Sitting of 28 February 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Keighley Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
West Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill (by Order),
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 29th November, 1911; Mr. Newman]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
Annual Returns presented of the Official Assignees of the King's Bench Division in Bankruptcy in Ireland and of the Local Courts at Belfast and Cork, for the year 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 28th February, 1912, modifying the regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1909, in England and Wales, as already modified by the Minutes dated 25th June, 1910, and 13th June, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF SCOTLAND, 1911.
Copy presented of Report on the Twelfth Decennial Census of Scotland. Vol. I., Part I., City of Edinburgh [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1899 to 1909–10. Thirty-seventh Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

CROWN LIVINGS ACT, 1863.
Return of Proceedings under the Act from 1st November, 1863 to 21st February, 1912 [by Act].

PUBLIC SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move for a Return "setting forth the name, age, date of appointment salary, address at time of appointment, and occupation for the five years preceding the appointment, of each person appointed without competitive examination to any position in the Public Service from the 5th day of December 1905, with an annual salary of £100 and upwards, specifying separately the appointments for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland."
Mr. KING: On a point of Order. I beg to call attention to page 105 in the "Manual of Procedure," where it states that the Motion requiring notice must be made by the Member in whose name it stands; and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle not being in his place his Motion cannot now be taken.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not applicable to unopposed returns. We are constantly having unopposed returns moved by one hon. Member on behalf of another, or by one Member of the Government on behalf of another.
Mr. KING: With absolute respect I may point out that this Manual has recently been revised, it has been issued only a few days ago, and may therefore be considered authoritative, and it states that, subject

1339
to a certain exception, namely, a Motion made from the Government Bench alone, this rule has no exception at all.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I am not wholly governed by the Manual. The Manual is really governed by me. It has been the practice to my knowledge for 25 years to take unopposed returns moved by one hon. Member on behalf of another.
Mr. KING: Perhaps so, but not where objection is taken by an hon. Member under this rule. That is surely, with absolute respect, the point that I have made. A Motion may be made, no doubt, when not objected to by an hon. Member, but when an hon. Member rises in his place and directs your attention to a rule which is apparently without exception, save what I have mentioned, I venture to suggest that on such an occasion the Motion cannot be made.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has misconceived the rule. It does not apply to unopposed returns. It never has applied, and the reason why the question has never been raised before is that nobody ever thought it did apply.
Question put, and agreed to.
Further Return ordered, "setting forth the name, age, date of appointment, salary, address at time of appointment, and occupation for the five years preceding the appointment, of each person appointed without competitive examination to any position in the Public Service during the period from the 29th day of June, 1895, to the 5th day of December, 1905, with an annual salary of £100 and upwards, specifying separately the appointments for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland."—[Mr. MacCallum Scott.]

FINES IN FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Mr. LANSBURYpresented a petition signed by 80,000 persons, including ministers of religion and Members of Parliament, members of corporations, aldermen and councillors, praying that the House will take steps to abolish the system of fines in factories and workshops.

TAXATION OF LAND VALUES.
Mr. WATTpresented a petition from the Corporation of the City of Glasgow
1340
under their corporate seal asking that powers be granted to all local rating authorities throughout the country, county, urban and district councils, to impose and levy on the new valuation a tax on the value of land for local purposes distinct and separate from the Increment Duty to be imposed and levied under provisions of the Finance Act, 1909–10.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    TORPEDO DESTROYERS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the destroyers of the 1912–13 German programme were commenced last November; and what steps he proposes to take in order to secure that our destroyers of this year's programme are finished at the same time as those being built for Germany?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): There is no official information that the German destroyers of the 1912–13 programme have been commenced already. In November last a report appeared in the German Press that the Schichau works at Elbing had begun to build twelve destroyers of similar type to those now being built for the German Navy, but it, was also stated that these were being built on the firm's own account. It is presumed that these are the destroyers referred to. Tenders which are now being examined have already been obtained for the twenty British destroyers of the new programme, so that there need be no delay in beginning them, if and when the House of Commons sanctions their construction.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that these twelve destroyers are being built for any other Power except the German Empire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.
    Captain FABERasked whether any and, if so, how many keels of torpedo-boat destroyers have been laid down in the Schichau private works at Elbing during the last twelve months, and which Power has ordered them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Thirteen destroyers have been reported as laid down at

    1341
    Schichau's, Elbing, during 1911. One of these is for China. There is no official information as to the destination of the remainder.
    Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he will know what other Powers those twelve destroyers are for?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that I cannot enter into the region of prophecy.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked how many destroyers of the German 1910–11 programme were in commission by the end of 1911; how many British vessels of the same type and programme were then in commission; and how many are now in service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There were four British destroyers of the 1910–11 programme in commission at the end of 1911, and there are now seven vessels of that programme in service. The whole of the twelve German destroyers of the 1910–11 programme had commissioned for and completed their trials by the end of 1911. Eleven of these were formed into a flotilla on the 4th January, 1912.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Why is it that the Germans could finish all their programme last year while we have only got seven out of our twenty completed at the present moment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I provide information as to the facts; I cannot enter further into the subject, and must defer matters of explanation to the ordinary time.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Surely the House of Commons has a right to know why this great delay in our destroyer programme has taken place?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am always ready to give any information, but I do not think I ought to enter into an explanation in answer to a supplementary question. When a question is put down I see whether I can give a full answer, or I ask the House to wait until the Estimates come on for discussion.

    H.M.S. "SIRIUS" (FATAL ACCIDENT).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Frederick Webb, a naval pensioner, was accidentally killed at the post of duty on His Majesty's ship "Sirius" in Queens-town Harbour, on the 11th February, 1911; that deceased had depending upon his earnings a widowed sister, Mrs. Annie Mahony, who has occasional employment
    1342
    as a stewardess, but whose health is so bad that she cannot continue the same; and that deceased had been during the best part of his life in the Navy; and whether, seeing that it would have been a case for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act if the employment had been outside a Government establishment, and that Government establishments profess to grant compensation in respect of accidents under the same conditions, he will explain on what grounds has compensation been refused to deceased's sister?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Webb was killed as stated on 11th February, 1911, and Mrs. Mahony's claim for compensation was at once investigated. It was refused because, although Webb had regularly assisted his sister with money for some time after her husband's death about eleven years ago, he had ceased to do so for a considerable period before his death, such occasional pecuniary assistance as he rendered not being considered by the Treasury as constituting dependency on his earnings within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Inquiries at the time elicited that Mrs. Mahony was employed as a stewardess on Cunard liners for about eight months of each year, her wages being £1 a week, and that she was about to start on another voyage.

    WITHDRAWAL OF ARMOURED SHIPS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the Regulation governing the withdrawal of armoured ships from the commissioned fleets for repair and giving leave, which was issued with the Statement of Admiralty Policy of 1905, is still in force; and, if not, what has been substituted for it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the questions he put on this subject on 13th December last. Rigid regulations in such matters do not conduce to the effective readiness of the Fleet. It is much better for the Admiralty to exercise their discretion according to the necessities of the public service for the time being.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 13th December last he stated that if I put down a question he would tell me what Regulations wore substituted for those of 1905?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. Friend can show me any promise that has been made, I will consider it.

    SUBMARINE A3.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the contract for the salvage of Submarine A3 has been given to a foreign company; whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will state the name of the company; whether the British National Salvage Association had a vessel or vessels all ready to undertake the contract; whether that association tendered to render assistance on the 3rd February, 1912; and, if so, whether he will state to the House why the tender of the British National Salvage Association was not accepted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The company in question is understood to be a British company; it is known as the Sea Salvage Company. Several companies offered assistance, of which the company named in the question was one. It is contrary to Admiralty custom to give reasons for non-acceptance of tenders. The company selected was chosen by officers on the spot as being capable of rendering immediate service.

    ROYAL MARINES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether the married men's allowance in the Royal Marines is the same for private, corporal, or sergeant, namely, 6d. per day; and whether he can see his way to meet the views of non-commissioned officers in the Royal Marines, seeing that they are expected to keep up a better establishment than privates, by raising the allowance of sergeants to 9d. and of corporals to 7½d. a day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is assumed that the allowance referred to by the hon. Member is that payable in lieu of lodgings, fuel, and light, for which a uniform rate of 6d. a day is fixed for the Royal Marine ranks mentioned. I cannot give the undertaking asked for in the last part of the question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any reason why he cannot give the undertaking?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We think that this allowance is sufficient. The Army rates are uniform for those ranks, and I do not see any reason why we should discriminate between private, corporal, or sergeant.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether a sergeant in the Royal Marines gets 2s. 10d. a day all the time he is a sergeant, whereas a petty officer in the Navy, who ranks with a sergeant in the Royal
    1344
    Marines, gets 2s. 8d. a day on promotion to his rank, a rise of 2d. a day if he reengages after twelve years' service, and a further rise of 2d. a day for every year he serves as petty officer; and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will consider the advisability of placing the sergeant in the Royal Marines with regard to progressive pay on the same footing as the petty officer in the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are not precisely as stated. A petty officer receives 2s. 8d. per day on promotion to that rating; 2s. 10d. after three years as a petty officer; 3s. after six years. A sergeant in the Royal Marine Light Infantry receives 2s. 10d. a day without progressive rates. The conditions governing the terms of service, rates of pay, etc., of Marines and naval ratings differ in important particulars; a difference in one only cannot be considered without reference to the whole of the conditions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether in the Navy there is no maximum pension, whereas in the Royal Marines there is a maximum, that in the Navy a man can make what he earns, whereas a Royal Marine cannot make more than a specified amount, whether he earns it or not; and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will consider the advisability of removing the maximum in the case of the Royal Marines, so that both branches of the Service may be placed on an equal footing?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are substantially as stated. There are many dissimilarities existing in the regulations governing the terms of service, rates of pay, methods of awarding good conduct badges, etc., of Marines and naval ratings, and while these remain no sufficient reason is seen for modifying the pension regulations for the former, which are based upon Army rules both as regards the provision of maximum rates and in other respects.

    GUNLAYERS' TEST.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the ships of the "Dreadnought" type firing in the gunlayers' test of 1910 scored on an average 1.68 hits per gun, while those which fired in 1911 scored only 1.33 hits; and whether there is any explanation to account for this 20 per cent. decline in efficiency?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the correct figures show an apparent

    1345
    falling off of 7 per cent., which is easily accounted for by the fact that the ships, as a whole, fired under less favourable weather conditions in 1911 than in 1910.
    Mp. ASHLEY: Were the unfavourable weather conditions spread over the whole face of the globe?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The weather conditions were unfavourable for the fleets as a whole to an extent sufficient to cover the 7 per cent. deterioration.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that 7 per cent.?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope we will never rest satisfied with anything on this side of perfection.

    Haulbowline Dockyard (Wages).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the skilled and ordinary labourers at the Haulbowline Dockyard are paid a lower rate of wages than is paid at Sheerness, Chatham, Portsmouth, or Devonport; what reason exists for this difference of treatment; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The minimum rates for skilled and ordinary labourers at Haulbowline are 1s. a week less than at the dockyards in England. The rates appear to compare favourably with those for outside local labour of a similar character.

    Rosyth Dockyard (Accidents).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, that have occurred to workmen on the new Admiralty works at Rosyth from the starting of the works till 31st December, 1911?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): The number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, that have occurred to workmen on the Rosyth works from their commencement to 31st December, 1911, is fifty-six, including six fatal.
    Mr. J. WARD: Are those official figures, or figures taken from the contracts?
    Mr. LAMBERT: They are figures obtained in the ordinary way, and I should say they are accurate.
    Mr. J. WARD: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that his information is such as to justify him in saying that there have been only fifty-six accidents at those works in the last three years?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have given the figures up to the 31st December, 1911, and that is the information supplied to me. If there is anything which should be added, I am ready to make further inquiries.
    Mr. J. WARD: Surely the hon. Gentleman must himself know that there have been more accidents than the number he states in one year.

    Fall of Mast, Breton Steamer "Perim."
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty's attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the inquest on the body of the captain of the Breton steamer "Perim," killed by the fall of a mast when his vessel was wrecked off Atherfield, Isle of Wight; whether he is aware of the statement made by a Coastguard officer to the effect that the position of the ship was not noticed owing to the insufficiency of the staff patrolling the cliffs; whether he has official information showing that the scheme of abolishing the Coastguards and replacing them by Customs officers is working well; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure the proper and efficient patrolling of our coasts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not seen a report of the inquest, but a full report on all the circumstances attending this wreck has been called for, and will be carefully considered when received. No such scheme as that referred to is at present in operation for abolishing the Coastguard and replacing them by Customs officers. The Board of Trade is the Department responsible for the general arrangements made for watching the coast for life-saving purposes, but every possible step is taken by the Admiralty to comply with requests for the assistance of the Coastguard in this service, so far as the organisation of a force raised for other purposes permits.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand that there is no scheme by which Customs officers are replaced in the Coastguard?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reduction of the Coastguard, which has been going on for some time, was wholly suspended during last year, but I am by no means-certain that the matter is not one which requires careful consideration in view of making the Reserve of the British Navy as available as they ought to be.

    Wireless Telegraph (Portugal).
    Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether the concessions obtained by the prompt business methods of a foreign company last week from the Government of Portugal for the erection of the new wireless telegraphy stations on the Portuguese coast will be equipped with the apparatus of the Marconi or another system; and, if the latter, whether British warships will still be able to avail themselves of the facilities provided by the new stations as freely as if the more unacceptable offer of the Marconi Company had been entertained by the Portuguese Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The first part of the hon. Member's question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the latter part, under the Berlin Convention, Portuguese commercial wireless stations of any system would be open to communicate with ships equipped with any system.

    Portugal (Political Prisoners).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can state the number of prisoners now in the prisons, mines, ships, and other penal establishments of Portugal in and outside of that country for alleged political offences; the number of them that are the result of public trial, with time and opportunity for cross-examination and defence: the number imprisoned without such public trial; the number of cases in which overt acts were proved on trial; the number in which the offence consisted in holding or expressing political opinion; the number of each class who have been prisoners for three months or more; and the number who have died in prison in that time?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): In view of the well-established policy of His Majesty's Government not to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, I am unable to take steps in the sense desired.

    Airships (Bomb-Throwing).
    Mr. ALDENasked whether any attempt has been made on the part of the Government to secure by International arrangement the prohibition of the use of bomb-throwing airships and aeroplanes in time of war; and, if not, whether the Foreign Office will consider the advisability of instructing our representatives
    1348
    to raise the question at the next Hague Conference?
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the Declaration signed at the last Peace Conference by the representatives of some twenty-seven States, including Great Britain, prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature for a period extending to the close of the third Peace Conference. His Majesty's Government will certainly consider the question of what instructions can properly be given to the British representatives on the subject when the time for the third Conference approaches.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can the hon. Gentleman state the date of the next Peace Conference?
    Mr. ACLAND: The next Peace Conference will be in 1915.

    South Africa (Cession of Territory).
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked if the Union Government of South Africa will be consulted before any discussion is entered into with any foreign Power as regards any exchange or cession of territory south of the equator?
    Mr. ACLAND: No territorial changes in any way affecting the interests of the Union will be made without consultation with the Union Government.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL COMMISSIONERS.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked why the Medical Commissioners appointed under the provisions of Section 52 (1) of the National Insurance Act must have had personal experience of general practice; whether there is the same proviso with regard to the Scottish Medical Commissioners, and, if not, will he say why a different course has been adopted; and whether the Scottish Medical Commissioner has had experience of general practice?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Sections 57 and 80 of the Act require that all the Commissions must have among their members a duly qualified medical Commissioner. In England only is experience of general practice a statutory condition of his appointment; but this condition, though not statutory, is also fulfilled by the Scottish Medical Commissioner.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the Scottish Medical Commissioner has had experience of general practice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, many years experience.

    THETFORD MEETITG.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the public meeting in favour of the National Insurance Act, held at Thetford on 29th January, at which free cigars were promised and given, was paid for out of national or local Liberal funds?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No conference or meeting has been held or addressed at Thetford by any servant of the English Insurance Commission. I have no information as to any meeting that may have been held by any private organisation.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have inquired, and the result of my inquiry is the information which I have given.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If I can show the hon. Gentleman the bills, will he inquire from the local Liberal Association?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not answering in this House for any local Liberal Association.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked on what day the undated paper of instructions to National Insurance lecturers, signed by Sir Robert Morant and published in the newspapers of 26th February, was actually completed and signed?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked when the instructions to official lecturers under the Insurance Commission were first issued to the lecturers; and what date the document bears?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The instructions referred to were approved by the Joint Committee on 23rd January. They were issued over the signatures of the respective chairmen, by the English and Irish Commissions on 27th January and by the Scottish and Welsh Commissions on 29th January. The instructions (a copy of which seems to have reached one newspaper through some unauthorised channel) were confidential instructions issued to all the lecturers. They have been published in the White Paper, which was circulated to the House last night.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can also circulate the other document referred to in those instructions, namely, the model answers to questions which are assumed to have been put to the lecturers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.

    NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen a circular letter from the National Health Commission stating that certain action had been taken by them in accordance with instructions received from him; whether it is to be understood that the Commissioners are in the position of ordinary Government Departments acting under the instructions of a Minister who takes responsibility to Parliament for all their actions and decisions; and whether the Commission have therefore, before taking any important decision or action, to ascertain, and then to carry out, the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury as the responsible Minister, and are not free to form and to act upon their own views as a Commission?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will postpone this question for the present.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer on Monday?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I can give the answer to-morrow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is extraordinarily busy at this moment as the hon. Member knows.

    ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the fact that a body terming itself the National Insurance Advisory Council, of 3, Northampton Square, London, E.C., has been giving advice to friendly societies which has been thought by those who have received it to be official in character; and whether he can do anything by more widely advertising the proper title and address of the Insurance Commissioners to prevent the continuance of such proceedings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Enfield on the 20th February, the body referred to has no connection, direct or indirect, with the Insurance Commission, and no authority

    1351
    to give any official advice. The issue from the office of the Insurance Commission of forms, regulations, and correspondence, which is daily increasing, will, I hope, make the proper title and address of the Insurance Commission known to all those who are interested, and prevent any such unfortunate misunderstandings as those referred to by the hon. Member.

    LIMIT OF INCOME.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that under the National Insurance Act as it stands any person who, having been compulsorily insured for a period of five years, may become and remain a voluntary insurer entitled to medical benefit at such annual rate as may be arranged, be his income what it may, it is proposed by regulation of the Commissioners, or otherwise, to fix any limit of income beyond which such insured person shall cease to be entitled to medical benefit at the common rate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to Section 15, Sub-section (3) of the Act. An income limit which may be fixed under that Sub-section would, of course, apply to the particular class of voluntary contributors to whom he refers.

    AGED INSURER.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a man aged sixty-five or upwards and not previously insured has to make any contribution himself if he becomes employed before he reaches the age of seventy; whether he is included as an employed contributor; and, if not included, what Section exempts him?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Sections 1 (4) and 4 (4), where a person not previously insured becomes sixty-five between the commencement of the Act and the date when he subsequently becomes employed, he does not become an insured person, and only the employers' contributions are payable in respect of him. Under Section 49 (1), where a person is sixty-five or upwards and under seventy at the commencement of the Act and employed at that date, the same contributions are payable in respect of him as if he were an employed contributor.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he is not an employed contributor, although he is not an insured person?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know of any reason for altering the facts that our legal advisers have given us.

    SPHERES OF OPERATION.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the different groups of Insurance Commissioners have defined spheres of operation allotted to them; and, if so, to what group is Shropshire assigned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Sections of the Act (Section 57 and Sections 79 to 82) which decides the matter. The Insurance Commission (England) are responsible for carrying Part I. of the Act into operation in Shropshire.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman protect my innocent Constituents from having letters addressed to them in Welsh, asking them to get up meetings at their own expense for the purpose of explaining the Act to the Welsh people in Wales?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I believe there are Welsh-speaking districts in Shropshire where such meetings might be held, and such lectures usefully given.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Did the hon. Gentleman say just now that Shropshire was under the English Commissioners—is it to be under both English and Welsh?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, but if there are Welsh-speaking people in Shropshire it is rather desirable to have Welsh-speaking lecturers.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these notices are sent to Welsh-speaking people and not to English people?

    Land Conveyance.
    Captain FABERasked when the promised Bill for the simplification and cheapening of land conveyance will be introduced?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): A Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts will be introduced by the Lord Chancellor at an early date.

    Land Valuation (Form IV.).
    Mr. NEWMANasked how many copies of Form IV. have been served to date in Ireland; how many have been returned with the necessary information, as asked for, given; and whether such forms have

    1353
    been served on the owners of purely agricultural heriditaments equally with those of an urban or semi-urban character?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: About 150,000 copies of Form IV. have been issued; of these approximately 52,000 have been returned filled or partially filled up to the present time. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has he received the forms from Dundalk yet?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot remember the names of one hundred and fifty thousand persons.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: What has happened to the other hundred thousand forms which have not been returned, and have any steps been taken with regard to them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. NEWMANasked how many provisional valuations of Irish hereditaments have been served on their owners as a result of any information derived from copies of Form IV. recently issued, and in how many cases have such provisional valuations been accepted by the said owners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: About 5,000 provisional valuations have been issued, and about 80 per cent. of these have been accepted.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the information possessed by the Land Valuation Department of Ireland which will enable them to, without any preliminary inquiry, serve on the owners of agricultural hereditaments which are not judicial tenancies and hereditaments on which a judicial rent has been fixed provisional valuations, stating the assessable site value of said hereditaments in accordance with the terms of the Finance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will refer the hon. Member to the numerous statements that have already been made to the House on this subject, and in particular to the Debate on the 30th June, 1910, and to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for York on the 24th November, 1910.
    Mr. NEWMAN: To make a long story short, is it a fact that on agricultural land in Ireland, a provisional valuation can be served on the owner without any inspection or without the serving of Form IV.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think all that was fully explained by my right hon. Friend, if the hon. Member will refer to it.

    Superannuation of Teachers (Scotland).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when he expects to be able to announce the amount of extra Grant to be given to educational authorities for a superannuation scheme for teachers; and what will be the amount of the share allocated to Scotland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I am not at present in a position to give the Noble Lord any more specific information than that which has already been given to the House, namely, that this subject—which is a very complicated one—is now engaging the careful attention of my right hon. Friend and his advisers, and that I hope it will be possible to make the new Grant available for the year 1912–13.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary for Scotland, at the beginning of the St. Rollox election, promised to give a Grant, and said he did so "upon the authority of his distinguished chief," the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme will be operative in a few weeks, and that there is no money to carry it out?

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many county councils have not put the Small Holdings Acts into operation, and how many of them have not exercised their power of purchasing the freehold of any land?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The county councils of London and of the Scilly Isles are the only county councils which have not as yet acquired land either by purchase or by lease under the Act of 1908. Five county councils—namely, Rutland, East Sussex, Westmorland, Brecon, and Carmarthen—have not as yet acquired land by purchase.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the percentage allowed by the Gloucestershire, Dorsetshire, Cambridge, and Lincoln County Councils in fixing rents to small holders for, respectively, manage

    1355
    ment expenses, repairs, and contingencies; and if he will state the lowest and the highest rates of such percentages which now exist in schemes approved by the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been in communication with the county councils to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think I can most conveniently answer my hon. Friend's question by circulating with the Votes the information I have received.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will that include all the county councils or only those named?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It only includes those referred to in the question.
    Mr. SANDERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if those percentages are fixed by the Small Holdings Commissioners appointed by the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.

    Trout Fishing.
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state whether he is aware that the close times for brown trout and rainbow trout are identical, and that the close time for rainbow trout exists when these fish are at their best as an article of food; and whether he will take steps to amend the Act, seeing that the close times of these fish ought to be at different times of the year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is the case that no distinction is drawn in the Act of 1873 between brown trout and rainbow trout in respect of the period during which they may legally be exposed for sale, and that, during this period, rainbow trout are fit for food. The Board have had under consideration the propriety of introducing legislation on the subject, and they are in communication with the Salmon and Trout Association and the Fishbreeders' Associations respecting it.

    Diseases of Fish.
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state why his Department refuses to examine diseases of fish supposed to be poisoned by tar from roads when taken from a private pond; and whether only fish from public rivers or ponds are examined?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It did not appear in the case to which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers that the matter was of sufficient public interest to justify any considerable expenditure of time and money in the institution of scientific investigations, but an examination of the fish was in fact made with results which were communicated to the Board's correspondent. The Board have no information as to the situation of the pond from which the fish were taken, but I shall be glad to consider whether any further assistance can be given if the local fishery board communicate with me on the subject.
    Captain FABER: Is it not the fact that trout are being poisoned continually by tar running off the roads, and is it not important to inquire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If there are any cases of the kind brought to my notice I shall be glad to inquire into them.

    Insurance Societies (Dividends).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Board has sufficient power to protect the public against improper trading, by direct control of companies or through auditors of their accounts, will he say how an insurance society was allowed last year to pay dividends out of current business, to pay directors by intercepting income and not allowing it to reach the society's books, to use valueless house purchase bonds for collecting purposes, and to spend all the subscriptions of the bondholders in the salaries and expenses of officers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The only obligations imposed by Parliament on assurance companies are those contained in the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and (in the case of some of these companies) in the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908. I do not know to what insurance society the hon. Member refers in his question, but if he can furnish me with evidence that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with in any respect the matter shall be carefully considered.

    Guardian Bank, Dublin.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say by what auditor, if any, the balance sheet, accounts, and vouchers of the Guardian Bank for the half-year ending 31st December, 1911, have

    1357
    been certified; on what security an advance was made by that bank to one of its own officers; whether the bank has any other office but that in Dawson Street, Dublin; for how long in 1910 a person named Tripp was a director of that bank; what property Tripp held in the bank; when he acquired that property; when he ceased to hold it; what the present available capital of the bank is; and how much of it is really owned by the present directors?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The accounts of the Guardian Bank, Limited, are made up annually to the 30th June in each year, and the balance-sheet showing the position at 30th June, 1911, was audited by Messrs. Stokes Brothers and Pim. I have no information as to the security for any advance which may have been made by the bank. I understand that the bank has an office at Belfast in addition to that in Dawson Street, Dublin. Mr. H. J. S. Tripp was a director of the company from October, 1910, until May, 1911. The returns filed with the Registrar show that 242 shares were allotted to Mr. Tripp between 11th May, 1910, and 8th June, 1910, that sixty shares were allotted to him between 24th August, 1910, and 13th September, 1910, and that those 302 shares were still held by him on 14th August, 1911, the date to which the last annual return of the company is made up. That return shows that on 14th August, 1911, 13,297 shares of £1 each had been issued, that 10s. had been called up on each share, and that 7,900 shares were held by the directors. I am informed that at the present time 13,395 shares have been issued, and that 8,100 shares are held by the present directors.

    Return Railway Tickets (Ireland).
    Mr. MOONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that return tickets between English stations, Dublin, Belfast, Kingstown, and also all stations on the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway are now available for six months, but to other Irish stations only for two months; and will he communicate with the Irish railway companies so that the facility may be extended to all stations in Ireland?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have no statutory powers in this matter, but I am bringing my hon. Friend's question to the notice of the principal Irish railway companies.

    Foreshore Rights (Isle of Wight).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the present position in the case of the Crown's claim to foreshore rights at Sea View, Isle of Wight?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: On 31st January last the Court gave the defendants five weeks further time to complete their investigations and to answer the Crown's information and interrogatories. The Order was made peremptory on them to answer within the time given.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: When may we expect legislation dealing with the subject, as suggested in the Report of the Commission?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I can make no answer to that.

    Halfpenny Postage.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General in what places in the British Empire a stamp corresponding to a halfpenny stamp was used for local postage of closed letters; whether the system worked satisfactorily; and, having regard to the inequality of service involved in delivering letters from here in America and Australia, as compared with delivery in the town in which they were posted, whether he would consider the advisability of allowing the use of a halfpenny stamp on closed letters delivered within the local area of postage?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There is a halfpenny rate for local letters in Canada, Newfoundland, British Guiana, Ceylon, and IIong Kong, and a general halfpenny rate in India, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, St. Lucia, Sarawak, and Zanzibar. I do not know whether or not these services are performed at a loss. But in this country a halfpenny post for local letters would impose a heavy burden on the taxpayer, who would have to meet a very large loss of revenue. Further, it would be contrary to the principle on which the Inland Postal system has been based since 1840—that of uniformity of rates irrespective of distance.

    Rhine (County Meath) Postal Facilities.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether the inhabitants of Rhine, near Kells, county Meath, had petitioned him to have a letter-box erected

    1359
    for their convenience; whether he was aware that at present they had to watch the postman to give him letters or walk two miles into Kells Post Office; and what action he proposed to take?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of any such petition. Although the number of letters which would probably be posted in a letter-box at Rhine is very small, I have authorised the erection of a box.

    Press Telegraph Rates.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Postmaster-General whether the Eastern and Associated Telegraph Companies had informed him that reduced Press rates would come into operation on the 1st of March between Great Britain and Egypt, British East Africa, the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, Straits Settlements, and many other places; whether these rates were for ordinary and not deferred messages, and what was the amount of the average reduction; whether it was proposed to reduce Government charges in return for concessions made by the Eastern Companies; and whether those rates operated both ways?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Eastern and Associated Telegraph Companies have announced that reduced Press rates will come into operation on the 1st March between the United Kingdom and Egypt, British East Africa, the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, Straits Settlements, and a number of other places, including Cyprus, Zanzibar, and Mauritius. The companies intimate that they reserve to themselves the right to transmit Press telegrams at these reduced rates after all other traffic. But the messages sent at the reduced rates will not constitute a new class subject to special deferment. The reductions made by the companies range from about 50 to about 75 per cent. The charge made by the British Post Office for dealing with such of the traffic as is collected or delivered by the postal telegraph system will be reduced proportionately. The reduced rates apply to traffic in both directions.

    Postal Packets (Non-delivery).
    Mr. PRIMROSEasked whether it was the rule that postage was not to be refunded in the case of non-delivery of packages, even though the non-delivery was admittedly the fault of the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the hon. Member speaks of "packages," he probably has parcels chiefly in mind. When the Post Office is satisfied that a parcel has been lost in the post it pays compensation (subject, of course, to the conditions set out in the Post Office Guide), and refunds postage.

    Rathkenny (Post Office).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether the postmistress of Rathkenny, county Meath, had tendered her resignation; if he had received a memorial signed by the majority of the people who use the office that its location be changed to a more central and suitable position; whether the change was opposed by only a few temporary residents in the locality; and whether, in making the new appointment, he would have regard to the greatest convenience of the greatest number?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have at present no information, but I will inquire and write to the hon. Member.

    Irish Fisheries.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he would state the amount expended by the Board on the development of Irish fisheries, not including piers or harbours; the number of sailing boats fitted with motors, keel and beam of boats, and horse-power of motors; the number of new boats fitted with motors purchased by fishermen with the assistance of the Board, size of boats, and power of motors; and the terms on which loans had been granted to fishermen?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT Of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The segregation of the particulars asked for in the first part of the question from the Department's general expenditure would be difficult, and would involve so much time and labour that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press for the information. I am prepared, however, to furnish a Return containing particulars of the total amount advanced between 1st April, 1900, and 31st March, 1911 (the latter being the latest date to which the accounts are made up), by way of loans to fishermen to enable them to procure boats and gear, of the total repayments during that period, of the number of installations of auxiliary motor-power in

    1361
    sailing boats, of the number of new motor fishing boats procured by loans from the Department, and of the horse-power of the engines; and also to supply information regarding the terms on which loans have been advanced. The preparation of the Returns would occupy some time, and I can direct that they shall be sent to the hon. Member.

