Sitting of 12 June 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and North-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS COMPANY BILL [Lords]—(By Order).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. BOOTH: I object.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): I hope my hon. Friend will allow this and the subsequent Bills to go through, because I have seen the agent for the promoters, and he tells me that he will give the hon. Member an assurance in writing that the powers contained in this Bill will not be used by the promoters in any way inimical or hostile to the National Insurance Act.
Mr. BOOTH: I withdraw my opposition.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed.
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Herne Bay Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Military Lands Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Standing Orders.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Bawtry and District Gas Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'the Bromley Corporation,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords],
Everton, etc., Drainage Bill [Lords],
Penwortham Bridge Bill [Lords],
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of St. Alban's Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Memorandum showing Advances from the Development Fund sanctioned by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, to or through the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, up to 31st March 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1909.
Copy presented of Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1912 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 220, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. J. O'Connor.]
CROWN COLONIES (DEATH SENTENCES).
Address for Return, "showing the number of Death Sentences and Executions in British Crown Colonies and Protectorates during the year 1911, with the population of such Crown Colonies and Protectorates, respectively (in continuation of Cd. 5779)."—[Mr. George Greenwood.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Egypt.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether in view of the normal requirements of the situation and of the difficulties the Italians were experiencing in Tripoli, the Government proposed to raise the strength of the Army of occupation in Egypt to a division with a brigade of Cavalry, the strength formerly foreshadowed by Lord Haldane?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): No statement can be made on this matter.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Have the troops recently sent away from Egypt yet returned?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot say that.
  Sir J. D. REES: Am I right in attributing to Lord Haldane the statement in the question, or is it repudiated?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that it is in any way repudiated.

  Army (Reserve of Petrol).
  Mr. WEIGALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he would
  836
  state the amount of petrol now in hand for the use of the Army; and what provisions were made for the storage of as reserve supply for use in case of emergency?
  Mr. TENNANT: Petrol is at present supplied by contractors on requisition. The question of storage of a reserve is now under consideration.
  Mr. WEIGALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Governments of foreign powers are now paying considerable annual subsidies in order to ensure reserve supplies of petrol, and is it the opinion of the Government that what is a. necessity to other countries is only a. luxury to this country?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have been informed that other countries are making such provision, and it is the question which I have1 stated is under the consideration of the War Office. A decision will be arrived at very soon.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is there no storage of petrol at the present time?
  Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes. We have a. considerable storage.

  10th (County of London) Battalion.
  Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he would state the number of men of the Paddington Rifles in camp the first week 1909 and 1910, second week 1909 and 1910, and the last field day in those two years?
  Mr. TENNANT: The general officer commanding the London District has been requested to make the necessary enquiries.
  Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he had now made inquiries why the number of men of the Paddington Rifles in camp last year fell considerably in the second week; and, if not, would he make the necessary inquiries?
  Mr. TENNANT: The general officer commanding the London District has been requested to make inquiries.
  Mr. HARRISasked how many recruits joined the 10th (County of London) battalion during the year ending 31st October, 1911; and whether they exceeded the number of recruits who joined any other County of London battalion during, the same period?
  Mr. TENNANT: The number of recruits who joined this unit during the year ending 30th September last amounted to 118. This number is greater than the number of recruits who joined some units and less than the numbers who joined other units. There are no figures available for the year ending 31st October, but there were only seven recruits taken for this unit during the quarter ending 31st December.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the decision to disband the 10th (County of London) battalion was taken against the advice of the County Territorial Association, and without holding any local inquiry or conferring with the local Territorial committee in order to ascertain whether the conditions militating against the battalion were removable or not; and whether he had considered the discouraging effect this disregard of local opinion would have upon those working to promote the interests of the citizen force?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the full reply given last Monday to a question put on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the North-East Division of Bethnal Green, to which I have nothing to add.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Has the War Office the power to disband any battalion in spite of the protest of the County Association?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; I think there is a power of that kind.

