can, at two months' notice, send them about their business. How on earth is it either reasonable or logical to suggest that they ought to have anything in the nature of Civil Service treatment?" I think that argument, to an audience unacquainted with the peculiarities of the Irish educational system, is utterly and hopelessly misleading. The truth is that the Irish educational system is open to criticism from many points of view, but it has undoubtedly solved, in a country where religious differences are deeper than anywhere else, where divisions based upon religion between the different sections of
  128
  the community are sharper than anywhere else, that Irish system, illogical and, in some respects, defective as it is, has undoubtedly been able, through all these years in which Ireland has been the very centre of controversy in this Parliament, to avoid some of the most dangerous pitfalls
  Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was quite aware that I should so far carry the right hon. Gentleman, and everybody who knows anything about Ireland, entirely with me. It has done that by being essentially illogical. I believe it is described as an undenominational system of education. Everybody who knows how it works is perfectly aware that it is the most strictly denominational system of education the world has ever seen. The reason it has worked well is that the Commissioners so arrange with the managers in a district as to represent the feelings of the district, and the man agers in the district appoint, no doubt on this three months' tenure——
  Mr. BIRRELL: And dismiss.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The teacher who suits the religious complexion of the district, as well as ministering so far as he can to their educational needs. The right hon. Gentleman says these men are the servants of the managers and not the servants of the State, or even of the Commissioners. Not only is this Irish system illogical, because, while calling itself undenominational, it is purely denominational from top to bottom, but it is also illogical because it calls these people the servants of the managers, although we know that all their salaries are paid by Vote in this House. It is the Chief Secretary in this House who has to answer year by year for the actions of the Commissioners, who, in their turn, have a control over the managers, who, in their turn, have a control over the teachers. It is absolutely technically accurate to say that these men are not servants of the State, but substantially nothing can be further from the truth. They carry out a great national work, not at the local expense, as is the case of England, nor at the expense of the denomination, as is often the case in England, but wholly and solely at the expense of the Imperial taxpayers. And the man who is to answer for the whole of this system is not the locality, not the county council, not the school board, as it

  129
  is in Scotland, but it is the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
  This system, which has worked, in spite of all religious difficulties, in Ireland with extraordinary smoothness so far as religious controversy is concerned, although perhaps not always with satisfactory results so far as secular education is concerned—this system, with all its defects and all its want of logic, is going to be handed over entirely to the new Irish Government. I really do not see, if you are, going to have a new Irish Government, what else you could do. If you are not going to allow them to control their own education you make the Bill even more absurd than I think it is at present. They have got to survey this illogical, impractical system, from top to bottom. I am not one of those who wish to suppose that any part of Ireland is animated by religious bigotry. I do not see why we should suppose that. But it is the fact that it is owing to this House having established this singular and misnamed system that we have avoided the importation of religious difficulties into the education question of Ireland. And is it not almost certain that an Irish Government, if it were to take in hand, from the secular point of view, the reconstruction of this whole system from top to bottom, would come face to face, whether it liked it or not, with great denominational difficulties which, as no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, yon easily escape in England and you could never escape in Ireland? If you have an assembly like the new assembly you are going to call into existence in Dublin dealing from top to bottom with educational questions on an entirely new-basis, however honestly and sincerely it may desire not to affect any private interest or injuriously affect any denominational interest, do not tell us it is possible for them not, to interfere with the system on which the continued employment of a great many of these men depends!
  As if the inherent difficulties of the situation were not enough owing to religious differences, as if the tenure of these men was not made insecure by the kind of policy—I think it cannot be avoided— which you have in Ireland, you have the additional difficulty of the language question. The last thing I mean to touch upon is the merits of the language question. It would not only be out of order, according to your, as I thought, absolutely correct ruling, but it would be quite irrelevant to the merits
  130
  of the Amendment. But the fact of the language controversy in Ireland has, and must have, the profoundest effect upon the future of these people—and they must be, I should think, a large majority of the people, at any rate a very large proportion of them—who are not by their own training and their own education capable of dealing with the Irish language. At present no teacher in Ireland is required to teach Irish. Supposing the new Irish Parliament says, "We think Irish ought to be taught in every school as far as possible; we hold that the only effective teaching given in the school is the teaching given by the teacher of the school"—an argument with which the right hon. Gentleman is very familiar, and we are all very familiar, in connection with religious teaching in our controversies in this country. A large number of persons more qualified than I am to speak from personal experience of the work in schools will tell you that any teaching not done by the teacher, or under the immediate superintendence of the teacher, largely suffers thereby. Is it not reasonable to suppose that that view will be pressed forward in the Irish Parliament? If it is, and if the new Board, of Education desire to press on the use of the Irish language by requiring the parochial teacher, the teacher in the primary school, to teach it, what is to be the position of these gentlemen with three months' notice who are required to teach a language of which they do not know the rudiments, and which can only be acquired successfully, I believe, relatively early in life I Can anyone say their situation will not be a precarious one in the highest degree? The right hon. Gentleman says they are the servants of the managers. Is there any security that the new Irish Parliament will keep managers at all] Will there be managers at all a year or two after the Irish Parliament is adopted—I mean managers in the present sense of the word?
  I do not know—certainly I do not think—we have any right to condemn the Irish Parliament if they say the existing system of managers is rather arbitrary in its character, that there are separate Boards, a priest here, a minister there, and a clergyman there, who say: "You are to elect a teacher and keep him as long as you like, dismiss him at three months' notice"—if they say that is not a system in which we choose to acquiesce. It is not for us, at all events, to criticise that view. But what about the teachers? What is to happen to them? I cannot help thinking

  131
  that when the right lion. Gentleman told us just now that these men were not Civil servants, and implied, as I understand, that there was no ground for having any anxiety about the future, I think he was substantially wrong, really, in both contentions. I do not say his tenure is as good, or that he requires as great a measure of compensation as other Civil servants, but a man is a Civil servant of some kind or another when he is appointed by managers who are themselves appointed by a Board that you have called into existence and whose salary is paid by yourselves. There is no election. It is a purely centralised system, and the whole of the money is found by the central authority, and the people who perform the duties for which they are thus selected, and who are thus paid, perform duties which are fundamentally important, as we all admit, in the carrying on of the civil work of any community. I think I have shown that from no iniquity in the new Irish Parliament which is to come into existence, from no avoidable bigotry, attributing no low motive to anyone, the very circumstances of Ireland make it absolutely certain that the tenure of these men may be more uncertain than the tenure of any other Civil servants whose interests we have been so careful to protect. In these circumstances I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, to give the problem of the teachers in Ireland his most earnest consideration. It may be too much that they ought to be treated like Civil servants engaged under a different nominal tenure, but something should be done in case of a dismissal which to them must seem arbitrary, and which will certainly deprive them of all chance of continuing to earn a living in any reasonable way, and will leave them wholly unprotected when you are deliberately setting up a system which may very well destroy from top to bottom the whole scheme under which they have entered into this profession. It seems to me a quite unnecessary and unjustifiable cruelty, and I earnestly trust that the Government will give their case a more sympathetic hearing than at present, so far, they have obtained.
  Mr. DILLON: This is a most remarkable Amendment. Under the guise of protecting the interests of the national teachers of Ireland hon. Members propose, on the eve of Home Rule, to wholly revolutionise the whole system on which the primary education of Ireland has been granted—the
  132
  most contentious matter that it is possible to conceive. As the right hon. Gentleman, who does know Ireland, has stated truly to the House, the system of national education in Ireland is the most illogical system I suppose in the whole world. It has worked, as he said, smoothly to some extent so far as the religious controversy is concerned, and has worked smoothly largely because it has worked exactly and diametrically opposite to the principle laid down in the rules. Thai is, if the right hon. Gentleman has correctly told us, the position. The first of the rules is that this is a system of separate secular instruction and separate religious instruction, and anyone who is acquainted with Ireland knows that that is a radical misstatement of the working of the whole system. But in other respects, as regards all other aspects of the working of the system, I need hardly say, in fact Members of this House know, that the system is open to criticism all along the line, and it is perfectly true, as was stated by one or two hon. Members, that the first work, or at all events an early-work of the Irish Government would be, I hope, to recast the system of education in Ireland from top to bottom. It is one of the great causes which has made us so anxious to see the hands of the Irish people set free by a system of self-government. It is an extraordinary proposition on the very eve of that system of self-government, under the guise of an innocent Amendment of this character to revolutionise the whole system of Irish education. What really made me rise, under some difficulty, to take part in this Debate is to ask hon. Members who have championed the cause of the national teachers whether they have any mandate. Have the rational teachers of Ireland who, recollect, are a highly organised body, with an executive which certainly, whatever its faults may be, never neglected the interests of their constituents, approached hon. Members or authorised them to put before the House any claim on behalf of the national teachers of Ireland to be protected against the Irish Parliament?
  Captain CRAIG: The hon. Member is the very last person I would tell a thing of that sort to.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not quite understand the bearing of that observation, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman means to-imply that the national teachers of Ireland and their organisation are afraid of us or are afraid to place their claims,

  133
  whatever they may be, before the public in this House, I repudiate the statement. The national teachers of Ireland have never been afraid to place their claims before the public and they certainly are not afraid of placing their claims before the Nationalist Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Unionist Members."] I quite agree. It is one of the subjects on which we have always co-operated, and the amazing spectacle has been presented of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself co-operating with the Nationalist party when it is a question of the rights and grievances of the national teachers. But I repeat the question: Have the National teachers or their authorised executive approached any Member of the party above the Gangway with a request to protect their interests. Every body of Civil servants in the country whose case has been met by the Clause in the Bill and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman have approached the Government, and they have approached the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond)—I have no doubt they have approached the hon. and gallant Gentleman also and they have stated their grievances and debated them. But the national teachers, so far as I know, have not approached any section of tins House or claimed any protection, and is it not a rather extraordinary proceeding that hon. Members above the Gangway should force upon the national teachers, or seem to force upon them, a protection which they have not demanded?
  Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. DILLON: This is no money at all. If the hon. Baronet is so very anxious to grant money to the national teachers I wish be had helped us any time during the last five years when we were demanding money for them. This is not money. It is a case of protection against the Irish national Government and the teachers of Ireland do not want protection against the Irish national Government. They are quite willing to entrust their fate and fortunes to a national Government in Ireland and, as far as I know the Irish teachers, they expect better treatment from a national Government that is to come than from the Board under which they are now living. Hon. Members spoke of the present tenure of the teachers. I know that the appointment and tenure of the teachers is a matter of some debate, but
  134
  I would like to remind hon. Members that the most glaring case of grievance which the teachers have in Ireland is not the question of dismissal by the managers, but the question of dismissal by the Government Board. There is a far more bitter feeling among the teachers in regard to that than in regard to dismissal by the managers during the last thirty years. What does this Amendment propose to do? It proposes to transfer by way of protecting the teachers their control to the Irish Government. I do not quite see at the moment, taking the same point of view as hon. Members above the Gangway, how that would protect them. There is one other subject on which I desire to say a word, and that is the question of the Irish language, which was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. He intimated that at least a section of the teachers might reasonably claim this protection because of their alarm that, forsooth, the Irish Government might pass a law or make a rule that every teacher in Ireland should teach Irish, and should be dismissed if ho did not teach that language. I am not quite sure that this Amendment would protect him against such a rule as that. All I can say is that, while the subject might be debated in an Irish Parliament, I do not in the least anticipate any such oppressive regulation will ever be passed. What I have got to say is that, so far as I am concerned myself—and I know that I speak for a very large proportion of Nationalists in Ireland—if a proposal of that character were made it would unquestionably split up the Nationalist forces, and some of the hon. and gallant Member's friends from the North would find themselves in a majority.
  Captain CRAIG: No.
  Mr. DILLON: I am quite certain of it. I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member will be in the Irish Parliament, but those who share his views would find themselves in the majority. This is part and parcel of the assumption running through the whole of these Debates that the Irish Parliament will do everything that is wicked, oppressive, and unreasonable. If that be so, the whole policy of Home Rule is wrong. But we do not assume that, and the party opposite have not gone on that assumption, or else they never would have brought in the Home Rule Bill. I say that the whole history of our people is against the assumption that

  135
  any rule so unreasonable and oppressive would be adopted, and even if it were possible—and I entirely disagree that it is possible—I do not see that this Amendment would be any substantial protection whatever. Therefore I return to what I started with. What is the real answer to all the arguments which have been made? The teachers have not asked for this protection, and an overwhelming majority of the Irish National teachers are quite prepared to submit themselves to, and to take their chance under the National Government. Let me refer to something that was said by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke earlier in this Debate. He referred lo an extraordinary manifesto published by the National Board in Dublin as to the necessities of national education. There was not one word in that manifesto in support of this Amendment. That manifesto never said that the teachers would be in danger of persecution, and it made no claim for the protection of the teachers. It said that national education required £350,000 of additional Grant. What has that got to do with this Amendment? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had induced the Government to give £300,000 more for Irish education I should have been exceedingly glad, but I do not see what bearing that has on this Amendment. The national teachers repudiated the manifesto, and so far as their public utterances are on record they entirely refused to support it, although considerable pressure was brought to bear on them to speak out for it. Therefore that manifesto stands, not as an expression in support of the Amendment, or of any wish or opinion of the national teachers, but as an expression of the opinion of the Government Board in Ireland, four-fifths of whom are Unionists.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite willing to admit, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London suggested, that I did not fully grasp the general effect of the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for the University of London. I thought he was moving an Amendment similar to one moved in 1893, proposing to include principal teachers among the rank of Civil servants. I did not carry it much further than that, and I was content to give the reply that they are not Civil servants, and that to impose obligations and to make 13,000 teachers Civil servants was to put a far greater burden on the generosity exhibited by the
  136
  hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) than ought to be put upon it. It is one thing for the hon. and learned Member to say that he is quite prepared to pay out of Irish money the existing Civil servants, because he is anxious to keep in good heart and trim that large body of men who have existed in Ireland and done their work fairly well, but it is another thing to say that he would be willing to apply the somewhat meagre resources of Ireland to persons who are not Civil servants at the present moment. I think it is only fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that while he assumes the burden he is prepared to assume, because it is an existing burden, it seems to me to be reading too much into his statement to say he is willing to enlarge that, and to put upon the resources of Ireland I do not know how many thousand pounds to pay for those who are not Civil servants at present. I was astounded at the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for the City of London. If there was one man in the world, except perhaps myself, who was fully impressed and obsessed with the necessity of preserving to the managers under the denominational system the appointment and dismissal of teachers it was the right hon. Gentleman. It is because in Ireland they have had the appointment and dismissal of the teachers that the whole of the religious difficulty has been removed. They have got: an undenominational system, if you like, and they have built up on that a denominational system. The essence of the denominational system is that in order to obtain the happiness of the teachers and of the children attending the schools, the managers should repose in the hands of teachers in whom they have confidence the work of education, and that the managers should have the power of dismissing them.
  I was overwhelmed when I found that the effect of this Amendment would be to grapple with that thorny subject of education. I hope the Irish Government will grapple with it, but, if they are wise, they will look about a good long time before they place on the Table of the Irish House of Commons an Education Bill. I think they will require to exercise great caution, and being, as they all are, denominationalists at heart, I do not imagine that any measure they do bring forward will strike a blow at the denominational system, although I hope they will be able to give the teachers some better security than they have got at the present moment.