    Provision of Seeds (Ireland).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether any special facilities were afforded by his Department to occupiers of labourers' cottages for the provision of seeds, plants, and fruit trees, if so, could he state the nature of these facilities; what steps were taken to bring the knowledge of them to the labourers; how many availed, last year, of the advantages conferred by the Department in this respect; and what was the cost out of public funds?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department do not afford special facilities for the provision of seeds, plants, or trees to occupiers of labourers' cottages or other applicants. Under the County Horticultural Scheme, however, county committees of agriculture are empowered to make arrangements whereby any resident in the county, which includes a labourer, can procure fruit and other trees at specially reduced prices. This privilege is brought by the local authorities concerned to the knowledge of the residents through advertisements and through their instructors. The Department have also published a special pamphlet dealing with the cultivation and management of labourers' plots and cottage gardens. This pamphlet gives full directions as to the manner in which labourers can avail themselves of the benefits of the several county schemes. The Department have no information as to the number of labourers who took advantage of this arrangement. It is not possible to separate from other expenditure incurred by county committees the amount properly chargeable to this section of the Horticultural Scheme. It may be stated, however, that the arrangements for the sale of trees above referred to do not involve any loss of funds to the local authority.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER LAMPSONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he had any official information showing that
    1362
    60 per cent. of the agricultural seeds sold in Ireland were adulterated or unfit for use by farmers; and, if so, why the vendors had not been black-listed, as he was empowered to do under the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds Act; whether one offender only had been black-listed; and what steps were taken to show small farmers who were the vendors of adulterated seeds if the Act was not put into force?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department have official information showing that nearly 60 per cent. of the agricultural seeds in Ireland, so far as they have been sampled, were unsatisfactory, in varying degrees, for use by farmers. Many of the vendors were unaware of the nature of the seeds they were selling, and in most cases the farmers were themselves to blame in demanding seed at very low prices. For these reasons, and the further fact that a promise was made that the Act would not be harshly administered at the outset, the Department have refrained from publishing the results, and in the meantime have been giving instruction, both to farmers and to seed vendors, as to the qualities which make agricultural seed of real value for sowing purposes. Only in one instance, where persistent warnings were neglected, were the Department compelled to publish the names of a wholesale trader and a retail trader who continued to offer seed of a very inferior description.

    Conviction of Reuben Rawlings (Farnham).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that a man named Reuben Rawlings was sentenced by the Farnham bench to a term, of one month's imprisonment with hard labour because he had allowed his wife and children to sleep underneath a tent during the winter; whether he was aware that, although the children were described as dirty and dishevelled, they were not verminous or ill-nourished, and that the doctor testified that no organic disease was present in any of the children; and whether, seeing that the imprisonment of the father, who was earning on the average not more than 12s. a week and who had been unable to find a cottage, had compelled the mother and children to go to the workhouse, he would consider the advisability of ordering the discharge of Rawlings from prison in order that he would be able to maintain his wife and children?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): On this case being brought to my notice through a newspaper report, the circumstances appeared to me primâ facie to require investigation. I communicated with the justices, and on their report, which I received on 12th February, I considered that, having regard to all the circumstances, there was no sufficient ground for interference. The prisoner's sentence expired, and he was released, on the 17th of this month.

    School Non-Attendance Cases (Costs).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state whether, in view of the fact that costs were not usually inflicted in cases where the fine did not exceed 5s. in cases where parents had been summoned for non-attendance at school of their children, he would consider the possibility of remitting the costs imposed in the case of William Hemming, of Hurst-bourne. Andover, who was ordered to pay 14s. 6d. costs on 17th November. 1911?
    Mr. McKENNA: The remission of costs is a matter for the justices, but I understand that in the particular case referred to the defendant has already undergone a short term of imprisonment in default of payment, and that therefore, so far as he is concerned, the matter is at an end. I may add that the case is one that has given much trouble, that the justices have treated the defendant with a good deal of leniency, and that it is reported that the child is now attending school regularly.
    Captain FABER: Under the Home Office Circular of 23rd March, 1891, was it not illegal to make this man pay costs, or has there been another circular since?
    Mr. McKENNA: I shall be glad to have notice of that.

    Mine Safety Appliances (Tests).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department was taking, or contemplated taking, to test the various inventions for preventing a cage falling down the shaft when the rope breaks, with a view to having the use of some safety appliance made compulsory for the prevention of accidents from this cause?
    Mr. McKENNA: The subject of safety catches has been recently investigated by
    1364
    the Expert Committee which was appointed by the Royal Commission on Mines to inquire into the means of preventing shaft accidents, with the result that they were satisfied that, under the conditions obtaining in this country, none of the existing types of safety catch could be regarded as reliable. The Royal Commission, after hearing a large number of witnesses, and in view of the Committee's opinion, unanimously reported that they were unable to recommend that the use of safety catches should be required by law. The subject was debated on the Report Stage of the Coal Mines Bill of last Session on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member to make the use of safety appliances compulsory, but the proposal was not adopted. I am advised that there is nothing more which can usefully be done by the Department at the present time; but I may remind the hon. Member that the Act of last Session contains a number of new provisions intended to guard against the risk of a cage falling down the shaft.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is there any Departmental Committee to which these inventions could be referred, as several new inventions have recently been made?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not answer as to whether there is any definite Committee which would examine any inventions of the sort referred to, but they would, if mentioned at the time, be brought to the notice of the Chief Inspector of Mines, who would certainly give them his attention.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not a single invention has come out since the Report to which he refers.
    Mr. LLOYD: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the appliances in this country are as good as in other countries?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe so, quite!
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it intended to stop the exhibition of safety appliances in this, country?

    Borough Magistrates (Wisbech).
    Mr. PRIMROSEasked the Prime Minister when an Advisory Committee for the appointment of magistrates for the municipal borough of Wisbech would be set up?
    Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): When the Lord Chancellor considers that justices are required at Wisbech or any

    1365
    other borough he will further consider as to the appointment of an Advisory Committee.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: How can the Lord Chancellor tell whether justices are required if he has no Advisory Committee?
    Mr. McKENNA: I assume, perhaps without sufficient knowledge, through the Lord Lieutenant of the county.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: Has the Lord Lieutenant any control over the borough benches?
    Mr. McKENNA: Borough benches? I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.

    Home Rule Meeting (Belfast).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the lessee of a theatre in Belfast was offered a sum of money if he would allow a meeting to be addressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty in support of the Home Rule movement to be held in his theatre?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge of the "offer" referred to.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Nor has anybody else.

    Ecclesiastical Commission (Appointment of Home Secretary).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister, whether, before appointing the Home Secretary as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, he took steps to ascertain whether he was a member of the Church of England, in view of the declaration to that effect required of each member of the Commission under Statute 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would ask the Noble Lord to postpone this question until the Prime Minister is here.
    Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman requires the Prime Minister to tell him whether or not he is a member of the Church of England?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a very difficult legal question to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church of England as by law established.
    Viscount WOLMER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know himself whether he is a member?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am rather disposed to think that I am a member of the
    1366
    Church of England, who habitually takes advantage of the Toleration Act and other statutes.
    Viscount WOLMER: On that legal quibble—?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord had better put his question on the Paper.

    Aliens Act.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state on what grounds 205 expulsion orders under the Aliens Act, 1905, recommended by the Courts during the last six years for convicted aliens, have been refused by the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Government have not refused to make expulsion orders in 205 cases recommended by the Courts. The reasons for not making orders in certain cases are indicated year by year in the published statements, and cannot be stated within the compass of an answer to a question in this House; but I may say that the number 205, which the Noble Lord assumes to represent refusals, includes cases in which the prisoner died, a large number of cases in which the prisoner is still in prison, and will be expelled at the end of his sentence; and others, again, in which the prisoner was shown to be not an alien, as at first supposed, but a British subject.
    Mr. LLOYD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, at any rate, how many have been refused?
    Mr. McKENNA: As they are still serving their sentences it is impossible to say.
    Mr. LLOYD: Besides those that are now serving their sentences, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many have been refused on other grounds?
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

    Motor Omnibus Overturning (Surbiton).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the overturning of a motor omnibus in Surbiton, which was stated to be going at eighteen or twenty miles an hour; and if his Department has now obtained a satisfactory speedometer with a large dial to be fixed to the side of motor omnibuses to show the speed at which they are travelling?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received reports-about the accident in question, which

    1367
    resulted from the turning of a corner from one road into another at far too high a speed. The driver has since been convicted of dangerous driving. In such circumstances a speedometer would certainly not prevent a driver from driving dangerously round a corner, and it might even mislead instead of assisting him. He would be apt to think that he was safe in all circumstances if the speedometer showed that he was keeping within the speed limit.
    Mr. FELL: Is a speedometer not of use in cases where rapid driving takes place, but an accident does not necessarily result?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I think, on the whole, a speedometer would be calculated to mislead, and to encourage the driver who was driving fast but inside the speed limit.

    Shops Act, 1911 (Regulations).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Regulations to be issued by the Home Office under the Shops Act, 1911, have been drafted; and when he will lay copies of the Regulations upon the Table of this House?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Regulations are under consideration, but have not yet been settled. I hope to be able to issue them before the end of March. The Regulations are not required to be laid on the Table, but they will be placed on sale in the usual way. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy when they are ready if he desires it.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to expedite the issue of these Regulations?
    Mr. McKENNA: I recognise the importance of the matter, and they will be issued as soon as possible.

    Conviction of George Baker.
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now ascertained whether Mr. R. L. Thornton, one of the magistrates who convicted George Baker at Uckfield, in Surrey, on the 21st December, 1911, on the 27th December, 1911, called at the Home Office and personally explained that all the magistrates who formed the Court which convicted him, and the police who had investigated the matter, were con-
    1368
    vinced of his innocence and of the truth of the confession of the man who had confessed to the offence; if so, whether he will say how he justifies the subsequent imprisonment of George Baker till the 20th January, 1912; and whether he can now see his way to give some compensation to George Baker for his wrongful imprisonment?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. Mr. Thornton called at the Home Office on the 27th December, and directed attention to the facts of the case; but he made no statement that the magistrates who heard the case were convinced of the prisoner's innocence, and both then and in his subsequent reports he suggested strong reasons for believing that he was rightly identified. After the conviction of the man who had confessed, Mr. Thornton reported to me that, while one of the magistrates who heard the case believed Baker to be innocent, the other two still thought he was guilty. Until the 19th January I had nothing before me to justify my advising any remission of the sentence, and it is quite impossible for me, in view of all the circumstances, to recommend the case to the Treasury as one deserving of compensation.

    True Revenue (Ireland).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the true revenue of Ireland is derived from Customs and Excise?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On the basis of the aggregate for 1909–10 and 1910–11 shown in the revised White Paper No. 220* of 1911 the annual average of the net balance of revenue contributed in those years by Ireland was £9,930,750. Of this £6,102,500, or 61.45 per cent., was derived from Customs and Excise.

    Somerset House (Deeds of Transfer).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if the congestion in the stamping of deeds at Somerset House has now been removed, and if the 100,000 deeds of transfer which were provisionally stamped pending the assessment of Increment Duty upon them have now been finally stamped and the duty, if any, on the transfers paid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member's question implies some misapprehension of the facts. There is not, and has not been, any congestion in the stamping of deeds at Somerset House. The only stamp necessary in connection with Increment

    1369
    Value Duty does not denote the amount of duty paid or to be paid and is given at once on production of the requisite particulars with regard to the transfer which forms the subject of the deed.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not the fact that there were over 100,000 deeds mentioned about this time last year as having been presented at Somerset House, and having been, not finally, but provisionally stamped?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on that point, but I shall be glad to inquire if the hon. Member desires.

    Trawlers (Poaching).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if, in view of the difficulties of securing convictions of trawling vessels poaching round islands somewhat difficult of access, facilities will be afforded by one or other of the fishery cruisers to enable the Procurator Fiscal to investigate into alleged cases, and also to convey such witnesses as the Procurator Fiscal might desire to call to a place where the trial is to be held?
    Mr. PIRIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I put a question of which I have given private notice: Whether the Scottish Office are aware that the origin of this question arises from the fiscal, presuming on a single instance of the use of a fishery cruiser which was granted to him as a favour, desiring to make a regular use of such vessels; whether it is the duty of fishery cruisers to act for the Crown in matters of prosecution; and in the event of such facilities being granted for the prosecution, will equal facilities be given in the conveyance of witnesses for the defence?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Fishery Board have already an arrangement for the conveyance of the Procurator Fiscal to Fair Isle when it is convenient for the fishery cruiser on duty in Shetland waters in relation to her ordinary duties, and when ordinary means of communication are not available. They would also, I think, be prepared to consider the question of his conveyance to other places, difficult of access and without ordinary means of communication. But they are not prepared to come under any general obligation in the matter; they will carefully consider each application on its merits and decide according to the circumstances in each case. As regards the conveyance
    1370
    of witnesses to the place of trial, the recognised means of communication open to the public are, as a general rule, sufficient for the purpose. As regards the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, I have to say that I cannot speculate upon the reasons which induced my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetlands to put his question. The Statute specially provides that fishery cruisers are to be employed under the Fishery (Scotland) Act. I have already answered the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. PIRIE: Are we to understand that this is part of the prejudiced policy of the Government against trawlers to offer rewards for conviction against them, and whether as much as £50 has been awarded for a conviction thereby leading to perjury?
    Mr. URE: The hon. Member must see the Statute specially provides that the Fishery Board should render every assistance for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is my hon. Friend entitled to suggest that some of my constituents have been guilty of perjury?
    Mr. PIRIE: I maintain it.

    Working Classes (Housing).
    Mr. FRANCIS M'LARENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the East Elloe Rural District Council, although anxious to supply the pressing need for houses for the working classes in their district, have been refused the necessary loan by the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have refused to advance a loan which I have sanctioned to the East Elloe Rural District Council for the purchase of land as sites for the erection of houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. The matter is receiving my serious consideration.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are refusing to advance money for workmen's dwellings all over the country?
    Mr. BURNS: No; I only know this and another case, and I am in communication with the Public Works Loan Commissioners upon both of them. If the hon. Member has evidence to suggest, I shall be delighted to receive it, and it will probably strengthen my hands in making representations.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have already sent the right hon. Gentleman three cases.
    Mr. BURNS: When?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Last year.
    Mr. BURNS: Oh, I dealt with them.

    Hollesley Bay Labour Colony.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked how many men have been placed in agricultural or other rural industries in the last two years as the result of training at Hollesley Bay; and if the absence of a scheme of co-operative small holdings in the neighbourhood of the colony has hindered the success of the experiment, or to what is the small progress to be attributed?
    Mr. BURNS: I understand from a communication which I have received from the Central (Unemployed) Body that of the men employed at the Hollesley Bay Colony in the last two years one man has been migrated to the Isle of Wight to take up work as a slater, one has been migrated to Cornwall to take up work as a drain-layer, while a third has taken up work as a miner in South Wales. The cause of the difficulty of finding work on the land for the men employed at the colony is, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a matter on which there is considerable diversity of opinion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not within the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that one was sent to a farmer in Cornwall, and that the unemployment body was asked to take him back in a week.
    Mr. BURNS: That may be, but my memory does not charge me.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the cost per head per week of supporting the men employed at Hollesley Bay and their families as compared with what would have been the approximate cost of these persons if dealt with by the Poor Law authorities; and can he state the result?
    Mr. BURNS: I have on several occasions given the average cost per head per man of maintenance at the Hollesley Bay Colony,
    1372
    but I do not think a useful comparison can be made between the actual cost of maintenance there and the cost of relief by the Poor Law authorities. Much would depend on the size of the family, the character of the relief, and the particular Poor Law area in which it was given.

  FREDERICK CROWSLEY (ARREST AT ALDERSHOT).
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Crowsley, charged with advocating in Aldershot the doctrines which Count Leo Tolstoi advocated with impunity in Russia, who has been refused bail, although he avers that he will lose his job if locked up; whether he can make representations to the magistrates urging that, unless the man is a violent character with previous convictions against him, bail should be allowed, and whether he can do anything to prevent further interference with freedom of speech in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of this question, but I only got it a couple of hours ago. I called for a report, but it has not yet reached me. I may say the question of bail is entirely in the discretion of the magistrates.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Why is it that the police have taken proceedings against this man for asking men not to attack their fellow men and no proceedings have been taken against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put his question on the Paper.

THREATENED COAL STRIKE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I venture to ask the Government whether it is possible to-day to give any information in regard to the coal trade difficulty?
Mr. McKENNA: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a series of conferences have been taking place, and are still taking place. I am not in a position to make any statement now. If I am able to do so at the Adjournment, I shall certainly take advantage of the occasion.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question in reference to a matter of etiquette and procedure and practice in this House. On Thursday last, among the questions of which notice was given for oral answer, the following appeared in the name of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore):—
"To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Government have had their attention drawn to the recent case where an Irish Privy Councillor undertook to obtain a knighthood for the managing director of a company on condition that he would induce his company to let the Opera House, Belfast, for a Nationalist meeting; and if it is intended to prosecute this gentleman for an offence under the Act relating to illicit commissions to agents, or what action will be taken."
The hon. Gentleman was in his place when the question came on in its turn to be asked and the President of the Board of Agriculture was prepared to answer the questions of the Chief Secretary, who was not present, and the hon. Gentleman then said he would defer the question until the Chief Secretary was there to answer it. Now six days have elapsed since, and the answer to that question has not appeared, and the question has disappeared from the Order Paper. What I respectfully ask is this, whether it is in accordance with the practice and etiquette and rules of procedure in this House, to put on the Paper a question involving a grave personal charge for which the hon. Member putting it is primarily responsible, and then to defer the question without giving the Minister an opportunity of defending or making an explanation of the charge. The next question is this, whether, if that is not in accordance with the etiquette, it would be possible for another hon. Member of this House with a view to obtaining the necessary information and of wiping off an aspersion of that kind, to put down the question in the self same words for answer.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask against whom the charge is made?
Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member, of course it is open to any hon. Member to postpone a question if he desires to do so for whatever reason may seem to him fit, either the absence of a Minister or some other reason. If, however, an hon. Member puts a question down involving a charge against an hon. Member of this House, or against some person who is not a Member of this House, the matter ought
1374
to be cleared up. It is taking rather an unfair advantage to put a question down and then never get an answer to it. A question is very often published in the newspapers, and if no answer is made to it it may mislead. I really do not know enough about the circumstances to say whether there was any special charge against some person, or who the person was. I am not sufficiently behind the scenes to know that. There may be some reason why the hon. Gentleman did not put the question.
Captain CRAIG: May I, in the absence of my hon. Friend, accept the full responsibility of putting down the same question on to-morrow's Paper, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will then answer it.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: It would be useful to know whether it is in order for a second hon. Member to put down a question again which has not been asked.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no patent right in questions.

UNOPPOSED RETURNS.
Mr. SPEAKER: I wish to refer to a matter which occurred at the commencement of business to-day. The hon. Member for North Somerset raised an objection to the fact that the Noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench moved an unopposed Return which stood in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and he quoted "The Manual of Procedure" as laying down that such a procedure could not take place. I was taken by surprise by the hon. Member, and I had to rule that if "The Manual of Procedure" and I differed, that my word governed the matter, and the Manual took second place. Since then I have had an opportunity of consulting the important work to which the hon. Member referred, and I find laid down in "The Manual of Procedure" quite clearly exactly the ruling which I gave this afternoon. It says:—
"A Government Motion may be moved by any Member of the Government, and an unopposed Return or a Motion for leave of absence may be moved by one Member on behalf of another."
I am very glad to find that "The Manual of Procedure" and I are in agreement.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—The right hon. Thomas M'Kinnon Wood, for the Burgh of Glasgow (St. Rollox Division).

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  HOUSING or THE WORKING CLASSES.
  This day fortnight; to call attention to the housing of the working classes in rural districts, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Henderson.]
  To call attention to the question of the Territorial Forces, and move a Resolution.—[Colonel Yate.]
  To call attention to the Opium Traffic in our Eastern Colonies, and move a Resolution.—[Mr. Theodore Taylor.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  PLUMAGE BILL.
  "To prohibit the sale, hire, or exchange of the plumage and skins of certain wild birds." Presented by Mr. ALDEN; supported by Sir William Anson, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. Joseph King, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Radford, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896." Presented by Mr. JAMES PARKER; supported by Mr. Barnes and Mr. George Roberts; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "TO consolidate and amend enactments relating to animals and knackers, and to make further provision with respect thereto." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Beale, Mr. Bryce, Marquess of Tullibardine, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Molteno, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Duncan Millar; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1911–12).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  CLASS 3.—DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.): This item comes under two heads. Two different classes of expenditure are involved, one for extra pay for the police during the Royal visit in July, 1911, and the other extra pay for the police during the labour strikes from July to October, 1911. No one appreciates more the services of the police than I do, and I am perfectly satisfied that, so far as they are concerned, they have earned their extra pay. So far as the visit of His Majesty to Dublin is concerned, the police deserved the greatest credit for the way they carried out all the arrangements, and I am quite sure some special grant to the police force was necessary on that account. I should like to know how much of this sum is devoted to the special grant for the police in respect of the extra duties at the time of His Majesty's visit, and how much of it has been incurred in respect of strikes? Those of us who know the vicinity of Dublin and what took place there cannot help feeling that this extra expense in regard to the strikes might have been avoided by a more timely interference. I want to know how much of the sum asked for is in respect of the special Grant to the police for extra duty performed during the strike. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that became necessary—not why it became necessary to give the police something extra, but why it became necessary to have the police doing this extra duty? We regard this, at any rate, as unnecessary expenditure.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): £852 is the amount of the special Grant to the police employed on extra duty during the Royal visit, while

  1377
  the payment for extra duty to the police during the strikes in Dublin from July to October is covered by the sum of £1,924.
  Captain CRAIG: I should like to amplify the question put by my hon. and learned Friend on this subject of the employment of the police from July to October in connection with the recent strike. Will the Chief Secretary tell us who had authority during that disturbed time in Dublin during his absence, because those of us who closely followed what occurred at that time are of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman might have come back in view of the serious events that were occurring during his absence on holiday. Not only had we to complain of his absence, but it is common knowledge that, instead of allowing the police authorities to have complete charge and to take such dispositions as they considered necessary to safeguard life and property during that period, the command of the situation was handed over not to subordinates in the office, but to a man called Jim Larkin. Was this man responsible for any of the sum now asked for? The story of the whole period is a miserable one. Although I have no complaint to make in the slightest degree against the Metropolitan Police in Dublin, who have always done their duty when properly led and instructed by the Government, it does seem to me that the House is entitled to some explanation, because, in our opinion, if this matter had been firmly handled from the outset, this sum of nearly £2,000 might have been saved to the country.
  The strikes, as everybody is aware, were started on a very miserable excuse and not in Dublin at all, and then, through the authorities taking no firm step at the time, the trouble spread, and at last the Under-Secretary, or some other official on the spot, took some action of the gravest moment. It was at a time when traders and others were deeply concerned, when there was a desire to bring horses over to the Horse Show, that people who were anxious to have their property properly protected were calmly told by a Dublin Castle official that in order to> get their horses or their goods from the docks they must get a chit or pass from this man, Jim Larkin. This question has been raised outside, and it is only fair that we should give the Chief Secretary an opportunity here of explaining fully how it was that this expenditure of £2,000 on extra police became necessary when there appears to
  1378
  have been no responsible person in command in Dublin at the time. I am very glad indeed that this Estimate affords the desired opportunity of raising what I consider to be one of the gravest scandals that has occurred in Ireland during past years. With regard to another item on the Vote, the one for medals awarded to the police for their services during the Royal visit, that I am sure will commend itself to the Committee. It is a well merited honour given to the men, and I only wish that there could have been a wider distribution of the medal, as a great number of men outside the metropolitan area had to do long hours of extra duty in connection with the Royal visit, although they were not personally present in Dublin itself, and were consequently unable to gain a distinction which no one would grudge to the police, who did an arduous and difficult duty in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.
  The CHAIRMAN: I ought to say that obviously it will not be in order on this Vote to discuss the origin or conduct or method of the strike.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to say a few words in consequence of the language used by the hon. and gallant Member. He described the conduct of the police authorities in Dublin on the occasion referred to as one of the gravest scandals—
  Captain CRAIG: Not the conduct of the police, but the misconduct of those at the head of affairs in Dublin Castle.
  Mr. DILLON: I presume that the police took their orders from those at the head of affairs, and I feel bound to say that, so far from that being a proper or justifiable description of the conduct of the authorities, the very opposite would, in my opinion, be the time description. Let me direct the attention of the Committee for a moment to what really happened. I do not intend in the least degree to trespass on the ruling of the Chair. We had in Ireland a strike of a very serious character, which paralysed the trade of Dublin, and which spread over the railways—in fact, it was as widespread as the strike in England. What occurred in Dublin, owing, as I believe, to the extremely good sense and coolness of the authorities, was that whereas in this country you had most violent scenes of disorder, troops had to be called out, and some lives were lost, the strike went over in Dublin without a single serious incident of disorder, and the contrast between what took place in Ireland

  1379
  and what occurred in Great Britain under similar circumstances is entirely in favour of Ireland—in fact) the strike there was carried through without outrage, without violence and, comparatively speaking, without disorder. The amount of disorder in Dublin was trifling with what occurred in Liverpool and other centres in this country. Of course, at the beginning of the strike, as is the case in connection with every strike, owners of property and employers were naturally nervous and made extravagant demands on the authorities. They asked that the streets should be lined with troops; they asked that steps should be taken which would have been extremely provocative, and which, as events proved, were quite unnecessary and might have resulted in very grave disorder indeed. Because those steps were not taken charges of a most extravagant and, as afterwards turned out, of the falsest character, were made against the Executive Government. The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College ought to be here to-day to stand up for the charges he made in this matter. I have only praise for the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, because he has had the courage to come forward with these charges, and has thereby given the Chief Secretary an opportunity of replying to them. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) who first started the theory about Jim Larkin, and who said that employers were told to get a safe conduct from him. These statements were made in two letters published in the Dublin Press, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman declared that the statement had been made to him by a member of the Royal Dublin Society, who was present in Dublin Castle when the Lord Lieutenant told certain individuals who wanted to bring horses through the streets of the city to the Horse Show that they must go to James Larkin to get a safe conduct. That story was absolutely contradicted, and was blown to pieces entirely.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already said this question cannot be raised upon this Vote.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not want to depart from your ruling, but the hon. and gallant Member was allowed to make a statement to the effect that the authorities in Dublin referred people who desired to bring horses to Dublin to the Horse Show to James Larkin for safe conduct.
  The CHAIRMAN: It was the introduction of this name that led to my warning that it would not be in order to discuss these matters.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The continuance of this line of argument by the hon. Member for East Mayo will, I am afraid, inevitably lead to a desire on the part of my colleagues and myself to continue the Debate on these lines.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is why I suggest to the hon. Member for East Mayo that the incident should be closed.
  Mr. DILLON: I would not have intervened in the Debate at all had not the hon. and gallant Member been allowed to make the statement. This story was circulated in Dublin for weeks, and now it is being brought up in the House of Commons, and I consider that, as a citizen and ratepayer of Dublin, I have a right to contradict when I hear so gross a libel on the city in which I live. It is a gross libel. It is said that horses could not be taken through the streets of Dublin without a safe conduct from James Larkin, the object, of course, being to represent Dublin as disorderly as Belfast, and that I certainly consider to be a very gross libel. I will not refer to this further except to say that, inasmuch as this story was deliberately circulated in Dublin in two letters by the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, and was exposed at the time as a gross fabrication, it is rather too much to have it reproduced in the House of Commons four or five months later. The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, when challenged for his authority, gave the name of a well-known citizen, a member of the Royal Dublin Society, whom he stated was present and told him this. This gentleman wrote a letter to the Press stating he never made any such statement at all.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College is prepared to substantiate every word he has said.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear my anticipation was a correct one, and we must defer this matter until a more suitable occasion.
  Mr. DILLON: If we are entitled to discuss the conduct of the authority in the handling of the police, I have a few more

  1381
  words on the matter, but if not I would like to have your guidance as to what we can discuss.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to discuss the conduct of the police, but not the origin of the strike.
  Mr. DILLON: In my opinion the attack upon the conduct of the police involves the conduct of the authorities who guided the police. The two things are very closely associated, because, when they attack the authorities, I must assume that is the conduct of the police. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is exactly the reason why I asked the Chairman to define what we can discuss. If we are entitled to discuss the conduct of the authorities in dealing with the strike, that means the disposition of the police and the amount of protection given. I say, as a citizen who was a very close observer of this strike, that the amount of protection given in Dublin was quite sufficient. The authorities displayed very great skill and intelligence and succeeded in carrying through a most formidable strike without any serious disorder. The owners of property and the employers in Dublin had no real, serious ground of complaint against the authorities. Therefore, I shall be surprised if anyone speaking for the citizens of Dublin stands up in this House and makes any complaint. It is really rather absurd for Gentlemen from Belfast to get up and attack the Government on behalf of the employers of Dublin, for whom they have no authority whatever to speak.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: We are suffering in this Debate exactly as we have suffered in the Debates of the last two or three days—a very serious difficulty, and one which the House of Commons ought really to do something to get rid of. We never know on these Supplementary Estimates exactly what we are allowed to discuss. An Estimate is put down for some sum, we will call it X—[An HON. MEMBER: "Call it double X."]—and the difficulty is to know what items are included. I presume this sum dates back to the moment at which the strikes in Dublin broke out. If that is so, and if the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is correct, that the Chief Secretary is responsible for the action of the Metropolitan Police during that period, then I submit we are entitled to criticise the action of the Chief Secretary so far as it relates to that strike. Otherwise it seems to me all we can do is to say we object to these charges,
  1382
  and vote against them. If my view is correct, I say we are entitled to criticise the conduct of the Chief Secretary during the whole of those strikes, and I say without hesitation that it was the contention of everybody in Ireland that if the Chief Secretary had only been at his place at the Castle and at the head of affairs, and had dealt with matters firmly from the beginning, the strikes would have been prevented, or, at any rate, would have been stopped within a very short time. The hon. Member for East Mayo said he had never seen a strike carried out in so gentlemanly a fashion.
  Mr. DILLON: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Well, the hon. Member said he had never seen less disorder.
  Mr. DILLON: No. I said less disorder than in England.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Well, put it that way. At any rate, the hon. Member led the Committee to understand this strike did not bring about any serious disorder, That may be true, but he will not deny the strike brought about a great deal of loss, and caused a great deal of inconvenience not only in Dublin but all over Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: I said so.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I am glad the hon. Member agrees with me. It was therefore a serious strike. We complain that the Chief Secretary was not in Ireland at all part of the time.
  Mr. WARDLE: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss the question whether the Chief Secretary was in Ireland or not?
  The CHAIRMAN: I presume the hon. Member connects that with the administration and control of the police. At present I fail to see the connection, but I presume it is coming.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I am assuming the Chief Secretary knows his business, and I am assuming also that if he was on the spot he could have better exercised his authority over the police and would have been in a better position to understand the situation. He would therefore have been able to deal with any contingency which arose from hour to hour, a thousand times better than he was on the banks of the Dee or somewhere else. I think that is a contention which will meet with the approval of any common-sense man either