  War Office Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he had received a complaint as to the non observance of the Fair-Wages Clause by the firms of Albrecht and Albrecht and R. B. Brown, both of Leeds, in the working hours of their employés; and whether he was taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: A complaint has been received, and is being inquired into.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Major HENDERSONasked who were the officers who formed the Selection Board for promotion; how many officers were required to form a quorum; how often the Board met; when it last met; and also the average attendance during the past two years?
    Mr. TENNANT: The officers composing the Selection Board are the Inspectors-General of the Home and Oversea forces, the Commanders-in-Chief of the Aldershot, Eastern, Southern, and Irish Commands, and the four Military Members of the Army Council. Five is laid down as a quorum, but the absence of any of the members is unusual except in the case of the Inspector-General of the Oversea forces. The Board meets once a month and last met on 6th June. The average attendance is eight.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say on whose advice the Selection Board acts when deciding who shall receive appointments?
    Mr. TENNANT: They act on their own authority. They are appointed by the Secretary of State.
    Major HENDERSON: By whom are recommendations made?
    Mr. TENNANT: The recommendations come in the ordinary course. The "book" of each officer is before the Board, and they have the record of each particular officer.
    Major HENDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to bring in an officer to command the 1st battalion of the Berkshire Regiment; and, if so, whether the selected officer has war service, whether he has been through the Staff College, and what staff service he has had; and whether he is aware that there are three majors in the regiment who have received the Distinguished Service Order and one who received a brevet-majority during the South African War?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not considered desirable to debar officers from extra regimental promotion because they have seen no war service, and have not passed the Staff College. I cannot think that it is in the best interests of the Service to canvass the merits of individual cases of promotion, or the recommendations of the Selection Board which are made within the discretion allowed to them.
    Major HENDERSON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that promotion in this way, and the passing over of officers in the way suggested, tends to get recruits or to get young officers to join?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that many have been passed over. I do not

    839
    think it rightly comes within the discretion of Members of this House to interfere with the discretion of a Board which has been specially selected for this very office with its onerous duties.

    DIVINE WORSHIP.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any discouragement is or will be given to officers and men of the Regular Army from exercising their rights of attending divine worship at churches of their own denomination under paragraph 1333 of the King's Regulations; and whether capitation grant will be paid to clergymen of such denominations in proportion to the number of soldiers attending such divine worship?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, capitation rates of pay will be given to such officiating clergymen as have been appointed by the General Officer Commanding to receive them under the conditions of Article 361, Royal Warrant for Pay, etc.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If the hon. Gentleman finds in a garrison 15 per cent. belonging to one denomination, and 85 per cent. to another, may I ask if it is usual to appoint a chaplain to the greater or the lesser denomination?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it is usual to appoint to the greater.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is that the intention of the War Office in regard to Perth?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps the Noble Lord will give me notice of that.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether clergymen who are not officially appointed chaplains have the right of entering barracks for the purpose of giving religious instruction to children of their denomination and other religious purposes, as per paragraph 1342 of the King's Regulations?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such clergymen would not have the right to enter the barracks, but would doubtless be permitted to do so on application to the commanding officer.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (RESEARCH DEPARTMENT).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a petition was received at the War Office in or about August, 1911, from the chemical staff of the Research Department of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; whether any and, if so, what answer has been given to that petition; whether complaints have been made that the conditions of employment of expert chemists are so unsatisfactory that trained chemists are leaving the Research Department; and whether, with a view to fill a vacancy in that department, an advertisement was inserted in May last by the War Office in a periodical called "Nature," offering a salary of £100 a year for a competent assistant chemist, who was required to be a university graduate with analytical experience as a condition of appointment?
    Mr. TENNANT: The petition was received and is still under consideration. Complaints that the present conditions of employment are unsatisfactory are contained in the petition, and some chemists have left the department to better themselves. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative: £100 a year is the initial salary.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is it the custom of the War Office to leave petitions from an important body like the Research Department unanswered for ten months?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope sincerely that that is not the practice of the War Office.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I further ask why, in the advertisement to which I have referred and which I hold in my hand, there is no mention made of salary beyond £100; and is that the usual salary given by the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: One hundred pounds is the initial salary, but some of these appointments, I understand, rise to £400 and £450.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the hon. Gentleman state the amount of annual increment, and having regard to the importance of securing highly efficient—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman wants these details he should give notice.