  137
  I do not speak as such a determined denominationalist an all that, although I may say I am a little infected with that heresy. I am not an out-and-outer, and I do not anticipate that when the Irish party come into their own and deal with this vexed question of Irish education they will put on the Table of the House of Commons a Dr. Clifford kind of Bill. It is because I wish them to manage their own affairs without the introduction of English Nonconformity or English Churchism that I rejoice to think they will be able—at all events, I hope they will be able—to deal with this important question. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the effect of this Amendment. The effect of it would be to interfere with the present system all of a sudden. I have lived in the atmosphere of the national school teachers all the time I have been in Ireland, and I hope I have been able to do something for them. The effect of the Amendment came upon me as a surprise. I did not for the moment conceive it possible that at once upon this Bill becoming law the denominational system in Ireland should receive the blow it would receive if the power for the dismissal of teachers was taken from the managers and handed over to the Lord Lieutenant—any Lord Lieutenant who has been held up to ridicule by the party opposite. While the Irish Parliament was deliberating for years as to the sort of Bill they were going to produce to deal with this vexed question, all that time the power of dismissing the principal teachers in every school in Ireland—Catholic or Protestant, it matters not—was to be with the Lord Lieutenant. It would upset the denominational system and introduce without consideration a very controversial portion of the Education Bill without the other portions, and it would place the Irish Government in a very difficult position. Therefore, I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman opposite can have fully realised the effect of the Amendment. He showed some little nervousness, and thought that perhaps the Amendment was not quite the right one. He asked me to consider it. Well, I have considered it, and the conclusion I have arrived at is that I would not touch it. I am not going to touch an Amendment which takes away from the managers of every school in Ireland the power of dismissing their teachers.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: With great respect, I think you will find that that is not so. The Section which we are discussing puts every person who is an Irish officer for the purposes of this Section under the class of persons who are removable by the Lord Lieutenant, and it cannot be out of order to move that certain individuals are to be deemed Irish officers or Civil servants for the purpose of this Section, and the fact that other consequences flow from it is due to the faulty drafting of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Member for the City has argued it wholly on the other ground, but when presented this way it is quite outside the scope of this Bill. There is a formal alteration in Irish education. The right hon. Gentleman then raised the questions whether they should be included as Civil servants or not.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The effect of this Amendment if carried is that the Lord Lieutenant would have this power of dismissing the principal teachers from the schools of Ireland. That is at once to introduce an Education Bill into a Home Rule Bill, because it would deprive the managers of the right inherent in the denominational system, to which enormous importance is attached by those who support that system.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The light hon. Gentleman appears to think that I want to alter the Irish system. All I want is to secure that nothing should be done in case of any alteration of the Irish system by the Irish Parliament, which would inflict a wide spread injury on a great body of deserving men.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not quarrel with that for a moment, but I am compelled to consider the Amendment, and this Amendment would have the effect at once, without waiting to see what the Trish Parliament were going to do, of handing over to the Lord Lieutenant, in his capacity as representative of the Irish Executive, the power of dismissal of all these men. That, would upset—pendente lite if you like, until something else is done which might be worse or better—the education system of Ireland. To that I can be no party, because I value more than I ought to value, more than I ought to say, the way in which that educational system at present works. Of all the trouble which a Chief Secretary might be expected to be exposed to corning from England, the greatest would be that he would have to look into all sorts of petty disputes about conscience

  139
  Clauses and interference with religious liberty. No such thing exists so far as Ireland is concerned. It is a perfect Heaven in that respect, and this Amendment would upset that state of affairs. The consequences of the Amendment must therefore rule it out altogether. I fall back now upon the ground that the object of this Bill is not in any way to reinforce the ranks of Civil servants; it is to do justice to all who are already in the Civil Service. To say that because two hundred model teachers in thirty model schools in Ireland, for reasons which were given by Lord Morley a long time ago, were differentiated from national school teachers and are Civil servants under a standard by themselves in schools outside the general national scheme of education, there fore at one sudden swoop you are to make Civil servants the 13,000 people who are outside the whole scope of the Bill is a suggestion that I could not accept. Though there may be reasons for making the national teachers Civil servants when the whole expense is paid out of Government funds, I am afraid of what would happen if you suggested a school rate in Ireland. But supposing you were to get a school rate in Ireland——
  The CHAIRMANrose.
  Mr. BONAR LAW Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) is fond of giving lectures of a kind, and it is a new form of that entertainment which he has just offered us. I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend in presenting his case, which I thought was unanswerable from his point of view that certain men for whom we were responsible ran a risk of being unfairly treated. When the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) got up, as I thought to answer the speech of my right hon. Friend, every word he said, with the exception of a statement to which I shall refer, confirmed the view that these men are in fact Civil servants because they are paid by this House and under the control of the Government set up by this House. The hon. Member for Mayo says that he looks forward to the time when one of the first acts of the new Parliament would be to upset the Irish education system from top to bottom. Is not it quite obvious—without there being any question or suggestion of unfairness—that if you do upset the system from top to bottom, the effect of that might be to deprive a great many of these people from their employment, of which they would not be deprived if the
  140
  conditions are to remain the same as they are now? If that is so, it seems to me that we have a responsibility towards these persons. The right hon. Gentleman fell back on purely technical grounds. First of all, he did not realise what the effect of the Bill on the Amendment was. When the technical nature of his objection was pointed out he said he would look at nothing else in connection with the matter. That objection is purely technical and due to the way in which the Bill was drafted. We do not pin ourselves to having the Amendment in this precise form; but it is the fact that a subsequent Amendment of two or three words would do away with all the technical evils of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. The real object of the Amendment is this: We are engaged in dealing with a body of men working under conditions imposed by this House. We are going to upset those conditions. If we make it probable that many of them would lose their employment, are we not bound to protect them from such consequences? I confess that the second statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) did seem to me to be very important. He said that national teachers are quite satisfied. If that is so, I have nothing further to say. That answers the whole thing. But how do we know that they are quite satisfied?

CLAUSE 34 (Establishment of Civil Service Committee.)
(1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to existing officers there shall be established a Committee to be called the Civil Service Committee.
(2) The Committee shall consist of three members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Executive Committee, and one (who shall be chairman) by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
(3) Any vacancy arising in the Committee owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a member of the Committee shall
be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed.
(4) The determination of the Civil Service Committee on any claim or question which is to be determined by them under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers shall be final and conclusive.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 176.

Division No. 403.]

AYES.

[10.45 P.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Hogge, James Myles

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dickinson, W. H,

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Addison, Dr. C.

Dillon, John

Holt, Richard Durning

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Donelan, Captain A.

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Doris, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Armitage, Robert

Duffy, William J.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Arnold, Sydney

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Baring, Sir Godlrey (Barnstaple)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Esslemont, George Blrnie

Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

Barnes, George N.

Falconer, James

Jowett, Frederick William

Barton, William

Farrell, James Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Keating, Matthew

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Kellaway, Frederick George

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Ffrench, Peter

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Field, William

Kilbride, Denis

Black, Arthur W.

Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

King, J.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Fitzgibbon, John

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Bowerman, C. W.

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Gilhooly, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

Leach, Charles

Brady, P. J.

Ginnell. L.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brocklehurst, William B.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Brunner, J. F. L.

Glanville, H. J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Bryce, J. Annan

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Goldstone, Frank

Lundon, T.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Lynch, A. A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C, (Poplar)

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Guiney, Patrick

McGhee, Richard

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gulland, John William

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macpherson, James Ian

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Hackett, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Chancellor, H. G.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hancock, John George

M'Curdy, C. A.

Clancy, John Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

M'Kean, John

Clough, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardle, J. Keir

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Lelcs.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R. L. Caithness-shire)

Manfield, Harry

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Cotton, William Francis

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

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Martin, J.

Crean, Eugene

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Crooks, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Crumley, Patrick

Hay ward, Evan

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cullinan, John

Hazleton, Richard

Menzles, Sir Walter

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Millar, James Duncan

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Milloy, Michael

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henry, Sir Charles

Morison, Hector

Dawes, J. A.

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

De Forest, Baron

Higham, John Sharp

Muldoon, John

Delany, William

Hinds, John

Munro, R.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Devlin, Joseph

Hodge, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Thomas, James Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, Sir George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

O'Doherty, Philip

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Verney, Sir Harry

O'Donnell, Thomas

Robinson, Sidney

Wadsworth, J.

Ogden, Fred

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

O'Grady, James

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Walton, Sir Joseph

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

O'Malley, William

Rowlands, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Wardle, George J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Waring, Walter

O'Shee, James John

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Webb, H.

Outhwaite, R. L.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Scanlan, Thomas

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Sheeny, David

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wiles, Thomas

Pointer, Joseph

Shortt, Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Smyth. Thomas G. (Leitrim)

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

Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

Snowden, Philip

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pringle, William M. R.

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Sutton, John E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Reddy, M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Tennant, Harold John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Aitken, Sir William Max

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Ashley, W. W.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Baird, J. L.

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Croft, H. P.

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Baldwin, Stanley

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Joynson-Hicks, William

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Dixon, C. H.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Banbury, Sir Frederick

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Kerry, Earl of

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Barnston, Harry

Fell, Arthur

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

Barrie, H. T.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Bathurst, Hon. A B. (Glouc, E.)

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Lewisham, Viscount

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Beach. Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, John Samuel

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Beckett, Hon Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Lyttelton, Hon' J. C. (Droitwich)

Berestord, Lord C.

Gibbs, G. A.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Bird, A.

Gilmour, Captain John

Macmaster, Donald

Blair, Reginald

Goldman, C. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Greene, W. R

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Boyton, James

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bridgeman, W. Cilve

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bull, Sir William James

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mount, William Arthur

Butcher, John George

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Newdegate, F. A.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Newman, John R. P.

Cassel, Felix

Harris, Henry Percy

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Cator, John

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Cautley, H. S.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Cave, George

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cecil, Lord R (Herts, Hitchin)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hills, John Waller

Perkins, Walter F.

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

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Chambers, James

Hoare, S. J. G.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Hohler, G. F.

Pretyman, Ernest George

200

201

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Stanier, Seville

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Randles, Sir John S.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Stewart, Gershom

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Swift, Rigby

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

Rolleston, Sir John

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Talbot, Lord E.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. R. Stuart

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

Younger, Sir George

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Thynne, Lord A.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Touche, George Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Captain

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Knight and Sir Joseph Larmor.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Valentia, Viscount

CLAUSE 35.—(Provisions as to Existing Pensions and Superannuation Allowances.)
Any pension granted on account of service in Ireland as a judge of the Supreme Court or of any Court consolidated into that Court, or as a County Court Judge, or as an Irish officer in an established capacity in the Civil Service of the Crown, or to any officer or constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Royal Irish Constabulary, and payable at the time of the passing of this Act, or in the case of an officer or constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary at the date of transfer, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
Government Amendments made:—
Leave out the words "passing of this Act" ["and payable at the time of the passing of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
After the word "of" ["shall be paid out of moneys"], insert the words
"the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, if charged on that fund at the time of the passing of this Act, and out of."
After the word "Kingdom" ["Parliament of the United Kingdom "], insert the words "if so paid at that time."
At the end of the Clause add:—
"(2) Any pension payable at the time of the passing of this Act and granted on account of service in Ireland as an Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown not serving in an established capacity or as a petty sessions clerk or officer in the registry of petty sessions clerks shall, if and so far as the fund out of which it is payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund."
Question put, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes. 176.

Division No. 404.]

AYES

[10.55 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Cotton, William Francis

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brace, William

Craig, Herbert J (Tynemouth)

Addison, Dr. C.

Brady, P. J.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Crean, Eugene

Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Crooks, William

Armitage, Robert

Bryce, J. Annan

Crumley, Patrick

Arnold, Sydney

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Cullinan, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Burke, E. Haviland

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Burns, Rt. Hon, John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dawes, J. A.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

De Forest, Baron

Barnes, George N.

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Delany, William

Barton, William

Chancellor, H. G.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Devlin, Joseph

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Clancy, John Joseph

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Clough, William

Dickinson, W. H.

Bethel1, Sir John Henry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Dillon, John

Black, Arthur W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Donelan, Captain A.

Boland, John Pius

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Doris, William

Booth, Frederick Handel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otiey)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Leach, Charles

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Falconer, James

Lough, Rt. Ron. Thomas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Farrell, James Patrick

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lundon, T.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Frens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lynch, A. A.

Robinson, Sidney

Firench, Peter

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Field, William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

McGhee, Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Rowlands, James

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macpherson, James Ian

Rowntree, Arnold

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gilhooly, James

M' Callum, Sir John M.

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Gill, A. H.

M' Curdy, C. A.

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

Ginnell, L.

M' Kean, John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Mc Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Scanlan, Thomas

Glanville, H. J.

M' Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M' Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Goldstone, Frank

Manfield, Harry

Sheehy, David

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Shortt, Edward

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Guiney, Patrick

Martin, J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Gulland, John William

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meagher, Michael

Snowden, Philip

Hackett, J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Hancock, John George

Millar, James Duncan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Molloy, Michael

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sutherland, J. E.

Hardie, J. Keir

Morison, Hector

Sutton, John E.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Muldoon, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Munro, R.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Tennant, Harold John

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, James Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Toulmin, Sir George

Hayward, Evan

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Verney, Sir Harry

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Doherty, Philip

Wadsworth, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Henry, Sir Charies

Ogden, Fred

Walton, Sir Joseph

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

O'Grady, James

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Keliy, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hinds, John

O'Maliey, William

Wardle, George J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Waring, Walter

Hodge, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hogge, James Myles

O'Shee, James John

Webb, H.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Sullivan, Timothy

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Holt, Richard Durning

Outhwaite, R. L.

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

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Wiles, Thomas

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pointer, Joseph

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Words., N)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jowett, Frederick William

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

Joyce, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Young, Samuel (Cavan. E.)

Keating, Matthew

Radford, G. H.

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.

King, J.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Reddy, M.

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Barnston, Harry

Aitken, Sir William Max

Balcarres, Lord

Barrie, H. T.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Baldwin, Stanley

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lend)

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Ashley, W. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Baird, J. L.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Beckett, Hon Gervase

204

205

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hamilton; Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beresford, Lord C.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Peel, Captain R. F.

Bird, A.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Perkins, Walter F.

Blair, Reginald

Harris, Henry Percy

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Helmsley, Viscount

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Bull, Sir William James

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Randles, Sir John S.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Burn, Colonel C. R

Hills, John Waller

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Butcher, John George

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Rolleston, Sir John

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hohler, G. F.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cassel, Felix

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

Cator, John

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cautley, H. S

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cave, George

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.))

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanler, Beville

Chambers, James

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Kerry, Earl of

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Stewart, Gershom

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Larmor, Sir J.

Swift, Rigby

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Talbot, Lord E.

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Lewisham, Viscount

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Croft, H. P.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Thynne, Lord A.

Dixon, C. H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

Touche, George Alexander

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Macmaster, Donald

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Gibbs, G. A.

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Gilmour, Captain John

Mount, William Arthur

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Goldman, C. S.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Newdegate, F. A.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Greene, W. R.