  1383
  in this House or elsewhere. The Chief Secretary was very much to blame. It is quite true the strike happily passed off without any loss of life, and perhaps without as much inconvenience and loss as the strike in England caused, but it might have ended in another way, and it was with great anxiety traders and others read their papers every evening and morning to see what was happening. Seeing that the strike might have developed into a very serious industrial fight, it was the bounden duty of the Chief Secretary to be at Dublin Castle, even if that involved the great hardship of bringing him home from his holiday. That is the gravamen of the charge we have laid against the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to mention the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend and by the hon. Member for East Mayo, except to say I am perfectly certain the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College will at the earliest possible opportunity deal with that very fully, and be able to stand by every word he has said and written on the subject, either in Dublin or elsewhere. I trust the House will not let this matter go by without reflecting seriously on what the conduct of the Chief Secretary will lead to. According to the hon. Member for East Mayo, the correct and proper thing in future will be for the head of the Department who is responsible for the peace of the country to be as far away from his office as he can possibly get at the time of the strike. The hon. Member said everything was done by the officials in Dublin that could possibly be done. They exercised forbearance, and did everything that was right and proper. I assume he means it is right and proper for the Minister responsible for the peace of the country to be away from his post as much as possible when these crises arise. That is not the view which I and my hon. Friends take. We fully think the Metropolitan Police deserve all credit for the way they acted throughout the strike and also at the time of the King's visit to Dublin, but if my hon. Friend goes to a Division as a protest against the action of the Chief Secretary at the time of the strike I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. NANNETTI: I regret, as one of the representatives for the city of Dublin, we cannot discuss this matter. I think I have a right to speak on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the city of Dublin. Every time we went to Dublin Castle with
  1384
  the intention of trying to settle this strike we met with the greatest sympathy, civility, and courtesy, and there was the greatest determination to try and bring an end to the unfortunate dispute.
  Sir F. BANBURY: By the Chief Secretary?
  Mr. NANNETTI: The gentleman I had to deal with there was the Under-Secretary, who has held the position for years, and who knew all the requirements and everything necessary for the purpose of meeting the employers and the employed. Every assistance was given to us. Where were the Members for Trinity College? Did they come forward and try to do anything?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the civil question of the strike, which I said could not be entered upon here. We must keep purely to the action of the police or the action of the Chief Secretary in controlling and guiding the police.
  Mr. NANNETTI: All I can say is we should have done without the police, and the matter could have been settled if any reason had been shown by the employers in Dublin in meeting the representatives of the people, and if they had shown common sense in dealing with this unfortunate question.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.): Notwithstanding the observations made by the hon. Member who has just sat down in reference to Members from Belfast, I must say I think I have as much right to speak about the matter as the hon. Member. I live in Dublin, and I have been a ratepayer there for over thirty years. I know something of what took place, and, as a citizen and as one in terested in the peace and prosperity of the city, I feel very strongly upon this matter, and hold a very strong view about it. If the police, or whatever force was necessary, had been produced at the proper time, none of this money would have been required. The person who most fomented the dispute came from England, and he was allowed to make speeches to the effect that they were just as much entitled to shoot the man who deserted them as the British Army was—
  Mr. NANNETTI: On a point of Order. You have decided I could not refer to these matters.
  The CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, and I must appeal to hon. Members not even to put in a sentence on the point I have already ruled out of order.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.): I at once bow to your ruling, and I am sorry I have transgressed in any way. We had in Dublin three or four strikes. We had the railway strike and a strike of carters, and a strike of bakers, and absolutely owing to the laxity of the authorities and their want of courage in respect to these big strikes, we had a strike of newsboys. I do not think that anyone who is a citizen of Dublin can look upon that with composure. We feel, without going into the merits of those disputes, that those "who instructed the police and who were in control of the police ought to have acted earlier, and that if they had done so they would not only have saved this expenditure, but they would have saved the city a great deal of loss and turmoil. I do not grudge the right hon. Gentleman his well-earned holiday. When this matter began he was in the House of Commons discharging his duties, but he could have come over to Dublin and have helped the authorities who were in charge of the police with his knowledge, ability, and power. He did not come over, but if he had done so this matter might have been nipped in the bud, and this expense would not have been incurred, and the peace of the city would have been preserved. I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that there was no loss of life, and that the disorder was not as great as it was in some cases in England, but there was great dislocation of business and trade upon the railways and great disturbance upon the streets. I do not want to enlarge upon it, but I do feel as a citizen of Dublin that the Dublin people ought to have been preserved, and the ratepayers of this country ought also to have been preserved, from the expense sought to be put upon them in this case.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think that for a long time there has been such a wonderful spectacle as the incident which has just taken place. We heard from the benches above the Gangway, and from Members of the Unionist party in Ulster, wonderful eulogies of the Chief Secretary. Why, one might imagine that these were speeches delivered by Nationalist Members on the eve of the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. I am rarely in agreement with hon. Members above the Gangway, but I do
  1386
  agree with them in their tribute to the wonderfully charming qualities of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I am sure we all hope that he will continue for a long time as Chief Secretary; at least until Ireland gets a Chief Secretary for herself. We are delighted to find hon. Members in agreement with us, and to hear this testimony from them that if he had remained in Ireland, if he had been at the centre of government, if he had been operating on the spot, when all this strike agitation took place, everything would have gone on as if it were one of the most delightful things in life. That is a splendid tribute, and I so rarely agree with hon. Gentlemen that I rise at once to say that I am delighted to associate myself with them.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have not the good fortune to be resident in the fair city of Dublin, but I am a law-abiding citizen, who is concerned about the maintenance of law, order, and peace, and I had an opportunity of reading about the conduct of the police in Dublin as controlled by the Chief Secretary during the events which have led up to the request by the Chief Secretary for this additional sum, and I must say that I think the conduct of the authorities on that occasion was not judicious. If I had any doubt upon that question, it would have been removed when I found the hon. Member for East Mayo getting up and defending the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is evident there was considerable doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as to how far the right hon. Gentleman would be able to stand the attack that has been made upon him by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and therefore, in their anxiety to defend their best friend, the hon. Member for East Mayo rose to intervene in the Debate. His interventions are always pleasant, but he has deprived us during the last three or four days of the words of wisdom that always fall from him, and he has thought it necessary to get up and defend in passionate language the conduct of the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. DILLON: I defended the city of Dublin.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does he not defend the Chief Secretary?
  Mr. DILLON: I defended the city of Dublin.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I got up to attack the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. If that includes an attack upon the city of Dublin I am very sorry, but I cannot prevent the city being included. The hon. Member for East Mayo says there was not so much disorder in Dublin as there was in some parts of England. Of course there was not so much disorder, because if the police were not instructed to put down disorder there would not be any riots.
  Mr. DILLON: There was no disorder.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There was no riot because the riotous people were allowed to do what they chose. If a burglar comes into my house and he is not interfered with, there is no struggle and no loss of life, but if one were to take him by the throat it is possible he might draw a revolver or use a bludgeon or something of that sort. That is exactly what occurred in Dublin. Every newspaper I saw stated that no steps were taken by the police at the commencement.
  Mr. DILLON: What newspapers?
  Sir F. BANBURY: No steps were taken to put down these strikes.
  Mr. WARDLE: What right have the police to put down strikes?
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is no doubt about it, that if you interfere with law-abiding citizens who are endeavouring to earn their livelihood, the police have a right to remove you.
  Mr. WARDLE: Certainly. But they did not do that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is the idea of the people who engage in strikes, that they can interfere with law-abiding people who are desirous of earning an honest livelihood. That idea should be put down.
  Mr. WARDLE: They did not interfere with them. That is the whole point. They did not interfere.
  Sir F. BANBURY: For that reason I have got up to enter my protest against the absence of the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is 13s. a week an honest livelihood?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That has nothing whatever to do with the question. In view of your ruling, Sir, that the origin of these
  1388
  strikes would be out of Order, I cannot discuss that point. I have no desire to break the Rules, and I will not be led aside by the irrelevant intervention of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Let me point out how the right hon. Gentleman differs from the late Home Secretary. When there was a riot at Stepney he went down there to see it, and it was nothing to be compared with the disorder in Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman might have followed the example of the Home Secretary by going over to Dublin and instructing the police to stop all riot and disorder.
  Mr. BIRRELL: And then be ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition as he was.
  Mr. DILLON: There was no riot.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He would not be ridiculed if he did his duty on a serious occasion. The late Leader of the Opposition ridiculed the Home Secretary because he went there, although there was really no serious trouble. That might have laid him open to ridicule.
  Mr. DILLON: There was no riot to put down. The hon. Baronet asks the Chief Secretary to go over to> Dublin to put down a riot. There was no riot to put down.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I say that if there was no riot it was because the strikers were allowed to interfere as they liked with the people who wanted to remove their goods.
  Mr. WARDLE: Nothing of the kind.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They wanted to remove their goods to various places in the city, and they were allowed to do so. There would be no riot in South Wales if the miners were allowed to do what they pleased.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Baronet is now transgressing my ruling.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was led away for the moment and I am sorry. I think I have made the position perfectly clear, and with that simple exception I have not wandered beyond your ruling. I wish to add that no attack whatever was made upon the conduct of the police themselves, and if my right hon. Friend went to a Division I should support him.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Though I do not complain of your ruling I feel a little bit shackled by it in my treatment of this question. The Supplementary Estimates

  1389
  we ask for include £1,924 as the cost of the police for the extra duty imposed upon them, but in listening to the hon. Baronet one would think he does not see why they should get a penny. In his opinion they had nothing whatever to do. According to him the streets of Dublin during these events were given over to the law breakers, and no cart or vehicle could be conducted along these streets for the delivery of goods. That only shows the ignorance of the hon. Baronet. Living as he does in the City of London, he is not concerned to make himself acquainted with the facts of the situation in Dublin during these occurrences. That being so he might have held his tongue. What he says does not really represent the state of things at all. As a matter of fact I am very sorry that the rules applicable to Supplementary Estimates prevent this question from being discussed from beginning to end. It so happens that although I am not a vain man, there are very few things upon which on the whole I take so much pride as in my own conduct and the police management of the strike in Dublin. Whatever anybody else thinks, whether in the Government or out of the Government, or those who would form a new Government, I honestly say I believe I discharged the part devolving upon me. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has paid me such a remarkable tribute is not aware how much I am entitled to it, because although as a matter of fact I was away during part of the time, I was there during a great part of the strike, and was there when the strike was concluded. I was as much responsible all the time and I knew everything that happened, and the only thing I did not do was to take it upon myself to interfere between employers and employed when I was not asked to do so. I should have thought the hon. Baronet was just the person who would not have complained of that, and perhaps he would not have done so if he was not so completely occupied with his pastime of taking part in these Supplementary Estimate Debates.
  I think, on the merits of the case, that I was rather entitled to a great deal of credit and support. So far as the police are concerned, they behaved admirably. Every person who sought protection obtained it, and obtained it in a sufficient amount; and my complaint against a certain number of persons is that they complain that they did not get protection when they had not asked for it. In a matter like a strike we require to know,
  1390
  especially in the case of a carters' strike, what goods are to be transported from one place to another, and in the case of these traders who gave us notice that goods would be transported along a particular route they got the protection, and it was because they got protection that these extra duties were imposed upon the police, by the discharge of which—by the common consent of the House of Commons—they are entitled to this additional sum. I am quite prepared to defend my own conduct and the conduct of the Dublin Castle authorities and the conduct of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in very trying and difficult circumstances. On the whole, all things considered—I agree the strike was not interfered with, but came to a conclusion of its own—we did all we were bound to do. We did not put down the strike. It is no business of ours to put down strikes. We protected life, limb and property in every possible way, and we had the most remarkable success in so doing, and I am perfectly confident that is the opinion of the rational-minded body of the citizens of Dublin. I received assurances of that kind from scores of people unconnected with our party disputes in this House, and, looking back on the transaction, I am very satisfied indeed with the part that Dublin Castle and the authorities for whom I am responsible took in the affair. I am sorry I cannot go into the matter which was referred to in the earlier part of the Debate on behalf of my friend and colleague Sir James Dougherty. When the accusation is made across the floor of the House I will give it, speaking on his behalf, the flattest contradiction. However, we cannot raise that now. One hon. Member praised me in a manner which made me uncomfortable, but I was not nearly so uncomfortable as when the hon. Baronet extolled the late Home Secretary. I think, between the two of us, we may take all the credit and leave the blame alone. I am glad to think we are satisfied with the police in Dublin, who exercised great good temper and kept their heads very well under trying circumstances, and the extra duties imposed upon them entitle them to this Supplementary Vote.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: In view of what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) just now about the absence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell), it is quite obvious from your ruling and the line taken by the Chief Secretary that the charges which, I believe, he made in correspondence could not possibly be raised

  1391
  in this Debate. I have not the smallest doubt that upon the proper occasion, the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, the right hon. Gentleman will repeat in the House anything he has said outside. So far as the action of my hon. Friends behind me goes, there has not been anything said by them in the House or out of it to justify the suggestion that they in any way complain of extra payment being made to the police, nor do they complain of the way in which the police performed the duties which fell upon them during the strike. One hon. Member asked the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) how the police could put down strikes. Of course it is quite obvious that the police cannot stop strikes. They have no right to interfere with people who are exercising their own rights, but undoubtedly what the police can do is to give the fullest possible protection to those people who desire not to be involved in a strike or to take part in it, but to assist the general business of the community by doing any work which the strikers have refused to do. This is the duty of the police, and they contribute very largely to the public peace by doing this to the fullest possible extent. The charge is not against the police. The charge is that the sum necessary to be paid to the police as extra pay would have been smaller if things in Dublin had been under the personal direction of the Chief Secretary. He tells us there is nothing in his career of which he is prouder than the part he played in the strike. I am very glad to hear it. I think the Chief Secretary must be easily pleased. It seems to have hurt the feelings of Gentlemen below the Gangway so much that I will not say I should have thought there were other incidents in his career with which he might at all events have been equally pleased. He is the best judge of his own past career.
  He has also told us that he was in Ireland during much longer periods of the strike than we know. If he was he managed to keep his presence the most amazing secret. As a rule, the comings and goings of Chief Secretaries are made very public in Ireland. We hear of the time they arrive and the time they depart, and you can hardly cross the street without this being notified in some newspaper or other. The Chief Secretary seems to have found a way of arriving unknown, and, not only that, but, curiously enough, reports appeared during this time that the Chief Secretary was not in Ireland. As I have no access to his diary—and I am not
  1392
  going to suggest for a moment that he said anything which was not absolutely accurate—it is impossible for me to do more than say that I was in Ireland myself during part of the time, both in Dublin and in the country. I can answer for it that there was a very profound feeling of dissatisfaction at what people regarded as a scandal that the Chief Secretary, who is responsible for the Government of Ireland more than anyone else can be, was absent during the greater part of that time, and they believe, and I think with justice, that the whole of the negotiations being left to the Under-Secretary resulted in a prolongation of the strike, which might have been avoided, and the presence at the seat of Government of the head of the Government would have brought things to a termination much quicker than they were brought, and consequently we allege that this Vote is larger than it need have been. That is the charge made here. We do not attempt to go into these wider charges, which, I have no doubt, will be raised at the proper time by those who made them. Nothing that the Chief Secretary has said has altered my own personal conviction, that as soon as things assumed a serious attitude in Dublin it was his business to be there, and to see that under his own personal direction everything which could be done was done to put an end to a state of things which, although hon. Gentlemen say to-day it was peaceful and did not result in rioting or turbulence, did have this effect, that it interfered with trade, stopped business going on, and deprived many people of their legitimate earnings and profits. Everything ought to have been done at once to put an end to the strike. It was because, in our judgment, the Chief Secretary did not show a full appreciation of the responsibilities of his position that we have raised this question here, and we hold that our action is justified.
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the payment of £850 for the Royal visit was made? Over here the custom has been to give the men sometimes extra pay and sometimes extra leave in return for extra duty. I believe every Member of the House in dealing with the police will be anxious to give these men, if possible, more than it appears they have been paid in the Estimate. On what basis was the Grant calculated for the extra duty involved by the Royal visit and by the strike? Was it paid in pounds, shillings, and pence, or did they also have

  1393
  additional leave granted? From what has been said on all sides, the duty was performed most efficiently and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. If that was the case we may be quite sure that, rather than under-doing their duties, they went out of their way to perform them more efficiently than they would otherwise have done. I want to ask also whether any additional allowance is made for the Dublin Metropolitan Police to meet the increased cost of living?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not on this Vote.
  Mr. REMNANT: Does this represent anything for that?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. REMNANT: I would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has himself made any inquiries, or thinks the time has arrived for granting the inquiry for which he was asked, into the conditions under which the police in Ireland are working?
  The CHAIRMAN: That should be put at Question Time. It does not arise now.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The claim of the Metropolitan Police has been presented by the Chief Commissioners in a document which is now under my consideration. It raises very large questions. Of course, fifteen or twenty years makes a considerable difference, and questions do arise. This extra sum was entirely a money Grant, calculated upon the position of those who were on actual duty during the King's visit and who took an actual part in the extra work.
  Mr. REMNANT: They got no other payment in the shape of leave?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. REMNANT: Was this scale of extra pay submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and is he satisfied that it is sufficient for the work they did? Eather than take anything away from it I would add to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied it is all right, and I shall be satisfied.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am a very generous man with other people's money. It might have been a little more, but this is as much as we felt justified in asking the House of Commons for.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There is a small point that I should like cleared up. I think the right hon. Gentleman stated that this Vote of £2,800 was divided into two
  1394
  items of £852 for the Grant to the police for extra duty through the Royal visit and £1,924 for payment during the labour strike. You would have thought that the two sums added together would make the total Vote asked for, but the odd thing is that they do not. That seems to me one of the mysteries of the Treasury which might well be explained. I know that the Treasury statements are full of the most mysterious matters, which are quite unintelligible to the layman. If the right hon. Gentleman will explain it I should be very grateful.
  Mr. WARDLE: I wish to state that I was in Dublin at this time, and there was no disorder. I take note of the fact that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) considers it the duty of the police to put down strikes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, what I said, and what I mean, was that if the riots had been suppressed, in all probability the strike would have finished.
  Mr. DILLON: But there were no riots at all.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There were no riots because the strikers were allowed to do what they pleased.
  Mr. DILLON: It is not true.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Baronet is allowing himself to be led away again.
  Mr. WARDLE: The circumstances at the time in Dublin were such that the police were quite competent to deal with this matter without having to put down strikes.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: There are two items of this Vote which have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. I should like to ask for information as to Item G, Incidental Expenses. There is an item of £200 for the cost of medals awarded to the police on duty during the Royal visit. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Craig) in thinking that it was perfectly right to award these medals, and possibly even more medals might have been given to them. I wish to ask whether the sum was so much underestimated at the time the original Estimates were prepared. At the time the Estimates were made it was perfectly clear that the Coronation was coming on, and it was well known, roughly, how many

  1395
  police were likely to be on duty, and therefore a very fair estimate might at that time have been formed. Yesterday we were told that since the Estimates were prepared the price of paper had increased. The right hon. Gentleman may now tell us that the price of copper has gone up, but as a matter of fact the price of copper has not gone up, and he cannot claim an increase in price as accounting for this estimate. If the officials were not up to time in getting the medals struck, that would be a different matter. I ask how much was the original estimate for medals, so that we may see how much the amount was underestimated. Secondly, I wish to know where the medals were made, how many were silver and how many copper, and how many policemen received them.
  Mr. BIRRELL: These were not Coronation medals at all. These were medals awarded to those members of the force who took an actual part in lining the streets on the memorable occasion of the King's visit. I have seen the medals, but I am not prepared to say what precisely the component parts may be, but I am able to state that they have given great satisfaction to the members of the force who received them.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my hon. Friend's question as to where these medals were made.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Explain to him where the Mint is.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman one would gather that during the strike the state of affairs in Dublin was such that there was no trouble worthy of comment in this House, and that no citizen of Dublin had any trouble at all in obtaining any goods he desired to get, or in obtaining ordinary transport facilities.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I said nothing of the kind.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I say that was the suggestion conveyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In any case, he in effect said that anybody who wanted police protection could get it, and having got it, I understood him to suggest that there was no further trouble. Well, I was in Dublin, and I say that if that is the underlying suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, then he
  1396
  must have been grossly misinformed of the facts. I had occasion to attempt to render service to a friend of mine living within thirty-five miles from Dublin, who had got a considerable quantity of goods brought by a steamship which was lying at the quay-side. I endeavoured, on behalf of my friend, to get these goods delivered. I went down and interviewed no less than three different firms of carters and tried to get any bargain I could. I tried to persuade these carters to carry out their legitimate business and transport the goods to the railway station. There was not one of them who dared take his horse and cart to that quay-side, or unload the goods, and the result was that, as the only remedy available, I had to order a motor lorry, and I had to get the goods motored, at considerable expense, for a distance of thirty-five miles, and so a charity was deprived of some money which otherwise it would have received. What nonsense it is for a Minister of the Crown to come down to this House, and knowing these circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman must know them, or ought to know them, tell us there was no trouble in Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Did these people apply for protection?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: The answer is that they did not apply on this occasion, for they had applied formerly, and having received this imaginary protection, the lives of their carters were in danger, and their carts and other property were also in danger. These men told me that whether they had police protection or no protection it was impossible to undertake the legitimate work of carting the goods from the steamship to the train because of the insufficient protection given to the citizens of Dublin who wished to carry on their business. The right hon. Gentleman says he was present during a great part of the strike.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Well, part of the time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wisely refrained from telling us what part of the time he was present. I was there two weeks, and every morning the Irish papers blazoned the fact that the Chief Secretary was not in his place. If the right hon. Gentleman was there and saw anything of the grave disorder that took place in Dublin, and the state of affairs which deprived people of the elementary rights of citizenship, it was not generally known in the city. I say that

  1397
  the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have been absent from Ireland in such a crisis. I think the state of affairs is very disgraceful and very discreditable to the high office which the right hon. Gentleman holds.
  Mr. DEVLIN: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) and the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) went over to Ireland at a time of industrial strife for the purpose of creating trouble there.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I went for a holiday.
  Mr. DEVLIN: He was there when the strike was going on. He was there while the strike was entailing a good deal of excitement, and while the Chief Secretary was there. The Chief Secretary was able to calm the people, and ultimately to settle the strike, and yet these hon. Members come here and complain of the Chief Secretary's conduct. I do not see why the time of the Imperial Parliament should be occupied in discussing the business of the hon. Member for Warrington. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] He went over to Ireland with fifty-five boxes of Unionist pamphlets, but he did not tell us that he had a placard on his breast stating, "Ulster will fight, and Liverpool will be there to lead."
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Estimate now before the Committee.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I did not desire to enter further into the potential excursions of the hon. Gentleman in the sphere of political activity in Ireland. At that time we shall be all there to see it. There was no disorder in Ireland. The strike was conducted in perhaps an infinitely more orderly way than any strikes in England, and when a number of ignorant English gentlemen of high education and great prestige stand up in this House and make these attacks on Ireland that is a matter which I, as an Irish representative, resent. In my judgment, the whole cause of the strike was the conduct of the railway directors and the scandalous wages they paid to their workers.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that matter on this Estimate.
  Mr. DEVLIN: In conclusion, I wish to say that I am sorry the strike did not go on, for the railway directors would have been beaten.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: My Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley) asked for some explanation as to the mystery in connection with the figures in this Estimate. No reply has so far been vouchsafed by the right hon. Gentleman. There is one mystery I should like to have cleared up at the same time he replies to my Noble Friend. The original amount of the Vote is given as £95,801, and yet we have given under two heads, B and G, a total of £100,656. What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is how it is possible under these two heads alone that the amount should be given as £100,656, while the entire Vote is only £95,801? If the figures given us are correct, the amount of the Vote apparently ought to be more than £3,500. The figures given in connection with Supplementary Estimates are generally very accurate, but evidently something has gone wrong here. As a rule we understand that the greater includes the less, but in this case, apparently, the less includes the greater. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation. The amount of the original Estimate must have been 5 per cent. understated, or the figures which I have quoted are wholly incorrect.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures I gave were as they were represented to me, but I have a note to the effect that they are not detailed exactly. At the time the Estimate was prepared we had hoped to have something which does not appear to be available now. The original Estimate for (b) extra pay, etc., of the force was £100,026, the revised Estimate £102,826. The additional sum required was £2,800. Then the original Estimate of incidental expenses was £630, to which £200 was added for the cost of the medals, which makes £830 for incidentals, so that the additional sum required was £3,000. We reduced that by the Appropriations-in-Aid, consisting of fees, fines, and payments under various Acts of Parliament. They were estimated to amount to £56,553, and only amounted to £56,053, which was a falling off of £500, and that makes out the sum now required £3,500.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman go on to look at the next figure giving us the total amount of the Vote as £95,801. How does he reconcile these figures?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member has not taken into consideration the Appropriations-in-Aid.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: They have nothing to do with the amount of the original Vote. The right hon. Gentleman gives no explanation whatever of that figure. He does not say how it has been arrived at or how it is possible for a Vote for £95,801 to comprise, in the items (b) and (g) alone, the amount of £100,656. There must be some explanation, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us none. If it were not for the fact that the Vote is for the police, I should be very strongly tempted to divide the Committee.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I raised this question for the purpose of drawing attention to an important question of principle. I am glad to see the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. McKinnon Wood) on the Treasury Bench now, and to welcome his return to the House. As he was at the Treasury when these Estimates were prepared, perhaps he would explain them to the House. It seems to me that the Estimates are got up, not with a view to showing the exact sum that is required, but to revise the original Estimate so as to get a round sum. I do not know if that is a good plan. In each case the additional sum required is a round sum: in (b) it is £2,800, in (g) it is £200, and in (m) it is £500. These round sums cannot in each case correspond to the actual detailed figures which the Treasury must have for their Estimates. I have no doubt it will be said that the practice is being followed, but it does not follow that it is a good practice, and as the House is rapidly losing control of the national finance it is important that these points should be cleared up, and that the House should have some cognisance of what are the Treasury methods in presenting these Estimates. On an important occasion like this, when these Estimates are presented, some representative of the Treasury should be present, so that we should not be left dependent on the accidental appearance of a Minister who has now gone to another Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland is here to defend his policy, and he has defended it, whenever it is called in question, with very great courtesy to the House. Nobody would expect him to know all the Treasury details which should be answered by the Treasury, and as we have no representatives of the Treasury present, unless the late representative of the Treasury gives some explanation, I shall move to report Progress.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If I am permitted to give an explanation, I shall be very pleased to do it. The official estimate for the Dublin Metropolitan Police amounted to £152,354; of that £100,026 was for pay, extra pay, etc. The Appropriations-in-Aid were £56,553, which, taken from the total Estimate, left a net total of £95,801, which is the item which appears in the lower part of the paragraph. I do not know whether it is in order for a very humble Member of the Opposition to be obliged to explain the Estimates of the Government in the absence of any representative of the Treasury. The very same thing happened yesterday, and I was obliged to move the Adjournment on account of the very great contempt which the Treasury showed to the House of Commons. I am willing to assist the Government in times of trouble, but I earnestly trust that the neglect of the House of Commons by the Treasury will not continue, as I might not be always here.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I was about to give the figures which the hon. Baronet has just stated. The total estimate was for £152,354, and the Appropriations-in-Aid were £56,552. Deducting these, there was left £95,801, to which £3,500 has now to be added, bringing the total up to £99,301.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If that is the explanation which the Government are willing to offer I could have found that out for myself, as, indeed, I did find it out. Although we are grateful for the explanation of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, he also failed to apprehend the exact question which I was addressing to a non-existent representative of the Treasury. The point is not the figure £95,801, but the figures in the two columns "Original Estimate" and "Revised Estimate." I maintain that the figure in the column "Revised Estimate" must be an artificial figure which has no relation to facts, and is put down in order to bring out a round sum in each case in the third column.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to move—"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Supplementary Estimates in our hands are for the sum of a quarter of a million. Yesterday and to-day no one representing the Treasury has been present. I think it a great scandal that we should find ourselves in a difficulty when matters require to be explained owing to the

  1401
  absence of a representative of the Treasury during these Debates. Therefore, without further words and as a protest against the action of a Department of the Government which is going from bad to worse, I move to report Progress.
  Question put, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 237.

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES.

  [5.30 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barnston, Harry

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hills, John Waller

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bird, A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanier, Beville

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

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

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Moore, William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Croft, H. P.

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

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

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Younger, Sir George

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Craig and Sir F. Banbury.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Adamson, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Byles, Sir William pollard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Furness, Stephen

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glodstone, W. G. C.

  Barton, W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Beale, William Phipson

  Cotton, William Francis

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cowan, W. H.

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Delany, William

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Boland, John Pius

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brace, William

  Dillon, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Doris, W.

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

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hayward, Evan

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molloy, M.

  Rowlands, James

  Henry, Sir Charles E. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hodge, John

  Munro, R.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehy, David

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Shortt, Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Neilson, Francis

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Snowden, Philip

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nolan, Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Johnson, W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Grady, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wardle, George J.

  Lansbury, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Leach, Charles

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Macphersen, James Ian

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Reddy, M.

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. FELL: I should like to call attention to the amount of the Appropriation-in-Aid. In every Supplementary Estimate we have voted the sum for Appropriation-in-Aid has been an increasing amount brought into account. This is the first case in which we have, in the Supplementary Estimates, a decrease. It is clear to me that the expenses of the different Departments have been over-estimated, with the result that surpluses have accrued which have been carried to the credit, and a reduced amount given to us to vote on Supplementary Estimates. In the present case the opposite has taken place. Where there has been a deficiency I do not think we ought to pass it by without some explanation. An error is made in over calculating; a similar error is made if the amount to be received does not answer to the expectation of the Treasury. I should like some explanation of the fact that the
  1404
  police fines and fees are deficient. The Government have given many answers in past years to the effect that offenders had not been discovered, and that there was no one to be prosecuted or to be brought to trial. A large number of crimes have been, perhaps, correctly estimated for, but they have not succeeded in finding the people, and, therefore, there have not been prosecutions, with the result that the fines have not come up to the expectation of the Government. Of course, that reflects to some extent on the conduct of the Government in Ireland, and it really calls for some explanation from the Chief Secretary, if he can give one, as to the reason for this deficiency.
  Mr. REMNANT: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now present, and I would ask him for some explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me. The original Estimate is for £100,656,

  1405
  and, repeated below, it is put at £95,801. Apparently the Chief Secretary and the hon. Gentleman beside him are unable to give an answer, and I am quite sure that the Committee would be much better pleased if they had an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question has already been answered.
  Mr. REMNANT: The Committee would be much better pleased if the Minister responsible gave an answer. If he cannot do so, let him say so, and then we can form our own conclusions.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I have anything to add to the answer given by the hon. Baronet. I understand it was a perfectly correct answer.
  Mr. REMNANT: Are we to understand that the answer given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is a correct answer? The accounts show a difference of something like £4,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] The sum is a small one, but I would point out that it is the only opportunity we shall have of raising this point. May I ask whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer the question which I put to him, whether the reply given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is correct, and whether on behalf of the Treasury he is satisfied with it?