    RE-ENGAGEMENTS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware

    841
    of the resentment felt in the Army by soldiers who enlisted before the new regulation was enacted which prevents more than 10 per cent. re-engaging; and whether he could see his way to alter the regulations so that the men who enlisted before the regulation was made shall be excepted from it?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no new regulation on this matter. A circular letter dated 25th January, 1907, pointed out to commanding officers the desirability in the interests of the Service generally of restricting re-engagements amongst rank and file to 10 per cent. of their numbers. Paragraph 264 of the King's Regulations lays down that in the case of soldiers below the rank of sergeant permission to re-engage can be given at the discretion of the commanding officer.
    Mr. HUNT: Is there no difference in the Regulations? Is it not a fact that soldiers are now prevented serving on if they want to if there are over 10 per cent. of applications?
    Mr. TENNANT: I imagine that depends upon each individual case. What I stated was that in the case of soldiers below the rank of sergeant permission to re-engage could be given at the discretion of the commanding officer.
    Mr. HUNT: Yes, but are we to understand that the War Office distinctly told commanding officers that they are not as a rule to give it?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; the regulation is not new.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Was this regulation to prevent re-engagement issued in 1907 with a view to limiting as far as possible the Service pensions?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think so. Though I was not at the War Office at the time, the policy was adopted in order that we might have larger Reserves.

    AGE OF RECRUITS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many of the 88,000 men taken for naval and military training in the United Kingdom in 1910 were under nineteen years of age; and how many of the men taken for naval and military training in France and in Germany in 1910 were under the age of nineteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: As regards France and Germany no figures can be given for the ages of those who engage voluntarily;
    842
    voluntary engagement is allowed from eighteen years of age. As regards the United Kingdom, only approximate figures could be given for the numbers under nineteen years of age, and as they are desired for comparison with the figures for France and Germany, which are not available, I hope the hon. Member will not press for them.
    Mr. HUNT: Surely we may really know-how many boys or men there were under nineteen years of age?
    Mr. TENNANT: Only approximate figures are available.
    Mr. HUNT: Well, can the hon. Gentleman give me the approximate figures if I put a question down?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will endeavour to do so.

    BRITISH GARRISON IN SOUTH AFRICA.
    Mr. FELLasked the Undersecretary of State for War what is the strength of the British garrison in South Africa at the present time, and how it is made up?
    Mr. TENNANT: The detailed establishments of the British garrison in South Africa will be found on page 24 of the Army Estimates.