Newman, John R. P.

Younger, Sir George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Nield, Herbert

Fletcher and Mr. R. Thompson.

Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

Norton-Griffiths, J.

CLAUSE 36.—(Definition of Irish Officer, and Provision as to Officers in whose case Questions may arise, etc.)
(1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, any officer shall be deemed to be an Irish officer who is serving or employed in Irish services within the meaning of this Act.
(2) If any question arises whether an officer is an Irish officer as so defined, or otherwise as to any claim or right of an officer under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, that question shall be determined by the Civil Service Committee.
(3) If in any case the Civil Service Committee are of opinion that the service or employment of an officer is such that he is partly an Irish officer and partly not, that Committee shall determine any question
206
which arises as respects the proportions in which any allowance, gratuity, or compensation payable to that officer is to be paid as between the Exchequer or Consolidated Fund of Ireland and of the United Kingdom respectively.
Government Amendment made: in Subsection (1), at the end insert the words—
"and the fact that the salary of an Irish officer is provided in whole or in part out of funds administered by the Government Department in which he serves, or out of an allowance voted for the office expenses of the office in which he is employed, or out of fees, instead of being charged on the Consolidated Fund or paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, shall not prevent that officer being treated as an officer in the Civil Service of the Crown."—[Mr. Birell.]
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 287 Noes, 175.

Division No. 405.]

AYES

[11.5 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Ffrench, Peter

McGhee, Richard

Acland, Francis Dyke

Field, William

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

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Macpherson, James Ian

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Fitzgibbon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Armitage, R.

George, Rt. Hon, D. Lloyd

M'Curdy, C. A.

Arnold, Sydney

Gilhooly, James

M'Kean, John

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Gill, A. H.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Ginnell, L.

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Glanville, H. J.

Manfield, Harry

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Barnes, George N.

Goldstone, Frank

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Barton, William

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

Martin, J.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Guiney, Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gulland, John William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Black, Arthur W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Boland, John Pius

Hackett, J.

Millar, James Duncan

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Molloy, Michael

Bowerman, C. W.

Hancock, John George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Morison, Hector

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brady, P. J.

Hardie, J. Keir

Muldoon, John

Brocklehurst, William B.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Munro, R.

Brunner, J. F. L.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Burke, E. Haviland

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

Nolan, Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hayward, Evan

O'Doherty, Philip

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Donnell, Thomas

Chancellor, H. G.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Ogden, Fred

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Grady, James

Clancy, John Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Clough, William

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Malley, William

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hinds, John

O'Shee, James John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hodge, John

Outhwaite R. L.

Cotton, William Francis

Hogge, James Myles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pearce, Robert (Staffs Leek)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Crean, Eugene

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Crooks, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pointer, Joseph

Crumley, Patrick

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cullinan, John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pringle, William M. R.

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Radford, G. H.

De Forest, Baron

Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Delany, William

Jowett, Frederick William

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Devlin, Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Reddy, M.

Dickinson, W. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dillon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

King, J.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Doris, William

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Duffy, William J.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Duncan, (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Leach, Charles

Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, Sidney

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Esslemont, George Birnle

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Falconer, James

Lundon, T.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Lynch, A. A.

Rowlands, James

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Rowntree, Arnold

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees)

Tennant, Harold John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Scanlan, Thomas

Thomas, J. H.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wiles, Thomas

Sheeny, David

Toulmin, Sir George

Wilkie, Alexander

Sherwell, Arthur James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shortt, Edward

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Verney, Sir Harry

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Words., N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walton, Sir Joseph

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

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wardle, George J.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Waring, Walter

Sutton, John E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Webb, H.

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Forster, Henry William

Newman, John R. P.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Gardner, Ernest

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gibbs, G. A.

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Gilmour, Captain John

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Baird, J. L.

Goldman, C. S.

. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, W. R.

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barnston, H.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Barrie, H. T.

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Randies, Sir John S.

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harris, Henry Percy

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Helmsley, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beresford, Lord C.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bird, A.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rutherford. Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Blair, Reginald

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hills, John Waller

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Boyton, James

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hohler, G. F.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanler, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Butcher, John George

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cassel, Felix

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stewart, Gershom

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Swift, Rigby

Cator, John

Jessel, Capt. H. M.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cautley, H. S.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord E.

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

Chaloner. Col. R. G. W.

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshtord

Thomson, W Mitchell- (Down, N.)

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chambers, James

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Touche, George Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lewisham, Viscount

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Cripps, Sir C. A.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

Croft, Henry Page

Macmaster, Donald

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dixon, C. H.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Faber, Georgo Denison (Clapham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Hildred Carlile and Major White.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Newdegate, F. A.

Committee Report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday)
The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKEE, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. FIELD: I do not desire to detain the House, but the matter I desire to draw attention to is one of extreme importance, and time is the essence of the position. There is so much uncertainty as to the live stock in Ireland that we want an immediate declaration of policy from the President of the Board of Agriculture. I have frequently pointed out the fact that Ireland has supplies, and that Great Britain needs them. As a matter of fact cattle have gone up in price £2 within the last couple of days, mutton 1d. to 2d. a lb., whilst practically there are no pigs to be had. Meanwhile there is congestion in Irish ports— in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Derry, Water-ford, Dundalk and Sligo. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are a number of live stock in places which are not fit to keep them in, and that is one of the best means calculated to produce disease. In addition to this congestion, there are a very large number of cattle at grass deteriorating at this season of the year, unless there is a liberal supply of oilcake. I have representations practically from all the ports in the three kingdoms, from both sides of the Channel, from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I will not detail the letters and telegrams, or the telephone messages I have received, but I have been kept busy during the last fortnight answering all kinds of communications as to what is to be done. The only person who can give us that information is the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There is another matter I desire to bring before the House because it is one with which I am intimately acquainted and that is the Dublin Fat Stock Show to be held in Dublin next Wednesday. The exhibitors and purchasers want to know what is going to be done in regard to that show, and surely it is time they had information. At Christmas time there is a very good class of cattle prepared, and if this time is allowed to pass over the time for that particular class of cattle will pass away, and there will be no market. I understood—I hope I am wrong—that the right hon. Gentleman said that no exhibits from Meath and Louth were to be permitted at that
212
show. If that be so you are shutting out the two best counties in Ireland. Up to a few days ago I understood there was a difference of opinion on the Dublin case— I do not want to more than refer to the fact as time does not permit now—and with regard to the Newry case I understand one beast was affected and four subsequently became affected in contact. Whether that beast got affected on board the vessel through coming in contact with something on board that had infection I cannot say. That is a matter to be determined by the Board's experts. I understand that the districts from which these animals came have been inspected and examined and no trace of disease of any kind has been discovered. We thought that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, but he seems hard to satisfy. I maintain that Ireland has practically a clean bill of health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Hon. Members may scoff, but that is my opinion, and I am prepared not only to state that opinion but to prove it. That is my opinion, hon. Members have a right to theirs, but they may find they are quite wrong. I assert, nothwithstanding the sporadic outbreaks in Ireland, we have probably at the present time the cleanest bill of cattle health of any country in Europe, and I wish to emphasise the fact that at the present time we have no disease either in Munster or Connaught. I cannot understand what valid reason, there was for applying the embargo to those two provinces. Those two provinces should be treated as separate zones. The fact is in the whole of this matter Ireland has been exceptionally treated. In England cattle are allowed to travel if they are outside the fifteen-mile zones, but because there were a couple of cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland there is an embargo placed upon the whole country. I admit in certain circumstances such a course w7ould be a wise and prudent course, but I do not admit that there was any necessity for panic legislation or for the exaggerations that appeared in the English and unfortunately in some of the Irish papers. The result has been that the public mind has been poisoned against Irish cattle and a kind of alarm has been created in the minds of the British stock owners. We are just as much in earnest and just as anxious to keep out foot-and-mouth disease as any British stock owners or stock breeders can be. As President of the Irish Cattle Dealers and Stock Owners Association I wish to say that those with

213
whom I am associated have loyally carried out all the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman has imposed on Ireland, and I think they have been more severely carried out in Ireland than in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I want the House to remember that we have been more successful in keeping free from foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland than England has. I have always been of opinion that this disease has been imported into Ireland from England because you have had it here more recently, you have had more outbreaks and you have imported more foreign cattle and material of an infectious nature than we have. The animal industry in Ireland is much more important to us than it is to England because it is our staple product, and it is in fact the biggest product we have and the biggest trade between Ireland and England. That being so I hold that an Advisory Committee ought to be appointed in connection with the officials of both departments in order to avoid friction. The business men whose livelihood depends upon that business are not likely to give advice that will vitiate or destroy business between the two countries. There is no need for panic, but I think the cattle, sheep and pigs from Ireland should be permitted to land and an exception should be made in the application of the regulations in the case of Munster and Connaught which should be treated as a separate zone. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fall into line and allow the business between the two countries to go on with proper safeguards.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I desire to join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to release at the earliest possible moment the apparently panic regulations recently instituted. It is true that Ireland was never more full with cattle waiting for the English market, and I do not think in England the supply was even more needed that it is at the present moment. We all deplore the recent occurrence of this disease, but when you consider the vast number of animals that have been passing across the Channel the wonder is that there should have been so few rather than there should have been only these isolated cases. With regard to the exemption which has been referred to, I would also claim exemption for the province of Ulster. I know that we have had a few cases in one extreme part of the province, but as regards the four larger counties of Ulster we are absolutely free of even a suspicion of the disease, and
214
we have been right through. We hope that, in view of the Christmas market, the stock now accumulated at all of our leading ports will be allowed to pass over to this side of the Channel after due inspection. Personally, I think a mistake was made in allowing any cattle to come over to this side of the water without being inspected and tested before they were shipped.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: That was a special arrangement entered into.
Mr. H. BARRIE: I quite understand that, but it has aggravated what has happened. I think it was clearly the duty of the Vice-President to have got sufficient professional help to have made sure against the risk of shipping a single diseased animal. It is a reasonable demand that the cattle now accumulated at the ports of Belfast and Derry should be allowed after examination on the Irish side, to come to this side for immediate slaughter and that very shortly the movement of store cattle should be resumed with adequate quarantine regulations applying to them on this side of the Channel.
Mr. DILLON: Two distinct matters of vital importance to Ireland are concerned in this question. There is first of all the question of the renewal of the exportation of fat stock which affects the eastern and the southern portions of Ireland. I will not say another word about that because it has been dealt with by my hon. Friend, but I would strongly urge upon the Vice-President whether he cannot take into consideration the claim, I think the overwhelming claim, of two whole provinces of Ireland which have never been affected by the disease for the last thirty years to free trade and to a complete removal of all restrictions. It would be perfectly easy —I speak in the presence of a number of practical men—to draw a cordon which would completely prevent the passage of cattle from either Leinster or Ulster into Connaught and Munster, because, as a matter of fact, the flow of cattle goes from Connaught and Munster to Leinster and Ulster, and the interference to trade in drawing a cordon which could be rigidly maintained would be slight. I would put it to the Vice-President whether he cannot set free the trade of Ireland, after the suspected districts are settled, both as regard fat stock and also store stock which is an equally and in fact a more burning question to the poorer parts of Ireland, and

215
whether he cannot now consider the practicability of restoring complete freedom of trade to Connaught and Munster which for thirty years has been absolutely free.
Mr. GILHOOLY: I desire to ask why Ireland has been exceptionally treated. If it had been an English shire, there would have been no prohibition; there would merely have been a circle of thirty miles radius drawn round the affected district. The loss to the people of Munster and Connaught by this unfair treatment has been enormous. Millions have been lost; in fact, the effects of the embargo on the cattle trade of Ireland will be nearly as disastrous to the country as the Financial Clauses of the Home Rule Bill. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to treat Ireland equally with England. Why should Connaught be prevented from exporting cattle when an English shire would, in the same circumstances, be allowed to do so. I do hope this unfair treatment of Ireland will cease, and that the people will not be beggared and robbed by this embargo, and by one rule obtaining in England and another in Ireland.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Perhaps it may be convenient that I should tell the House at once what is the position, and how far it has been cleared up during the last four or five days. Last week two cases of animals which were suspected by the Irish Department of having suffered from foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Dublin. The Irish Inspectors succeeded in detecting these animals. They were slaughtered and the infected parts having been examined there, were sent over to England and also examined here. There is no doubt that the animals showed lesions of some age, which were thought in Ireland to be of a mild nature. But in England the Board's Inspectors and independent veterinary inspectors declared them to be the ordinary lesions of foot-and-mouth disease. They held it was possible that the ordinary period of infectivity had passed. But our recent experience in Northumberland, where we had had a number of outbreaks one after another, led us to believe that animals which had recovered from foot-and-mouth disease and still showed signs of lesions in the mouth had not lost the power of infecting healthy stock even after recovery, and in one district of Northumberland we found
216
the infection had been spread there in the first instance by animals which did not show any lesion. It is a not uncommon quality of disease in human beings, especially in some well-known complaints common to children, for the illness to be conveyed in a far more infectious degree when the patient is recovering than when actually down with it. Very much the same sort of thing occurs in regard to these lesions, and our experience in Northumberland, where we had had very bitter experience and where the farmers had suffered from over thirty outbreaks, taught us that we could not be too cautious in holding up animals that had been in contact with those two cases. We therefore prevented the animals that had arrived in Dundee from passing on to the farms on which they were to be fattened. They are detained at Dundee and will remain there until the period of incubation has been safely passed. I hope we may find at the end of that period that we are still free from disease, and in that case the animals will pass on to the farms for which they were purchased and there be fattened in due course.
Mr. FALCONER: At what period will that be?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my full statement. If the animals show any signs of the disease while they remain at Dundee that will complicate matters in Dundee, and I am afraid it must lead to the destruction of the animals, for we can take no risk whatever of introducing the disease into Scotland which throughout this trying period has been entirely free from it. The case at Dundee will be carefully watched, and the farmers who are anxious to get cattle in the Eastern counties of Scotland will receive them as soon as it is safe for them to be released from the Foreign Animals Wharf at Dundee. We had no sooner got rid of these cases than a day or two later our Inspectors discovered in fat animals which had come from Newry undoubted evidence of lesions, stated in one case to be ten days old and in four other cases of much more recent date. Much turns on the age of the lesion, and we took a good deal of trouble to verify the judgment arrived at by our veterinary officers. I have every confidence in our officers, and especially in our Chief Veterinary Officer, who has had a larger amount of experience than probably anyone else, both at home