  CLASS 4.—NATIONAL GALLERY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,776, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, including a Grant-in-Aid for the Purchase of Pictures."
  Mr. LLOYD: I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the purchase for the National Gallery of the picture, "Castle Howard Mabuse," the total price of which was £40,000, in addition to Death Duties to the amount of £2,776, which, according to a note at the foot of the Vote, it was "part of the bargain that the purchaser should pay." I do not raise this matter in any controversial sense, except in regard to the principle involved. With reference to the wisdom of the purchase,
  1406
  first of all I think it very important that the Government should consider whether it is not establishing a very dangerous precedent. I am not at all sure that they are right to make bargains with private individuals, or on any ground whatever to release those individuals from paying Death Duties according to law. No one questions the wish of the vendor to give to the nation the benefit of the picture. It is said that he would have been able to get a bigger price for it outside this country than he has obtained here. I do not dispute that for a single moment, but, if that was the case, was not the vendor rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? If he was ready to swallow the camel in the form of the sacrifice of some twenty or thirty thousand pounds on the price of the picture, why is he to get this £2,776? It seems to me that it would have been much better if the price of the Death Duties had been included in the price of the picture. In the circumstances we have a right to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by virtue of what right can he offer to exempt any private individual from paying Death Duties which are established according to law. That is a point on which we should really have a definite answer. I understand that, at any rate, it is a very questionable thing whether this purchase was a wise one at all. Certain experts have said that the painter is not very famous, yet a very large sum of money is expended on the picture, and that money is to be taken out of the annual Grant which is given to the National Gallery for the purchase of works of art each year. I should like to give some idea that this view is entirely erroneous. The well-known expert, Mr. MacColl (formerly keeper of the Tate Gallery), says that this picture represents nothing but a
  "piece of cold-hearted capable picture making."
  I am not competent to discuss how far that is a competent estimate of the value of the picture, but if it is at all accurate I think it was not worth while buying at the expense of a new principle being established with regard to the exoneration, of private people paying Death Duties. Further, we have established this new principle on behalf of an artist who was not a very famous artist. Apparently he initiated what was commonly held to be the decline of the Flemish School to which he belonged, and by this purchase we have prevented the National Gallery from buying other works of art which are entirely unrepresented there, and which it would have been in their power to purchase if it

  1407
  had not been for this purchase. I would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in his reply, he will tell us quite clearly on what grounds he preferred to make this bargain with regard to the Death Duties rather than that the vendor should have included the price of the Death Duties in the price which he asked from the nation?
  Mr. KING: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10,000. I do so because, firstly, I feel strongly that a mistake has been made in connection with this picture. I think it is one of the most beautiful pictures in our national collection, and as to that I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I think it is an entirely proper picture. There are some pictures which have been bought at extravagant prices which are open to objection on the ground of propriety, but I have nothing whatever of that kind to say against this picture. I desire to point out that this is an enormous sum we are giving for an article of foreign production. If this had been an English picture I could have understood the matter, but it is that of a foreign artist of a very remote date. Though we have a great respect for those artists, yet in the collection which we have of all the foreign schools in Europe we have the most representative and the best by far that exists. Take any gallery on the Continent, you may find a superior collection either of Italian artists of one school or another, or of French, or of Dutch, or of Flemish, but I know of no gallery in the world where you will find such a magnificent and representative collection of all schools as in our National Gallery. I think we have reached a perfection in that direction with which we might be quite content, and that it is undesirable to add to the regular amount given in the yearly Estimates for the purchase of pictures by practically doubling that amount in Supplementary Estimates. It is therefore a question of high policy with regard to our national collection which I have in my mind when I move the reduction of this Vote.
  There is another point of view which I think well worth putting before the House, and it is this. We are spending this year £40,000 in the acquisition of new works of art. Perhaps it is not enough in the opinion of some, but why should it all be spent in the direction of pictures. There are many works of art which are not pictures, and which we ought to buy. I object on principle again when we have such a
  1408
  magnificent collection of pictures that we should go on adding to the collection and disregard other forms of art which are just as important, and which have received far less State attention. I should like to see more sculpture. I particularly like to see sculpture of the human form. I should be very glad to support an Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate which had that object in view. There are other forms of art which should be recognised as representative and which we do not look after to any extent. Take our domestic architecture. Very often there comes into the market a fine representative work of national architecture in the shape of an old school or an old public building which is destroyed. A Grant or some assistance should be given by the State to preserve those historic works of art, for they are works of art. As a matter of fact there is no provision made by our Government for helping such works of national artistic value. I therefore raise this question in the hope that we may have a short discussion and common-sense discussion, not obstructive, but purely suggestive, and suggestive of a very proper and decent object. I hope I may appeal to the Financial Secretary for a short statement as to what the Government policy is in connection with my suggestion, and I trust I may receive assistance from the opposite side in giving support to my views.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: If the hon. Member had asked us to join in the campaign to obtain some fine specimens of English architecture or sculpture, or other specimens of Art at the expense of the Nation, I think he would have received a great deal of support from this side, and he certainly would have received my support. But when he asks us to obtain that very excellent idea of his by cutting down the Estimate for the National Gallery for the current year by a sum of £10,000, I am afraid he is only working to defeat his own ends. The hon. Member said that the price of this particular picture or the sum proposed was too large a sum to be spent in any one year in the purchase of a single picture. I do not agree with him. If we were to confine our operations to pictures which cost £5,000 or less, which is the amount of the yearly Grant, it is obvious we should lose from time to time, and probably every year, the opportunity of buying pictures which it is most desirable should be bought by the nation. With reference to his idea that the National Gallery has now the finest representative

  1409
  collection of pictures in the world and that we should be content, I totally disagree. I do not think we should ever be content while there are fine and rare specimens of pictures to be had. I maintain it is the duty of the Government to foster art in every way, and in no way could it be done better than by adding from time to time valuable examples of pictures to the National Gallery. I believe that this particular picture is very fine, but whether it is or not I understand it is a rare specimen, and it would be a thousand pities if the opportunity of obtaining it had been lost. I congratulate the Government on having bought the picture, and I am quite sure the House will uphold their decision in the matter.
  I would like the Secretary to the Treasury to give us a little more information with regard to the details at the bottom of the page as to this picture, and I am sure it only requires a little explanation to make it clear. It shows in the details that the total price of the picture was £40,000, in addition to the Death Duties, which it was part of the bargain that the purchaser should pay. I do not intend to enter into that question, but between whom was that bargain made? Was it between the trustees of the Gallery or between the Treasury and the vendor? If so, was the whole of the price of the picture, £40,000, to be paid by the Government? The details given would lead one to suppose that the Government had purchased this picture themselves. If that is so, it is obvious that £17,776 is not sufficient to pay the full price, and where does the balance come from? It is stated that it is proposed to stop the annual Grant of £5,000 for the purchase of pictures for 1912–13. Is that stoppage to be for more years than one, and for the purpose of making up this sum? If that is the proposition of the Government, I think it is an extremely bad proposition. I think they should make a free Grant of £17,000, and I am sure that in doing so they will have the support of the majority of the Members of the House. I trust they will reconsider the question as to the £5,000 and allow it to continue.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRETTON: This transaction has some very remarkable features about it and I trust the Government will give us a clear and full explanation as to how they came to act in the way which they now ask the Committee to affirm. I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that one of the objectionable features
  1410
  is that the Government propose to suspend the Grant to the National Gallery for this year. Is the acquisition of one picture to entail the crippling of the National Gallery the next year in the purchase of other works of art? I am not going to suggest that there is anything wrong in what has been done, but we cannot but have seen, and particularly most of those who know of this transaction, that the picture has been purchased under very extraordinary circumstances from a family, some very well-known members of which are active supporters of the Government. Therefore it is the more incumbent on the Government to give a full and clear explanation of this transaction. As to the price of the picture, £40,000 is a very high figure, and one which has surprised many persons with some knowledge of pictures. No doubt the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to tell us on what expert opinion the Government acted when they fixed that value. It has been stated that the Government are making a good bargain, and that the value of the picture in the open market is rather more than the price paid. If that is so, the executors, in winding up the affairs of the estate have acted wrongly in parting with their property if they have taken less than its fair value in the open market. I cannot think that the suggestion is well founded. Another peculiar feature of the transaction has reference to the Death Duties. The principle on which hon. Members opposite have acted is that Death Duties were intended to be a payment by heirs on succeeding to property which they had done nothing to earn. This transaction, however, hardly appears to come within that principle, because here some kind of gift has been made, and the Treasury is actually making a payment to square this transaction. So far from receiving any sum in Death Duties, the Treasury is asking the House to confirm a payment out of national money of £2,776. I hope for the reasons I have given the hon. Gentleman will give the Committee a full explanation of the matter.
  Lord BALCARRES: The last thing I desire to do is to urge the Government to spend more money. Hon. Members opposite must realise that, perhaps against their will, national expenditure has risen to an alarming degree, and only last night Members on this side expressed acquiescence in that view. I am bound to say, however, that great as is my abstract interest in the

  1411
  question of economy, I shall certainly vote against the reduction now moved. It is very difficult indeed to assign either the money or the æsthetic value of any great work of art. With all due deference to my hon. Friends in whatever part of the House they may sit, we do not form a very adequate or satisfactory jury for that purpose. We are not and do not claim to be experts in these matters, and where you find that both on the cash value and on the æsthetic value of a great work of art, whether painting, statuary, or anything else, those who have devoted their lives to the professional study of these matters differ toto caelo, it is really impossible for the House of Commons to expect to give a final verdict which will command general assent. We are, therefore, driven to look upon these things in a general manner, and it is from a purely general point of view that I wish to address the Committee.
  As to the value of the picture, one of my hon. Friends thinks that too high a price was paid. All I can say is that other people, if not competent to judge, at any rate competent to pay, were prepared to place very much larger sums at the disposal of the owner of the picture. As to its æsthetic value, no doubt prominent and respected critics do not find that the picture appeals to their judgment, but against those you can find many prominent and equally competent men who consider that the picture is a very valuable acquisition to our national collection. I, as a member of the public, look upon it as an acquisition of consummate value. If anybody is interested in discovering what not the skilled critics but ordinary members of the British public think about it, they can easily put the matter to the test by standing beside the picture for ten or fifteen minutes on Saturday or Sunday afternoon. There is no doubt at all that the money invested in our national art collections, museums, galleries, and so forth, during the last forty or fifty years has given, and continues to give, to the public as a whole, not only a greater amount of pleasure, but a greater amount of recreation, interest, and instruction than is given by the outlay in any other conceivable direction. I do not look upon these great galleries and museums as some people do, as a luxury. I look upon them as an absolute necessity for the public. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) seemed to think that this acquisition was made at the expense of other
  1412
  analogous institutions. I do not know what justification there is for that view. He seemed to think, for instance, that the Victoria and Albert Museum was starved because the National Gallery had secured this picture. The Victoria and Albert Museum has a purchase Grant, I believe, of £22,000 a year. It has certainly £8,000 or £10,000 accumulated surpluses from past years; and if that Department desires to make a great acquisition it has considerable funds at its disposal with which to buy the object or objects concerned.
  I do not remember for the moment what the annual Grant of the British Museum, the Archæological or Bloomsbury branch, is, and I do not say that I would not support a considerable increase. But because I cannot get what I should like for the British Museum or the Victoria and Albert Museum, I shall be far from grudging anything that the National Gallery has been able to secure. I only regret that the Treasury has thought it right to make the trustees of that gallery forego the annual Grant for the forthcoming year. I do not blame the Treasury. From my point of view they have behaved very handsomely in this matter, but I enter this caveat, that it will be still better if, when the Estimate is finally framed, we find that this footnote has been abandoned. The hon. Member for North Somerset said that he did not like all this money being spent on pictures; he thought we might buy old houses. I suppose we might buy old houses and buildings of interest. But there again the hon. Member is on weak ground. The chief objection to spending great sums of money on old pictures is generally that you are doing it at the expense of modern art. Certainly that does not apply in the case of architecture. We are spending on modern architecture and art carried out by living artists ten times the sum that we are spending on the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum combined. Architecture is the one and only art which receives adequate recognition from the State in this country to-day, judged by the amount of money that the House of Commons is prepared to vote. Therefore I do not think it prudent to attack this purchase of a picture on the ground that we are not purchasing at the same time derelict buildings. I shall oppose the Amendment, and support the Government.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): After the very interesting speech of the Noble Lord

  1413
  the Committee will not want me to go into any of the more irrelevant matters so far as the Treasury is concerned. I think the Noble Lord's defence has convinced the whole Committee that the picture is worth the price, and that we ought to be proud to have secured this addition to our national store. I am mainly concerned, therefore, with the defence of the Treasury for having advanced this particular sum of money to help in its purchase. I might remark, in passing, that any request that the Treasury will alter the bargain they have made and increase their expenditure of £4,000 must be influenced by such a Debate as that of last night, when I was very violently attacked for spending public money in various directions. One or two Members have been acting under a misapprehension of what this actual transaction was. The hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) suggested that it was wrong for the trustees in an estate settlement to take less than the proper value of a picture. This picture was not in an estate settlement at all. It was bequeathed, without conditions, by Lord Carlisle to Lady Carlisle, who offered it to the nation at a price agreed at, £40,000 plus the Death Duties, on this particular picture. It is quite untrue that any individuals have been relieved of that duty or that any Death Duties have been foregone. We take power to pay the Death Duties to the Inland Revenue, and they will appear in the ordinary way in the Inland Revenue Returns.
  Mr. LLOYD: I gather that the vendor has not paid the Death Duties or that they have been remitted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On this picture the amount of the Death Duties has been paid; I think, already to the Inland Revenue. I am now asking the House to give me power to pay by taking it out of this money. Is that clear?
  Mr. LLOYD: That is to say that on this particular picture no Death Duties have been paid. [HON. MEHBEKS: "No, no."]
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Death Duties fire paid on this picture to the extent of £2,276 by the Vote which we are now asking for.
  Mr. LLOYD: By the Government?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, by the Trustees of the National Gallery. The trustees of the National Gallery approached us through the Chancellor of the Duchy of
  1414
  Lancaster as to the Government contributing towards the raising of the sum. After some conversation it was agreed that the Government might rightly make a contribution towards the £40,000 of £15,000 plus the Death Duties, if, as one of the conditions of purchase, the rest of the money was provided by private individuals. The trustees were able to raise the rest, and the transaction was completed. The picture is one which will be a pride to the nation. It is a picture, as the Noble Lord opposite has said, that is now giving daily pleasure to large numbers of people. But the concern of the Treasury is somewhat more sordid. Has the nation made a good bargain? No one who goes into the subject has the slightest doubt but that the nation has made an extraordinarily good bargain. I have been informed from authoritative sources that before this purchase took place more than twice the value at which the picture was offered to the nation was offered by a private buyer. I am informed that probably that amount could have been exceeded, and there is no reason why this picture should not have fetched in the open market as much as Rembrandt's "Mill," which has unfortunately been lost to the nation by going to America. What, therefore, the transaction has been is this: the Government has contributed £17,000 odd to the purchase of this picture. Private funds and generous private donors have contributed another £25,000. Lady Carlisle has contributed between £50,000 and £60,000 towards the giving of this picture to the nation. I think, under those circumstances, I should express publicly the sense of the gratitude of this Committee for such a magnificent gift.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I believe the Government is entirely and absolutely justified in the action they have taken in contributing this sum of money towards the purchase of this beautiful picture. But, unfortunately, there are people in this world who have a habit of thinking and saying nasty things. The Government have an unfortunate reputation. They have the reputation of being fond of their friends. There are people who say these nasty things, and talk of this as a job. Everybody knows the political associations of the Howard family. [An HON. MEMBER: "One was a Tory Whip."] I am not attacking the Government for this. I am not attacking the Howard family. I say at once I do not believe it for a second. I entirely acquit the Government of any jobbery—in this particular instance, at any

  1415
  rate. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on having for once paid the Death Duties of somebody. I think it is the first time in their history that they have ever contributed to the Death Duties of a private individual. Even in spite of the strong Radical tendencies of the family in question they themselves do not altogether approve of these iniquitous duties. There is one question, and only one, which I wish to put to the hon. Member. If it is justifiable, as I believe—and I think most of us, with the exception of one hon. Member, believe—if it is justifiable to expend a sum of money such as this, and if we also believe that the annual Grant of £5,000 is justifiable, why should the £5,000 be suspended? Goodness knows, it is a small enough Grant. Why, because the Government have expended a considerable sum during the last year, should that sum be taken off altogether during the present year?
  Lord A. THYNNE: I cannot altogether agree with the view taken by the Secretary to the Treasury. Although I am strongly in favour of the purchase, I do not regard it as a good bargain from the point of view of the public. After all, what is the interest of the country in this matter? The interest of the country is that this picture should not go abroad. But if this picture remained hanging on the walls of Castle Howard that object would have been achieved in quite a satisfactory manner for the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and at far less cost.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: How are you going to keep the picture hanging on the walls of Castle Howard?
  Lord A. THYNNE: I am coming to that point. The person who really benefits by this transaction is Lady Carlisle. If she had done what a very large number of private picture owners do in this country; if she had kept that picture as a family heirloom at Castle Howard, and opened the doors to the public to see that picture, as is done in innumerable houses of similar standing, that picture would have been enjoyed by the public of Yorkshire and, indeed, by the people of this country, and we should not have been called upon to pay this very sum. I quite admit that if that patriotic policy had been adopted it would not have been creating a precedent, and I say that Lady Carlisle would have been a very substantial loser.
  1416
  I do think that some hon. Members taking part in this discussion have really missed what, in my opinion, is the important issue. This is the first step in what I may call a very important departure in policy, so far as the National Gallery is concerned. We all know that for a considerable number of years controversy has raged around the National Gallery. There has been considerable discussion as to what the real object of the National Gallery is. There are some people who have laid it down—and apparently that view now obtains a certain amount of sanction at the Treasury—that it is the business of the National Gallery to fill its walls with the best known examples of the best known masters. To adopt this course at the present time is to enter into the competition with that bottomless person the American millionaire. That is a ruinous course, and one which even the Exchequer of this country could not afford for long. The other policy is to regard the National Gallery more from an educational point of view; and if that view is adopted you aim at placing upon its walls representative examples of the various schools of painting. I would point out that a great many people do hold that view, and if that view is adopted you are not justified in spending at one fell swoop such a very large sum—a sum equal to four years' annual Grant—on the purchase of what is undoubtedly a great masterpiece of a painter not quite of the first order. This sum of money which is at the disposal of the directors of the National Gallery could have been; spent to far greater advantage in filling up some gaps which already exist in regard to the various schools of painting. I congratulate the Treasury on having contributed towards this picture at all, because I have always felt that the Exchequer of this country was not very-enthusiastic in the support it has given to the National Gallery and similar institutions. I do not think I need remind the Committee that really we owe the greater part of the National Gallery to private bequests and to the generosity of private individuals.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The Noble Lord is going into the general policy of the annual Grant.
  Lord A. THYNNE: On a point of Order I would submit, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that it is difficult to discuss this without going into the question of the general

  1417
  policy of the annual Grant, because it is suggested in this Vote to cancel the annual Grant of £5,000 for next year. It places the National Gallery in a very difficult position if we pass this Vote. We are not only passing a Supplementary Estimate for £17,770 for the purchase of this picture, but we are also withdrawing the annual Grant of £5,000 from the National Gallery for 1912–13. I submit that it is a very, very serious contingency indeed in view of the great gaps in the various schools of painting that will have to be filled up on the walls of the National Gallery if the National Gallery is to have any educational value at all.
  I say that the Government are quite justified in withdrawing the annual Grant from the National Gallery if they are prepared to accept the view that in the future, as in the past, the National Gallery must depend mainly upon the benefactions of private individuals. In this connection let me point out that the Government would be justified in this view so far as that the greater part of the English schools since the days of Hogarth was due to private gifts, and that practically the French schools in the nineteenth century were not represented upon the walls of the National Gallery until you got the Salting and Edwards' gifts. One could multiply instances of this sort. One could cite the fine instance of the Wallace collection, the bequest of Lady Wallace, which has done a good deal to fill up some very large gaps in our national collection. I hope that the Treasury are not going to take the view I mention with regard to the future, because private benefactors are standing in a very different position to-day to what they did in the past. In the past the owners of private collections did not regard them from the point of view of a national asset to the extent that they do to-day. Owing to the increase of taxation and causes of a similar nature, pictures which have hitherto hung up on the walls of private houses, and which have been accounted as amongst the proudest possessions of the nation—although they were in the houses of private individuals—are being sent across the Atlantic, to the lasting loss of this country. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will reconsider this part of his proposal with regard to withdrawing the £5,000 for the ensuing year, and that at a later stage in this Session he will propose a more generous contribution towards the National Gallery.
  Mr. KING: I have raised a very interesting discussion, by the Motion to reduce this Vote. I have also attained a thing which I did not expect. I have shown how inconsistent the Opposition are. They enunciated last night a policy of economy, and yet to-day they are all aghast at my proposal! In view of the fact that I have not received any support from the opposite side, where I had so much reason to expect it, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) that this Committee is not a fit tribunal to express an opinion upon the artistic merits of a certain picture, but I am not quite sure that I agree with the other remarks he made. The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) complained that when he moved a reduction he received no support on this side of the House, but the fact is that he was so anxious to withdraw his Motion for fear he would incur the displeasure of the Chief Whip that he withdrew it before he heard what I had to say. He has done what most hon. Members opposite do; they come forward with a great show of courage to move a reduction against their own side, but then their courage disappears in five minutes and they withdraw it.
  Mr. KING: If the hon. Baronet moves the reduction of the Vote I will support him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I intend to do so. I move the reduction, not because I have any objection to the purchase of pictures—I agree I am not fit to judge whether a picture is good or bad; I should be rather in favour of the purchase of pictures—but I object to the extraordinary methods by which Death Duties are paid in this case by the Government. I think the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury on that point is not at all satisfactory. His explanation was that the Government are going to pay this £2,775 for Death Duties, and that the picture was worth a great deal more. I think he said Lady Carlisle would lose £50,000 on this sale of the picture. I am not a judge of art. I am not sure the Financial Secretary is, but if he says he is a judge I will accept his view. If he is a judge of art, it does not follow that he can judge the value of a picture, because it is a well-known fact that in

  1419
  the case of many collectors of pictures, when their collection comes to be sold, it is found that the general public do not take the view that they did as to their value. The Financial Secretary will not get out of the dilemma by saying that Lady Carlisle could have got a very much larger sum if she had sold it to someone else. The point is not what Lady Carlisle could have done, if she had done what she has not done. The picture is sold to the Government and the Government pay the Death Duties on it. How is that to be reconciled with the position hon. Gentlemen opposite take up that Death Duties are justifiable, because anyone receiving £40,000 would be only too glad to pay the Death Duties on that sum. That argument was brought forward over and over again. What have the Treasury done now? They hold that where a landlord grants a lease, and there is Increment Value Duty, the Increment Value Duty should be paid by the person taking the lease.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet is now going into a subject that is not really before the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Vote says that the Death Duties—£2,775—are to be paid by the Government. I propose to move the reduction because I do not approve of that particular policy. It is a new policy, and it can be discussed because the argument is it is inconsistent with the established policy of the Government inasmuch as they always hold that the person on whom the charge is leviable ought to pay.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I may have been mistaken in my view of the hon. Baronet's remarks, but I understood him to be going into the general policy of Death Duties.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no, that is not my intention at all. What I want to show is that this is a departure on the part of the Government which they have always denounced in other people, and that they are now doing that which they would have prevented private people from doing.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury one question. Is it not a fact that works of art which are of public interest, even if they be in private collections, are as a rule exempt from Death Duties?
  Mr. CROFT: I should like to say that I think it is most desirable this question
  1420
  of Death Duties should be thoroughly understood by the public. The Secretary to the Treasury told us that this picture was really worth £100,000, though it has actually been bought for £40,000. I want to know, are the Death Duties which are being charged Death Duties on £100,000 or £40,000? For it is perfectly obvious if they are only on £40,000, the nation is being swindled, as the sum should be charged on £100,000.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Carlile), I wish to say the Government has no power to exempt works of art from Death Duties. On the sale of a picture, except those given by statute, there is no discretionary power. The only thing that does affect the sale is that provided under the Finance Act of 1910.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Were the payment of the Death Duties and the sale simultaneous?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The picture was offered to the trustees of the National Gallery, and accepted provisionally by them for £40,000. These are the Death Duties which would have to be paid if it remained in Lady Carlisle's possession.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Are works of art exempt if they remain in a private collection?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If she sold it to a private owner, and if it did not contain a condition that the Death Duties upon Lord Carlisle's estate would have to be paid, a sum equivalent or greater would have to be paid by the trustees of the National Gallery. As to the question of what direction is given by the Finance Act of 1910, such property is not aggregated with the rest of the estate, but is an estate in itself, and interpreted as an estate in itself, and the duties are only paid on the sale which then takes place. The sale here only took place for £40,000, and then 6 per cent. goes to Estate Duty. That is, £2,400, and Legacy Duty of 1 per cent. less than the £2,400, which makes up the £2,775.
  Mr. CROFT: This article was worth £100,000, and it is sold by a special arrangement for £40,000. I want to know why Death Duty is not paid on the full value?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have answered that question.
  Mr. GRETTON: I am quite satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman, but I complain of the unbusinesslike way in which the Government has acted in this matter. They have acted in a most extraordinary manner. If they had stated the price of the picture and the Death Duties in one sum and had allowed Lady Carlisle to deduct the duties from the price, then there would be no difficulty. This is only another instance of the muddling way in which they carry on their business. I hope this Debate will be some check to these very extraordinary and involved transactions. Of course my hon. Friend is right, the Government have power under the recent Finance Act to exempt works of art from the payment of Death Duties so long as they remain in this country. No doubt this picture would come under that head. What they have done is to make the matter difficult by the methods of business they have adopted.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what the probate valuation of this picture was. Everyone who has experience of work of this class knows the National Gallery sent down a representative to see if pictures are of sufficient interest and value to be exempt from Death Duties. Very properly the Treasury does not wish to exempt from Death Duties pictures which have no national or artistic value. When these pictures are inspected, a value is put upon them, and it certainly would be of great interest to the community, even if it were only an academic interest, to know how the probate valuation of this picture compared in the first place with the hypothetical value of £100,000 which has been mentioned to-night. Apparently the real basis as the actual value is £40,000. Of course, this Vote is being commended to us on the ground, with which I disagree, namely, that Lady Carlisle has shown an act of extraordinary generosity in selling this picture for £40,000 to the nation. My own view is that Lady Carlisle would have done her duty if she left this picture on the walls of Castle Howard.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into that question.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I have pointed out already that this Estimate is being recommended to us by the Secretary to the Treasury on the ground that Lady Carlisle was making a great sacrifice in selling the picture for £40,000, which is reputed
  1422
  to be worth £100,000. What ground is there for saying that? I should like to know what the probate valuation of this picture was in order that the Committee may be in a position to compare that with its value.
  Mr. CROFT: Supposing at a private sale a picture is sold for £40,000 when its real value is known to be £100,000. Surely the Government in that case would come down and demand the extra Death Duties. Because the Government have been parties to this transaction I do not see why the country should be swindled out of £3,000 or £4,000 Death Duties. Is it not a fact that a value can only be considered final when the property has been put up to public auction?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot understand what the hon. Member means by the public being swindled out of £3,000 or £4,000. This is simply a book-keeping transaction, and it would not have made the least difference whether the Death Duties were put down at £5,000 or any other sum. We guaranteed to pay the Death Duties on this picture in order to relieve Lady Carlisle's estate of the Death Duties, and for that the Government are now merely asking for the transference of £2,776 from the funds of the National Portrait Gallery to the Inland Revenue. The Death Duties were calculated on the value of the picture as an estate by itself. As to the probate value, I cannot give it at the moment, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will try and obtain the information.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am certainly not going to criticise this transaction, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a question of book-keeping. As the State, as I understand it, pays for the picture and pays the Death Duties, it does not matter in the least what form it takes so far as the actual amount of money is concerned. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft) has a right to ask, and to have an answer to his question; and if you are having bookkeeping, why not have correct bookkeeping? If it is necessary to make this cross entry at all, why not make it correctly? If it is a fact that the picture is really worth £100,000 no doubt the Death Duties ought to be calculated on that sum, and the cross entry ought to be for the larger amount. I should like to know whether the Death Duties paid do represent the real value or whether they do not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that is a legitimate question and legitimate criticism to make. All I can say is that the Death Duties were admitted on the same value for the purpose of calculation at the time, and as I informed the House the vendor of the picture had a very much larger offer for it. I am not sure that the calculators of the Death Duties were aware of that fact. That is the best answer I can give.
  Mr. NEWTON: On the general question I have nothing but congratulations to offer to the Government in reference to the purchase of this picture. No hon. Member who has spent half-an-hour in the National Gallery listening to the observations and noticing the number of people who come to enjoy this picture can object to the proposal to pay for its purchase. It should be noticed, however, that we are not in reality voting £17,000, for we really are being asked to vote £12,000, because the hon. Gentleman has already told us that he is going to save £5,000 this year by not making the annual Grant to the National Portrait Gallery. The fault I have to find

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [6.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francs Dyke

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hinds, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hodge, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Delany, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Ainsworth John Stirling

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Armitage, R.

  Dillon, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Doris, W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duffy, William J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barton, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Beale, W. P.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bentham, G. J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Keating, Matthew

  Birrell, Rt, Hon. Augustine

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Booth Frederick Handel

  Furness, Stephen

  Lansbury, George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

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

  Brace, William

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Leach, Charles

  Brady, P. J.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lough Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lynch, A. A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hackett, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

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

  Clough, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Clynes, John R.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayward, Evan

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Martin, J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  is the reason he gave in his speech for withdrawing the Grant this year. He said that last night he was attacked on this side of the House for extravagance, and because of the attack made upon him last night he was going to economise to the tune of £5,000. That explanation, given in a moment of annoyance at what happened last night, I certainly hope is not the true explanation. It will be a matter in regard to which the Committee will feel relieved if they can have an assurance from the hon. Member that the Committee is not committed irrevocably to withdrawing this Grant in the coming year. If this picture is worth all we are asked to pay for it, why when we are asked to pay £17,000 should we only in reality vote £12,000.
  Mr. MASTERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes Noes, 236; 118.

  Meagher, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Molloy, M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mooney, John J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morton, Alpheas Cleophas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Radford, George Heynes

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Munro, R.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Reddy, Michael

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Neilson, Francis

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Webb, H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Grady, James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  O'Malley, William

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

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

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughon)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Snowden, Philip

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Gibbs, G. A.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gilmour Capt. John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Goldman, C. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ratcliff, B. F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanier, Beville

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Croft, H. P.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Moore, William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

  Falle, B. G.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Newman, John R. P.

  Younger, Sir George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pike Pease and Mr. Sanders.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,676, be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 290.
  Mr. MASTERMANclaimed "That the original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  CLASS 4—NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery."
  Mr. FELL: The whole of the charges for the National Portrait Gallery amount to £5,778, and £1,505 is in respect of the police. That is a very large proportion, and I think we ought to have some explanation as to why this increased sum is wanted. I have been wondering whether it has arisen because of the loss of a picture in Paris last autumn, and whether extra police have been put on in the London galleries in consequence of that loss. That is the only explanation I can think of myself.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is due to two sums—£21, being the extra amount due to the increase in the wages of the police, and £17 due to extra work required of the police at the time of the Coronation.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That leaves £2 still unaccounted for. I really must say that for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-make £40 out of £21 and £17 is rather phenomenal, and I am afraid, when we come to the Vote for his salary, we shall have to say something on the point.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I have paid several visits to the National Portrait Gallery during the last few months, and I must confess I think the extra sum which is asked for is hardly sufficient to ensure that due care is taken of that Gallery. There are, of course, a certain number of policemen on duty, but I have personally found myself alone in many of the rooms, and if I had been anxious to purloin any of the pictures and cut them out of their frames I could easily have done so undetected. In the National Portrait Gallery we are not dealing with big pictures, but we have a great number of small pictures and miniatures which could be easily taken away. I want to put it to the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that sufficient provision is made to ensure that these treasures, so valuable in view of their historical associations, are-properly looked after.
  Mr. SANDYS: A very interesting point has been raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken. As Members of the Committee are aware, on the preceding Vote we were asked to grant a large amount of

  1431
  money for the purchase of pictures, and, if we are going to spend that money, it is obviously our duty to see that sufficient cash is allocated for their proper protection. I can fully substantiate everything said by the last speaker with reference to the condition of affairs at the National Portrait Gallery. It is really very unsatisfactory. I had occasion to pay a visit to it recently, at, possibly, a time when the public do not attend in large numbers—at half-past one in the afternoon—and, so far as I could see, in some of the principal rooms in the Gallery there was no one protecting the pictures. I had hoped we should have some indication from the hon. Gentleman that there was an intention on the part of the Government to provide more adequate police protection for the Gallery than is provided at certain times, but, unfortunately, that does not appear to be the intention. This money is to be devoted to extra remuneration for men already employed in the building. Of course, we are all anxious that the police shall receive proper remuneration for their labours. We have this afternoon granted a large sum to the Dublin police on duty during a strike period. The men with whom we are now dealing, doing duty in the National Portrait Gallery, are also entitled to receive proper remuneration, as their services are equally useful, although perhaps rendered under less exciting conditions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will, at the end of this discussion, assure us that a further sum will, if necessary, be provided so that the National Portrait Gallery may be properly looked after. It is a great national institution, one in which we find recorded in painting the history of the great men of our country. It is absolutely essential, in my opinion, that a collection of that kind, especially in view of the notorious theft which took place in the Louvre, in Paris, and in view of the fact that these picture thefts have been so common during the last few years, that more adequate protection should be given to this Gallery.
  Mr. CAWLEY: Is the hon. Member in order in criticising the inadequacy of the police protection afforded to the Gallery?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not quite understand the hon. Member to take that line.
  Mr. SANDYS: My point was to suggest that the £40 should be applied to the
  1432
  employment of additional police, and that, if that was not adequate for the purpose, the Grant should be increased so that additional protection might be provided. What I urged on the hon. Gentleman was that here we have a valuable national asset. It is a Gallery which is visited by large numbers of people, who there gather more about the history of their country probably than would be possible under any other conditions. It is situated in a centre of London, and in the evening is visited by large numbers of the working classes. I suggest that such a valuable possession as this is deserving of better care than, in my opinion, is afforded under existing conditions.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland is burning with zeal to carry out the duties of his new office. I do not know whether he would care, before I say anything, to explain this Vote.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): This is a Supplementary Estimate for £15,000, and it arises from a purely automatic increase. As my hon. Friend opposite knows very well, the Vote which is here dealt with is an additional Grant to the school boards given under Section 67 of the Act of 1872, which provides that the expenditure shall depend on the relation and produce of a given rate to the number of children receiving education in a given school board area. It is, therefore, a purely automatic increase over which we have no control, and dependent on the provision of that Statute.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is possessed of very full knowledge and experience in regard to this matter, but I am sorry to say he has taken the Committee very slightly indeed into his confidence. He has given a remarkably inadequate description of the necessity for this increase. It is quite true that the increase is, in part, caused by the provisions of Section 67 of the Act of 1872.