217
and abroad, of foot-and-mouth disease. I was anxious that we should not depend purely on his judgment. I therefore asked for the independent opinion of three other veterinary surgeons, and they, independently, all estimated that the length of time these lesions had appeared in the mouth of the animal was certainly varying from seven to ten days. That pointed to the fact that this animal must have had foot-and-mouth disease before it left Ireland. In justice to the Department over which my right hon. Friend presides I ought to say it was by an arrangement with us that we provided that in the case of fat animals the rough inspection should be done in Ireland, but that the mouthing should be done on arrival in England.
That, however, does not relieve us from the necessity of taking such steps as we think incumbent upon us to prevent any animals which show signs of disease communicating it either to other animals in the foreign wharves, or from being imported from the infected quarter in or around the ports where they are slaughtered. In all we have had five cases out of the Newry cargo. As soon as we discovered these cases we asked the Irish Department to trace them back, and, with great energy, they have succeeded in tracking back every one of the animals which came over in this infected shipload. My right hon. Friend informed the House to-day exactly where they did come from, so far as could be ascertained. That has very much cleared the air, and we know, so far as we can know, that these animals which have been under suspicion and those which have shown no evidence of the disease have not come from some parts of Ireland. I do not know that we can ever tell quite accurately the farms from which they did come, but all the evidence points to their coming from some districts and not coming from others. What I propose to do is, with regard to the districts from which they cannot have come, to resume the importation into England of the fat stock from those districts. That will greatly relieve the markets both in Ireland and in England, and I believe, as we now know the area which has been under suspicion, and therefore, by deduction, the area which has not been under suspicion, we may safely resume the importation into this country of the fat animals without subjecting them to fourteen days' quarantine or keeping them out altogether as we are at the present moment. The area has to be defined which is the subject of sus-
218
picion, and communications are now passing rapidly between the two Departments which I hope will enable my right hon. Friend to-morrow, I believe, to issue an Order prohibiting the movement out of the suspected areas.
Immediately that has been done I shall issue an Order authorising the importation into England once more of fat animals through Bristol, Deptford, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff, Hull, Newcastle, Holyhead, Dundee, when it is cleared, and Birkenhead as soon as it has been thoroughly disinfected, that is, from the long list of Irish ports which appeared in the Order of 27th November—practically all the Irish ports, almost without exception. This will greatly relieve the fat cattle trade and enable a largo number of animals now at Irish ports to be sold over here and the money returned to their owners in Ireland. With regard to the stores all I can say at the moment is that until we have something like a much clearer definition of the problem in Ireland than we have at present I would rather not make a full statement, but I hope within the next few days to announce exactly what we can do with regard to the stores and thus relieve the tension both on the Irish side of the Channel and on this, and especially in Scotland where the necessity for obtaining stores at this time of the year is not only a question of fattening up animals for market but clearing the ground for the general benefit of agriculture.
Mr. KILBRIDE: Does the Order that the right hon. Gentleman will issue mean that they will have to be subject to four days' quarantine as before or can they now proceed straight to the slaughterhouse?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: They will be slaughtered at the foreign animals wharf immediately on landing.
Mr. FIELD: Will the Order be issued in a couple of days?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my right hon. Friend gets his Order out to-morrow I hope to have mine out before midnight to-morrow night.
Mr. SHEEHY: Does the Order with regard to fattening include all fat stock?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
Mr. LARDNER: Having regard to the fact that all the cattle have been traced to their original farms and to the fact that

219
there has been no disease in county Monaghan for thirty years does the right hon. Gentleman see his way to exclude Monaghan from the Order?
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include the whole of county Tyrone in the scheduled area, considering that only one portion of that county has been found to have been infected in this respect?
Mr. RUSSELL: The officers of the Department are now engaged upon this very question of boundaries and I would rather not say anything, but there is no idea of scheduling the whole county of Tyrone. As regards Monaghan perhaps my hon. Friend will leave it until to-morrow until the officers of the Department have had time to consider the whole question of boundaries.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: The House has heard a good deal from the Irish point of view. May I say a word from the English
220
point of view. I gather that fat stock are to be admitted from certain parts of Ireland for immediate slaughter at certain English ports, but that under no condition will these fat stock be admitted to other ports of England. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of English agriculturists will hesitate some time before he admits Irish store cattle indiscriminately to this country again. There have been applications from various parts of the House for the admittance of Irish fat and store cattle from practically every province in Ireland except Leinster. When my hon. Friends and my Nationalist Friends begin to combine against the Government it is about time English people looked out for themselves.
And, it being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Coinage of Farthings.
  Coinage of Farthings.
  Privy Council Appeals (Payments to Judges).
  Privy Council Appeals (Payments to Judges).
  Commonwealth of Australia (Taxation).
  Commonwealth of Australia (Taxation).
  Housing Inquiry in Surrey and Hampshire.
  Housing Inquiry in Surrey and Hampshire.
  Income Tax Assessments (Ireland).
  Income Tax Assessments (Ireland).
  Clerks of Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks of Surveyors of Taxes.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EDINBURGH OFFICES.
  EDINBURGH OFFICES.
  REVENUE FROM INSURANCE STAMPS.
  REVENUE FROM INSURANCE STAMPS.
  SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
  SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
  IRELAND'S EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  IRELAND'S EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  School Inspection (Ireland).
  School Inspection (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Losses of Stock Owners.
  Losses of Stock Owners.
  Cork County Council Steam Roller.
  Cork County Council Steam Roller.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (IRXLAND).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (IRXLAND).
  MARLBOROUGH STREET (DUBLIN) TRAINING COLLEGE STAFF.
  MARLBOROUGH STREET (DUBLIN) TRAINING COLLEGE STAFF.
  MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.
  H.M.S. "PIONEER."
  H.M.S. "PIONEER."
  HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
  HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
  County of London Eegiment (16th Battalion).
  County of London Eegiment (16th Battalion).
  Families of Reservists.
  Families of Reservists.
  Gardening for Soldiers.
  Gardening for Soldiers.
  Imperial Strategy.
  Imperial Strategy.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Canterbury Rifle Range.
  Canterbury Rifle Range.
  National Reserve.
  National Reserve.
  Fatal Traffic Accidents (Metropolis).
  Fatal Traffic Accidents (Metropolis).
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES.
  VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES.
  DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP.
  DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP.
  School Inspectors.
  School Inspectors.
  Survey Department (India).
  Survey Department (India).
  Gambling in Options (Silver).
  Gambling in Options (Silver).
  Cotton Growing in India.
  Cotton Growing in India.
  Mobilisation (India).
  Mobilisation (India).
  African and Egyptian Cotton.
  African and Egyptian Cotton.
  Pacific Phosphate Company.
  Pacific Phosphate Company.
  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Wireless Telegraphy.
  German Increment Tax.
  German Increment Tax.
  Exports and Imports (United States).
  Exports and Imports (United States).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Postal Employment (Christmas).
  Postal Employment (Christmas).
  Damaged Letters (Pillar Boxes).
  Damaged Letters (Pillar Boxes).
  Agricultural Education Committees.
  Agricultural Education Committees.
  Pigs in Quarantine.
  Pigs in Quarantine.
  Irish Live Stock.
  Irish Live Stock.
BARONY OF FURNIVALL.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel further heard on behalf of the Crown: The Attorney-General heard on behalf of the Crown: Lord Robert Cecil heard in reply: Claim considered: Resolution agreed to by the Committee; report thereof to be made to the House.

BARON CROFTON.
Petition of Arthur Edward Lowther Crofton, Baron Crofton of Mote, in the County of Roscommon, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Lord CALTHORPE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 183.)
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the constitution, powers, and duties of District Insurance Committees: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 181.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

THE MARINE DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House an inquiry should be held into the constitution and administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade in the interest of safety of life at sea and the welfare and efficiency of our mercantile marine."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the early part of this year the people of this country were startled and shocked when they heard of the foundering of the "Titanic" and the great loss of life which had taken place. When the first news came—that is, the day after the foundering of the "Titanic"—the Marine Department of the Board of Trade wrote to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee saying that the recommendations which the Committee had addressed to the Board in July of the previous year as regards the supplying of boats had not gone far enough. I would impress upon your Lordships that though the Department had had the Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee before them for nearly ten months they had done nothing towards adopting the valuable recommendations which had been made to them on this question of boat accommodation. The President of the Board of Trade was severely blamed in the public Press in connection with this disaster. This blame, I think, was most unjust, and for this reason—that no man, however able, who is placed in the position of President of the Board of Trade and is there for so comparatively short a time can possibly make himself fully conversant with all the numerous intricate and highly technical conditions which exist in the various departments, dealing with interests of a totally different character, which go to comprise the body which is called the Board of Trade. There are noble Lords in this house who have held the position of President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure they will agree with what I have just said. Naturally, the gentleman holding this position has to depend in a great measure for information on the permanent officials who are at the head of the numerous departments that are under his sway.
Now, my Lords, I have to make a very serious charge. I do so fully realising the gravity of it, but I also realise that it is my duty to make it. It is that the Marine

91
Department of the Board of Trade has shown gross neglect—I might almost say criminal neglect—of the safety of the lives of our seamen, and I think I shall be able to show that I have sound reasons for the charge I make. In the first place, Lord Mersey, in the course of his decision on the "Titanic" case, dwells upon what he terms an "outstanding circumstance"—that is, the omission on the part of the Board of Trade during so many years to revise the life-saving rules adopted in the year 1894. This Lord Mersey considered blamable, notwithstanding the excuses and explanations put forward by Sir Alfred Chalmers, the then Nautical Adviser to the Board of Trade. For a great Government Department to be blamed in this way is a serious matter, and one which, in the interests of good government, demands thorough investigation.
But from the Report of the Court in this case we can go further back than even the year 1894. In 1886 a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade considered that the boats required by the Merchant Shipping Act should be increased 100 per cent., and, in addition, that the owners should be induced to carry sufficient collapsible boats and approved rafts, so that each ship should have sufficient life-saving gear for all on board at any one time. I would ask your Lordships to mark this in view of what has happened. Then again in 1887 a Select Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Lord Charles Beresford, expressed the opinion that all sea-going passenger ships should be compelled by law to carry such boats and other life-saving apparatus as would best provide for the safety of all on board in moderate weather. Have the Board of Trade discharged their responsibilities in this way? I say, emphatically, No, they have not done so.
I propose to refer to other matters which, in the interests of safety of life at sea, are of just as much importance. In the year 1903 this House agreed that a Select Committee should be appointed to investigate the dangers incurred through ships being allowed to go to sea with insufficient ballast. Prior to this Committee sitting the then permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, Sir Francis Hopwood, assured the late Duke of Devonshire in my presence that the Board of Trade intended to be perfectly impartial in the matter.
92
My Lords, the Committee sat. In support of my case—that many lives had been sacrificed at sea owing to insufficiently ballasted ships—amongst those witnesses expressing themselves in the strongest way were nautical assessors, who are appointed by the Home Office to sit on Courts of Inquiry in connection with disasters to ships occurring in the mercantile marine. They are not appointed by the Board of Trade; therefore we can look upon them as thoroughly independent witnesses. Amongst others to support me were merchant shipmasters, underwriters, naval architects, marine engineers, and other expert witnesses, all of whom were in absolute accord as to the necessity of a light load line.
To my profound astonishment I found that the chief and most strenuous witness in the way of opposition was the Assistant Secretary at the head of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, who still occupies this position. In the course of his evidence he produced a number of figures which greatly impressed the Select Committee, who quite accepted them. A subsequent searching analysis of these figures both on my part and that of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, on whose behalf I was working, showed that these figures had manifestly been "cooked" so as to mislead in order to bolster up the case against the Light Load Line Bill. The Board of Trade were very naturally supported by certain of the shipowners, and thus you will see how the endeavours to ensure greater safety of life at sea were frustrated by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. Is this, I ask, the attitude which should be taken up by this Department when matters affecting safety of life are under consideration? I must say that as a result of the Light Load Line Committee—though no thanks to the Board of Trade—there have been great improvements made in providing extra ballast tanks in the building of merchant ships, but as the law stands at present there are many ships still allowed to go to sea in an utterly unseaworthy condition through want of sufficient ballast. The Light Load Line Committee in their Report stated that they confidently relied upon the Board of Trade to use the powers already conferred upon them by Parliament to prevent improper or insufficient ballasting of ships. I do not hesitate to say that this confidence has been completely mis-

93
placed, for they have done nothing to prevent it. For instance, the Light Load Line Committee distinctly recommended that regulations as to securing loose ballast should be drawn up and enforced by the Board of Trade. This the Board of Trade have never done. Disasters involving loss of life through insufficient ballasting have occurred since this Report of the Light Load Line Committee.
I will now deal briefly with another important matter concerning safety at sea which has never been attended to by the Board of Trade as should have been the case. In the year 1874 a Royal Commission declared that "some additional nautical assistance is requisite at the Board of Trade." It is an astounding thing to think that, as matters stand at present, there is no more nautical assistance at the Board of Trade than there was in the year 1874. Ten years ago I brought this before your Lordships and before the Board of Trade. I pointed out that the surveying and inspecting staff of the Board of Trade was hopelessly insufficient, and I further pointed out that out of the whole technical staff of 136 of the Board of Trade only nineteen had had nautical experience. I showed that in any case it was impossible that the life-saving appliances of ships sailing from the United Kingdom could be efficiently inspected by nineteen surveyors, and I then stated that, as a result of this, the life-saving apparatus—that is, boats and other like equipment—was in very many cases inefficient and useless. The loss of the "Titanic" seems to have scared the Marine Department of the Board of Trade into some sense of their duty, and now after ten years, and under pressure, they appear to agree that the appointment of a large number of additional surveyors is necessary. In connection with this matter I hope that they are going to make it quite sure that all such matters as boats, navigational equipment, such as compasses, charts, and other essential material for safe navigation and safety of life shall be surveyed and inspected by nautical men who have had practical experience at sea in these matters.
And now, my Lords, for a still more serious indictment. I refer to the carriage of dangerous deck loads of timber and other articles, which has become a common practice nowadays. Nearly twelve years ago in this House I first drew the attention
94
of your Lordships and of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to the grave way in which the lives of our seamen were imperilled through this most dangerous practice. I produced evidence of loss of life and serious disasters due entirely to the carriage of these deck loads. The Board of Trade took no action. In the years 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907, and twice in 1909 I endeavoured to impress these dangers on your Lordships and on the Marine Department, showing also what terrible loss of life had occurred; but all to no purpose. The Board of Trade declined to move. In another place the President of the Board of Trade has, I am glad to say, promised to furnish a Return giving the Reports of Courts of Inquiry into disasters at sea which have commented on the dangers of these deck loads, and I venture to think that this Return will prove very instructive and show what obviously grave dangers the Marine Department of the Board of Trade have allowed to continue with impunity. I will, however, give your Lordships some evidence of my own.
When I first brought the matter forward in this House I referred to the case of the "Mobile" (carrying a huge timber deck load of 700 tons), which had been lost with twenty-six lives; and to the case of the "Huddersfield," which was very badly damaged through her deck-load breaking adrift, and I understand that two lives were lost in consequence. I will quote some more cases arising since then. The "Blenheim," with a large deck cargo of timber, foundered in the North Atlantic. The steamer "Cardinal," also carrying a deck-load, was lost at sea. All the following cases arose through vessels carrying great and cumbersome deck-loads, to which the serious loss of life was directly attributable. Steamer "Salopia," lost with all hands, twenty-two men; steamer "Nutfield," lost with twenty-four lives; steamer "Freshfield," lost with twenty-five lives. Then there are the cases of the steamers "Nemea" and "Coralie," which were lost at sea. In the case of the "Nemea" the master, three engineers, and three men were washed overboard through the bulwarks being carried away, but I believe they were eventually rescued. In the case of the "Coralie," her crew were fortunately picked up by the Norwegian barque "Alborga." Then we have the cases of the steamer "Yarmouth," belonging to

95
the Great Eastern Railway Company, lost with all hands a year or two ago—twenty-three lives, one a passenger; the "Axim," lost with thirty-three crew and four passengers; the "Eastern Counties," where there were five lives lost; and the case of the "Guillemot," belonging to the General Steam Navigation Company, which was lost in December of last year with sixteen lives out of a total crew of twenty-three. In each of these cases the Courts condemned this iniquitous practice of carrying dangerous deck-loads.
Are not these ample grounds for my indictment of gross neglect which I am bringing against the Marine Department of the Board of Trade? All these men's lives were lost through perfectly preventable causes. There was no outcry through the country, as there has been in the case of the "Titanic," because there were no passengers lost except the five I mentioned. They were only poor devils of seamen who lost their lives. But I do not think, my Lords, that there would be one in your Lordships' House or even one among the general public who would stand up for one moment and say that the lives of passengers are more valuable than the lives of our seamen. When the "Titanic" Inquiry was going on would any one have dared to say that there was no reason for doing anything because the percentage of life lost was so small in comparison with the vast number of passengers carried every year by the great number of passenger ships which are now running? Would any one have dared to say this? Yet, my Lords, this is the reason always advanced for doing nothing when I have brought forward the case of the unfortunate seamen whose lives are being unduly risked. The loss of the "Titanic" has been a terrible and costly lesson, but I trust it is not one in vain. It has opened up many matters concerning the mercantile marine which demanded ventilation and exposure, and I think it has most certainly enlisted the interest of Parliament and the public in the affairs of those who earn their living at sea. In a word, the loss of the "Titanic" accomplished in a single second what I have been endeavouring to accomplish in my own humble way for many years past.
To come to a further question, that of the deeper immersion of British ships, which was done without the sanction of
96
Parliament and, as one may say, by a mere stroke of the pen in 1906. The greatest indignation at such a step has been freely given vent to by all seafarers, notably by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild as representing those commanding and officering the ships of the mercantile marine, who contend with perfect truth that in the case of many ships their lives are being gravely imperilled in consequence. I do not hesitate to assert that many of the cases of missing vessels which frequently arise are due to this deeper immersion. This is a specimen of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade's administration for the past few years, and it is not one to feel proud of.
Another matter is that where large British merchant ships are allowed to be in charge of uncertificated and totally irresponsible men, a danger to themselves and to other ships properly and efficiently officered. I have emphasised the dangers of this in this House, and they have frequently been urged on the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. This Department knows full well the many cases of disasters where Courts of Inquiry have condemned such an extraordinary omission in the law with the greatest emphasis. So far back as the year 1896 the Manning of Merchant Ships Committee made the following recommendation—
"That a ship is in an unseaworthy state when she leaves port without sufficient officers or with her responsible officers unfitted for their duty by reason of prolonged overwork, and that no ship of large size or power should be permitted to go to sea without provision having been made that the deck shall always be in charge of some person who has given proof of his qualification, by service or examination, for such a position."
Your Lordships will remark that in all these years such an obviously necessary recommendation for ensuring safety of life at sea has never received the slightest attention at the hands of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. It is true that now, under pressure, the Board of Trade have introduced a Bill which will deal with the subject in a small way, but it is characteristic of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade that as it stands, owing to the absurdly high tonnage limit embodied in the Bill, the Bill will really defeat its own objects; and, again, no restrictions whatever are being applied in the case of British merchant ships trading abroad.
My Lords, there are other serious charges which I could bring forward, but I must not trespass further on your Lordships' time. We ask for a full, searching, public and impartial inquiry into the administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. If the charges I bring against the Department are not correct, then it has no cause to fear such an inquiry; if they are correct, as I and many others believe them to be, then in the interests of the safety of our sailors' lives it is imperative that the inquiry should be instituted without further delay.
Moved to resolve "That in the opinion of this House an inquiry should be held into the constitution and administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade in the interest of safety of life at sea and the welfare and efficiency of our mercantile marine."—(Lord Muskerry.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, we always listen with great interest to any remarks made by the noble Lord opposite as regards the merchant shipping community of this country and the seafaring classes generally. But on the present occasion I venture to think that my noble friend has not in any way made out his case. He instanced, in the first place, the deplorable accident which happened to the "Titanic" this year, and attributed that accident, so far as I could gather, mainly to the Board of Trade. On that matter he has only to read the evidence given before Lord Mersey's Commission. That evidence does not, as far as I can gather, support his contention. Lord Mersey certainly expressed the opinion that the Advisory Committee with regard to safety at sea ought to have been called together after 1894, and he found that the Board of Trade were blamable as regards this; but he expressed the opinion, having regard to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, that the Board of Trade would not have felt justified in making rules which would have required more boat accommodation than was carried on the "Titanic," boat accommodation which was utilised on that occasion to less than one-third of its capacity. But be added that that made no excuse for the delay of the Board of Trade in the matter. That is the only point which Lord Mersey made against the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade naturally rely on the expert judgment of their professional
98
officer, and there can be no doubt that Sir Alfred Chalmer's judgment was in this case in fault; but it is impossible to blame the whole Department for the omission or failure of one particular officer. As regards the other part of Lord Mersey's judgment, he found that no ease whatever had been made out against the Board of Trade or their officials. I will now deal with the definite points raised by my noble friend opposite. He said, in the first place, that the Board of Trade took no action whatever upon the Report of the Light Load Line Committee which sat in the year 1903.
LORD MUSKERRY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I have papers here which the Board of Trade sent out to their officers and to the owners of ships throughout the country, pointing out to them the recommendations put forward by the Committee and suggesting that they should be acted upon by the persons to whom these communications were made. The actual Report of the Light Load Line Committee is rather instructive reading, because the Committee consisted of men of undoubted ability, such as Lord Spencer, the late Lord Ridley, Lord Brassey, Lord Shand, and Lord Inverclyde, and, as far as I can gather, on every Amendment they were against the noble Lord, and one always finds, either under "Content" or "Not-content," Lord Muskerry by himself.
LORD MUSKERRY: Not in every case.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Well, in nearly every case. I venture to think that if there was anything in the contentions of the noble Lord he would have been supported by the able men to whom I have referred. The noble Lord made another serious allegation. He said that the Board of Trade took the trouble to "cook" some figures with regard to the light load line.
LORD MUSKERRY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I cannot imagine for one moment that the noble Lord is serious in making that statement,
LORD MUSKERRY: I am, perfectly.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Surely the noble Lord does not believe that an efficient and reliable Civil Servant would sink to the depth of "cooking" figures for a Return such as that.
LORD MUSKERRY: Yes.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I do not think any of your Lordships will support the noble Lord in that contention. The noble Lord admits that there has been a great improvement as regards under-ballasting, but he will not give the Board of Trade any credit for it. In fact, he will give the Board of Trade credit for nothing.
LORD MUSKERRY: Oh, yes.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Board of Trade have done all in their power in the last few years to suggest to owners and builders the provision of water tanks on ships. As regards the question of deck-loads, on which subject I have in this House frequently spoken, the Board of Trade have lately received a letter from the Merchant Service. Guild, and the President of the Board has asked that society to send to him any specific cases they know of, and has promised that all the cases will be thoroughly gone into. The next point raised by the noble Lord was the question of certificated officers. As regards that, the noble Lord is well aware that at this moment there is a Bill before Parliament dealing with that matter. I am speaking from memory, but my impression is that the law at the present time only insists upon a master and one mate being carried on foreign-going ships.
LORD MUSKERRY: If there are no passengers.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Board of Trade have made inquiries into this matter and find that most ships carry a great deal higher complement than is required by law. In fact, 84 per cent. of the ships of this country carry more than the requisite number of officers required by law. The noble Lord also referred to the Manning Committee, and said that the Board of Trade of late years had done nothing. Let us take the case of the Manning Committee. The noble Lord must remember that the recommendations of that Committee were not in any sense unanimous. Well, on the only recommendations upon which the Committee were unanimous the Board of Trade took immediate action. The noble Lord will remember the Bill which I had the honour of conducting through your Lordships' Rouse and which is now the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906. That Act did an enormous amount to improve life at sea.
100
It increased the pay of the crew, it increased crew spaces, and did away with a great deal of the insanitary conditions which undoubtedly existed up to that time. It also had an effect which I am sure your Lordships will be heartily pleased with—that is, it led to an enormous increase in the proportion of British sailors employed in the British mercantile marine. I have the figures here, but I do not know that it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Give them to us.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: In 1905 there were employed on British ships 180,492 persons—
LORD MUSKERRY: Sailors?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I know the noble Lord's point, and I will come to it in a moment. In 1905, there were, as I have said, employed on British ships 180,492 persons, and in the year 1911, the last figures available, the number was 205,065—that is, 72·9 per cent. of the total, as against 68·5 in the year 1905, before the Act to which I have referred became law.
LORD MUSKERRY: Does the noble Earl say that all these are British sailors?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I know that the noble Lord will say that in our figures sailors comprise stewardesses and all kinds of people who work on board ship, but I will give the noble Lord the figures of the quinquennial census of actual seamen. These reports show the number of seamen actually under articles on a given day. In the year 1901 there were 120,412 British seamen—that is, actual seamen; in 1911, the latest census, this number bad risen to 136,580.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl quoted certain figures a moment ago. I am not referring to the last figures he quoted, but to the 180,492 and the 205,065. My noble friend, Lord Muskerry, interrupted the noble Earl and asked if those were actual sailors, but the noble Earl did not answer. Great ambiguity was felt on the last occasion as to whether a large proportion of these were sailors at all in the true sense of the word, although they were sea-going persons. Perhaps the noble Earl will make the matter clear.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The first figures which I brought to your Lordships' notice—the 180,492 and 205,065—include virtually all people employed on board ship, but the census figures which I gave are those of seamen under articles and comprise sailors only. I think I have now touched on the different points raised by my noble friend, and I have only, in conclusion, to say that the Government and the President of the Board of Trade are very much against any inquiry such as the noble Lord suggests. The noble Lord has made out no case, as far as I can see, for such an inquiry. An inquiry of this nature would hamper the Department, and a Committee such as the noble Lord suggests would not be the sort of Committee which would be of any use in determining whether or not there were any grounds for the complaints made. I can assure the noble Lord that it is the earnest wish of the Board of Trade to do all that they can to ameliorate the conditions of life at sea. In these circumstances I sincerely trust that your Lordships will not assent to the noble Lord's Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl opposite really found fault with my noble friend for taking, as he does on so many occasions, every pains to induce public opinion and Parliament to take interest on behalf of the British seafaring population. I think, if I may say so, that my noble friend does good service to the State in calling our attention to these points. There is, of course, no direct representative of the merchant service in your Lordships' House, and. but for my noble friend it is highly probable that many of these points to which attention ought to be called would altogether escape notice.
The occasion, of course, which has particularly led my noble friend to ask the attention of the House to this subject is the Report of Lord Mersey's Commission on the loss of the "Titanic." Undoubtedly that awful disaster did call public attention to this subject in a terrible manner, and although the loss of life was deplorable, yet in one sense, and perhaps in one sense only, there is a certain advantage to be set off against the disaster if it does make the Board of Trade more careful in these matters in the future. The Board of Trade is, of course, a Public Office of great distinction, but it is not perfect. No doubt it could do its work, like every other human
102
institution, better than it does. But before those of us who sit on this Bench would support a Motion for an inquiry into the working of a great public Department like the Board of Trade, we should require to be satisfied that my noble friend had made out a good prima facie case for such an inquiry. I confess I do not think that, although he has made some criticisms, and I may add some well-founded criticisms, he has yet brought together a body of evidence sufficiently important to justify such a Motion. It is quite true—and that, I think, is the main charge which he made out against the Department—that in the year 1894 there was great delay on the part of the officials of the Department in bringing up to date the provision to be carried upon ships for the safety of life at sea. That was admitted by the noble Earl opposite, and I think we must agree that a certain amount of blame in the matter is to be attached to the Department. But I think there must be set off against that blame the plea which was put in by the responsible official and which appears set out at length in Lord Mersey's Report—the plea that the improvement in design in modern ships rendered the provision of boats less urgent than it had been under former conditions. At the time when the "Titanic" was lost public opinion was so exercised that perhaps there was not that coolness of judgment brought to bear upon the disaster which would be the case if the matter were reconsidered now, and though I am very far from saying that everything was as it ought to have been, yet I do think that if the matter was reconsidered now there would not be the same demand for drastic changes in the regulations which was displayed at that deplorable moment. I therefore think that, although we must admit that the delay of 1894 was regrettable, there is something to be said for the other side.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether he does not think it requires great care in making these charges against a public Department. I will notice one instance. He stated to your Lordships that the Board of Trade had taken no action until after the "Titanic" disaster in respect to the recent advice of the Advisory Committee to alter the provision of life-saving apparatus. My noble friend nods his head. He has acted literally, but he has not acted within the spirit; and he will find that is so if he will read carefully Lord Mersey's Report. Lord Mersey first of all gives the reason for the delay—namely,

103
that certain experiments had to be carried out before definite regulations could be agreed upon—and he goes on to say—
"But I have satisfied myself that the determination to write a letter in the sense of the published letter, which was elated after the 'Titanic' disaster, bad really been resolved upon before the disaster had taken place."
The noble Lord did not tell your Lordships that finding of Lord Mersey's Commission, yet it is essential to the forming of a judgment on the matter. I happen to know that the noble Lord was inaccurate in that respect, and I merely give that instance to your Lordships in order to show how careful you must be to sift charges against a great public Department before you accept them without comment.
I have said enough to show why we upon this Bench do not feel that a case has been made out for an inquiry. The real substance of the matter is this. If you leave out of account the "Titanic"—and that, of course, is a very great exception—the loss of life at sea is, I am glad to say, not only very small compared to the enormous number of British seagoing ships, but, as the noble Earl opposite said, is diminishing, or certainly over any reasonable period of years diminishing. That is a great fact, and I do not think you are entitled to bring a charge of neglect against a great public Department whose business it is to protect the lives of seamen in the merchant service if it can be shown that, as a matter of fact, loss of life is very small and that that loss of life is diminishing. I say, of course, leaving out of sight the "Titanic" case. The circumstances which led to that awful disaster were so peculiar, so unprecedented, and such a combination of accidents not likely to occur again that I think it is only fair that that should be left out of account in arriving at a general conclusion. For these reasons I do not think my noble friend has produced enough prima facie evidence to justify an inquiry. But I think he has produced enough to show that there has been a certain want of vigour in certain departments of the administration of the Board of Trade, like the administration of any other Department; and I am quite certain that the Department which the noble Earl opposite represents have taken to heart the findings of Lord Mersey's Commission and will also take to heart the observations of my noble friend and do their utmost to remedy that which ought to be put right.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I do not agree that there has been an answer to what I have put forward, and I would point out that, though under providence the number of lives lost has not been large, lives are being risked every day through the carrying of deck-cargoes. There was an inquiry last week into the loss of a vessel through the carrying of a huge deck-cargo. This is still going on. Is that not to be stopped? Are no precautions to be taken against undue risk of life in this way? Precautions are taken against loss of life in connection with every other trade in this country. Why should this not be so in the case of the merchant service? After what the noble Marquess has said I do not think it would be any good pressing my Motion to a Division, and therefore I ask permission to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this is a short Bill the object of which is to continue and amend the Light Railways Act of 1896. By Section 6 of that Act the sum which was advanced by the Treasury was £1,000,000, and of this sum £250,000 was made available for special advances, free grants, etc. That sum is now nearly exhausted, and the powers we ask under this Bill is to increase the amount to £750,000, leaving £250,000 for the purpose of loans at 3½ per cent. Your Lordships are aware of the advantages to be gained in vastly-populated districts from light railways, and with these few words I move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of this Bill stated very truly what it is at the present moment, but he has not told your Lordships what at one time it was. Originally there was a clause in the Bill dealing with what is known as trackless trolleys, and when the Bill was in another place there were alterations made in it in the interests of county councils and