  1433
  But I should have preferred the right hon. Gentleman to explain what that Section originally provided, and what large changes have been since made in it which have caused this increase. Section 67 only provided that the addition should be made if the rate of 3d. in the £ did not yield 7s. 6d., and I would like the Committee to observe that that was the rate contemplated as normal forty years ago, when the Act was passed. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that since then the provisions of Section 67 have been very seriously altered and amended.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Is it in order to discuss the provisions of the Statute, or of amending Statutes, on a mere Supplementary Estimate which provides for an automatic increase of expenditure under the Statute?
  Sir H. CRAIK: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman explained this increase by saying that it arose through the operation of Section 67 of the Act of 1872, which Section no longer prevails, but which has been supplemented by sections in other Acts to which I claim to have an equal right to refer.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I used the words "and amending Acts," but really that is not the question. The point is—can we discuss on a Supplementary Estimate, the provisions of a Statute? I would point out that the hon. Member asked me for an explanation of the Vote and I gave it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act simply for the purpose of drawing attention to the basis on which the original Grant was made, and he explained that the sum now asked for is a purely automatic increase on that basis. It is not in order for any Member of the Committee to refer to the original Grant or anything in relation thereto. It would be in order to give reasons why the automatic increase should not have taken place.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not necessary, in order to make the matter clear to the Committee, that hon. Members should understand the section under which this increase has been caused?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. These are matters which might have been referred to when the original Estimate was discussed, but it is not in order now.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Reference has been made to a certain section of an Act of Parliament. There have been certain amending Acts, and surely it would be in order to refer to them so as to probe the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that this increase has been of an automatic character. It must be in order to ask for an explanation of this particular provision so as to see if the increase naturally and properly arises out of the automatic working of the Statute.
  Sir H. CRAIK: If the increase in the original Vote had depended on the Section to which the right hon. Gentleman referred there would have been no increase and no Supplementary Estimate. It is only because Section 67 has been materially altered by other Sections in the Acts of 1897 and 1908 that the increase has arisen. If the Committee are not to vote blindfold, if they are to have a clear understanding of the Section, if they are to know what they are doing, and unless they are to rely on the simple ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot understand how they can agree to this Vote. After all, this is a matter of very great and farreaching importance.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I must again lay it down as clearly as I possibly can that this is not the place for discussing the Statute on which this Grant is based. The hon. Member would be in order in raising a question as to the cause of the increase, but he has been informed that it is purely automatic on the original basis.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am unable, in view of that ruling, to enter upon the very large questions which have led to the increase. You tell me I am not at liberty to enter upon the causes of that increase, and I am afraid, therefore, that I must depart from the extended exposition of the subject upon which I originally intended to embark. This Grant is to supplement the rates of school boards. In the Estimates for 1911 and 1912 a large decrease was made as compared with the Estimate of the previous year. Had it not been for that decrease, then a very much larger supplementary sum would now have been required. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what was the reason for decreasing the Estimate in 1911 and 1912 from that which was required in the previous years. I want to know why the Department framed such a statement of estimate as to think that the supplement

  1435
  to the rates which would be required would be less in the current financial year than in the previous year? It really absolutely disproves their Estimate and their calculation, and I want to know what has been the reason for this extraordinary miscalculation, and what have been the reasons which have led to this additional burden being put upon the rates and has led to the increase in the demand and in the sum to be voted to supplement it automatically? Has it been anything in the policy of the Department? If so, let us know what it is. What has led to this increased expenditure by the school boards? If, on the other hand, it is something in the policy of the school boards, are we, the House of Commons, to be asked to vote any amount which may be required in order to meet what may be possible extravagance on the part of the school boards? Have we no hold over it at all?
  These are questions that ought to be explained by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me summarise them. First, I wish to know whether there was a heavy deduction in the Estimates for the present current financial year, a deduction which appears to be based upon no solid grounds and which is proved to be a miscalculation? And, secondly, I want to know to what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this large increase? Is it due to pressure brought by the Department upon the educational authorities and school boards, or is it independent action by the school boards which has caused the expenditure which this Committee must now consider? I think these are points of very great importance which trench upon the whole range of educational administration, and particularly the question of extravagance in that administration. Unless we are to vote automatically sums of this sort we must have some further clear explanation of how it is that there is this increase of expenditure, which is certainly not automatic, and how it has originated. It is all very well to say that we must vote this Supplementary Estimate because the expenditure is automatic, but the originating cause of the increase of expenditure is not automatic, and I want to know who is responsible for it, whether it is the Department or the School Boards?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, quite rightly, that the total Estimates for the present year show a very large decrease upon the Votes for the previous
  1436
  year, and he asks for an explanation for that decrease, and how it came about that the Department, in view of that large decrease, did not provide for the automatic increase which we are now told takes place. I should like to know what is the meaning of this automatic increase. My hon. Friend no doubt is very familiar with the educational question, and he spoke of this automatic increase as a matter with which he was familiar, but there are many of us, probably on both sides of the House, who are not so familiar as he is with the matter, and would like to know what is meant by the automatic increase taking place in this matter. Another matter which calls for some explanation is this. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the note at the bottom of this Supplementary Estimate he will see that the revised Estimate of £70,000 represents an average Grant of £285 over the whole year on 245 boards. Now surely that must be a fixed quantity, the number of boards to which Grants have to be made, and it seems to me that there is a great inconsistency between that note and the note appearing immediately above it, because it appears that the original Estimate was based upon an Estimate of claims by 250 boards. If there were 250 boards who were making claims in the original Estimate, how did it come that the revised Estimate was reckoned on a basis of five Boards less? Moreover, there is further confusion still, as it appears to me, because the claims, we are told, are claims "received so far." That seems to me to imply that more claims may be received. Those received so far show an average Grant of over £300 for new claims and of £133 from the year outstanding. If up to the present time claims amounting to £300 have been received, how can this Estimate be regarded as accurate or final if it only represents a Grant of £285. If you have got claims of over £300—it does not show how much over £300; it is a perfectly indefinite sum apparently—how does it come about that the Estimate is based upon a sum which is considerably below those claims? So that you have a sum of money lower than the amount of claims received, and the total number of Boards for which provision is made is also a smaller number than the total number appearing in the original Estimates. It appears to me that all this points, if not to inaccuracy and confusion, yet to a sufficient amount of ambiguity to justify us in asking for a much fuller explanation from the Secretary for Scotland than we have

  1437
  had yet. It would be much more satisfactory if, before we vote this amount, he would place something before us that would clear these points up.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: I think we ought to have a further explanation before we vote this sum, because in Scotland at the present time there is a very widespread feeling of alarm at the manner in which the Scottish Education Department is rushing school boards into large expenditure of money, and I understand that it is due to this that larger Grants are being needed by the school boards. I do not wonder that these Grants are needed in view of the high-handed autocratic manner in which the Education Department are managing educational affairs in Scotland, and I know that at the present time education in Scotland is being endangered and the public mind is being put up against education because of the extreme and high-handed manner in which the Scotch Education Department are managing things, and, therefore, as a protest against the action of the Department I beg to move a reduction of £100 in this item.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Among their other defects, the Government do not seem to be able to multiply, although they can add. The Revised Estimate of £70,000, according to the footnote, represents an average Grant of £285 for 245 boards. If the right hon. Gentleman will take a pencil and a piece of paper and multiply 285 by 245 he will find that it does not produce 70,000. I do not think it is necessary for me to tell him what it is.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I had better not say. He can make the calculation himself, which I have already made, and if he tells me I shall know whether he has made it correctly or not. That is the first thing that I point out. And then, with regard to the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, we have been told this is an automatic increase. Of course, I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's words, but it is just possible that he may have made an error, and it is on the assumption that he has made such an error that I ask him how he makes out this automatic increase. The original Estimate—I am now reading from the Supplementary Estimate—was £55,000 on estimated claims by 250 Boards. The Revised Estimate is not on 250 Boards, but on 245, and therefore the Revised Estimate is on five Boards less than the
  1438
  original Estimate. How can it be an automatic increase on the original Estimate when it is for five Boards less than the original Estimate? This seems to me to be a rather extraordinary coincidence. I daresay it is all right, but I do not understand it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: If the hon. Baronet will permit me, may I say that if I had been permitted to explain the subsequent Sections, not Section 67 of the Act of 1872, but those which followed, I would have been able to remove the difficulty which my hon. Friend is dealing with.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged for the interruption, and for the statement that if he had explained it I would have understood it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I was not allowed to explain it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that he made an attempt to explain it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: No, I was not allowed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I am still in the dark. It is the habit of the Government to leave these explanations to Members on this side of the House. I have already made one explanation, and my hon. Friend is in a position to make another. The only explanation I can see is that while the number of boards by this Estimate has fallen from 250 to 245 the claims have increased by £84, that is, from £220 to £300. I do not see how that can be automatic. It is evidently something which was not anticipated when the Estimates were originally framed, and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has not possibly found the true explanation. He has said it all arises, not from the fact that there has been an automatic increase, but because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland or his predecessor have put greater charges upon the various school boards. That is an explanation which coincides with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a bad Estimate was made up by an automatic increase in the number of schools which will require a Grant. Of course the real explanation of that is that the Scottish Office did not really take the trouble to make a correct estimate, and find out what the Grant really ought to be. They relied upon the good nature of the Opposition in allowing them to come down and ask for a revised estimate if their

  1439
  original estimate should be wrong. I am not sure it was not because they had not time to make that revised estimate but were doing other things.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am glad to answer the various points which have puzzled the hon. Baronet. There is no great puzzle about the reason why the amount varies, or why you should have a larger amount for a smaller number of boards. The fact is you have three inconstant and variable quantities. You have the number of boards which may comply with the conditions, you have the variations, which it is rather difficult for the Education Department to foresee, in the amount of the produce of the 3d. rate, and you have variations in the cost of education. It is not remarkable that the amount cannot be precisely foreseen or that it should vary and increase even though the number of boards affected should be diminished. As to the figure that puzzled the hon. Baronet, it is obvious that these two figures could not give the product of a round sum of £70,000. It is the usual practice of the Treasury to take a round sum, and in this case seventy was the nearest round sum, and we are merely following the ordinary practice of the Treasury in taking that figure. There has been no change of policy. The cost of education has somewhat increased at a greater rate than was anticipated. That is why the full amount was not foreseen. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment, because it will be clearly an attempt to deprive certain school boards in Scotland of a sum of money to which they are entitled by Statute, and this is merely an ordinary increase.
  Mr. DILLON: This is one of the most extraordinary Debates I have ever heard in a somewhat long experience. As far as I can understand, Members from Scotland are complaining that they are getting too much money for education, and they have moved a reduction. If they desire to get rid of this extra Grant I will accept it gratefully for Ireland. We, instead of having an automatic increase, have surrendered £25,000 to the Treasury this year. I have often admired the Scotch. They are qualified to give us a lesson in finance, but they seem on this occasion to be possessed by some extraordinary new spirit which I never met in Scotch Members before. I should have imagined that the Scottish Members would have accepted
  1440
  this with gratitude, or at least in silence. If it will relieve the situation in the slightest degree I will undertake to accept this extra sum on behalf of Ireland.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think this is the only means my hon. Friend has of pointing out the attitude of the Scottish Education Department.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to have called the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) to order. I hope the Noble Lord will not pursue this matter further.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: We are now, unless the Secretary for Scotland can give us a more satisfactory answer than his distinguished chief can give, likely to be landed with something like £93,000 extra on the rates, and we are naturally very anxious for superannuation—
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Is it in order to refer to an entirely different subject, namely, the superannuation of teachers?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That is why we are anxious to be economical with the rates in other directions.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will other Members be in order in referring to the general policy of the Education Department?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the Noble Lord had left that point and was coming back to the limits of order.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I had hoped that other Scottish Members would also assist me in warding off an attack from Ireland. One of the reasons why we are being so careful is that we have so many expenses at present and we do not want any more.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) must know very well that very often when you are asking for more the only way to get it is to move to get something less.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already indicated that in my view the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) were out of order. I called the Noble Lord to order, and I hope the hon. Member will not make any further reference to that point.
  Mr. JAMESHOPE: I hope another time the hon. Member will not be out of order, or, if he is, that we may be allowed to reply to him. I was going to say something really very effective. I must protest

  1441
  against what the Secretary for Scotland has said about the increase being altogether automatic. It is not. He admitted that it was partly due to the increase in the cost of education. That is not necessarily automatic. It is very often due to the pressure of the Education Department on the School Boards. As I understand these Statutes, which are responsible for some parts of the increase, it may arise from two sources—extra expenditure or decrease in the rateable value. The original Section says:—
  "Where in any parish or borough a school rate of not less than 3d. in the £ on the rateable value of such parish or borough may be levied and the whole produce of such rate is less than £20, or 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance, such school board shall be entitled, in addition to the Parliamentary Grant, to such further sum of money out of moneys provided by Parliament as will, together with the produce of the rate, make it up to £20, or 7s. 6d. for each child."
  The amending Statute, the Act of 1897, keeps that principle, though it modifies the figures. Which of these causes has operated, or have they both operated, in any degree? Has there been any actual decrease in the rateable value in the area of any School Board, or has it been entirely an increase in the number of children over and above the increase in the rateable value? Then no proper explanation

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Touche, George Alexander

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Col. James

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. Hope and Marquess of Tullibardine.

  Fell, Arthur

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Barton, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beale, William Phipson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Boland, John Pius

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Brady, P. J.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  has been given of this extraordinary note:—
  "The original estimate of £25,000 was based on the estimated claims of 250 Boards to an average Grant of £220."
  The claims received so far show an average Grant of over £300 for new claims. Why, then, should the average be taken at only £285? Is there any reason to suppose that those boards which have not yet sent in their accounts will not come up to the average of those who have? Then what is that £133? It does not seem to be accounted for. On the face of it it would look as if the average ought to be no less than £433. At any rate there is an absolute disparity between the £300, which is the average of those who have come in, and the £285 on which the Vote is based. I think there ought to be some explanation on that point. I should also like to know why 245 is taken for this Supplementary Estimate instead of the former basis of 250. Have five boards disappeared, or are five boards not going to make these claims?
  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,900, be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 206.

  Clough, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  Lansbury, George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Dillon, John

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, Michael

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford).

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowlands, James

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Sheehy, David

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gulland, John William

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hackett, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Wardle, George J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, Robert

  Waring, Walter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Webb, H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Ogden, Fred

  Younger, Sir George

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Grady, James

  John, Edward Thomas

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

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS 5.—TREASURY CHEST FUND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,666, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1910–11."
  Sir W. MAX AITKEN: I presume that on this Supplementary Estimate we cannot discuss the details of the original Estimate. As I understand it, the amount now asked is for the year ending 31st March,
  1444
  1911, and relates to Treasury Chest operations carried on in various places abroad. I should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury the amount of the transactions carried on under the provisions of the Treasury Chest Fund. I should also like to know whether money has been paid out of the Treasury Chest Fund for other than the supply of Treasury Chests abroad. I should like further to know the rates of exchange or premiums paid for the transfer of money under the provisions of the fund. May I ask also the amount of capital involved in the fund—that is to say, the amount of money which the Government carries in the fund, and which practically represents the money with which

  1445
  it carries on its banking operations? Unless the replies to these questions disclose something very different from what appears in the Estimate, I think the Committee will say that we are justified in opposing the Vote. The loss of £42,666 is a considerable increase on the amount for the preceding twelve months. It is a considerable sum to pay in connection with these financial operations. Only a short time ago a former Secretary to the Treasury stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Hamilton Benn), that the total operations in exchange amounted to nearly £500,000. It seems to me that £42,666 is a very large amount to pay for such a small amount in exchange, and when the capital involved in these banking operations is considered I am sure the Committee will not be prepared to allow the Vote to pass without further discussion. If I can get further information from the hon. Gentleman, no doubt I will be able to understand the Vote somewhat better, but at present I am entirely confused as to what it means.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I can explain, I think, to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman what the loss is. It is entirely due to the loss on the Treasury Chest at Hong-Kong, and that is owing to the official difference between the value of the dollar we have to pay at Hong Kong and the exchange on Treasury Chest Bills. The system under which we act was laid down by the late Lord Goschen, and it has always been followed since, namely, that the rate should be calculated on the price of silver in London a quarter before the money was to be paid. Sometimes we get from year to year advantages from that, and at other times we get disadvantages. This year, owing to the rise in the price of silver, which has continued almost consistently, we have lost, and owing to that rise we have been paying the Army and Navy more than we should otherwise have done to the extent of the sum of £42,666.
  Sir W. MAX AITKEN: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the other questions I asked. I realise that there may be some loss on the value of the dollar at Hong Kong, but, on the other hand, as will be found from the Report, the receipts at Hong Kong were in excess of the expenditure. I also asked if the fund had been used for any other purpose than supplying Treasury Chests abroad. In addition I asked what amount of capital is involved and invested in the Treasury Chest Fund
  1446
  so-called. If I cannot get the information now, I will raise the whole question on the Report stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS 7.—INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.
  Question, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,300, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in connection with International Exhibitions (including a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Royal Commission for the Brussels, Rome, and Turin Exhibitions)," put, and agreed to.

  CLASS 7.—CORONATION OF HIS MAJESTY.
  Question, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for a Grant-in-Aid of the expenses incurred on account of the Coronation of His Majesty the King, including the State visits to Ireland, Wales, and Scotland," put, and agreed to.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

SCOTLAND (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT).
Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, any measure providing for the delegation of Parliamentary powers to Ireland should be followed in this Parliament by the granting of similar powers of self-government to Scotland as part of a general scheme of devolution."
In moving this Resolution I would like to say that my support of Home Rule for Ireland is not conditional on any promise by the Government to support this Motion. I am prepared to support Home Rule for Ireland upon its merits, in the full belief that, if Ireland gets the measure of Home Rule for which she has so long and so courageously fought, and a similar measure of self-government is denied to Scotland, such a wave of indignation will spread over

1447
that country as will shake every Liberal seat to its foundations. In the second place, I believe that the practical difficulties in endeavouring to establish Home Rule for Ireland without extending it to the other elements in the Kingdom will be such that it would be forced upon statesmen that there is no half-way house in a scheme of devolution. There has been an unbroken policy in Scotland ever since the Union in favour of self-government. No doubt it has ebbed and flowed, but its leading statesmen have continually advocated this policy, and, though now and then they were quiescent, there was never any relaxation in the efforts of many of her leading men to keep this policy to the front. No unitary form of government has ever had sufficient cohesive force to harmonise the conflicting interests of two diverse peoples under different conditions, with different traditions, and different political ideals. It has never been done in history. It could not be done under Roman sway. It could not be done under Russian sway. It was a failure when the effort was made to unite in a unitary system Ontario, predominantly Protestant and English, with Quebec, predominantly French and Catholic. It is a conspicuous failure in Ireland to-day, and, if less conspicuous in Scotland, it is no less a failure.
No confederate system of government has ever yet succeeded from the days of the Achæian League, to the days of the attempt to unite the thirteen American Colonies. It was a failure in America. It was a failure in the German Confederacy of 1815. It was a failure for two reasons: First, there was no superior sovereign power that was able to speak finally for the common interests of all the constituent States, and, in the second place, there were tariff walls that made for repulsion, disunion, friction, and bitterness. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what the Irish want."] That is what the Irish are not going to get. I want to emphasise this point, because Customs always has been and still is a federal function. The Confederacy in America failed largely because of the absence of a sovereign power representing the common interest of all the constituent States, and partly because each of these individual States had its own Customs tariff and its tariff wall. The system failed in the German Confederacy for the same reasons. Each of those constituent States also had its own tariff system and its own tariff
1448
wall. Some of the single States had numerous tariff divisions. Prussia had no fewer than sixty-seven. All confederate forms of government have failed. It was not until the federal idea evolved itself in the minds of American statesmen and found practical application in the American Federal Constitution that the great problem was solved. These statesmen discovered that you could classify political functions into two great divisions; those functions that were common to all the States and those functions that were special to each; and having made that classification they set up a sovereign power to represent the common interest of all States, while retaining for each of the thirteen individual States a sovereign power in its particular sphere. Thus they solved this problem, and we have what we know to-day as the triumphant Federal Union of the American States.
Whenever this classification of political action was brought about and statesmen saw that there was need for a common defence, that there was need for unitary action with regard to foreign affairs, that there was a necessity for unitary action with regard to Customs and tariffs, and that there was a necessity for inter-State Free Trade, for a common patent right and copyright, and all those functions which are common to all the States, they surrendered to this new sovereign power all these functions, but jealously maintained for each of the States that amount of sovereign power which was necessary in its own sphere of action. This, then, was a true union, a true evolutionary political union, a union in all those interests that were common, a separation in all those interests that were special. So successful was the Federal Union of the United States of America, that it was followed by a Federal Union in Canada in 1867, by a Federal Union in Germany in 1871, by one in Switzerland in 1874, in Brazil in 1891, in Australia in 1901, and in South Africa in 1908. This, then, has been the march of Federal Union: it has been the accepted system of government wherever you have diverse peoples with different traditions and different political ideals and aspirations. Let us for a moment glance at the Union with Scotland in the light of these fundamental and evolutionary facts. The Union of 1707 was not a union in the true political sense. It was a political absorption. There was a country party in Scotland, who with the Scottish Commissioners themselves were in favour of a Federal Union, a Union in

1449
all things common to Scotland and England, and a complete separation in all things special to each of the two countries; but they were overruled. England was determined to have an incorporating Union and the country party, the protagonists of the Federal Union, Andrew Fletcher and others, and the Scottish Commissioners, were defeated partly by the insistence of England and largely by the aid of her purse.
If we had been given true political union, Scotland would have retained her authority over all those matters which were special to Scotland. To use the admirable phrase of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, Scotland would have had a Parliament in Edinburgh, with an Executive responsible to it, charged with the management of purely Scottish affairs, and subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. That is what we want now, and it is the mistake of 1707 we wish to correct. You cannot withdraw political independence from a country without injuring it, and Scotland has suffered ever since 1707. She has seen her Church split by patronage, and she has seen her country depopulated by an outward stream of emigration owing to her iniquitous land laws. I am one of those who believe that people ought to be free to migrate as they will and where they will, but I believe, also, that no people should be forced to leave their country because of the injustice of the laws under which they live. There has been an unwilling and a reluctant emigration from the country districts of Scotland. She has seen depopulation going on, but she has been powerless to stop it. She has seen deer take the place of men. She has seen her education system, which is her pride, hampered by a bureaucratic control in London instead of being controlled by a local Parliament in Edinburgh. She has seen her liquor traffic flourish and extend its pernicious influences to hamlets and cities and homes, and she has been powerless to stop it. She has been forced, not only to run the gauntlet of the liquor trade in her own country, but to come to London and submit any temperance reform dear to her heart to English brewers and Irish distillers. She has seen many of her people taxed to support a Church in which they have no interest or concern, and she has been powerless to redress that injustice, an injustice that has often led to civil war in the history of nations. She sees time and
1450
again Bills introduced into this House originally designed to cover both countries, but ultimately found impossible to adapt, because of her legal terminology; or complicated application clauses found difficult of interpretation, and requiring that they should be abandoned altogether and separate legislation introduced. Within eleven years 523 Bills have been passed by this Parliament, and only forty-four of that number applied exclusively to Scotland. That would at first sight not appear to be a great injustice, but there are so many separate departments of public activity in Scotland to be considered which are essentially distinct from similar departments in England. Scotland has her own Local Government Board, she has a separate Church, she has a separate judiciary, she has a separate licensing system, she has a separate banking system, she has a separate paper currency, a separate public health system, a separate rating and housing system, and separate education. All these require separate legislation. You have a large amount of devolution in that way without the control and the legislation that should attend it.
Having all these separate public activities and public institutions in Scotland, it is obvious that if you have to legislate separately for them the passing of only forty-four Bills out of 523 in eleven years, is a very inadequate share of legislation. What is the complaint of Scotland? The complaint of Scotland is that her legislation is delayed or denied, that she is ripe for reform half or a quarter of a century before England, and that she cannot take a step forward until she has converted England to her way of thinking. She holds a peculiar position in regard to education. She established compulsory education in 1496, and her educational system has been growing and spreading ever since, so that her people have the cumulative advantage of that education. Within my own experience of the workshops of England, when a newspaper was sent round among the workmen, the cry was "Where's Scottie." None of the other workmen could read, and the Scotchman was the only one able to make them acquainted with the contents of the newspaper. Scotland is ripe for democratic reform a quarter of a century or more before England, and she asks why she should wait till England sees eye-to-eye with her before she is allowed to take a step forward.
Westminster's reply is, "We cannot attend to your local business; we have business infinitely more important." The

1451
machine is breaking down; the Parliamentary machine is overloaded; foreign affairs are becoming more and more complex, requiring more and more care and attention; the people demand more information, and ask leave to play a larger part in our foreign relationships. New Colonies have arisen. The Colonies send representatives periodically to Britain with new schemes, new demands, and new suggestions, and although we fill them up from our bounteous table, in all other respects we send them empty away. We have no time to consider, far less to thresh out, their suggestions and their schemes. Not only that, but there is more Commonwealth activity here than ever. We have old age pensions and national insurance; we have party antagonisms, which obstruct legislation in this House. There is no objection to discussion, but it is necessary to use such devices as the Closure, the guillotine, and the kangaroo in order to stifle, not discussion but obstruction in the interests of party. Not only has the work of Parliament enormously increased, but the work of local government, the demands of localities, have increased. In two years, from 1908–9, there were numerous local Acts applying to a number of different towns in Scotland—Water Acts, Tramway Acts, Gas Acts, Electricity Acts, Burgh Extension Acts, Harbour Acts, Railway Acts, and Acts relating to building and regulations in various places. All these had to pass through the complicated machinery of these two Houses of Parliament.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: The Private Bill Legislation Act.
Dr. CHAPPLE: Even that is a failure and is condemned. In Australia they have fourteen Houses of Parliament and seven Legislatures, and they are busy legislating all the time. If we had as many legislatures here in proportion to population we would have sixty and no less than 120 Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and Scotland would have fourteen Houses of Parliament. Yet Australia has no foreign affairs, no colonial affairs, no army and navy occupying her time, and she relegates such industrial disputes as are now occupying the time of our Prime Minister and half the Cabinet, to boards of conciliation and arbitration. The facts we have to face are these: If there were no political bigotry, no religious rancour, no demand by Ireland, from sentimental
1452
or other reasons, for self-government, Westminster would still be forced to establish a legislative and administrative division of labour, and relegate to the periphery those functions which are local, and retain at the centre those matters which essentially affect the whole of the localities in common. No composite country then has ever succeeded under a unitary system or under a confederate system of government. The federal system is the only one which solves the problem which faces us to-day. Mr. Gladstone said in 1889 on the Scottish Home Rule Bill:—
"If I am to suppose a case in which Scotland unanimously, or by clearly preponderating views, were to make a demand on the united Parliament, to be treated not only on the same principle but in the same manner as Ireland, I cannot deny the title of Scotland to urge such a claim. … I hold that all judicious devolution which hands over to subordinate bodies duties for which they are better qualified by local knowledge, and which at the same time sets free the hands of Parliament for the pursuit of its proper business, does not weaken it, but strengthens it, gives vitality to it, and makes the people more than ever disposed to support the supremacy of Parliament."
That time has arrived, for Scotland has already, through the Liberal Association, pronounced in favour of self-government, and her Liberal Members have unanimously passed a resolution in its favour. A Resolution was carried in this House in 1894, and the Second Reading of a Home Rule Bill for Scotland was passed only last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "The First Reading."] Lord Rosebery, speaking at Cardiff, in 1895, said:—
"The more I see of our political system, the more I am convinced of this that in a large measure of devolution, subject always to Imperial control, lies the secret of the future working of our Empire."
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman used these words in an address to his constituents:—
"The excessive burden of work now imposed upon Parliament can only be relieved by a large measure of devolution. It is for this reason, as well as from a sense of right and justice to the nationalities concerned, that I regard as urgently necessary the creation for the three kingdoms of subordinate legislative assemblies dealing with the distinctive affairs of each."
The Prime Minister, speaking at Earls-ton on the 3rd October 1908, said:—
"I have always held the view, and hold it still more strongly with each year of increasing experience at Westminster, that there is no other solution of the congestion of the Parliamentary machine, in which it may be Scotland suffers more than any other part of the United Kingdom, than by some form of delegation of Parliamentary business in regard to local matters to local authorities with local knowledge and local responsibilities."
Again, at Manchester the Prime Minister said:—
"The Liberal policy seems to me to be clear. First of all we have got to settle the relations between our two Chambers. We have then to see to the delegation of local affairs to the localities which they really concern."