105
other road authorities. These Amendments, which were carried in Select Committee in opposition to the Government, had further Amendments proposed to them because the Government, while accepting the general policy of the Amendments inserted in the Select Committee, thought that they went too far, and that, while throwing on the promoters of trackless trolley systems the duty and responsibility of making good the damage they did to the roads, the original Amendments went somewhat too far and threw upon them onus and responsibility for damage which might really in point of fact have not occurred. They, therefore, were prepared to accept, and had I believe drafted, other Amendments which were not open to these charges and which it was their intention to put in on the Report stage. Those who were interested in the promotion of trackless trolleys, however, represented to the Government that sooner than have these Amendments put in they would have what was then Clause 2 deleted altogether and be left in the position in which they previously were, a position which leaves the road authority to oppose separately every private Bill in Parliament brought in for the promotion of trackless trolleys.
This is a position to which, speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, we strongly object. We think that the matter ought to be dealt with generally, that trackless trolleys should be sanctioned by Order of the Board of Trade, and that certain conditions of a general nature should be attached to each of these Orders in support of the road authorities, who, I need not at this stage point out, would be gravely damaged by anything in the nature of trackless trolleys, which necessarily must do considerable damage to the roads and are not under the liability which ordinary tramways are of maintaining those portions of the roads which they use. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade represented, very truly, that the proper way of legislating on this subject was by a general Act dealing with trackless trolleys in the same way that tramways are dealt with; but until this is done we object very strongly to being left in the position of having to oppose private Bills upon every system of trackless trolleys which may be promoted. In these circumstances it is my intention when this Bill goes into Committee to put down the Amendments which the Government were prepared to accept in
106
the other House. Of course, our action upon those Amendments would be considerably altered if the Government, when the Bill is in Committee, are prepared to give us any substantial undertaking that the matter will in a reasonable time be dealt with in the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary recommended that it should be dealt with, and which we entirely agree is the proper way in which the question should be met.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RURAL HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I move this new clause after Clause 1 for the purpose of making it clear what the meaning of being an inmate of a brothel is. It is not desired to confine the offence of procuration to a case in which the unfortunate girl is persuaded to live in a brothel. It may be that she lives outside and habitually frequents it, and we feel that the law as it is stated in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act requires strengthening upon this point. There are many cases in which the evil is just as great although the girl does not actually reside in the brothel. We therefore think that the words "or frequent" should be inserted, and I move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 2.
In paragraphs (3) and (4) of Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the words "or frequent" shall be inserted after the words "an immate of" wherever those words occur.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Increased Penalties for Procurers.
2. Any male person who is convicted under section two of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, may, at the discretion of the court, and in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of the said offence, be sentenced to be once privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified by the court in the sentence.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): The first Amendment to Clause 2 stands in the name of the Lord Chancellor, but there are technical reasons which make it desirable that this Amendment should not be moved by my noble and learned friend. He will no doubt explain the technical reasons to the House. In these circumstances I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("convicted") insert ("of a second or subsequent offence").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government were pledged to give Parliament the opportunity of pronouncing on this question, and they also made it clear that every member of the Government would be free to vote as he pleased. Though the Amendment was put down in my name I felt it to be unbecoming that I should move it after having expressed opinions in a contrary sense in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore my noble friend who takes the other view has moved the Amendment, and I only rise for the purpose of again very shortly repeating what I said on the last occasion.
The purpose of this Bill is to deter people from committing this offence. We are dealing with very cold-blooded and calculating persons. It is felt that nothing short of the penalty of corporal punishment is likely to prove an effective deterrent to people whose profits are so large that they are content to take the risk of imprisonment.
108
Then comes the question whether the corporal punishment should be inflicted for a first offence. On that opinions differ. My own opinion is that the deterring effect is what you aim at in this Bill. With people of this class, to whom you cannot appeal in any ordinary way, who are not like those who commit crimes of passion but are cold-blooded, calculating people, the only effective deterrent is the fear of corporal punishment for a first offence. The Courts, I think, may be trusted to see that injustice is not done in these matters. I can conceive nothing which is mere likely to affect this class than that in some clear case it should he found that the arm of the law is very strong and will deal with this offence in a fashion which differentiates it from any other offence.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to state in a few words the reasons why I support this Amendment. I understand that the Lord Chancellor, who gave notice of this Amendment, is not prepared to support it. I hope he will pardon me for saying that this is a somewhat unusual and perhaps unprecedented course. The Amendment is one of very grave importance. It is for the purpose of excluding, except in cases of second and subsequent convictions, the punishment of flogging. It proposes also to bring this clause into harmony with Clause 6 in this respect, and it proposes also to give effect to the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons as declared in the sixth clause.
I need hardly state that I detest the crimes at which this clause is aimed as much as any of your Lordships, and I agree that no punishment which the State thinks fit to apply to these offenders is too severe for them. The only question is whether, having regard to the past experience of this country and other countries in respect to flogging, there is reason to believe that it will be efficacious as a deterrent, and whether this kind of punishment is not attended with other evils which make it undesirable to apply it. This is no new question with me. So long ago as the year 1871, when I was connected officially with the Home Office, I gave a good deal of time to examining the records of that Department with regard to flogging, and I came to the conclusion, which I believe is the same as every one, with one or two exceptions perhaps, who has served at the Home Office has arrived at, that flogging has

109
not in the past been a deterrent of crime. Several discussions arose on the question during the period that I was a member of the other House, and I took my part at times in opposing or defeating the extension of flogging. The most important of those discussions arose in the year 1885 upon a question very analogous to that of the present clause. It was proposed to extend flogging to a crime quite as detestable as any crime included in this Bill—namely, rapes of young girls—and a discussion of great importance arose on the question, in which four of the most eminent lawyers of their time took part. Three of those eminent lawyers afterwards became members of this House. I refer to Lord James of Hereford, Lord Herschell, Lord Davey, and Sir Edward Clarke, and I think your Lordships will agree that it would not be easy to pick out four men of equal eminence at the Bar. They all concurred in the view that flogging had in the past been no deterrent of crime, they all opposed its extension, and they all pointed out other evils attending upon such punishment, with the result that the Bill was thrown out.
I wish I could quote to your Lordships fully the speech made by Lord Herschell on that occasion. It was one of the ablest I had heard from him. Among other things he pointed out that it was an entire mistake to suppose that the Act of 1863, commonly called the Garrotting Act, which applied flogging to cases of robbery with violence, had in fact put down garrotting. He showed that the outbreak of garrotting in London which had occurred in the previous year, 1862, had been entirely put down by a firm and severe administration of the law, under which all persons concerned in that crime had been sentenced to long terms of penal servitude, with the result that at the next sitting of the Central Criminal Court the learned Judge who presided congratulated the Grand Jury upon the complete putting down of that crime, and this was months before the Act of 1863 was passed. Lord Herschell also pointed out, in respect of other kinds of crime of robbery with violence which were included in the Act, that there had been an increase and not a diminution of those crimes in the years following the Act of 1863, showing clearly that the fear of the Act had not deterred people from committing these offences. The same view of the effect of the Garrotting
110
Act was given by the late Lord Aberdare in the debate in the House of Commons in 1875, and later in 1890 by Mr. Asquith, who had previously been Home Secretary, and also by the late Lord Ridley, who was at the time at the head of the Home Office. I think, therefore, it is absolutely certain that flogging under the Act of 1863, commonly called the Garrotting Act, had no effect whatever in putting down garrotting.
But, my Lords, we are not confined to experience of that Act in respect of flogging. I need not remind your Lordships that flogging was almost universal in this country and all through Europe up to the middle of last century. In this country flogging was the punishment applied to almost every kind of offence, great and small, under our Criminal Code, and persons, both men and women, were flogged in great numbers. Men were flogged before they were hanged. Men were flogged for every kind of offence of an immoral character. They were flogged for petty thefts and for libel. In the case of men they were flogged publicly, and I believe there were not less than sixty whipping-posts in London alone, showing the number of persons who must have been flogged in those days. All this flogging had no real effect upon the diminution of crime. In fact, there is good reason to believe that it rather increased crime than otherwise. It was the same on the Continent. Flogging was almost universal there. It was the punishment for offences great and small, and I believe I am right in saying that in petty courts of Germany ladies of the court were not infrequently flogged for breaches of etiquette. Perhaps I may remind the Bench of Bishops that flogging was at the time I speak of approved by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome appears to have had a firm belief in the efficacy of flogging. Flogging was the punishment applied to all offences under ecclesiastical law. Flogging also was recommended by the Church of Rome as a form of penance, and priests and even bishops flagellated themselves in private, under the belief, no doubt, that that was the best way of curbing the evil spirits within them. Sometimes these flagellations took place in public, and priests headed processions throughout the streets of persons who were flagellating themselves till their backs streamed with blood.

111
Towards the middle of the last century a change came, and I think it was one of the most remarkable changes which have come about in the last hundred years. Flogging came absolutely to an end. There is not at the present time a single country in Europe whose Criminal Code recognises flogging as a proper mode of punishment. Everywhere throughout the Continent it has come to an end. The Church of Rome has also taken a very different view on the subject. Flogging has altogether ceased in cases of ecclesiastical offences and is also discouraged, if not forbidden, as a matter of penance. At all events, priests and monks no longer flagellate themselves except in a few cases of most severe monastic orders. Practically, therefore, the system of flogging has come to an end universally throughout Europe. This country is the only civilised country, I believe, where there has been a reversion to some small extent to this system in the case of the Act to which I have referred and also in the case of an Act directed against incorrigible rogues. With those exceptions I believe I am right in saying that flogging has ceased to be a punishment in every country in Europe, and also in every country in the New World. In these circumstances it does seem to me to be a grave question whether we should go further in the direction of re-establishing flogging.
There is another point connected with it which I desire to bring under the notice of the House, and that is the effect of flogging upon the persons who have to inflict it. I have consulted at different times persons who have seen the infliction of flogging as it is carried out at present in our gaols. It is carried out by warders, who receive additional pay for it, and the prison officials have to be present to see that it is properly carried out. I am told that the effect upon these men is decidedly bad. The warders who have to inflict it begin by a feeling of disgust at it, but that passes away soon, and there seems to be a strange fascination connected with the system which has a bad effect in stimulating the passion of the men who are engaged upon it, and not only them, but also the officials who are bound to be present. For my part I think that the State has no right to put these men in a position where they are compelled to be parties to scenes of that kind, and I believe it would be a wise thing on that
112
account not to extend the system but rather to limit it in the cases in which it is already permitted. There is much more that I could say on the matter, but I have endeavoured to be as temperate in my language as I could be. I can only conclude by saying that my firm conviction is that flogging has not been in the past and cannot in the future be a means of putting down crime. I believe, on the contrary, that its only effect is to brutalise those upon whom it is inflicted and those whose duty it is to inflict it, and in the long run also to brutalise public opinion, with the result that crime instead of being diminished will ultimately be increased. I beg, therefore, to support the Amendment before the House.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in a general discussion as to the desirability of the punishment of flogging, because, as I understand this Amendment, it only relates to the question whether flogging, being included in the clause to which the Amendment is moved, should be inflicted on a first offence or only on a subsequent offence, and anything I say will be entirely limited to that point. We are familiar with the principle that a different punishment may be awarded for a first, or a second, or a third offence; and in respect of a great number of offences there is, if not at all a conclusive, perhaps a fair presumption that a first conviction may very likely represent a first offence. But I think if there is any presumption in the case of an offence of this kind, which is the procuring of a girl to send her to a brothel either here or abroad, it is that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a first conviction would in any way represent a first offence. I think it is almost certain, in a crime which requires planning, deliberation, and thought, that a man will never be the principal in such a transaction who is doing it suddenly for the first time in his life. That seems to me quite improbable, and therefore I think the principle on which you impose a different punishment for a first and a second offence does not apply at all to the same extent in relation to this offence as it does to many other offences.
Take the case of an arrest on suspicion which arises on another clause in the Bill. The arrest on suspicion in perhaps ninety-

113
nine cases out of a hundred arises out of circumstances which would not be suspicious at all if it were not for the fact that the person who is arrested is well known to the Police to be a man who has laid himself open to the suspicion of taking part in such offences. I do not think, therefore, that an ordinary conversation between a man and a girl in the street would lead any constable to arrest such a man unless he had some reason to suppose that the man was engaged in this traffic. Further, supposing it was the first time that a man of this class had actually procured a girl in this way, I ant not at all sure, if it comes to a question of morals, when you consider what the offence is, that the distinction between a first and a second offence is so great as it might be in some other cases. I should like to put one other point. Supposing you did really have a case in which a man had been tempted by money or by some other cause and led into committing this offence for the first time and really under circumstances which showed great temptation, we know by the way trials are conducted in this country that he would have every
chance of establishing such a defence, and it is hardly conceivable that a Judge would inflict flogging upon such an offender. But even if he did, would not the sentence be revised by the Court of Criminal Appeal? I cannot imagine any case where a man could show that he was in any sense tempted and fell for the first time in this way, in which there would be the least chance in the ultimate result of his receiving the punishment of flogging. It seems to me that we have not to consider in any discussion upon this Amendment whether flogging is or is not a good thing. I do not agree with those who object altogether to flogging in these cases, but I understand their position. I do not, however, understand how those who accept the principle of flogging in this particular class of case can reasonably urge that there is any grave danger of injustice being done if that punishment is inflicted in the case of a first conviction. I use the word "conviction" deliberately, and not the word "offence."
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS.

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

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Shaw, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffidd.) [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Eversley, L. [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

Russell, E.

Reay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Goschen, V.

Ebury, L.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Ellenborough, L.

Knollys, V.

Farquhar, L.

Bedford, D.

Llandaff, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Brandon, D. (L. Hamilton.)

Gwydir, L.

Devonshire, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Hastings, L.

Marlborough, D.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Newcastle, D.

St. Albanas, L. Bp.

Haversham, L. [Teller.]

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

St. David's, L. Bp.

Herschell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Alverstone, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lawrence, L.

Catheart, E.

Balfour, L.

Lovat, L.

Craven, E.

Barnard, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Cromer, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Moulton, L.

Dartrey, E.

Blythswood, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Denbigh, E.

Boston, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Plunket, L.

Harrowby, E.

Channing, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Londesborough, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Loreburn, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Southwark, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Strachie, L.

Northbrook, E.

Colchester, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Northesk, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Selborne, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Templemore, L.

Westmeath, E.

De Mauley, L.

Willingdon, L.