1453
The Home Rule which we demand for Scotland is not the Home Rule that Canada enjoys or Newfoundland enjoys; nor the Home Rule that New Zealand, or Australia, or South Africa enjoys. The Home Rule we demand for Scotland and the Home Rule which is demanded for Ireland, is that which is enjoyed by every one of the constituent States of the Canadian Union, and no more. Canada to-day has the right to separate. It is not proposed to give that power to Ireland or to Scotland. Canada has the power to put a duty on our products, and she does. It is not proposed to give to Scotland or Ireland that power. Customs is a federal function, always has been, and must remain a federal function. Canada to-day can sign International agreements, within certain limits. It is not proposed to give Scotland or Ireland that power. The words of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford will equally apply if spoken of British Columbia. British Columbia has a Parliament at Victoria, with an executive responsible to it, charged with the management of purely British Columbian affairs, and subject to the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament. There is no danger, therefore, of separation. It would be as impossible for Ireland or Scotland under this scheme of devolution to separate as it was for the Southern States to separate from the American Union.
MARQUESS OF TULLIBARDINE: What about Sweden and Norway?
Dr. CHAPPLE: They had not a Federal Union. They had a Regal union, which is quite a different thing. There is no danger of separation; there is no danger of disloyalty. Britain learned in the infancy of her Empire building that to give freedom was to gain loyalty; to release a people was to bind them tightly; to bestow power was to have it more abundantly. She found Canada and set her free; she peopled Australia and gave her liberty; she subdued New Zealand and sent her on her way rejoicing; she conquered South Africa and then returned her to her foes. With every extension of freedom to these great young nations by the mother of them all the tie that binds became stronger and more enduring, and in this triumphant strength and unity to-day they rise up and call her blessed. A lesser liberty, for that is all that is sought, granted to Scotland and to Ireland, and, when demanded, to England and to Wales, will produce no less happy results.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to second the Motion. The Mover of this Resolution and I have come to the same conclusion from opposite ends of the Empire. My hon. Friend, untainted by our insular controversies, has dealt with the broad aspects of federation, aspects which were urged with much force by Sir Joseph Ward on behalf of New Zealand at the recent Colonial Conference, and if Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who at that time represented the views of Canada, did not take a precisely similar view, yet our present Parliamentary system is no object of admiration in Canada, as the late Governor-General can inform his hon. Friends if they wish to know about it. In short, this Resolution represents the growing general opinion in the Empire from Scotland to New Zealand in favour of disentanglement of all local and national from Imperial affairs. On the eve of a third effort to deal with the case of Ireland in this House we invite the House to resolve that the delegation of powers from this House to subordinate legislatures is essential to the good government of each division of the United Kingdom, as well as to the unity and security of the Empire as a whole. We ask the Government to definitely recognise that in dealing with Ireland, as they are bound to do in this Session, and as we are going to back them in doing, that they are taking the first step in a policy which they have to complete if they can in this Parliament, at least so far as Scotland is concerned, when like provision for England and Wales must automatically follow. No doubt it seems less simple here than it does in the Oversea Dominions to effect a delegation of powers, yet in 1880 Mr. Gladstone struck the keynote of our policy when he said that: We have an over-weighted Parliament, and if in time any part of the United Kingdom was so able to re-arrange its affairs as to withdraw the local part of its transactions from the hands of Parliament, which would liberate and strengthen the Parliament for Imperial concerns, he would zealously support that policy.
Since then we have tried many devices towards that end. In 1884 Scotland combined upon the Scottish Office policy as a possible solution. Its failure through twenty-five years is alone a strong reason in favour of Scottish national self-government. Throughout our heated Irish controversies of that time the need for devolution was recognised by nearly all parties. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) urged

1455
National Councils all round. Lord Salisbury proposed a Provincial Council for Ireland. Lord Randolph Churchill brought to an end Lord Spencer's Administration in Ireland. Lord Carnarvon conducted his private negotiations there. Men of all parties approved of Imperial Federation. The letters of "Pacificus" have been the most recent contribution from the Unionist party towards the same end. These various proposals were supported by various arguments; yet, looking back over past years, it is apparent that one dominant purpose runs through them all, namely, to relieve the overloaded Parliamentary machine and to disentangle local and national affairs from those which naturally fall within the sphere of an Imperial Parliament. If there was need then, there is tenfold greater need now. I admit that definite proposals, giving legislative effect to a policy so widely received, were limited to a Bill dealing with Ireland alone. But at the Home Rule elections in Scotland in 1866, 1893, and 1895, while Scotland stood firm by Mr. Gladstone and the Irish cause, she insisted steadfastly on the retention of the Irish representation in this House. And why? Because she instinctively felt that it insured federal development, in which she claimed a share.
Therefore it cannot be said that this revolution is inopportune or that it is an attempt to take advantage of Ireland's claim to press an inconsequent development. Nationalist Members have expressed their sympathy with us in return for the sympathy which we have given and shall continue to give to them. We as frankly accord their claim for priority as they will accord us our right of succession. We have also the support of the Labour party, while no more powerful plea has been advanced for the federal principle than those letters to which I have referred, signed by "Pacificus," in the "Times," addressed to his brother Unionists when the question of devolution by agreement hung in the balance at the Constitutional Conference. The fact is that no statesman can be satisfied with the existing Parliamentary machinery as we find it here. The evils of congestion are patent to us all—the condition under which free representative control over public administration becomes a fiction, the representative becomes a cypher, all authority is absorbed by Government, caucus, and bureaucracy, and progress depends on the closure, the guillotine, and
1456
the "kangaroo." We recognise that there is opposition to Home Rule from three causes, apart from any prejudice excited by the term and by its past associations. There is the conception in England of the Empire as a greater England controlled by an English Parliament. That is similar to Bismarck's view of Germany as a greater Prussia. But is it not clear that in the British, as in the German Empire, unity and efficiency are attainable only on federal lines? There is the opposition of property. I do not know whether there is any place where to-day property is safer than it is in Ireland. How would it be endangered under an English Legislature through the elimination of the Celtic fringe? As for Scotland, free enterprise and private rights are as well understood there as anywhere else, and would be no less safe under a local legislature than under this overdriven Assembly.
There is also the Ulster difficulty, in which, as a Scotsman and a Presbyterian, I have some interest, but on which exaggerated stress seems often to be laid. When the Scottish race is fairly treated it seldom fails to get on with other people, and the Presbyterian form of faith, whatever its faults, certainly does not come into conflict as a rule with other forms of religion. The Ulster difficulty cannot be allowed to shelve devolution, but it should be most equitably adjusted under a scheme based on Imperial policy and the Parliamentary situation, as well as upon national needs. Ulster has no more right to claim that the House of Commons should be continued as it is, than that the House of Lords should have been continued as it was. As to the position of the Government, we stand here in the Liberal interest as well as in the Scottish interest. This Resolution does not force the hand of the Government, it leads the Government on to the safest ground. For unless devolution be thus approached we shall find ourselves again, as we were in 1894, faced with the insoluble conundrum of the Irish in or the Irish out, or the Irish in and out in this House. That difficulty disappears once it is definitely agreed that Irish Home Rule is a part of Parliamentary necessity, and the first part of a general scheme of devolution of powers to be consecutively implemented by the same Government. Subsequent delegations should be simple enough, since powers for subordinate legislatures have to be similar in whatever variety of form they may be given, else there can be no federal basis, and there must be

1457
continuous confusion in the House itself. Surely if we have learnt anything from Ireland, from Scotland, from Colonial conferences, from the constitutional struggle, or from the conduct of affairs in this House, it is that the Constitution has to be adapted to the needs of the Empire, and that representative self-government has to be made effective throughout the United Kingdom. In conclusion, I have to ask my countrymen opposite what cause for satisfaction they can have over the existing Scottish machinery of Government? They cannot unload all their causes of dissatisfaction upon us, because the seventeen or eighteen years that they had control of the Scottish Office were barren years. They brought in one great and good Bill—the Education Bill—and it remained a pious aspiration. It was brought in in two consecutive Sessions of Parliament, and never passed.
Sir G. YOUNGER: What about the Licensing Bill?
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I said one great and good Bill. The Licensing Bill may have been a "good" Bill, but it was not a "great" Bill. They cannot defend the existing conditions of Parliamentary service, under which no Scottish Member of Parliament can keep in touch with the ordinary life of Scotland, and be able to discharge his Parliamentary obligations. One of the best Scottish representatives, one whom we sorely miss, and one who will be missed on all sides of the House, Sir James Gibson, tried to do both. He overtaxed his strength, as it must overtax the strength of any man who tries to accomplish both. Some hon. Members believe in bureaucracy. Can they defend the conduct of our educational interests, however ably conducted under the present system? On paper a case for government by Departments may be made out, but in practice it means stagnation. You get "no furrader." Take the case of vagrancy. This has been reported on by fifteen Commissions and inquiries within the last seventeen years. The representative bodies concerned waited on the Secretary for Scotland the other day and invited him to act. With what result? They were exhorted to continue to diagnose the situation. That is a fair example of the state of paralysis brought about by a combination of centralisation and bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has no enthusiasm. It destroys it. Great reforms are carried by a living administration, are secured for the country
1458
through the dogged, persistent zeal of the representative individual whose place is found mainly under a free system of representative Government. That free system we have not got. Ours is no impractical ideal. It is that which we pursue, and shall pursue with all our energy until it is attained.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. MACKINDER: The two speeches to which we have listened with great interest on every side of the House exhibited, it seems to me, one very interesting contrast. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, with his great experience of Parliamentary business, appealed to the federal majority which supports the Government. He scratched the back of the Irish party opposite, and he drew applause. He scratched the back—a more convenient back for the purpose—of the Labour party immediately beneath him, and they purred contentedly. But I noticed the hon. Gentlman became guiltily conscious presently that he must refer to the English Radicals. He is about to desert them, if he can get his way. His reference to them, I noticed, drew no cheers from them. They, provided he and his friends can be satisfied, are to be left to the tender mercies of the Unionist majority in England. I do not know whether the federal majority would work perfectly if it came to the Government proposing a measure for the purpose of carrying, not these general platitudes in regard to the advantages of local self-government, but, the practical division of Scottish from English government. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman, the Mover, was, I noticed, less tactful. If I may venture to say so—and he will perhaps excuse me for so doing—he lectured the party below the Gangway as to precisely how much Home Rule he would give them. I noticed there was no cheer, and no purring content there in response to his utterances. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Resolution comes, I believe, from the great Dominion of New Zealand. If there is an example of the success of unitary government he will admit it is there. In New Zealand they used to have some seven, eight, or nine separate Provinces. Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin were more or less on a Home Rule basis of their own. I believe that the relatively recent history of New Zealand is that those distinctions have been abolished, and that you now have a map of New

1459
Zealand which is cut up into counties precisely as is the map of these islands. I venture to state that the hon. Member, with his experience, is the last man who should speak of the failure of unitary government.
Dr. CHAPPLE: I said unitary government amongst diverse peoples.
Mr. MACKINDER: The question of diverse peoples I will deal with when I come to deal with my next point. The hon. Member's two main points, apart from the question of general political philosophy, as I gather, were that the Union of England and Scotland had been a failure: and on the other hand that there was a march of Federal Union—I think that was his expression—all the world over. I suppose we must throw ourselves in with this general tendency.
I have the honour to represent one of the Divisions of the great city of Glasgow. I do not think that city can hold that the Union with England has been a failure. If there is one thing which Scotland has achieved as the result of unity with England, it is the magnificent prosperity of Glasgow. If you want any indication of the early proofs of that fact I will ask hon. Members to remember the statue of William III., set up at Glasgow Cross on a site given by the City Elders between the '15 and the '45. They were Whigs then. Glasgow was then in favour of Union with England, and that statue was given by James M'Crae, a Scot who was already President of Madras. The Scots of Glasgow at that time proudly recognised—they were on the side of the Union with England—the opportunities which they had derived from it in sharing the rule of the Empire. The hon. Member says that there is a march of Federal Union all the world over. I am not so sure of that. I notice that his history ran in rather considerable periods which got telescoped into one another. He spoke of the Federal Union of Canada as following immediately after the Union of the United States. The Union of the United States, as the hon. Gentleman must know, was achieved as the result of their great difficulties. Any advance towards government in Washington was an advance towards union, such were the antagonisms of the thirteen colonies. The hon. Member must also bear in mind that as a result of the failure to get closer union in these early
1460
stages of the constitution of the United States, the United States had subsequently to fight the greatest civil war in history at a cost of a million men. The hon. Member who spoke of this general tendency must bear in mind that it was not after the original organisation of the United States, but directly after the Civil War in the United States that the federation of Canada was achieved. When that federation came to be achieved, it was not the looser federation that prevailed in the United States, but a closer federation which was achieved. In other words, the trend of the federal system, whether you look at the history of the United States or of Canada, is at the root towards something more adaptable to these days of railways and telegraphs.
You may support this demand from Scotland either on the basis of sentiment or on the basis of business. I do not know what your authority is for speaking in regard to sentiment. I received yesterday morning a paper illustrated and sent out by an organisation with a Noble Lord at the head of it. The chief grievance of that organisation was that in Scotland the Royal Arms are placed upon the Scottish heralds as three leopards passant in the first and fourth quarter, and not the lion rampant. If that is an example of the kind of sentiment with which we are asked to deal, I think we had better be more business like. What is the authority for representing this Committee as the National committee? I am not quite sure that it includes all the Liberal Members on the other side. I notice hon. Members opposite do not reply to that.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: I will reply if I get a chance.
Mr. MACKINDER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot give me a short reply in an interjection. Members have to explain that the national committee either does consist of all the Liberal Members opposite or it does not. If it does not they can easily say so, without any lengthy reply; but I notice they are still silent. The question is, What is your authority for this demand? You say the Liberal Members are a considerable majority from Scotland, and because a portion of them have united for the purpose of demanding Home Rule for Scotland, therefore Scottish sentiment is in favour of it. Of course, Scotland is misrepresented in this House.
HON. MEMBERS: Camlachie!
Mr. MACKINDER: Hon. Gentlemen refer to my own Constituency. Such instances as that of my own do something to correct the grave injustice which is represented by hon. Members opposite. May I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that each of them, if you take the whole of Scotland at the last Election, and if Scotland had proportionate representation, each of them represents some eight or ten thousand constituents, while each of the Gentlemen from Scotland sitting upon these benches, including myself, represent something like twenty-five or thirty thousand? You have no right to mention your numbers. We admit you have a majority, but you have no right in your present proportion to represent the sentiment of Scotland. This is a question of Scottish sentiment. There are not a few hon. Gentlemen opposite—I am not quite certain it is not the majority of them—who hold their seats at present by virtue of the Irish sentiment in Scotland, and not Scotch sentiment at all. This is a question of Scottish sentiment. You are satisfied that this is a question of nationality and sentiment, but, if it is, let it be genuine Scottish sentiment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in this House by virtue in part of Irish sentiment, and not Scotch sentiment at all.
The position may be one of business. Is it a question of business then? You have learned a little bit of what a small instalment of Home Rule means under the Insurance Act. You have one law for Ireland and another law for Great Britain. You have no medical benefits in Ireland, and you have in Scotland. You have shipbuilding in Belfast and shipbuilding on the Clyde. You are opposed to Tariff Reform as giving an economic advantage to one country. What about the economic advantage that inequality of laws has given to shipbuilding in Belfast as compared with the Clyde. I venture to say that Harland and Wolff are really saving by several thousands a year in the matter of Irish charges as compared with the shipbuilders in Scotland. I am not for the moment complaining that the shipbuilders in Scotland should have to pay. I am not arguing at this moment the question of the Insurance Act. I am simply pointing out that already, by a small instalment of separate laws for the two countries, you are setting up economic inequalities and inequalities against Scotland. What practical advantage do hon. Gentlemen opposite hope to achieve by this scheme of Home Rule. In the Bill they put before us last Session they enumerated a number

1462
of subjects they wished to have reserved for Scottish discussion and decision. Amongst them, for instance, the criminal law. Do you contemplate a system of extradition as between England and Scotland? Take the case of divorce. Surely there are enough difficulties on account of the difference of the marriage laws already. You want a commercial law, but surely the general tendency is to assimulate it, and if you wish for assimilation, what better method than a single legislative organisation to attain it?
Hon. Gentlemen tell us it is not a case of Scotland solely, but it is because they are thinking of this much over-burdened Chamber in Westminster. Have they worked out that idea? Take such a form of Home Rule as was sketched by the First Lord of the Admirally in Belfast. He enumerated the safeguards which will bear apparently on that Parliament. Can it be believed that with these safeguards this House would be relieved of the discussions which have taken place hitherto? Will not hon. Gentlemen who will still be here from the other side of the Channel have plenty to discuss in regard to these limits put upon legislation by the Privy Council? That practically is Poynings' law again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Wait and see until the Bill is produced. That practically means that if you do not take care you will have questions discussed here again which were previously discussed in the Minor legislatures. What sort of Federal scheme are we presented with? I hear it suggested that the House of Lords cannot be reformed until you have settled this question of federation, because this is to determine the question of the reform of the House of Lords. How is it possible that England, with its thirty-five or thirty-six millions of people, is to be represented in the Senate on the same principle or in anything like the same proportionate number of representatives as will come from Scotland or Ireland. You are attempting something that is unprecedented in the world. In Canada you have two provinces, Quebec and Ontario; they are much of a size; there you can have federation in which they balance one another in the general Assembly. In Australia you have the same thing, for there you find New South Wales and Victoria balancing one another. In Germany you have Prussia, and perhaps you would like to have the same kind of federal Government as we find there. This is a bogus

1463
and a sham agitation. You put this question up as a stalking horse, but what you want to do is to help Irish Home Rule. In this way you want to throw dust in the eyes of the people of Scotland who do not know Ireland, and you use these words "Home Rule" with separate Scotch and Irish meanings. In Scotland you say it means devolution, but in Ireland it means that there are two separate races, and you want one of those races to dominate the other. For those reasons I am opposed to this Motion.
Mr. WILKIE: Perhaps the hon. Member who has just sat down will pardon me if I remind him and the House that I believe the majority of his own constituency are Home Rulers. While this Motion refers to the necessity of self-government under a federal scheme, may I remind the Committee that it was my duty on this very day, the 28th February, six years ago, in 1906, to call the attention of the House to the neglect of Scotland and to the neglect more than all of the representation of organised workers in Scotland. It may be within the recollection of a number of hon. Members here that the question I complained of was the Poor Law Commission, and I think the result proves my contention, because we had not a single representative of organised or unorganised workers of Scotland on that body. From then till now strong representations have been made to me, and I have continually had to complain of the action of Government Departments in this matter, and to the want of Scottish representation on the different Boards. On the Trade Boards, the Industrial Commission on which even now we have not a single representative workman resident in Scotland. Besides the question about the Quartery of Arms, raised by the St. Andrews Society, they also complain that the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition was promised £3,000 last April, but it has not yet been paid, although £136,000 has already been paid over to Antarctic expeditions organised in England. Complaints have come down to us, not merely in regard to the question of federal government, but also on questions affecting our everyday existence. There is the question of education, in regard to which it is admitted in this House that Scotland has led the way, and yet we have been starved in certain requirements. Now we gather that the long overdue pensions to Scottish teachers which the English teachers have already received are again
1464
to be postponed because the English Treasury will not rearrange the financial requirements of the Scottish Education authorities. I think we have good reason for complaining of the way we have been treated in these matters. Then there is the inferior treatment of the Police in Scotland by the Treasury as compared with England. With regard to Home Rule, may I remind the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) who asked what authority we had for urging this reform, that in my Election address in 1900 I stated:—
"With regard to Home Rule for Ireland, I am in favour of granting to the Irish people the fullest measure of autonomy in the administration of their internal affairs. I am, however, prepared to go further and would be in favour of granting autonomy to all parts of the Empire, with one central or Imperial Parliament over all in which all our Colonies would be equally represented, thus tending to the homogenity of the whole Empire and rendering the further existence of the House of Lords as a legislative body unnecessary."
When we come to the year 1906 Home Rule was not made a burning question, but then I said:—
"I am in favour of a legislative assembly for the management of purely Irish affairs."
We have endeavoured to govern Ireland by almost every means except that of allowing them to govern themselves. In January, 1910, I practically repeated my former pledges, and in December, 1910, I added to my former declaration:—
"This in time might lead to a federation of all English speaking peoples and ultimately be a centre for a league of peace for all countries in the world."
The question of Private Bill procedure has been referred to. Let me point out that something like 120 Private Bills were introduced last year. There was the Dundee Harbour Bill affecting my own constituency which cost the town £4,400, and the Harbour authorities a somewhat similar amount. I think the expenditure in connection with Private bill procedure is a useless waste of public money. All that could be done by devolution if we had, as we ought to have, an authority in the district where it is required, and which would know far better the necessities of the district than a Private Bill Committee upstairs. Of course, we have got what was going to be the panacea for all Scotch grievances, the Scotch Grand Committee. I have sat for six years on that Committee, and I remember the long months we sat on the Land Bill. But even on that Committee we have been distinctly told by an English Member we have no right to legislate according to the

1465
opinions of the majority of the representatives of the people of Scotland. If that is so, then it is nothing but a farce, and it does not carry out the idea which suggested its institution. Both the Mover and Seconder dealt mostly with the advantages to Scotland, but I think it would be equally as great an advantage to this Parliament. What have we been doing all this week? We have been discussing details, necessary details, but not details for an Imperial Parliament. This House wants more time to discuss the Estimates, Civil Service, Army, Navy, and Post Office. No town council with its varying committees considering estimates, passes them through in the same slipshod manner as does this House, I speak with experience of a very important council.
This House sets itself an impossible task when it attempts to transact in detail both local and Imperial business. More time must be devoted to the control of finance. It must not be left merely to permanent officials, no matter how capable they may be. Then we have the great and vital question of foreign policy. That matter has not received that attention in this House which it requires and deserves. On foreign policy hangs more or less peace or war, and in a democratic country we ought to give more consideration to it than we do in this House. It is true the recent visit of our respected King and Queen brought the Indian Empire more prominently before the people of this country, but how many Members of this House have the knowledge which they ought to possess for dealing with the teeming millions of people in India. I hope the House will devote more attention to India and bring its Government more in accordance with the wishes of the Indian people. This one Parliament is endeavouring to do the impossible by attempting the work of five. Federal Home Rule solves many of the difficulties that came up when the previous Home Rule Bills were before this House. It relieves the question of the ins and the outs and the comings and the goings. We are, in fact, already a Home Rule Empire. Our different Colonies have adopted the method of devolution. We appear to be like a wheel. At the outer end of the spokes we have our self-governing Colonies. Then let us have at the inner end of the spokes self-government for the four countries comprising the United Kingdom, leaving the hub, the centre of all, to the Imperial Government for the whole
1466
Empire. Scotland is by Nature's laws designed to be the northern part of this Kingdom, but that is no reason why we should be subject to neglect, or why the wishes of the majority of the people should be ignored. Therefore, I hope the Government will take its courage in both hands and will make Irish Home Rule the beginning for all the other four round the hub, so that we can have Home Rule at the extreme end of the spokes and at the inner end, with one central Parliament of the whole Empire at the hub in the centre.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I must congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Resolution on the fact that it has fallen upon a very distinguished Member from New Zealand to move a Home Rule Resolution for Scotland in the British Parliament. I congratulate him that the mantle of Elijah has at all events fallen upon him, but I think he will find that with the mantle the simile ends. I do not think he will find any ravens are going to bring him any meat or bread from his political chief or from the Cabinet. He will find there is a great deal less sympathy for his Resolution in Scotland than he imagines. I am prepared to challenge a Division if hon. Members will have the whole of the Scottish Members here. I am particularly anxious to see the way Scottish Members, in spite of what they say at election times, are prepared to vote in this House. Hon. Members opposite have started this campaign of Home Rule to-night with an obvious sense of their own weakness, and there is a great deal of want of confidence about it. That is very clear when we take the reading of the Motion:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, any measure providing for the delegation of Parliamentary powers to Ireland should be followed in this Parliament by the granting of similar powers of self-government to Scotland as part of a general scheme of devolution."
It is rather a curious fact that Scottish Members, and probably others, have been inundated with resolutions from a body called, "The Young Scots." I notice those who are "Young Scots" in the country are older Scots and a little more sensible and careful when they come to this House. The Resolution of the "Young Scots," which is the parent of this Resolution, and which some hon. Members here have moved themselves, declared, "That no scheme of Home Rule will be satisfactory which does not as an immediate

1467
result secure self-government for Scotland, and the other national divisions of the United Kingdom," and calls upon the Government to introduce and pass during the present Parliament a Bill establishing a legislative body for Scotland. Is the hon. Member prepared to put that Resolution instead of the present one? There is this difference between them. They say that no scheme of Home Rule (Irish Home Rule) will be satisfactory which does not, as an immediate result, secure self-government for Scotland. They are extremely warlike up in Scotland, but very dove-like when they come down here, for in this House they express a sort of pious hope that the Government, before it goes out, may bring in some measure of Home Rule for Scotland, whereas in the country they say, "We are not going to vote for Home Rule for Ireland unless the rights of Scotland to it are also conceded."
Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member referred to me. May I—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying later on. It would be better not to interrupt the speaker.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I understand from the argument of hon. Members opposite that if this Scotch Home Rule Bill is not tacked on to the Irish Home Rule Bill they will think the latter is unsatisfactory, and will vote against it. But I cannot understand how the majority of Liberal Members can come to this House and vote for Home Rule or devolution, or whatever they may choose to call it, when they have never mentioned it in their election addresses, when it has hardly ever been mentioned in Scotland, and certainly has never been mentioned officially since the movement first started. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I will prove my words. I undertook a very tedious business yesterday, and hon. Members opposite will, I think, sympathise with me, for I read through forty-eight Radical addresses. Of these forty-eight addresses there were only twenty-two which mentioned Home Rule, either for Scotland or Ireland, in any way. None of the rest even mentioned it, and, surely, if it was so important a subject as is suggested, they would have done so. But they neither put it in their addresses nor talked about it. It is a curious fact that the election addresses of all the Front Bench politicians in Scotland were to be found in the bundle of those which contained
1468
no mention of Home Rule. That, surely, is hardly a coincidence. It means, whatever you may say in the country, you know perfectly well that the Cabinet is not in favour of Home Rule for Scotland.
The Prime Minister never mentioned it. Is he nobody? Would he not be the very first person to mention it? Yet no reference to it appeared either in his last election address or in the one before. The Lord Advocate usually knows what is good electioneering, and what is not. He never mentioned it in his last election address or in the one before—in fact, he never mentioned any Home Rule at all. Then I come to the Secretary of State for War, a man whom the Scottish people trusted because they said he was a staid man and a good man to follow, and was not likely to lead them into a mess. He did not put it in his election address. Neither did the Patronage Secretary, and, in fact, from Sutherland to Berwick the great majority of the Liberal addresses did not contain any mention of Home Rule. Perhaps the most interesting, in view of recent events in the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, will be the case of the Secretary for Scotland on this matter. I think I am correct in saying that in his address at the General Election before last the right hon. Gentleman did not mention Scottish Home Rule, and he was then returned with a majority of nearly 4,000 votes. At the last General Election again he failed to mention it in his address, but he spoke of it in the constituency, and the result was that his majority was reduced to 1,900 votes. Then, at the by-election, which has just occurred, he came out into the open; he went the whole hog, and his majority dropped to 469. Thus in one constituency alone we find at least 10,000 people are against Scottish Home Rule. There are some still stranger cases. First, there is the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, who said:—
"The old bogey of Home "Rule, deserted by the Tory Press till a month ago, is being now furbished up."
He tells the electors that Home Rule was a bogey. I wonder if he is going to vote for that bogey now, or whether he will be afraid of the spook. Are hon. Members going to chase the supernatural throughout the Lobbies? At any rate, I do not think that was a fair way of putting the matter to the electors. I come to a still more curious aspect of Liberal tactics on Home Rule, and I will take the case of the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir Walter Menzies), and I propose to read, if he will permit me, an extract from

1469
his election address with regard to Home Rule. This was at the Election of December, 1910, and the hon. Member, speaking of Home Rule, said:—
"Fear of Irish legislation in this direction need not have any deterrent effect upon electors of Liberal or Free Trade tendencies at this Election."
If that meant anything it meant that the electors need not be in the least afraid that there was any chance of Home Rule coming up on this occasion, and he, at any rate, was going to discuss the "big loaf" and the "little loaf" and matters of that sort. But later on he said:—
"I will pledge myself, on the other hand, if returned as your member, not to support any measure which would give Ireland any power that could in any way, now or at any time, or under any circumstances, weaken the unity of the British Empire."
The hon. Member talks of the "unity of the British Empire." Does he intend to divide up this country and Ireland into different Governments? It is rubbish on the face of it.
Sir W. MENZIES: Did I not also say, in my Election address, that I thought the time would come for Scotland.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: No. I do not think there is one word about Home Rule for Scotland. If I have made a mistake I should be quite prepared to withdraw, but I do not think I have done so. So far as the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs, who seconded this Motion, is concerned, I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow what he meant. It is difficult indeed to follow a right hon. Gentleman with such a kaleidoscopic mind as he possesses. And when he talks about the question of Home Rule, at all events the right hon. Gentleman ought to be consistent. What has been his conduct with regard to the Board of Agriculture. He once pleaded strongly, and brought in a Bill for a single and undivided control over both countries, and a few weeks afterwards he spoke strongly in favour of exactly the opposite of what he had previously said. Now the right hon. Gentleman has come back again, and is an English Forestry Commissioner. He is rather difficult to follow. I must qualify what I said with regard to the address of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire. I find that in his address he said, "I have been always in favour of relieving the congestion of the Imperial Parliament by devolving upon the various parts of the United Kingdom more power over their local or domestic affairs." But that is not Home Rule, and then he went
1470
on to say that they need not fear legislation in this direction, and that it need not have a deterrent effect upon electors of Liberal or Free Trade tendency in this election. Why did he say "in this election"? Now to get down to solid facts, and away from the Parliamentary side of it, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire says that Scotland has suffered since 1707. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that Scotland is not in an infinitely better position now than it was at the time of the Union. He gave us to understand that the state of Scotland was better at that time. If you compare the state of Scotland at the time of the Union with what it is now you will find that at that time we had not the help of England or the help of the Union or the help of the-Empire as we have at the present moment. You will find that we were poor, that we were torn by faction, and that there was absolutely no scope for the inhabitants to get away to something better, and that they were absolutely at the mercy of every sort of clique and every sort of faction. I say we were poorest at the time of the Union.
Does the hon. Member not know that the revenue of the country was only £160,000? What is the revenue to-day, since we have had the Union? That revenue of £160,000 compared with the revenue in England of £5,691,803 3s. 4½d., to be exact. We allied ourselves to that great rich country, and does anyone mean to say that we have not had some benefit from it. At that time there were very few Scotsmen employed to any extent in England. There was no case of "Where is Scotty," as the hon. Member put it at that time. There is a good deal of "Where is Scotty" at the present time, and there are many thousands who are taking part in the development of this country and of the Oversea Dominion and of all our Dependencies. Does the hon. Member mean to deny that the building of the Empire only began after the Union with Scotland, and it was not until the confirmation of the Union with Ireland that the Empire really became established. Whilst we had separate Parliaments there was always a conflict of political and commercial ideas, which absolutely throttled the whole colonising genius of our country. Then it is said that Home Rule would not deprive Scotland and its sons of their place in the Empire. That is always argued, although it is not the point. Are they prepared to say how, in the federal system, Scotsmen will fare in respect to positions

1471
in England and the Empire? How many appointments do Scotsmen get now, not only in these islands, but also in other parts of the Empire. How many do New Zealanders and Canadians get? Do you believe that under a federal system we should fare any better?
An HON. MEMBER: What sort of appointment?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I might call it jobs. I do not mean it in an offensive sense. I mean posts in the Government Departments. How many would they get other than in their own particular part of the country. I am perfectly certain that if you are going to try Federal Home Rule all round a great many appointments and much of the scope which is open for young men would be closed to them. They would not have the chance of spreading themselves abroad in the way they do at present. I am quite certain the result would be to drift back on the whole stream of progress which has been flowing ever since the time of the Union, and to put us back into the small backwater of Scotland, if you put us back into the position of separation in which we were before the Union. I am sure the Scottish Members would do far more good if, instead of trying to cut their country up on a question of Home Rule, as Ireland has been cut up, and kept at a standstill very often, it would be far better for us to work together and try to get the existing Department to work properly, to let a little daylight in, with the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland, and to get into more touch with the Department, and get that Department more into touch with us, but we do not want a separate Parliament in order to do that.
Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I think some words of sympathy should be spoken from these benches in support of the claim which have often been supported by the leader of this party, and which will be supported by him were it not that he is inevitably kept away. It is a claim which is on the same line and the same idea of Home Rule since the phrase "Home Rule" was first put forward by Isaac Butt. Home Rule has meant in political history the tendency towards the federal idea. I have always held that in working for Home Rule for Ireland we were working in the best way to get Home Rule for Scotland, and that it would be easier to carry Home Rule for Scotland after we
1472
had got Home Rule for Ireland than it would be, in the first instance, to carry Home Rule all round, because by Home Rule all round we would unite the oppositions of people who may be opposed to such a change on a large scale, which has not yet been widely discussed in this country, and with the popular mind has not become familiarised, whereas the real opposition to Home Rule for Ireland is what I may call the Imperial and religious feeling. If you could once get such a system established in Ireland, I believe that if Scotland did not ask for Home Rule, it would be forced on Scotland; but I believe it will be the general desire of the Scottish people to get Home Rule, because they are conscious of their capacity. The people of Scotland, if they had autonomy, would be pretty much like Switzerland: they would be twenty-five to fifty years ahead of the rest of Europe. I could not better illustrate that than by the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Wilkie), who stands for the representation of the Scotch capacity for local government, which has not up to the present moment had full play. After all, no sane man denies the existence of Scottish nationality, but Scottish nationality is a nationality which has not found its most adequate and natural means of expression, that is to say, in a national system of government. The Noble Lord, who has just spoken, said that he did not hear of many Canadians and New Zealanders getting jobs in this country. I do not think anyone will assert that there is a prejudice against Canadians or New Zealanders in this country. He has only to look at his own Front Bench.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I said the federal system would work so as to keep people in their own localities and not to come here.
Mr. GWYNN: I understood the Noble Lord to say that if they got Home Rule Scotsmen would be prejudiced in the application for jobs in this country, and that New Zealanders and Canadians did not get them at the present moment. I ask him to look at his own Front Bench and to recall the attitude of the Tory party towards a distinguished Canadian. After all, Scotland is what Ireland is, a country without a capital. I never can understand how there can be a shopkeeper in Edinburgh or Dublin who is not passionately in favour of Home Rule. At present the centralising forces of telegraphs

1473
and railways have been at work, and Edinburgh to-day is a pensioner on the memory of its past greatness. If you make a city the real national centre of self-government the decentralising tendency immediately begins to operate and you have what you find in Germany, which is at once, I suppose, the most united State and the most solidly organised and the best decentralised country in Europe, where you have perhaps a dozen small centres, each with a strong individuality and a national spirit of its own. I know very well what Scotland has done for the world, but I think Scotland has done less for the world within the last fifty or seventy or eighty years, since the days when Edinburgh was really one of the great centres of the world's thought. It is, in my opinion, the small countries which have done the great things in the world—that is to say, the small countries which were really organised as national communities—and it is in that larger interest, and apart from the political aspect of the thing, that I support this idea of Scottish Home Rule.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: The Noble Lord poured a good deal of ridicule on the Young Scots for their attitude towards Home Rule in Scotland.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: It was on the attitude of Members here in regard to the Young Scots.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. E. WASON: The Noble Lord treated the "Young Scots" with levity. Long before he was in this House, twenty odd years ago, a Motion by the hon. Member (Sir Henry Dalziel) was carried, and the majority included the present Lord Chancellor. This is no new question for Scotland. It has been going on from day to day, and gaining in strength. The hon. Member (Mr. Mackinder) represents a minority vote in Camlachie. The majority of the electors there are undoubtedly in favour of Home Rule, both for Ireland and for Scotland. I do not quite know what the hon. Member's nationality is. I believe he was born in Lincolnshire. I was born in Scotland, but I am only what they call in Scotland an improved Englishman. I am only half-and-half. I have lived in Scotland all my life, but a leading Scottish paper says I am not a Scotchman because I was educated in England. That is ridiculous. We in Scotland welcome people from England who come and reside among us and adapt themselves to Scottish customs
1474
and live among us in peace and quietness and amity. We have many distinguished Englishmen who represent Scottish seats, from the Prime Minister downwards, of whom we are all sincerely proud. The hon. Member (Mr. Mackinder) asked whether it was not a question of sentiment. Of course sentiment enters into it. I agree entirely that sentiment enters into everything that is worth having in this world. Any Englishman who goes up to contest his seat and begins talking about England very soon finds the mistake he has made and is told to speak about Britain at once. We hear just too much about England in Scotland. Everyone knows the story told by Dean Ramsay, that when Nelson ran up the signal at Trafalgar, "England expects that every man this day will do his duty," a Scotchman said he did not require to ask the Scotch, because he knew they would do theirs.
I could give another instance. There is a society which is working for peace between this country and Germany, and a more deserving society does not exist in the United Kingdom, because we really desire peace with Germany. It was called the Anglo-German Friendship Society, and only last week, at the instigation of Sir Francis Lascelles, our Ambassador for so many years at Berlin, they changed it from the Anglo-German to the British-German Friendship Society. That may be a small point, but I think it is worth while bringing to the notice of hon. Members. Then it is said Scotland is, to all intents and purposes, a part of England so far as legislation is concerned. The late Mr. Justice Gainsford Bruce, in a considered judgment which was reversed by the House of Lords in 1894, declared that Scotland in that particular case was a foreign country. The decision was reversed, but their lordships held that if, instead of a bank, it had been a railway company with which they were dealing, Mr. Justice Bruce would have been right and Scotland would have been a foreign country. The hon. Member (Mr. Mackinder) asked whether anyone here could speak for the whole of the Scottish Liberals. I am reminded of the saying of another Glasgow Member, that no Scottish Member had any right whatever in this House or anywhere else to speak for anyone but himself. I happen to be chairman of the Scottish Liberal unofficial Members. We have no quarrel of any sort or kind with Members who have advanced this cause of Scottish nationality to its present point. So far as we are concerned

1475
we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. We stand by them. We say that the claim we are making is a fair, a reasonable, a just and an equitable claim. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) denied that Scotchmen were permanently qualified to manage their own affairs. We say that we know much better what is required for the management of our own affairs than any noble English lord. Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend said, I may say that there is not a single Scottish Liberal Member who will not go into the Lobby to-night in support of the Motion so ably moved and so admirably seconded.
Mr. LOUGH: I need hardly say that I am entirely in sympathy with the affirmative part of the Resolution we are considering. We have had the subject brought before us many times in my Parliamentary experience, and I have always supported my hon. Friends who come from Scotland. I most respectfully congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Resolution tonight, and also my right hon. Friend who seconded it on the remarkably good speeches they made in very brief compass. I rise to call attention to two or three words in the centre of the Resolution which I think require more examination from the House. These words are that powers similar to those which are to be granted to Ireland should be granted to Scotland. I venture with great respect to point out to my hon. Friends that this is no necessary part of their Resolution, and that they do not gain any particular advantage by drawing attention to that subject to-night. We are on the eve of a great discussion of the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and there is scarcely any doubt that the discussion will take a wide range, and that the question will be brought forward in very different form from any form which has been discussed before. On the eve of that great discussion I do not think we get any advantage by putting any restraints forward as to the Bill. My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution told us of things that would not be asked for Ireland at all. I want to give him high authority as to what Ireland may possibly ask. Certain words were used by the Prime Minister a year ago on the question of Irish Home Rule to the effect that it had been applied in Canada seventy years ago, that it had been applied over again in every part of our Empire, that in our own time it had been applied in South Africa, and that everywhere it had been
1476
successful. That was the definition given by the Prime Minister of the policy he proposes to apply to Ireland, and if there is anything we rely upon the Prime Minister for it is close and accurate definition. He always gives that in respect of any policy he intends to introduce to the House. I could quote no higher authority than that of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who repeatedly told us that the description of Home Rule which would be conceded to Ireland would be that kind of Home Rule enjoyed by our Colonies.
That brings me to the interesting speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. They spoke of federation, and recalled to our minds many great countries where the system of federation has been tried, but they did not speak of the British Empire—the greatest and most successful of them all. It did not enter the mind of the Mover of the Resolution that there is a larger kind of federation than that of federating the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) in his excellent speech. He spoke of the day when a federal Parliament would be constructed, not only for these two islands, but for all parts of the Empire, and in which Ireland would be represented. That represents federation of the Empire, and presents a contrast to the somewhat limited federation which has been outlined to us to-night. I am not at all against the federation, if you like, of Great Britain and Ireland. If, instead of the word "Ireland" in the Resolution, the words "England and Wales" had occurred, I would not have found any objection to the proposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not Ireland?"] An hon. Member asks if these three countries are included, why not Ireland. These three are situated in one of the most splendid islands in the world, where there is a boundless stream of wealth and where there is strength to undertake the duties falling upon an Imperial State. These advantages are shared in equal measure in the countries I have named, but they do not extend to Ireland at all. Although Ireland is only a few miles away, the difference between that country and Great Britain cannot be measured by distance. If you take the difference in the social, economic, and political conditions, you will see that she is removed more from this rich

1477
country than any part in the Dominions of the Crown.
I propose to give one or two illustrations of why similar powers to those which are asked for Scotland may not be sufficient for Ireland. There is a great deal more self-government in Scotland than in Ireland. The political differences between the two islands are great. Let me glance briefly at the condition of Scotland. My hon. Friends say that the Scottish Union has not been a success. What they mean is that it has not been a great success. They mean that they could improve it and invent a better system. I am heartily with them in that, and I hope to render any little service to them I can when they bring a measure forward. But I ask the House to compare the Union of Scotland with the Union of Ireland. I say that to do so is to compare a glowing and triumphant success with a union which has been a most miserable failure, and which has brought infinite injury on the country to which it was applied. Scotland has always been governed by Scotsmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Not only has Scotland generally been governed by Scotsmen, but we know that England has been governed by Scotsmen. The present Prime Minister is a representative of a Scottish constituency, and there are no less than four Scotsmen in the Cabinet. Is there any such comparison as that possible in the case of Ireland? Scotland governs herself in a sense, though not in a complete sense. Ireland cannot say at present that she has self-government in the sense that Scotland has it. Scotland not only governs her own country, but England, Wales, and Ireland too. Ireland has not got a single power to contrast with those enjoyed by Scotland. Ireland wants power to control her police. Scotland has that power at present. If you take any question with respect to which Ireland wishes to have powers conferred upon her, you will find that there is no similar want of power to be dealt with as regards Scotland at all.
Let me look at the general economic situation of the two countries. There was a most interesting contrast presented to us in days gone by. It was worked on the basis of the Census taken in the two countries, and the effect was to show that the wealth of Scotland is practically as much, although not quite as much, as the wealth of England per head of the population. Comparing wealth and population, you find that Scotland has progressed with England in both. Turn to Ireland, and
1478
you find that the population is diminishing, and the only thing that is increasing is the taxation piled on by this House. Therefore, in the social conditions of the two countries, you find Ireland and Scotland presenting the greatest contrast, while England and Scotland march very much together. A claim has been brought forward from Ireland with which my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution dealt—that Ireland should be given control in the Bill of her own Customs. My hon. Friend said that nothing of the kind could be allowed, and in the Scottish Bill there is no demand made even for a control of the Customs. But hon. Members should know that if Ireland gets this conceded she will only be put in the same position which Scotland holds at present. Scotland now has the most perfect Custom House in the world. She knows her exports and imports. She can trace the whole flow of her wealth from wherever it comes, and she knows everything she sends and wherever it is sent. Ireland has none of this knowledge. The subterranean, subtle, cruel arrangements made by this House for Ireland deprived her of all that vital information on which her progress must depend, but which Scotland and every other country in the world enjoy. I was going to suggest at the end of the Resolution the following words to save the special case of Ireland, "due regard being had to the political, social, and economic differences between the two countries." I showed these words to my hon. Friend who seconded the Resolution, and he said, "Do not move them." I asked my right hon. Friend who is going to reply (Mr. McKinnon Wood), and he said that I had better leave the matter entirely to his own wisdom. I do not wish to strike a jarring note.
Mr. PIRIE: You have done that already.
Mr. LOUGH: I do not think so. I have put, as far as my conscience would allow, with the greatest kindness to Scottish Members, one or two points in the case of Ireland. That need not annoy my hon. Friend. Supposing they get a larger measure for Ireland and my Scottish Friends change their mind and say, "Let us have the same for Scotland," I will heartily support them.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I am by no means certain that the speech to which we have just listened, and which has been heard with some impatience by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, is not the most

1479
interesting speech we have heard in this discussion. It is the first rift in the lute which has been charming us from the other side of the House for the rest of the evening. It shows very clearly that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is terrified at the idea of Home Rule which the House is being asked to support in the Resolution to-night, because he knows uncommonly well that in the end it will put him in a different position from that which he is in now.
Mr. LOUGH: There is no terror for me in the proposal at all; the measure would not be large enough to satisfy me.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's song was what I have described, and certainly that was the impression created on this side of the House. Is it necessary to regard this Resolution as a serious one? One has only to read it to see that it is a complete sham. To ask for the passage in this Parliament of a Home Rule measure for Scotland similar to what is going, we are told, to be given to Ireland, as part of a general scheme of devolution, is a ludicrous proposal in the circumstances, in which we are placed. I shall be very much surprised indeed if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland accepts the Resolution. If he does, he will be giving an additional pledge which will be extremely uncomfortable to those with whom he is associated.
Everybody knows that this is purely a window-dressing Resolution—a Resolution intended, if at all possible, to establish a claim for consistency on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are going this Session to support a Home Rule Bill for Ireland containing, no doubt, provisions which will not be very satisfactory to their Scottish constituents, and who propose to content themselves by saying, "We tried," knowing perfectly well that they never meant to get it and never shall get it, and that the Government has no intention whatever of proposing to apply to Scotland the same class of measure which it is going to try to apply to Ireland. What is even more important, it is intended to cover the shortcomings of hon. Gentlemen opposite since they came into power in 1906. Have they done all that they ought to have done for Scotland in those years? Have they not been acting more or less throughout that period as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Government?
1480
Have they ever been known to take an independent attitude on any question which was inconvenient to the Government? Why, on a paltry detail like an Amendment on the House Letting Bill last year they implored that the Government Whips should be taken off so that they might exercise an independent judgment for once. Hon. Gentlemen opposite go to their constituents and say that this House is overladen with business, that it is no fault of theirs, and that they ought not to be blamed in the matter. I have no doubt that the demonstration to-night is arranged chiefly for those reasons. It is also intended by hon. Gentlemen opposite to welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland back to this House—a Gentleman to whom I wish to offer my congratulations—who was expected no doubt to make a triumphal progress through his constituency, but who has had an extremely stormy passage. In that respect I do not know that the opportunity is good and well-timed, at all events from our point of view. We are quite ready to generally discuss this question, but I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman himself is very grateful for the opportunity of reviving some of the declarations he has made within the last few days. I should think he would probably prefer to bury them in oblivion, or, perhaps, what comes to much the same thing, to inter them in the new "Preamble Cemetery" which the Government have created as a storehouse for uncomfortable pledges. The Secretary for Scotland's declarations at the recent election did not find favour with the hard-headed electors of St. Rollox. They very nearly wrecked him in that constituency, a constituency thought to be thoroughly safe in support of the Government, and more particularly for any Cabinet Minister with his new honours, fresh upon him, and with all the expectations of favours to come which constituencies usually hope to get from Cabinet Ministers. At least, the desire to avoid the thorny question of Irish Home Rule tempted the right hon. Gentleman to say a good deal on Home Rule for Scotland, and in avoiding the Scylla of the Irish difficulty he very nearly met with disaster on the Charybdis of the Scottish difficulty. He got a short and sharp and, I hope, salutary warning against accepting this policy, which appears to me to be run by nobody in particular, except the Young Scots' Society in Scotland, a society of youthful—I do not want to use the word offensively—political prigs, who for some time have

1481
been dictating to every sort of candidate and Member of Parliament for Scotland, with overweening sense of their own superiority, and who have made themselves the laughing-stock of every serious and grown-up politician. I should strongly recommend, with all respect, the right hon. Gentleman to avoid in future adopting his policy from the nursery.
With regard to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, I do not know that I can at this hour enter into an answer to the arguments; or, rather, I do not know that they were arguments. There were astounding statements made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Dr. Chapple). As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) very truly says, the hon. Member approached the consideration of this question from the Colonial point of view. He made very astonishing statements about the unfortunate position Scotland occupied and the great amount it had lost from the Union. He certainly told us a good many interesting facts, if they were facts, which were new to me at all events, and appeared to be received with a good deal of doubt and question by the Gentlemen sitting alongside of him. When I come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith I am dealing with a bird of quite another feather. The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, truly sincere on this question. I am quite satisfied that he is a convinced believer in the policy of devolution for Scotland, and entertains a good many grievances against the existing system. He does not approve of the bureaucratic Government in Scotland as Scotland is governed, and he has a good deal to say against the administration of the Scottish Office. No doubt he thinks the easiest way to satisfy those grievances and to settle the whole question is to carry a measure of this kind and to make of course, if necessary, and as you would have to make, very great changes in Scottish administration. In the Bill last year it was proposed to set up a Scottish Parliament, with a Lord High Commissioner and all the rest of it. I am bound to say that I should lose all confidence in the good sense of my fellow countrymen if they followed the right hon. Gentleman in this respect.
Apart from the objections to the nature of the scheme, what proof have we as to the sincerity of the Government's desire to confer on Scotland a measure of self-government? The proof is all the other way. I admit at once, and frankly, that
1482
there has been for some time a certain feeling of irritation against certain aspects of the administration of the Scottish Office. There are certain things in the Private Legislation Act, for example, which ought to have been attended to and amended long ago. But I say it is impossible for a Government, tied and hampered by this extreme policy of Home Rule, which practically means separation, to deal satisfactorily with local self-government. There has been a strange discrepancy between the professions of the Government and their practice on this question. Whenever there has been an opportunity of trusting localities in Scotland, have they ever taken it? Why have they refused to allow the House Letting Bill, for example, to be dealt with by local town councils? Why did they refuse to allow the Shops Bill to be undertaken by these bodies? Why did the Secretary to the Treasury force upon the Scottish mine-owners and miners a policy which they unanimously objected to, and would not have? Why do they do these things if they are really sincere in their desire to promote local self-government? If they intend devolution, why have they persistently refused to transfer the Education Department to Edinburgh? I am dead against that myself; I think it would be a great mistake. But it is not consistent with the professions of the Government that they should refuse to do it. If extension of local self-government is really their policy it would be much easier to start their scheme in Scotland than in Ireland. They would not have the same difficulties to face. But I do not think they are sincere. I believe that the whole thing is a question of window-dressing. What has been the support of Scotland to this scheme? Where do you find any financial support coming from Scotland? Since hon. Gentlemen opposite appealed for money to carry on the propaganda, how much have they got? How many pennies are there in the bag? [An HON. MEMBER: "More than we want."] Tell us what it is.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The money is in the hon. Gentleman's bank. He had better ask the cashier.
Mr. PIRIE: And much of it has been sent by Scottish Conservatives, whom I take the opportunity of thanking.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not in a position to take advantage of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy; it is not the I sort of thing that directors of banks do. I

1483
venture to say, however, that he would not get a ¼d. a head out of the people of Scotland for the purpose of Scottish Home Rule. I do not believe that financial support, if it were required in any large measure, would be forthcoming. It is too late for me to go on now; I should be sorry to stand between the Secretary for Scotland and his right of reply. I have referred to one or two minor considerations, but the major considerations to my mind make the objections to this scheme overwhelming. I do not know whether the Mover and Seconder have taken into their consideration the vast risk that might arise to the great commercial and financial institutions of Scotland from any kind of measure which would in any kind of way endanger the connection between the two countries. Do they think that if a separate Parliament were established for Scotland, with all the powers that they are asking, it would not tend to that very kind of separatism which every one of us would deplore and which would put back the clock in Scotland many a long day? They are deliberately running that risk. I have sat here for six or seven years amongst English Members of Parliament who resent the fact that the domination of Scotland and Wales prevents them from being masters in their own house. I say to you hon. Gentlemen opposite that if you think you are going to get a measure of Home Rule for Scotland such as you want you are making a mistake. When the hon. Member raises ancient difficulties as he has to-day, and asserts that this question has been a living issue for years, he knows far better; it is nothing of the kind. To say so is to talk arrant nonsense. To say, as some have said, that there is a general demand for this is to say what is the veriest and rankest, absurdity.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (the Marquess of Tullibardine) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir George Younger) have done me the honour of taking a great interest in the recent Election. The hon. Baronet has twitted me on the result, but may I remind him that my return was twice as good as his own.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman has got 20,000 constituents and I have 8,000. His majority was 400; mine was 200.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: But in the more important remarks of the hon.
1484
Baronet to which I shall call the attention of the House was included one to the effect that in my Election speeches I had avoided the question of Irish Home Rule. I devoted one whole speech to the question. I did not make a single speech in the Election in which I did not refer to it. It is perfectly true that I referred to Scottish Home Rule at the same time, because I think they are closely connected subjects—for an obvious reason, that they are both connected with the question of increasing at the same time local and central efficiency. As a matter of fact it was not necessary to refer to these subjects at the same length as other subjects. They were not, at the recent Election, questions of acute controversy or persistent misrepresentation. The hon. Baronet spoke of the barrenness of Scottish legislature. That surely is an argument from his point of view, but rather from ours. In defence of the Government I must point out that that legislation has certainly been retarded, not by any unwillingness on the part of the Government to Scottish legislation, but from the fact that in another place there is a very large majority of English and Irish peers, and that the Scottish peers are selected upon a peculiar principle which is not consistent with that of Scottish Members in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reform it."] No wonder therefore that there has been some considerable delays. I think the Scottish Small Holdings Bill was twice rejected, and the House Letting Bill was destroyed by it for one Session. If there is, as the hon. Baronet says, barrenness in Scottish legislation, surely that is an argument for Scottish Home Rule.
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) had two arguments. One was that England and Scotland were two ends of one island. I do not think there is any Scotchman on either side of the House who would admit that England and Scotland are nothing more than two ends of one island. The hon. Gentleman held up to ridicule the idea that you should have a Scottish Parliament legislating upon criminal law in Scotland. Is the hon. Member not aware that the systems of criminal law in the two countries are entirely different; and, if that is so, what is there ridiculous in the idea of a Scottish Parliament dealing with Scottish criminal law? The Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire mentioned the fact that I had made very clear declarations both as to

1485
Irish and Scottish Home Rule in my election address. That, perhaps, will render it unnecessary that I should speak at great length on this subject to-night. I did declare myself very definitely upon the subject, and I cannot help thinking there is not much to add to the extremely able yet temperate speeches in which this Motion was moved and seconded in the House tonight. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs, who did not speak with his usual great courtesy—
Sir G. YOUNGER: I am very sorry.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Talked about my taking this doctrine from the nursery. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs is not an infant in politics.
Sir G. YOUNGER: What I meant was the Young Scots.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, but this Resolution was seconded by my right hon. Friend.
An HON. MEMBER: By order of the Young Scots.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member for Warrington is not very closely connected with Scotland. [HON. MEMBEHS: "And not very old either."] I cannot help thinking that the House must have observed that in those two speeches there was a double argument. The argument for devolution in regard to Scotland is an argument which is not merely based upon local interest, it is equally based upon Imperial interest. I do not believe there is any Member on either side of the House who is prepared to deny that there is too much work cast upon the House of Commons. It is the argument of hon. Members opposite that we sit here too long, that we use procedure which they in their time used. [HON. MEMBERS.: "No, no."] The virtue of hon. Members in Opposition is as remarkable as the readiness with which they used the Closure and other instruments when in power. But the very fact that all sides are agreed that the Imperial Parliament is overburdened is one of the strongest arguments for devolution, and I cannot help thinking that both the Mover and Seconder of this Motion put their case upon a very strong foundation when they based it upon the necessity for increasing Imperial as well as local efficiency. Hon. Members opposite tried to treat this as if it were a question of sham agitation, a question of trying to use Scottish Home Rule in order to give support to Irish Home Rule. I do not believe it is
1486
anything of the kind. If you look at the addresses of Unionist candidates recently you do not find any attack upon Scottish Home Rule. Take the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. He said:—
"There was no reason in the world why local powers of administration should not be extended, where necessary, to any integral part of the United Kingdom."
Captain CAMPBELL: May I say—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt in this way, and he will have an opportunity of replying if time permit.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will give the hon. Member the opportunity. The hon. Member declared himself in favour of purely local self-government, the same as they might have in Scotland if the Scottish people desired it. My opponent at the last Election said that the federal system was at least logical, and that is our case. We think it is both logical and necessary. Although I am not in a position to pledge the Government as to time and priority, I am entirely in sympathy with the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, and I cannot help thinking that in 1910 a great many hon. Members opposite were very much of the same opinion judging from their most distinguished representatives in the Press. I read a great many articles in which it was pointed out that it would be a great mistake for the Unionist party to set itself against the principle of devolution. They did not agree that it was a sham, for they were playing up to it and trying to educate their followers. Hon. Members opposite are even more fully acquainted with these facts than I am, and everybody in the country knows that it is true. This is an agitation which I think thoughtful people in Scotland will support. I do not think that there is any real opposition to the devolving of local government upon all parts of the United Kingdom on the part of the electors in any part of the Kingdom. The Scotch people are eminently reasonable, and they are prepared to give England self-government too. For my part, I should place the claim of Scotland on three grounds: (1) that it would increase Imperial efficiency; (2) local efficiency; and (3) it would enable recognise that it is a feeling of long fought for but which the preponderance of other interests in other countries, not only in this House, but also in another place, has prevented us from obtaining. Scotland has been in advance of England in temperance legislation and land legislation,

1487
and there is no reason in the world why Scotland should be kept back in these matters and in education because other parts of the Kingdom desire to move more slowly. I shall certainly vote for the Resolution.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I may be permitted to occupy the time of the House for a very few minutes on the ground that, though I am no longer a Scotch Member, I have a very considerable interest in that country. In that respect I think I have changed places with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. What interested me most in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the suggestion that there is any real desire for any change of this kind among any section of the population in Scotland. I think I am as well able as most people to judge the views of the man in the street upon this subject, and I say, without the slightest hesitation, that while in regard to Ireland I thoroughly understand the feeling and recognise that is is a feeling of long growth, which has a real force in the minds of the people, this agitation in Scotland is of a purely hothouse breed, and if it were to become necessary to give Home Rule to Ireland, which I hope it never will, surely it would be a great misfortune to inflict it on Scotland simply to create an excuse for giving it to another island. What can Scotland possibly gain by a change of this kind? We can gain nothing from the point of view of national characteristics, or love of national traditions. There is no one who will deny that Scotch character or Scotch nationality is as firmly rooted as that of any people in the world, and that after two centuries of the closest connection with England. It proves beyond a shadow of doubt that whatever is good in nationality can continue and even increase, in spite of union with a larger country. I can quite understand that England might gain a good deal by this arrangement, but what can Scotland gain? Is there anybody engaged in politics who would like to feel that his sphere is to be limited to that of the northern part of the island? I should say the experience in this House goes to show that from that point of view at least Scotland is a gainer, and nothing less by her connection, with England in the closest possible union. I would like to ask another question. When hon. Gentlemen talk so fluently of the desire for Home Rule and the advisability of it, do they realise
1488
how many Englishmen, especially of the party opposite, sit for a Scotch constituency? Surely it cannot be for the interest of Scotland that the business of Scotland should be done by an inferior set of men. That cannot be for the interest of Scotland, and I should have said one of the first things you ought to establish is that there are more Scotchmen wanting positions in Parliament than can be found before you say you should set up a Parliament for them specially. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken a great deal about the desire for devolution based on nationality. I am bound to say, from the point of view of the integrity of the country as a whole, the very worst way in which you can set up devolution is by putting it on a national basis. I think that has been carried to considerable length. I remember at the time of the Kilmarnock election, the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who is a complete Scotchman, and who would not, I think, like to lose the connection with the English Parliament, brought forward this question of nationality in a way which seemed to me rather dangerous. That body to which my hon. Friend has alluded, the Young Scots, had taken exception to the candidature of the hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Kilmarnock. They did not like him because he was not Scotch enough. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury wrote a Letter in which he tried to satisfy them that it was all right. What does the House think was the substance of it? He pointed out, quite correctly, how large a part of the blood of the hon. Member was Scotch, and then he went on to say:
"whatever is not Scotch is Welsh, there is not a drop of English blood in him."
It was a clear indication to the electors of the Kilmarnock Burghs and other Scottish constituencies that no English need apply. I do think—and I say this with all respect to my Scottish friends on both sides of the House—that an arrangement of that kind would be far worse for Scotland than for England. It is quite obvious it cannot be entirely one-sided, and if it comes to be expected that Scotland is to be entirely for the Scotch, with a little Welsh thrown in, then it will end that England will be for the English. That is an arrangement which I am quite free to confess—recognising the cheers of the hon. Gentlemen opposite—would not at all suit me. I do not think it would suit a great many people on the other side. It would be very awkward, I am sure, for some of

1489
the distinguished ornaments of that Front Bench, who, having found England not a suitable place for winning by-elections, have taken refuge in Scotland, and it would be equally disadvantageous for those thrown out in Scotland who have to find refuge in England. I do not think we could make a swap. I do not suppose the electors for Dundee would select me, or that those of the Constituency for which I sit would select the First Lord of the Admiralty. From whatever point of view you look at it, if you look at it from the point of view of the interests of Scotland you will find that Scotland stands to lose by any weakening of the arrangement by which the countries are now linked together. It stands to lose far more, whether it be a trade interest or a personal interest, and I say, without the slightest hesitation, that so far as I am able to judge there is

Division No. 26.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Farrell, James Patrick

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Adamson, William

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Ffrench, Peter

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lansbury, George

Alden, Percy

Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

Armitage, R.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lewis, John Herbert

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Gilhooly, James

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Gill, A. H.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Barnes, George N.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Lundon, T.

Barton, A. W.

Glanville, Harold James

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Goldstone, Frank

Lynch, A. A.

Bentham, George J.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Boland, John Pius

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Maclean, Donald

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gulland, John W.

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

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Brace, William

Hackett, J.

Macpherson, James Ian

Brady, P. J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bryce, John Annan

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Martin, Joseph

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Clough, William

Hayward, Evan

Menzies, Sir Walter

Clynes, J. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Millar, James Duncan

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Molloy, M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cotton, William Francis

Hinds, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cowan, William Henry

Hodge, John

Mooney, John J.

Crean, Eugene

Hogge, James Myles

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crumley, Patrick

Holmes, Daniel Thomas

Muldoon, John

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Munro, Robert

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Hudson, Walter

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hughes, S. L.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Needham, Christopher T.

Delany, William

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Neilson, Francis

Devlin, Joseph

John, Edward Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Johnson, W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Dillon, John

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nuttall, Harry

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Doris, William

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclitfe)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. Hmts., Stepney)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Donnell, Thomas

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Keating, M.

Ogden, Fred

Elverston, Sir Harold

Kilbride, Denis

O'Grady, James

not the smallest desire for this change in Scotland. It may be asked why are the majority of Scottish Members in favour of it? It is because the Liberal party at this moment pretend to be in favour of it. But does any one suggest that the votes of any single constituency in Scotland would be altered by a declaration one way or the other with regard to this matter? The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke told us he put Scottish Home Rule in the forefront of his programme. Did he do it at any previous Election? It was never suggested to me when I was a candidate for Scotland. If this is the first time he has made it a standing feature of the Election then the result is rather a lesson that Scotland is not specially in favour of it.
Question put,
The House divided, Ayes, 226; Noes, 128.

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

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Malley, William

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Robinson, Sidney

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walton, Sir Joseph

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waring, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

Rowlands, James

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Watt, Henry A.

Pointer, Joseph

Scanlan, Thomas

Webb, H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Whitehouse, John Howard

Pringle, William M. R.

Sheehy, David

Wiles, Thomas

Radford, G. H.

Shortt, Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Reddy, M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Rendall, Athelstan

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Tennant, Harold John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Dr. Chapple and Mr. Munro-Ferguson.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

NOES.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Foster, Philip Staveley

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

Amery L. C. M. S.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Mount, William Arthur

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gibbs, George Abraham

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gilmour, Captain John

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldman, C. S.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baird, John Lawrence

Goldsmith, Frank

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Perkins, Walter F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Peto, Basil Edward

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barnston, H.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Royds, Edmund

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bird, Alfred

Hohler, G. F.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boyton, James

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horner, Andrew Long

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Col. C. R.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Kerry, Earl or

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Campion, W. R.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Knight, Captain E. A.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cautley, Henry Strother

Larmor, Sir J.

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Cave, George

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, Henry Page

Macmaster, Donald

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

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Yate, Col. C. E.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Duke, Henry Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir G. Younger and Mr. Mackinder.

Fell, Arthur

Moore, William

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

THREATENED COAL STRIKE.

  STATEMENT BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give us
  1492
  any information as to the result of the coal conference?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The following proposals for a settlement of the coal dispute were yesterday submitted by the Prime Minister on behalf of His

  1493
  Majesty's Government to the representatives of the coalowners and also of the miners:—

  "1. His Majesty's Government are satisfied, after careful consideration, that there are cases in which underground employés cannot earn a reasonable minimum wage, from causes over which they have no control.

  "2. They are further satisfied that the power to earn such a wage should be secured by arrangements suitable to the special circumstances of each district. Adequate safeguards to be provided to protect the employers from abuse.