Allendale, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Willougliby de Broke, L.

Chilston, V.

Digby, L.

Wolverton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

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

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Falkland, V.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment of which I have given notice is, as your Lordships will see, to add the words "or three" after the words "Section two" at the beginning of Clause 2. There are two sections of the principal Act of 1885 which deal with these particular offences. The first deals with simple procuring; that is to say, procuring without aggravating circumstances of deception or menace. Section 2 appears to deal specifically with the case of procuring for the purpose of prostitution, but Section 3, on the other hand, deals with the aggravated offences of procuring with all the circumstances of deception and menace, and even a still more terrible nature of offence where the crime is carried out with the assistance of drugs. In those respects it deals with far more heinous offences than does Section 2. I confess that when I came to read this particular clause in the Bill I was rather astonished to find that under Section 2, which is the only section of the principal Act that is dealt with as the Bill stands, there were none of these aggravated circumstances of deception and menace and action by the help of drugs which have formed the basis of all the terrible stories—true stories, I am afraid—which have been the occasion of bringing in this Bill at all. Your Lordships are unfortunately familiar with the kind of crime that is dealt with—the deception of young girls and the terrible stories of fraud under which they have been induced to trust themselves to persons who are really agents of this horrible traffic. Those offences are not specifically referred to in Section 2, the section we are dealing with, but they are specifically referred to in Section 3, which is not mentioned in the Bill at all. I therefore venture to say that if you are going to deal with the principal Act at all you ought to deal rather with Section 3 than with Section 2. As far as I can make out, to procure a woman for the purpose of prostitution even with her own consent is a crime under Section 2, but I am sure that none of your Lordships really desire that the drastic penalties which we have just affirmed should be applied to crimes of that kind. The crimes by means of menace and drugs are dealt with under Section 3. There is this distinction, that Section 2 deals with procuring for the purpose of prostitution, whereas Section 3 deals with the offence of procuring merely for dis-
116
honour without the further aggravation of prostitution; but still it remains true that the whole atmosphere of deception and menace with which we have been familiar during the last few days in the discussion of this terrible question is dealt with under Section 3, which is never referred to in this Bill at all, and not under Section 2, which is the only one dealt with. I should have been happier, I confess, if the penalties we have been decreeing to apply by Section 2 should only apply if t he offences under Section 2 are accompanied by fraud or menace. I therefore think that Section 3 should be included, and I beg to move that your Lordships should add after the word "two" the words "or three."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("two") insert ("or three").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment, for reasons which I will very shortly assign. I agree with him that some of the offences which come under Section 3 of the Act of 1885 are very heinous offences indeed, but I doubt whether they are, all of them at any rate, on the same level as procuration. Procuration is a cold and deliberate crime, and we propose to apply flogging to it under this Bill, not because we approve of the punishment of flogging, which is one that is becoming more and more looked on with repugnance, but because we think that for this particular offence flogging is not only justifiable but is an effectual deterrent. But when you come to Section 3, although that section covers some very bad offences they are not only of a somewhat different character but some of them are of a very different character. Subsection (2) of Section 3 deals with an offence which may cover a crime of passion, if I may call it so—the case of a person who is carried away by passion and under the pretence of marriage induces a girl to become his mistress. The noble Marquess's Amendment would apply to that. Subsection (2) deals with a person who—
"By false pretences or false representations procures any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have any unlawful carnal connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions."

117
Obviously that covers a class of offence which is very different from anything we are dealing with under the previous section, and to extend the punishment of flogging to a crime of passion like that would be going a very long way—indeed, far further than I, for one, would be prepared to go.
But one consideration which weighs with me very much is that inevitably if the noble Marquess's Amendment were carried there would arise a great division of opinion in another place, and I should be sorry to say that the prospects of the Bill would be assured if it were transformed in this fashion. There is another point still of somewhat a technical character. The gravest of the crimes cognate to those dealt with by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is rape. Rape is a very high crime, and corporal punishment is not imposed for rape. But Section 3 covers what one may call minor offences of the character of rape, procuring carnal connexion by misrepresentations and by drugs, and so on, which, although constituting a crime which is less than rape, the noble Marquess proposes to punish with a punishment which the law does not apply in the case of rape. That shows how far-reaching the noble Marquess's Amendment is. For those reasons, therefore, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. Firstly, I do not agree with it; secondly, I think it will give rise to a dangerous controversy elsewhere; and, thirdly, it puts the law out of gear as regards the crime of rape. I therefore venture to suggest to the noble Marquess that it would be unwise for him to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We take note of the noble and learned Viscount's intimation that by pressing this Amendment we should be endangering the prospects of the Bill elsewhere. That is a very strong intimation, and one which I should certainly not like to treat lightly. But I confess I did not follow the argument of the noble and learned Viscount as satisfactorily as I could have wished. He suggested to us that there was this great difference between Section 2 of the Act of 1885, which is referred to in the Bill on the Table, and Section 3, which is not—the difference, namely, that offences covered by Section 2 were what he called offences
118
of a cold and deliberate nature. What are the offences dealt with by Section 3 which my noble friend wishes to include within the purview of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said that some of the offences under Section 3 were of a cold-blooded nature. But I took the case of subsection (2) of Clause 3.
THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I was just going to refer to subsection (2). I agree with the noble and learned Viscount as to this subsection, and I admit that it would probably be unwise to bring offences under that subsection within the scope of the Bill on the Table. But, my Lords, I would ask you to look at the other two subsections—(1) and (3). Subsection (1) deals with persons who—
"By threats or intimidation procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl," etc.
Surely you could not have a more cold and deliberate offence than the offence contemplated by the subsection. And the argument is even stronger in the case of subsection (3), which deals with cases where a person—
"Applies, administers to, or causes to be taken by any woman or girl any drug, matter, or thing, with intent to stupefy or overpower"
for an immoral purpose. Surely there you have the element of cold-bloodedness and deliberation in the most marked form. I should have been inclined to suggest that my noble friend might have worded his Amendment so as to make it applicable only to the first and third subsections of Section 3, but I own that when the noble and learned Viscount tells us that he and his colleagues will not be responsible for the safe passage of the Bill if the Amendment is pressed I am greatly discouraged in supporting my noble friend in persevering with what I should otherwise describe as a reasonable and logical amendment of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Marquess that some of these offences are very grave; but, on the other hand, Section 3 of the Act of 1885 is of a very far-reaching character. For instance, the noble Marquess has spoken of drugs, but it is not confined to drugs. The words are "Drug, matter, or thing." There is a famous novel, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," in which, according to my recollection, the very

119
incident occurs—a most reprehensible incident but not one which you would wish to punish corporally. As regards the other point, I did not desire in any sense to convey to the noble Marquess that my colleagues and I are not most anxious that this Bill should pass into law, even if it were amended. We should consider it a greater evil to lose the Bill than to have it amended. What I meant to say was that this Bill could only pass if there was a general assent given to it in another place and if there was no great controversy about it, and we think that it would jeopardise the security which we hope for now if your Lordships were to introduce this new and controversial matter.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I should be disposed to join in the appeal of the Lord Chancellor. I have myself tried many cases quite of a minor character where a man has simply told a lie in order to induce a girl to whom he was very much attached to have connexion with him, and therefore if we were simply to apply it to any case under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Act it would be impossible for me to vote for the Amendment. It has been suggested that the Amendment might be limited to subsections (1) and (3). What I say with regard to that is that there are various grades of offences under subsections (1) and (3) which we have to try. Take the case of a man who is very much attached to a girl and has given her drink to induce her to have connexion with him. That is one case. But the words are, "Any drug, matter, or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower," and one has to be very careful. We must not mix this matter up with cases of procuration under subsection (2). That is quite a different matter altogether. This is against the individual for what I may call a personal offence, or, it may be, getting somebody else to have connexion with the girl, which is not an uncommon offence. I quite agree with what has been said by the noble Marquess below me. Many cases of giving a girl a drug are as bad as they can be; but we ought to be careful to get sections in this Bill which only deal with really serious offences, and you cannot justify applying this punishment to Section 3 because you have applied it to Section 2. It is an entirely different class of offence. Under Section 3 there is nothing which practically amounts to that except under subsection (1)—
120
procuring a girl by threats to have unlawful carnal connexion, it may be with the man himself. I know from some considerable experience that under this section offences which are very bad, but still nothing like as bad as the offences we have been dealing with, have been punished, and I think it would be likely to give rise to well-grounded criticism if we were at once to apply this punishment to the whole of the offences dealt with under Section 3. I may say for myself that I could not possibly vote for the Amendment seeing that subsection (2) is included.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After what has been said I will not press my Amendment. But in order to justify myself may I say that the point on which I was most insistent was that there was no mention of deception or menace in Section 2 of the principal Act. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice has just said that we ought not to attach this drastic punishment to any crimes which are not of the most heinous character. I submit that there are many crimes in Section 2 of the Act of 1885 which are not of the most heinous character.
LORD ALVERSTONE: It is in the discretion of the Judge. No Judge would inflict such a punishment for those offences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree it is in the discretion of the Judge, but that is not what the Lord Chancellor said. He said we ought not to apply this punishment to crimes of a less heinous character. I want your Lordships to realise that under Section 2 you might have procuring—the Lord Chancellor did not deal with this point—with the consent of the woman, and yet that would be an offence under that section. There are no words in Section 2 which show that the procuring requires to be done against the wishes of the victim. Therefore when we are imposing very drastic penalties, as we are doing, I think it is astonishing that those who are drafting this Bill should not have put in words showing that in applying these words to Section 2 they meant them to apply to heinous offences under Section 2 and not to less heinous offences. It was with a view to covering that point that I tried to induce your Lordships to accept my Amendment adding words covering Section 3. But I quite

121
realise the force of the argument of my noble and learned friend, and I shall not press my Amendment. In fact, I am quite satisfied in having brought the point to the attention of your Lordships.
LORD SHEFFIELD: As the noble Marquess has just observed, you have actually made procuring with the consent of the woman an offence which may be punished by flogging. The words "common prostitute" only apply to Section 1. A woman may be a common prostitute, and a person may procure her to go to a brothel elsewhere and yet he may be flogged. A woman may be frequenting a brothel in Liverpool, and a person may say to her "Come over to Manchester where there is a better opening," and you inflict flogging for that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in moving to leave out Clause 2 I need not say much. I think the discussion that we have just had shows that when once you start on this career of flogging you never quite know where you are to stop. The noble Marquess was anxious to extend it to another section, and he drew from the Lord Chief Justice the interesting admission that some of the offences under the section it had been applied to were not necessarily very heinous offences. That shows what may happen when once you go in for flogging. I do not want to deal with the merits of flogging itself, because we had an excellent speech from my noble friend Lord Eversley as to the past history of flogging and as to its deterrent effect, with which I associate myself. If you apply flogging to one crime it seems to me that you will very soon be asked to apply it to a great many other crimes. For instance, the rape of a woman who is unwilling is about as bad a crime as any that is dealt with under this Bill. Your Lordships have been told that the punishment of flogging does not apply to that crime, and I think you will find that very soon there will be a plea for its extension to the crime of rape. It is a remedy that appeals to the natural manly view, but I venture to suggest that it is neither a wise nor a thought-out one, and it is not a remedy that the criminologist believes in or will encourage you in adopting. I know that a large majority are in favour of it in this House,
122
but I think it desirable to press this Amendment in order to give those of us who feel that the punishment of flogging should be discouraged in our law an opportunity of expressing this feeling. I see a considerable Bench of right rev. Bishops here to-day who, no doubt, are going to support flogging. The history of their votes in this House shows that they have supported other extreme measures. I think I am not wrong in saying that they supported the punishment of hanging for larceny, and therefore I do not think on this occasion that we can be rightly guided because the right rev. Prelates are going to support a particular course of action on this occasion. I believe the noble and learned Lord opposite referred to the case of a prison chaplain—
LORD ALVERSTONE: No, it was the Lord Archbishop.
EARL RUSSELL: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I have also received a communication from a gentleman who was a prison chaplain and who feels very strongly on this matter. He is strongly opposed to flogging, and I have a letter from him in which he says that flogging is "neither beneficial to the sufferer nor to the administrator." I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will simply move that Clause 2 be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I should like to state the point of view from which I regard this question. Many of us have come to this House to-day at a great sacrifice of time and by the putting aside of other work with the object of supporting this Bill. We have a very great desire that the Bill should pass, and I should be prepared to vote against any kind of Amendment which would endanger the passage of the Bill. Such a point as that which the noble Earl has raised has been thrashed out in the House of Commons and been decided there by considerable majorities. The noble Earl has spoken of this Bench as though we were advocates of flogging. I should like to say that I, at any rate, have had experience of parochial life, which has given me personal knowledge of what procuration means. My experience has shown me the horrible danger to which young girls are exposed. I should like a little

123
sympathy shown with the fathers and mothers of these girls themselves, and I think that sympathy with them would be better placed than sympathy with those who would come under the lash under the operation of this Bill. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Desart) said to us to-day, that whenever there is a first conviction under this Bill it will not necessarily mean a first offence, but probably a very calculated offence and one which has been going on for a very long time. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will pass this Bill practically in the form in which it has come to us from another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the Government is very much the same as was so well put by the right rev. Prelate—namely, to pass the Bill substantially in the form in which it has come to us from the House of Commons. It may be taken to represent general public opinion. Of course, there is great division on the question which my noble friend behind me has raised. The question of flogging is a very controversial one. My noble friend holds one view with regard to it and I hold another, perhaps not so very different from his, but I think there are certain offences with regard to which it is desirable to retain this punishment, and I think this is one. It has been said by the noble Marquess that under Clause 2 we have extended the power to flog very widely. I do not agree with him. Clause 2 has been extremely carefully drawn, and drawn to catch in its net the deliberate procurer. A procuress cannot come under it because there is no flogging of a woman, but the deliberate procurer comes in, and he is always deliberate because he has persuaded the unfortunate girl—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what the noble and learned Viscount means by "deliberate procurer." There is nothing more deliberate in the one section than in the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess suggested that the consent of the girl made a difference to the offence. I think that the consent of the girl does not make the offence of the grown up person who deliberately persuades her a different kind of offence, and it is for that offence, tempered by the discretion of the Judge, that corporal punishment is retained in this Bill. Therefore I am not moved by the comment that we have gone very far in Clause 2 in applying flogging. As regards the general question, public opinion is in my view in favour of the use of this punishment for this class of offence. I think that what happened in another place showed it, and the current of opinion outside Parliament is to the same effect. Therefore as representing the Government I am wholly unable to agree with my noble friend who sits behind me that it would be a wise or a proper course on our part to in any way substantially alter the Bill in the way suggested.
EARL RUSSELL: I might say one word in reply to the right rev. Prelate. If he had done me the honour to read my speech on the Second Reading he would have seen that I expressly disclaimed sympathy with the persons against whom this punishment is directed. I do not think, therefore, that we are helped in our discussion by what the right rev. Prelate said. There is also the other point to which I have before referred which has a great bearing upon the punishment—namely, the different temperament of Judges and the different circumstances under which these things come up.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Craven, E.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Cromer, E.

Salisbury, M.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Dartrey, E.

Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.)

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Denbigh, E.