  "3. His Majesty's Government are prepared to confer with the parties as to the best method of giving practical effect to these conclusions, by means of district Conferences between the parties, a representative appointed by the Government being present.

  "4. In the event of any of the Conferences failing to arrive at a complete settlement within a reasonable time, the representatives appointed by His Majesty's Government to decide jointly any outstanding points for the purpose of giving effect in that district to the above principles."

  During the course of to-day the above proposals were considered by the representatives of both parties, with the following results.
  At a Conference between the Representatives of the Government and the Coalowners this afternoon it was reported that the employers representing the districts included in the English Conciliation Board, namely, Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Midlands, and North Wales, had passed the following resolutions:—

  "(1) The coalowners in the federated area accept the proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government.

  "(2) In accepting the proposals, the coalowners expect the Government to make such arrangements as will enable them to look forward with confidence to the due performance of agreements entered into in the future, and to secure that such agreements shall be binding on both sides for some considerable period."

  The employers representing Durham passed the following resolution:—
  "The proposals of the Government will impose serious additional burdens on the coal trade, and the coalowners of the county of Durham, if consulting their own interests, would hesitate to consent to the conditions put forward.
  "In view, however, of the disastrous consequences which must result to the country from a stoppage of work, the owners will be prepared to accept the proposals."
  The Cumberland employers also accepted the proposals of the Government. The Northumberland employers, by a
  1494
  majority, were unable to accept these proposals.
  The Scottish coalowners passed the following resolution:—
  "The coalowners of Scotland regret that they cannot accept the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
  "They abide by the agreement made at the Board of Trade on 30th July, 1909, to which the President and officials of the Board of Trade were parties.
  "If there are cases in which underground employés do not earn a reasonable wage it is in exceptional circumstances. The coalowners are prepared to meet the employés' representatives with a representative of the Government to arrange machinery to prevent any injustice and to fix remuneration in abnormal places in cases of dispute.
  "They are prepared to agree that in the event of such meeting failing to arrive at a settlement the matter should be referred to the decision of a neutral chairman."
  The South Wales coalowners passed the following resolution:—
  "The coalowners of South Wales adhere strictly to their present Agreement, which terminates by notice at the earliest date on 31st March, 1915.
  "After most careful consideration they are unanimous in stating that they cannot agree to the Government's proposals."
  The representatives of the smaller districts—the Forest of Dean, Somerset, and Bristol—were unable to accept the Government proposals.
  The effect of the above Resolutions is that the proposals of His Majesty's Government were accepted by coalowners representing over 60 per cent. of the coal trade of the country as measured by output.
  The conference of the Miners' Federation which answered the Government's proposals this morning passed the following resolution:—
  "That we agree to re-affirm the resolution passed on the 7th instant in this hotel by the Executive Committee and the seventeen additional representatives from districts, and we repeat that there can be no settlement of the present dispute unless the principle of an individual minimum wage for all underground workers is agreed to by the coalowners.
  "We are still willing to meet the coalowners at any time they desire to discuss the minimum rates of each district, as passed at special conferences of this federation."
  During the course of the day the executive committee of the Miners' Federation conferred twice with the representatives of His Majesty's Government with respect

  1495
  to the above resolution, and in the course of the proceedings the committee resolved as follows:—
  "That we ask His Majesty's Government, in case they decide to publish our resolution of this morning, to also publish along with it our definition that the minimum referred to in that resolution is the schedule of wages already laid before the coalowners and His Majesty's Government."
  In reply to questions by the Prune Minister, the executive committee stated that the effect of the conference resolution was that they concurred in the first two propositions put forward by His Majesty's Government, but that, as regards 3, they could only enter into such conferences on the understanding that the minimum wage to be fixed in each district should be at the rate revised and finally adopted by the Miners' Federation on 2nd February. As regards 4, they desire to express no opinion on the question of arbitration on the subject of safeguards and other detailed arrangements, while declining it for the reasons above stated on the subject of the amount of the minimum wage to be fixed in each district.
  At the conclusion of the conferences the Prime Minister stated that the Government had made itself responsible for putting forward proposals to ensure that a reasonable minimum wage should be secured for underground workers, and that these proposals had been accepted by a majority of coalowners, but that it was impossible, without discussion and negotiation between the parties, as proposed by the Government, to determine the amount of the minimum wage suitable to each district. On the other hand, the representatives of the men stated that they were not prepared to regard the amount of the minimum wage for coal-getters, as revised and finally adopted by the Miners' Federation on the 2nd February, 1912, as open to negotiations.
  At the request of the Prime Minister the representatives of both parties agreed to be available for further consultation to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  FARMERS' LABOUR CONTRACTS.
  FARMERS' LABOUR CONTRACTS.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (WOMEN MEMBERS).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (WOMEN MEMBERS).
  LECTURES.
  LECTURES.
  CIRCULARS IN WELSH.
  CIRCULARS IN WELSH.
  Criminal Prosecutions, Tralee.
  Criminal Prosecutions, Tralee.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Irish Language).
  Training Colleges (Irish Language).
  Poor Rate (Ireland).
  Poor Rate (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  County Down (Circular).
  County Down (Circular).
  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Cattle Drives.
  Cattle Drives.
  Armour Plating.
  Armour Plating.
  New Bullet (Ammunition).
  New Bullet (Ammunition).
  Horse Rugs (Mounted Units).
  Horse Rugs (Mounted Units).
  Territorial Force (Training).
  Territorial Force (Training).
  Army General Annual Report.
  Army General Annual Report.
  Quartermasters' Pay.
  Quartermasters' Pay.
  Cotton Spinning Mills (Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire).
  Cotton Spinning Mills (Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire).
  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  Conviction of Ex-Constables (Bournemouth).
  Conviction of Ex-Constables (Bournemouth).
  Russian Sugar.
  Russian Sugar.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Motor-Car Bodies (Drivers' Seats).
  Motor-Car Bodies (Drivers' Seats).
  Small Holdings.
  Small Holdings.
  Ecclesiastical Commission (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Ecclesiastical Commission (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Purchase of Land and Tithe Rent-Charge.
  Purchase of Land and Tithe Rent-Charge.
  Post Office Accommodation, Guston, Kent.
  Post Office Accommodation, Guston, Kent.

Preamble
The Lord PETRE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl CATHCART—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Lord TWEEDDALE (M. Tweeddale)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARE AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I move that Standing Order. No. 92 be dispensed with in respect to a Petition of companies, bodies, and persons being and representing shipowners trading to and from the Port of London. The position is this. This Petition against the Bill was deposited three minutes late, purely by an accident. The promoters have no objection to the Standing Order being dispensed with, and in these circumstances I beg to submit the Motion.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 92 be dispensed with in respect of a Petition of companies, bodies, and persons being and representing shipowners trading to and from the Port of London.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given to present the said Petition.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to repeal section one hundred and fifty seven of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901—Was presented by the Lord Ashby St. Ledgers; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Monday next. (No. 6.)

SHOPS REGULATION ACTS CONSOLIDA TION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to make an appeal to the noble Lord who is to move in a few minutes the Second Reading of the Shops Regulation Acts Consolidation Bill. This is a
264
Bill of twenty-two clauses and more than twenty pages, and it was only circulated to your Lordships this morning. I think in all he circumstances that this is not quite treating the House as it ought to be treated. I say nothing as to who is responsible. I understand that the Bill is only a Consolidation Bill, but still those who are interested would like to look through it. I am sure it would be interesting to the House to hear what the noble Lord has to say about the Bill, but the appeal I make is that after the noble Lord has made his statement in moving the Second Reading he should agree to a friendly Motion for the adjournment of the debate in order that we may be able to come to a consideration of the Bill with some understanding of it.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact, mentioned by Lord Balfour, that the Bill was only circulated this morning. I do not know whose fault it is, but when I introduced the Bill last week I was under the impression that it would be circulated in time to give your Lordships sufficient opportunity of studying its details. In the circumstances I am bound to say that I think the appeal made by the noble Lord, that the debate on the Second Reading should stand adjourned, is a very reasonable one, and I would suggest that next Monday would be a convenient day upon which we might resume the discussion of the measure.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much at this stage, but I would like to emphasise the fact that this is really nothing but a consolidation measure. There are no extraneous matters introduced; there are no amendments of the existing Acts; and if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I shall move that it be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which is to be set up on the Motion moved the other day by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that it would not be possible for any Bill involving extraneous matter to go before such a Committee; consequently your Lordships can rest assured that this measure is nothing but a Consolidation Bill pure and simple.

265
It is desirable that the Bill should go through without any delay, for this reason. The Act which your Lordships passed last session dealing with the question of shops comes into operation on May 1. Previous to that date it will be necessary for the various local authorities to issue regulations. The central authorities—that is to say, the Home Office in England, the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland, and the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland—will have to issue a circular to the local authorities and others concerned, pointing out the provisions of the new Act and showing in what way they must be complied with. It would be more convenient if it were possible to issue that circular with reference to a Consolidated Act than with reference to all the Acts which it is now proposed to consolidate. The shopkeepers themselves will no doubt be in considerable difficulty in understanding the exact provisions with which they ate now called upon to comply unless this Consolidation Bill is passed.
There are six Acts in existence dealing with this subject—the Act of 1892, which deals with the hours of young persons in shops; the amending Acts of 1893 and 1899; the Act of 1899, which deals with the question of seats for female assistants in shops; the Act of 1904, which introduced the principle of early closing upon a sort of voluntary basis; and, lastly, the Act of last session. All these Acts refer to exactly the same subject. There is necessarily a certain amount of overlapping, and it would be extremely convenient, both to the Departments and to the public, if a Consolidation Act were passed and passed before April if possible. I do not think that a study of this Bill will reveal any difficulties to any student of it. If your Lordships will glance at it, you will see that in the margin reference is given to previous Acts from which the clauses in the present Bill are derived. In many cases they are copied verbatim and, I think, present no difficulty whatever.
But there is one point of considerable complexity, and that is the question of the application of this Bill to Ireland, and it arises in this way. The Act of 1911, and, indeed, previous Acts, only applied to Ireland in part. The rural districts in Ireland were entirely excluded from the operation of the Act of last session. Consequently there is a difficulty in a Consolidation Bill—it is merely a matter of drafting,
266
but it does present some complexity—as to how best the case of Ireland can be dealt with. One or two alternatives presented themselves to the draftsman. The one selected is to set out in the schedule those parts of the Act which apply to Ireland. I do not know that I can elucidate this very much. It really is a Committee point, and when the Bill goes before the Committee believe it is the practice for the draftsman to attend, and he will be able to explain to the Committee why he thinks this the simplest way to accomplish the desired end. However, my Lords, I think it is only reasonable that we should adjourn this discussion for a few days in order that your Lordships should have an opportunity of studying the Bill a little more at leisure, and I have pleasure, therefore, in agreeing to the adjournment until Monday.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
The further debate adjourned to Monday next.

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD had the following Notices on the Paper—
To ask the Secretary of State for War to give—

The establishment and strength of officers by ranks of the seventy-four Third Battalions Special Reserve Infantry on the 1st February, 1912, exclusive of Regular Establishment.

The number of officers now serving in the seventy-four Third Battalions Special Reserve who transferred from the Militia.

The total strength of the non-commissioned officers and men of the seventy-four Third Battalions Special Reserve exclusive of Regular Establishment on the 1st February, 1912.

(a) The difference between strength and establishment;

(b) The number of non-commissioned officers and men under 20 years of age;

(c) The number of non-commissioned officers and men whose term of service expires before the 1st February, 1913;

and to ask for the same information in respect to the twenty-seven Extra Special Reserve Battalions.
To call attention to Section D of the Regular Reserve—

1. To ask the Secretary of State for War the number of men from Section D who would be required to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913.

2. If men serving in Section D of the Army Reserve are considered fit for combatant duties with the Expeditionary Force; and to move for Papers.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War the Questions standing in my name on the Paper. In the first set of Questions I merely ask for the numbers of officers and men in the Third and Fourth Battalions of the Special Reserve, and I do not think any explanation is needed. My second set of Questions relate to Section D of the Regular Reserve. I ask the noble Viscount what number of men from this Section he will require to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913, and also whether he considers that these men in Section D are fit for competent duties with the first line.
At first sight Section D would not appear a very important part of our military forces. I think, however, I shall be able to show your Lordships that Section D raises some points vital to the efficiency of our Regular Reserve. Let me explain shortly what Section D of the Army Reserve is. Those men who, after having completed their full term of Colour and Reserve service—a total of twelve years for the Infantry—are willing to re-enlist within six months in the Army Reserve for a further period of four years are known as Section D of the Army Reserve. This Section D used to be called the second class of the Army Reserve in distinction to Sections A and B, known as the first class of the Army Reserve. Under the Reserve Forces Act of 1882 Section D men are referred to as the Second Division, and were "not liable to be called out on permanent service until directions had been given for calling out the whole of the First Division in Sections A and B." These words were repealed by Section 1 of the Reserve Forces Act of 1900, which stated—
"Men in the Second Division of the first class of the Army Reserve shall be liable to be called
268
out on permanent service, notwithstanding that directions have not been given for calling out the whole of the first division on such service."
The result of the amendment to the 1882 Act is that both Divisions of the Army Reserve are now called out together. But the fact of calling out the Second Division at the same time as the First does not make the older men of the Second Division of the same fighting value as those in the First.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who then represented the War Office, informed me in November, 1010, that—
"Section D is not the second class of the Army Reserve. It is now always classed in the first class of the Army Reserve."
This means that the second quality is mixed with the first, and the blend described as first class only. The country cannot form an accurate estimate of the value of the whole Reserve except you differentiate between the men passing from the Colours direct into the Reserve and the men re-enlisting into a section of the Reserve on completion of their full term of Colour and Reserve service. I should like to see the Regular Reserve kept in two classes and called first and second class, a distinction every man can understand. The batch of Reservists with whom I am dealing are the product of the three years of Colour service and nine years of Reserve service term of enlistment. Hence their minimum period of absence from the Colours is nine years and the maximum is thirteen years. Of these men the noble Viscount estimates to have, in round numbers, 30,000 by October 1, 1913.
There are three matters in connection with Section D of the Army Reserve which should be considered—first, the source of supply and its limits; secondly, the numbers required by the noble Viscount front that section to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of his Expeditionary Force and other mobilisation schemes; and, lastly, the ability of Section D men to perform combatant duties. The source of supply must be limited to the number of men who pass out of the Regular Reserve year by year after completing their twelve years of Colour and Reserve service. The enlistment is optional and consequently uncertain, but men who are not in a position to lose 6,d. a day are pretty sure to re-enlist,

269
provided always that they are passed as medically fit for active service. The outflow from the Reserve is now quite abnormal. When the extraordinary outflow ceases, then Section D must dwindle.
I ought to explain that last year the noble Viscount, when dealing with the Army Estimates on March 15, offered to time-expired soldiers of twelve years Colour and Reserve service three forms of re-enlistment—first, to re-enlist direct into the Special Reserve; secondly, to re-enlist into Section D of the Army Reserve; thirdly, on completion of four years in Section D, then to join the Special Reserve. The question arose as to whether men on completion of twelve years Colour and Reserve service would prefer to enlist into Section D, or go directly into the Special Reserve. On this point the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when Under-Secretary of State for War, took exactly opposite views. I infer, therefore, that their military advisers—I have no doubt they very well know their business—have given to each noble Lord precisely the advice which they knew would please him best at the particular moment. We all know how much pleasanter it is to get the expert opinion you want rather than the one you do not want. Lord Lucas, in a letter to the Press on July 8, 1910, wrote—
"Section D fills quickly whenever it is opened,"
and he added that—
"the Army Council base their conviction on years of experience."
But then what the noble Lord wanted to prove was the certainty of getting a large number of men in Section D.
Then comes the noble Viscount last year. He, on the other hand, cared nothing about the numbers of Section D, the point not being under discussion. His aim was to show an unfailing source of supply from which to fill the attenuated ranks of his Special Reserve battalions. So in explaining the Army Estimates on March 15, 1911, he stated that—
"Comparatively few men go to Section D,"
which shows that the noble Viscount has a supreme contempt for the convictions of the Army Council even when based on years of experience. The noble Viscount
270
meant to make his plan fill the ranks of the Special Reserve, so he clenched his argument by stating that—
"The Special Reservists get better rates of pay."
Now, if the noble Viscount will inquire into this matter he will find that he has got his figures wrong. The 6d. a day of the Section D men mounts up to more by some 45 s. at the end of the year than the pay and all the allowances of the Special Reservist. Again, life in Section D means no military training and 6d. a day in your pocket for certain. The Special Reservist must undergo four weeks' training a year, during which time, if he offends against discipline, he will find himself mulcted of much of his money, and if he is absent will be apprehended as a deserter.
Our present position is that we have lost nearly 37,000 men from the Colours since 1905, and that 39,617 men (in round numbers 40,000) will pass out of the great Reserve created by Lord Midleton between October 1, 1911, and October 1, 1913, as shown by the Annual Report on the British Army published in 1911. Of these 40,000 the noble Viscount estimates that he will re-enlist in Section D in round numbers 30,000 by February 1913. All 1 can say is that if 30,000 a re re-enlisted the medical examination must be merely nominal. The Under-Secretary of State for War has informed us that no statistics are available on this point. In four years time this batch of 40,000 men who enlisted sixteen years before will finally pass out of the Army—a matter which may possibly affect the noble Viscount's successor more than the noble Viscount himself. The noble Viscount seems to have realised that these reductions in the Regular Army and its Reserve are rather too sweeping. So we see him now engaged in trying to keep together the numbers of the Regular Reserve by asking time-expired men in the big Reserve which he inherited from his predecessor to re-enlist for another four years. By this simple plan, if at all successful, the noble Viscount may pass on to his successor the task of building up again the Regular Reserve but without the material for which he is indebted to Lord Midleton.
Then as to the total number of Section D men required by the noble Viscount to complete the mobilisation schemes which he is pledged to the country to carry out.

271
The noble Viscount requires, according to his statement on March 14, 1911, 9,840 (in round numbers 10,000) time-expired soldiers for his Special Reserve battalions. It is quite certain that if the men prefer to enlist into the Special Reserve—and the noble Viscount has told us that comparatively few men go to Section D—then Section D of the Army Reserve must be depleted. In estimating the strength of Section D in future 10,000 men must be deducted for service with the Special Reserve. The noble Viscount has set up a competition for time-expired soldiers between the Special Reserve battalions and the Army Reserve, and he must make allowance for its effect.
Then I beg to ask the noble Viscount the number required from Section D to proceed abroad at once with the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force if mobilisation takes place after October 1913. I must explain why I ask for the number in 1913. Next year Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve will be at their lowest, and the reductions in the Regular Army which the noble Viscount has initiated will have been realised. It is the weakest link in the chain by which the strength of the chain is determined, but for several years that link is not going to be appreciably stronger. In 1914 there will be an increase of 4,000 men in Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve; in 1915 another 4,000, and in 1916 another 1,000. A possible but by no means a certain addition of 9,000 men spread over three years is not going to make the whole difference to our position in the world as a military Power.
My last and most important point is the fitness both professional and physical of the Section D men for combatant duties in the First Line. It is well to have a clear idea of what the duties are which these reenlisted Reservists—that is, Section D men—will be required to perform. Let us assume that mobilisation takes place in view of a contingency which it is idle to suppose we contemplate as remote—namely, the employment of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force on the Continent of Europe. These men will have been absent from their regiments and engaged in civil life for a minimum of nine and a maximum of thirteen years without any military training. Then, within at most three weeks of rejoining the Colours
272
they will have to face the best of Continental troops. Will they be fit for an ordeal of that kind? Will they be a source of strength or of weakness to their units on the battlefield? That is the question I beg to put to the noble Viscount.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to Section D of the Regular Reserve.—(The Duke of Bedford.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Duke has not given me much time, as he only put down his Questions yesterday afternoon, but I think I am in a position to give him the desired information except on one point—I mean the information for which he asks as to the details of mobilisation. On that subject I think we ought to be stricter than we have been in the past. No other nation in the world gives its mobilisation details, and therefore I am afraid I cannot give the noble Duke this information. But I can give him a good deal of information in regard to the other points.
The first set of Questions which the noble Duke has put to me fall under three heads. Under the third head he asks for the total strength of the non-commissioned officers and men of the seventy - four Third Battalions of the Special Reserve, the difference between strength and establishment, the number under twenty years of age, and the number of non-commissioned officers and men whose term of service expires before February 1, 1913. He will find a great deal of this information, which, of course, he had not before him when he put down these Questions, in the General Annual Report of the Army which was published yesterday afternoon. He will there find a great deal of information directed to the points which he puts, but there are certain points which are not covered in the Annual Report. The Report, for instance, does not distinguish between the seventy-four Third Battalions and the twenty-seven Extra Special Reserve Battalions. I think it will be possible for me to get the information for which the noble Duke asks without putting an undue strain upon the persons concerned, but he will, I hope, be content to take it as from October 1 last. To get it as from February 1 would be to set the record officers to work at a time when they are very busy with other things, and the

273
three months cannot make any material difference for the noble Duke's purpose. I shall be able to give him the information as from October 1 last.
Then as regards the first and second Questions which he puts to me. I can give him an answer as to those. The General Annual Report gives the establishment and strength of officers of the Special Reserve on October 1, 1911. It does not, however, give the numbers by ranks and does not distinguish those who were transferred from the Militia. Nor, again, does it separate the seventy-four Third Battalions and the twenty-seven Extra Special Reserve Battalions. But I think I can give him the information. In fact, there is a Return moved for in the other House which gives a great; deal of it, and I will see whether I cannot include in the Return the further point for which the noble Duke asks. Therefore I think I shall be able to give the noble Duke all the information he desires, except that it will be from October 1 last instead of from February 1.
Then I come to the point raised by his second set of Questions. As regards the requirements on mobilisation, that, for the reasons I have indicated, I hope he will not press for. I do not think t would be right that we should make public statements on that point. But I can tell him what the general position of things is. In the first place, there are 22,870 men in Section D at the present time, but we can to-day mobilise without these and have a substantial surplus over. Nor have I any reason to anticipate that we should be in a difficulty in the years which are immediately coming on. The noble Duke talked of the Reserve being there because of Lord Midleton's three and nine years system. No doubt that is quite true. The noble Duke also pointed out that the Reserve would go clown. Of course it will go down, because the men who will come in and drive it down are the nine. years and three years men of Mr. Arnold-Forster's régime—nine years with the Colours and three years with the Reserve. You therefore want a smaller Reserve for that time. But that system obtained for only a short period.
Then we get to the present system of seven years and five years for the Infantry, and six years and six years for the Artillery.
274
But the seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve for the Infantry is the material point. On that we calculate for a Reserve which will amply cover what we desire. That Reserve is more elastic than it used to be, and for this reason. Though you know what you want for the requirements of all the units taken together, you are never sure how you stand about particular units unless you closely follow their changes. There may be, for instance, a regiment of Infantry where the commanding officer has been easy going and has allowed men to continue their service, and in that case the Reserve falls accordingly. There may be another where men have been allowed to go freely to the Reserve, and there the Reserve is large. Consequently we have to study each unit, and we encourage men in a unit which requires a large Reserve to go to the Reserve. In other cases we do not. The result is that while it is impossible for me to say what proportion of Section D is required, because the units do not depend on the same proportions, it is possible for us to keep our hand on the unit and to see that it is making a proper Reserve. A system of operations for this purpose was introduced a little more than a year ago.
Broadly speaking, the position is this. We have more than enough to mobilise without Section D just now. We may require Section D for individual units. We may require Section D in the future at the time of the transition, but I do not think that is likely to be materially so. The reason the Reserve will then be small is that the men will be serving for a longer time with the Colours and therefore fewer Reservists will be required to mobilise. When we are in the normal we have a quite sufficient Reserve, but it is good to have Section D and we shall always keep our hand on Section D, not only became there may be an unforeseen shortage in the Reserve but because there may be individual units which are required to be built up for the reasons I have given. Therefore, though this Section may seem superfluous, we propose always to keep our hand on Section D, expanding it and contracting it as seems most convenient. The noble Duke sees that I cannot properly answer the question of the number of Section D men we should use on mobilisation. I have no doubt we should use some for individual units, but we do not require Section D at present for the whole.

275
Then I come to the question of how they are to be used. We should, of course, always use Section B men in preference to Section D—that is to say, we should take the men who have more freshly come from the Colours in preference to men who had been some time from the Colours. The noble Duke spoke of Section D men as men who had been a long time from the Colours. No doubt that is so in the case of men who have served for three years with the Colours and been nine years in the Reserve, but that is a class which is largely falling away. In the case of the seven years and five years service, it is obvious that your Section D men have not been a long time away from the Colours, and still more is that so in the case of those who have been nine years with the Colours and three years in the Reserve. A man enlists, say, at the age of eighteen and leaves at thirty. There is often several years' excellent service in him at that time, and he has only been away from the Colours five years and has been in the Reserve during that period. Under the system we now have we are satisfied that Section D contains a large number of useful men; otherwise we should not keep it alive.
Then as regards the number of trained men over twenty years of age available in a unit in peace time, that also is a varying factor which governs the number of Reservists required. The noble Duke knows that if we were sending troops to India we should not send men under twenty, and that would mean that we should require a larger number of Reservists. That is a varying factor which one has to keep in view, and which may govern the extent to which we keep up Section D. Another element which introduces a certain degree of variation which we have to watch closely is this. As I have said, in units, particularly in Infantry battalions, which have a large number of men over twenty in them serving with the Colours and a small Reserve, we allow men to transfer to the Reserve prematurely in order to keep up the Reserve of these units, but we never can tell for certain how many will avail themselves of that. In the good state of recruiting which obtains now we can always get recruits, but we do not know how many men in the Colours will go prematurely into the Reserve. I think I have now covered the bulk of the Questions which the noble Duke put to me. If
276
there is anything I have omitted 1 have no doubt he will let me know, and I shall be happy to do my best to give him the information.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for his promise to give me the information about the Third and Fourth Battalions of the Special Reserve, and I should be very much obliged to him if he could differentiate between the Third and Fourth Battalions.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I can do that.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The noble Viscount was somewhat reticent as to the number of Section D men he would require with the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force. Possibly the noble Viscount would have no objection to my setting down on a future occasion on paper the figures which have been supplied by the War Office and which bear directly on this point, and asking him for further information. As regards the fitness of these men for service abroad, the noble Viscount alluded to the fact that in the future the three years Colour and nine years Reserve men would disappear. But at present Section D is composed of men who have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years. The men of Section D were tried on active service in South Africa and were found there to be very unsatisfactory. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to read the evidence which was given on that point before the South Africa War Commission by Sir Thomas Kelly-Kenny and Lord Methuen, because it has an important bearing on Section D. The following questions were put to Sir T. Kelly-Kenny by Sir G. Taubman Goldie—
Q.—Did you see much distinction in duality between Reservists and the men who in had been serving up to date?
A.—1 think there was a distinction in the older Reservists, the Section D, but in the case of the others who had not left the ranks long I did not see very much.
Q.—You did not hear of any difficulties as regards discipline?
A.—I did with regard to Section D—in fact, I experienced them myself; when they came up they grumbled a great deal.
Q.—But the other sections were quite up to the mark of the soldiers who were in the ranks before?
A.—I think so.
Q.—They had not lost their military habits?
A.—No, they had not; I could not trace anything against the Reservists I had.
Q.—Except Section D?
A.—That is so.
Then I come to the evidence given by General Lord Methuen. He was asked by the Chairman, Lord Elgin, as to the marching, and Lord Methuen replied—
"As soon as the weak men were weeded out and the troops were in condition there was no question as to the men marching well. I cannot ever recollect the men not being ready to do more than asked them to perform. I gladly include the Militia and the Volunteer companies in this statement. As long as the men are well fed and taken care of by their officers one need not fear stragglers. I except, as a rule, the men of Section D from the above remarks, as they fell out, and we left a good many behind at different places."
Q.—What does that mean with regard to Section D?
A.—They are men having special qualifications. I was going to say they are more or less veterans who go into Section D.
Q.—And he (a Section D man) is a man who has gone through the Reserve and is allowed to come back?
A.—Yes, and only for special reasons he is allowed to go on.
Q.— He may have fallen out because he was physically unfit?
A.—That is so, I think, because he was more or less a cripple.
Lord Methuen is more than satisfied with the marching and willingness of the men in the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers, but he especially excepts the men in Section D. He tells us they fell out and that he left a great many behind at different places. He describes them as veterans, and on the point of physical fitness he describes the type of man as a cripple. Sir T. Kelly-Kenny places them in a class by themselves, and that is what ought to be done now. The noble Viscount ought to differentiate between the men in Sections A and B and in Section D by calling the re-enlisted men the second class of the Army Reserve and not relying on them for First Line duties. The fact is the non-commissioned officers and men in Section D have been too long away from the Colours. Take the case of the noncommissioned officers. They pass to the Reserve and re-enlist in Section D with the same rank with which they left the Colours. A non-commissioned officer who has been in civil life for twelve or thirteen years must be unfit to command serving soldiers in action within three weeks of rejoining.
Again, I must remind the noble Viscount that whereas the men condemned by Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny had been absent from the Colours from five to nine years, the men upon whom he relies will
278
in some cases have been absent from nine to thirteen years, because they are the Reserve product of the three years' Colour service term of enlistment, thus not only intensifying but in some cases even doubling the unfitness due to the prolonged absence from the Colours on account of which Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny condemned the Section D men for active service. I can also quote a colleague of the noble Viscount. The present First Lord of the Admiralty, who speaks with a considerable war experience, said during the debate on the Army Estimates on March 5, 1910, whilst praising the Army administration of the noble Viscount, that—
"Men who had only been three years with the Colours and who had been away six, seven, eight, and even nine years frail the Colours could not be satisfactory soldiers on whom to rely at a moment of need."
But this is not a case of eight or nine years absence, but of twelve or thirteen. The noble Viscount has not produced any evidence to show us why men who were unfit for active service in South Africa after nine years of absence from the Colours are fit for the Expeditionary Force on the Continent of Europe after twelve or thirteen years of absence in civil life. The evidence of Field-Marshal Lord Methuen and General Sir Thomas Kelly-Kenny makes it absolutely certain that Section D men are not fit for service with the Expeditionary Force, and that to rely upon them for the fighting line is the organisation of defeat and not of victory.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is quite true that Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny took the line stated by the noble Duke, but at that time Section D was a much less organised body than it is now, and I think a great many of the men did not clearly understand that they could be taken back to the Colours and sent out to South Africa. Consequently there was a great deal of grumbling, and much of the evidence collected by the noble Duke turned on the grumbling.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD. Lord Methuen specially says that the Section D man was more or less a cripple and could not march, apart from his grumbling.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I know he said that about some of them, but there was a

279
great difference of opinion. The noble Duke has quoted Sir T. Kelly-Kenny and Lord Methuen. I should like to read an extract from the evidence given by General Sir R. L. Rundle—
Q.— Did you find that class of Reservist differ from another?
A.—No, not a bit.
Q.—We have heard from some witnesses that the Reservists, having been away for some time from their regiments, were not quite acquainted at first with the modern conditions or even with the rifle that they were called upon to use. Did you find any difficulty in that respect?
A.—None. I never found any difficulty. Of course, naturally there was a certain amount of rustiness; but that must be expected. It was fully made up by the increased intelligence and the extra age of the men who came back, and it very soon wore off.
I give that as the view of another distinguished General to show that even then there was not a consensus at all about the utility of Section D, and I have no doubt that to this hour there is a good deal of difference of opinion; but I think it is plain that, if a man has only been away five years from the Colours and is of the age of thirty or thirty-one, there is no reason to expect that he has forgotten very much. That is different from the case of a man who has been away for a longer
280
period, and the normal of Section D will certainly be considerably shorter than that of the Section D men to whom the noble Duke referred and who are beginning to pass away.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that the Motion which is on the Paper for to-morrow is not going to be taken until Wednesday next, which involves there being no business on the Paper for to-morrow. Therefore, with your Lordships' approval, I suggest that the House should adjourn until Monday.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.