Devonshire, D.

Camperdown, E.

Halsbury, E.

Newcastle, D.

Cathcart, E.

Harrowby, E.

Londesborough, E.

Alverstone, L.

Forester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Northesk, E.

Balfour, L.

Gwydir, L.

Selborne, E.

Barnard, L.

Hastings, L.

Westmeath, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Allendale, V.

Blythswood, L.

Haversham, L. [Teller.]

Chilston, V.

Boston, L.

Herschell, L.

Falkland, V.

Channing, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Goschen, V.

Charnwood, L.

Lawrence, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Danoughmore.)

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Mac Donnell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Newton, L.

Knollys, V.

Colchester, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Llandaff, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

De Mauley, T..

Southwark, L.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Strachie, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Digby, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

St. David's, L. Bp.

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

Willingdon, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ellenborough, L.

Wolverton, L.

Addington, L.

Farquhar, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

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

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Shaw, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Beauchamp E. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Eversley, L.

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Determination of Tenancy of Premises on Conviction for permitting Use as Brothel, &c.
4.—(1) Upon the conviction, after the passing of this Act, of the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises of knowingly permitting the premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel, the landlord or lessor shall be entitled to require the person so convicted to assign the lease or other contract under which the said premises are held by him to some person approved by the landlord or lessor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and, in the event of the person so convicted failing within three months to assign the lease or contract as aforesaid, the landlord or lessor shall be entitled to determine the lease or other contract but without prejudice to the rights or remedies of any party to such lease or contract accrued before the date of such determination. If the landlord or lessor should so determine the lease or other contract of tenancy the court which has convicted the tenant, lessee, or occupier shall have power to make a summary order for delivery of possession to the landlord or lessor.
(2) If the landlord or lessor after such conviction has been brought to his notice fails to exercise his rights under the foregoing provisions of this section and subsequently during the subsistence of the lease or contract any such offence is again committed in respect of the premises, the landlord or lessor shall be deemed to have knowingly aided
126
or abetted the commission of that offence unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence.
(3) Where a landlord or lessor determines a lease or other contract under the powers conferred by this section and subsequently grants another lease or enters into another contract of tenancy to, with, or for the benefit of the same person without causing to be inserted in such lease or contract all reasonable provisions for the prevention of a recurrence of any such offence as aforesaid, he shall be deemed to have failed to exercise his rights under the foregoing provisions of this section, and any such offence as aforesaid committed during the subsistence of the subsequent lease or contract shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been committed during the subsistence of the previous lease or contract.
(4) A person quitting premises in Ireland held by him under a lease or contract which has been determined in pursuance of this Act shall not be entitled to compensation under the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906.
LORD BALFOUR op BURLEIGII: I want to ask a question about this clause. Subsection (2) says that if the landlord or lessor after such conviction has been brought to his notice fails to exercise his rights, and so on, he shall be deemed to have knowingly aided or abetted the commission of the offence unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence. I want to ask what is the definition of having the conviction brought to the notice of the landlord. I quite agree, if the landlord knowingly does this thing,

127
that lie ought to be involved in the offence, but I would like to ask whether a mere verbal information is to be sufficient to bring the landlord under this clause. It seems to me that the Clerk of the Court or some official connected with the case should send a notice in writing to the landlord, and then there would be no doubt as to whether the landlord had or had not received notice.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to repeat the question I asked on Second Reading on subsection (1) of this clause—namely, whether it would not be more convenient that the conviction should forfeit the lease then and there instead of having recourse to this process.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the first question put by the noble Lord opposite, no jury or Court would ever convict a landlord on mere suspicion. The purpose of this clause is to hit the case of owners of premises who, in order to get a large rent, as I am afraid a certain number of persons do, let their premises for the purpose at which the clause strikes. There is no difficulty about a case of this kind, whereas it might be difficult for the Clerk of the Court to find the landlord or the lessor if there were an obligation upon him to give notice. That is not such a simple matter as it looks, and I think the situation is safe from the point of view of the question which was put. Then the noble Earl asks why it is not expedient to void the lease. We do not consider it expedient, for the reason that it would introduce further intricacies into the title to real property in this country. There are at present enough of them. Secondly, there may be cases in which the tenant has spent a good deal of money on the property, and although you want to punish him for the offence he has committed you do not want to make him forfeit his improvements to the landlord who may have contributed nothing. Therefore we think that you ought to give him the opportunity of assigning his lease to a respectable tenant. We think it better on the whole to have the clause in the form in which it stands than in the more drastic form suggested.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendments of 61 & 62 Vict c. 39, and 2 Edw. 7, c. 11.
6.—(l) In section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in section one of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, in subsection (3) (which deals with the evidence, of living on the earnings of prostitution) there shall be substituted for the words "and has no visible means of subsistence" the words "or is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution with any other person."
(2) The period of imprisonment with hard labour which may be awarded to a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or to a person convicted summarily of a crime and offence under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, shall be increased to six months, but such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824.
(3) The Vagrancy Act, 1898, as amended by this section, shall extend to Ireland with this modification, that for the words "be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and lie liable to be dealt with accordingly" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with hard labour."
(4) A person charged with an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, may, instead of being proceeded against in England as a rogue and vagabond, or in Scotland or Ireland summarily, be proceeded against on indictment, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the court may sentence the offender to be once privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified by the court in the sentence.
(5) The wife of a person charged with an offence under either of the said Acts may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged, but nothing in this provision shall affect a case where the wife of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that person.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move, after the word "person" at the end of subsection (1), to insert the words "or generally." In the other House the clause originally stood without the words "with any other person," and people were concerned lest the ease of a man himself persuading a girl to have relations with him—in other words, mere seduction—should he covered by the clause, and the words "with ally other person" were inserted in order to make it clear that it was prostitution and not merely relation with himself that was struck at. The effect of that,

129
when we came to look at it, was that it was necessary t o prove that the prostitution was with a definite person, which might be extremely difficult, and we therefore propose to put in the words "or generally,"under which sending her into a brothel, for example, would be enough to satisfy the clause. The adding of the words "or generally" will show that it is prostitution that is aimed at, but not prostitution with any definite person.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("person") insert ("or generally").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the wording of the clause requires amendment. I only suggest to him that the simpler form of amendment surely would be to leave out the words "with any other person."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point was raised in the House of Commons that it would cover a case of seduction or at any rate a case of prostitution with the man himself, and the House objected to it and put in the words "with any other person" to make it clear that the individual was not in peril. The words "or generally" were inserted by a very eminent criminal lawyer in the 1885 Act. They are taken from Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, "Any person who, with intent that any unmarried girl under the age of eighteen years should be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to he with any particular man, or generally," and so on. We followed the analogy of that in amending this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will not press my point.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I hope the Lord Chancellor's Amendment will be accepted. We know what the practice of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has been and we have had decisions on it, and I think it would be much more convenient to follow the form of that Act than to adopt a new one in this Bill.
LORD ALVERSTONE: Before the Lord Chancellor moves his next Amendment I desire to move to leave out from subsection (2) the words, "but such person shall not be liable to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824." I cannot understand how those words got in unless it was through some misunderstanding on the part of the powers that be in another place. Under the Act of 1898 the act of prostitution or soliciting or importuning for immoral purposes is made an offence, and if a person does that he shall be deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824. There is a class of offence in London and in the large towns in this country for which the Police have been trying to get hold of offenders—sodomy and such crimes. We had as many as four or five cases before us last month in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the number of cases is very large. The Act of 1898 made that an offence under the Vagrancy Act. For the first offence the man can only be treated as a rogue and vagabond; for the second offence, he may be sentenced to six months imprisonment, and he can be whipped; and it seems to me that when we are going to inflict whipping for another kind of offence we should not weaken the law in regard to a very disgusting offence as to which, ever since 1898, the Court of Quarter Sessions has had power to inflict whipping. I understand that these words were inserted in haste and without full consideration, and I think they had better be left out. Whether they render the next Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor unnecessary I do not know, but I think that the law should not be weakened in the respect I have pointed out.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("months") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Alveretone.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In my opinion the Amendment which my noble and learned friend has proposed is right, and I think I can account for how the words got in in another place. There was an impression there that there was no power to deal with these eases at Quarter Sessions, and between the insertion of the words and the Bill coming up here there was a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal

131
which showed clearly that the power did exist and always had existed. The noble and learned Lord does not propose to add anything new to the law; he only intends to prevent part of the law being repealed. I think it was under a misunderstanding that the words were put in, and I am quite prepared to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. It will involve a slight modification of my own Amendment which I will move afterwards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now move to insert at the end of this clause the words, "but nothing in this subsection shall affect the powers of a Court of summary jurisdiction to deal with a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, anything in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding." It is a technical Amendment. Under Section 17 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act if there is a case where the sentence may be over three months the Court of summary jurisdiction cannot deal with it. We are now proposing to enable the Court of summary jurisdiction to award six months imprisonment. I am dealing now with quite a minor class of offence, an offence not involving flogging. A London magistrate can deal with such offences summarily, and we do not want them to be tried by juries. We therefore put in these words to enable a magistrate to keep his powers, notwithstanding the effect which the insertion of six instead of three months would have in bringing Section 17 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act into operation.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, after line 33, insert ("but nothing in this subsection shall affect the powers of a Court of summary jurisdiction to deal with a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, anything in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The new subsection which I now move is proposed with a view to carrying out a pledge given in the other House. An Amendment was moved in that House which would have extended the provisions to female persons living on the earnings of prostitution of women. Objection was taken to that on this ground, that the
132
effect of doing it would be to render liable to criminal procedure an aged or paralytic woman supported by her daughter who was a prostitute, or a young and innocent girl supported by her mother who, to provide food for her family, went on the street. The Amendment is designed to cover the difficulty which arises in those cases. The way the Government have done it is this. They have made a substantive new subsection, covering women as well as men, which enacts that every person of either sex who acts as a pimp, souteneur or bully, or otherwise for the purposes of gain aids or abets prostitution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902. I think that meets all that is wanted, and I move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("labour") insert a new subsection:
"( ) Every person, of either sex, who acts as a pimp, souteneur, or bully, or otherwise for the purposes of gain aids or abets prostitution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this section shall apply accordingly."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether this will carry flogging?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Does not the Vagrancy Act bring in flogging in this case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, except in the case of a second offence where a man is found to be an incorrigible rogue.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Then a man who has been twice convicted can be flogged?
LORD ALVERSTONE: He might be.
LORD SHEFFIELD: We are getting on.
EARL RUSSELL: I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the words "pimp, souteneur, or bully" are words which are clearly understood?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so. The magistrate or the Judge would have interpret what the words mean. Words had to be found, and those were the most suitable words that could be got.
EARL RUSSELL: They are almost slang.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, they have occurred in a great deal of classical literature on this topic.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendments are all in a restrictive direction.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("conviction") insert ("such second or subsequent conviction being a conviction on indictment") and after ("may") insert ("in addition to any tern of imprisonment awarded") and after ("offender") insert ("if a male")
Page 4, line 12, after ("wife") insert ("or husband")
Page 4, line 16, after ("wife") insert ("or husband").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question. if I understand the Bill aright, under Clause 2 flogging can only be given in the case of a man who is tried before the High Court of justice, but in a case of flogging under Clause 6 he can be tried before a Court of Quarter Sessions. If that is so it seems to me a little hard on those who are convicted under Clause 6, because, after all, the crimes under Clause 6 are not as great as those under Clause 2, and it appears to me that the man who commits these crimes ought to have the greater protection of the High Court just as the man under Clause 2 has the protection of the High Court against flogging. I say so on the ground, as I read Clause 2, that it is merely an amendment of the Act of 1885, which lays down that all these cases shall go before the High Court and shall not go before a Court of Quarter Sessions. That is not the case with the Act of 1898, which governs the new clause, Clause 6, and I suggest that in all these cases prisoners ought to be tried before the High Court and not before a Court of Quarter Sessions. The Court of Quarter Sessions, as we know, has frequently a legally trained mind at the head of it. But very often the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, with all respect to some I see
134
before me at this moment, have legally trained minds, and they are so accustomed to the laws of evidence as are the Judges of the High Court. Beyond that, as the Courts of Quarter Sessions are very much larger in number and the men sitting at these particular Courts of Quarter Sessions will hold very different; views, one man taking one view about flogging and another man taking another, it does seem to me that in this very serious punishment of flogging you will not have equality of treatment. I suggest, therefore, that all these cases ought to go before the High Court and. not before a Court of Quarter Sessions.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I think the noble Lord is under a little misapprehension. No indictment under the principal Act of 1885 can be tried at Quarter Sessions. Therefore so far as the offences are concerned they will be tried in the high Court on indictment. The only cases in which they can be tried at Quarter Sessions are those to which I have already referred dealing with particular offences under the Vagrancy Act of 1898. I think, therefore, that the Bill is satisfactory as it now stands.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Restriction on Application of Act.
7. This Act shall not, apply where proceedings have been instituted before the commencement of this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALTSBURY: These are very little more than drafting Amendments. The point is that Clause 7 is intended to bar cases where proceedings are actually pending, but as it is drawn it might bar any reference to proceedings which are not only pending but which have been decided before—in other words, account could not be taken of previous convictions. That is not intended, and these Amendments are merely designed to put that right.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("where") and insert ("to").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("have been instituted before") and insert ("pending at").(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Short Title and Commencement.
8.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912.
(2) This Act shall come into force on the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("1912") insert ("and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and this Act may be cited together as the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1012").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask whether the House thinks it is wise to pass the second subsection at all. I understand that those who are in favour of the Bill would like it to come into operation on its passing and not on the 1st of January, 1913. I am informed that those who are engaged in this traffic are exerting every effort to make money during the few days of grace which are left to them. That is the reason why so much pressure has been put upon your Lordships to pass the Bill without delay. There is tremendous pressure to get the Bill passed so that the last few days of grace to these scoundrels should be made as few as possible, and there is no particular reason why the Act should not come into force on its passing rather than leave them another week or two. If the Committee will assent to it, I beg to move to leave out subsection (2).
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have been informed, and I have every reason to believe it is accurate, that there is urgent necessity for this Bill. I have myself abstained from moving one or two Amendments which certainly were in my mind because I desired to do nothing whatever in the slightest degree to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I may add that to my mind the Bill is inadequate, and I hope it will be supplemented. What I would suggest hereafter to His Majesty's Government would be that they should make a conspiracy for this purpose a felony. No one but a lawyer will quite comprehend how very wide the net would become if that amendment were made. I only throw that out as a suggestion for His Majesty's Government to consider. But on the particular Amendment now before your Lordships I do trust that no delay will be placed in the way of this Bill coming into operation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise at once to say that if the noble Marquess moves that Amendment I will accept it. As regards what the noble and learned Earl has said, it is quite true there must be a great deal of consideration of the law with a view to seeing where the meshes are weak, and that is not likely, I think, to be overlooked.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will the noble and learned Viscount say when he proposes to take the remaining stages of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this matter is so urgent I thought that possibly to-morrow we might suspend the Standing Orders and take the remaining stages of the Bill at the one sitting.
The Report of Amendments to be received Tomorrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 182.)

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
MEDICAL BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to the first sitting day after the Recess at Christmas.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Four o'clock.