    MILITARY BANDS AT POLITICAL GATHERINGS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the band of the 1st Life Guards is announced to play at Hinchingbrooke, Huntingdon, on 6th July next, at a gathering half of the proceeds of which are to be given to the Primrose League; and whether the performances of military bands at political party gatherings is in conformity with the Regulations?
    Mr. TENNANT: Inquiries are being made into this matter.
    Mr. KING: Will the inquiry be pressed, because the matter is one of considerable importance?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Have military bands not played at Nonconformist chapels?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unaware of it. I will forward the inquiry of the hon. Member (Mr. King).
    Colonel YATE: If military bands are prevented from playing at gatherings of this sort, will the Government give an increased allowance to make up for the loss of money to the Band fund.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is obvious that there ought to be a rule that no military band should play at any gathering of this kind.
    Mr. KING: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to get along if hon. Members persist in raising Debates upon each question.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (SCOTTISH COMMAND).
    Captain CAMPBELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what reasons led up to the appointment of a Regular officer to command the 4th Lowland (H.) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, Scottish Command; whether he is aware that a Territorial officer has been appointed to the command of the 3rd Lowland Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, in Scotland; whether he will state the reasons which govern the appointment of a Regular officer to command one brigade and a Territorial officer to command another; and whether he will consider the advisability of encouraging Territorial officers by arranging that if efficient and qualified they shall not be debarred from the command of their units?
    Mr. TENNANT: Territorial officers are selected to command Field Artillery Brigades when suitable and qualified officers are available. In the case of the 4th Lowland Brigade the officer commanding the Divisional Artillery, the Divisional Commander, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief were of the opinion that there was no Territorial officer available, either in the Brigade or in the Divisional Artillery, who had sufficient technical knowledge and experience adequately to carry out the training of the Brigade, and they recommended the appointment of a suitable Regular officer.
    Captain CAMPBELL: Arising out of that answer, whilst I acknowledge that the Regular officer ought to be in many cases—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement like that now.
    Captain CAMPBELL: May I ask, then, if the hon. Gentleman is aware that the officer to whom he has referred has passed every qualifying and practical examination, whereas the other officer commanding the 3rd Lowland Brigade has not passed those examinations, yet he has been given preferential treatment—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is in the nature of an argument. He must raise it at the proper time, not at Question Time.
    Captain CAMPBELL: With all due respect, Sir—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept any contradiction of that statement.

    RAILWAY ENGINEER BATTALION, CREWE.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will say what is the reason for disbanding the Railway Engineer Battalion at Crewe; and what other means he proposes for utilising the services of these trained railwaymen in time of war?
    Mr. TENNANT: A military organisation for working railways in the United Kingdom in time of war is not considered necessary. It is, however, held to be expedient to secure a limited number of railwaymen who could undertake a liability for service abroad, and proposals for the best method of securing their services are now under consideration.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (VISIT TO FLEETS).
    Mr. DENMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state with what object the Houses of Parliament are invited to visit the Fleet at the public expense, and what is the estimated cost of the visit?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): It is desirable that Members of both Houses of Parliament should have opportunities from time to time of visiting the Fleets, over whose interests they watch, and for whose maintenance they provide. There are numerous precedents in the past for such visits, and since they are made for public purposes, and are in the nature of public duty, it is fitting that the ordinary expenses should be defrayed by the State, and the convenience of Members of both Houses properly attended to. The cost will not be excessive, but a final estimate cannot be framed till the acceptances are received.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Admitting the desirability of the visit, why should we not pay our own railway fares?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: As this is to be an official visit, will it be confined to Members of both Houses of Parliament?
    Mr. BENTHAM: May I ask whether, as on former occasions, it would be possible to include a lady?
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending this visit to Malta?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that might somewhat interfere with the business of the House of Commons. Although it is important the House should visit the Fleet, it has other duties to attend to here. I do not quite comprehend the point of my hon. Friend's question. No doubt a great many people will take advantage of the spectacle of the ships, but it is not proposed that any public expenditure should be incurred except for some persons connected with the Admiralty and a limited number of officials of the two Houses.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I mean upon the vessel provided for Members of both Houses. If this is to be a public official visit, I want to know whether it is to be confined to Members of both Houses? My acceptance one way or another depends upon the answer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It certainly will be regarded as an official visit. I should not like to give an answer which would deprive us of the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's company.

    DOCKYARD WORKMEN'S PETITIONS.
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the date when the replies to the petitions of the workmen of His Majesty's dockyards will be issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The work of formulating replies is being expedited. We hope to promulgate our decisions very shortly.

    ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, OSBORNE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if the Government has any intention to remove the Royal Naval College from Osborne or to reduce the average number of cadets now trained there?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No such proposals are at present before the Board.

    GERMAN AND BRITISH FLEETS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers are now in full commission for the German Navy, and to what number this is to be increased under the Navy Law Amendment Act of
    846
    1912, and the number of British destroyers now in full commission in Home waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of German destroyers in commission varies from time to time, as all the flotillas are not kept in commission continuously. At present full crews are maintained on board or in barracks for sixty-six boats in Home waters, which may therefore be considered as available for immediate service. This number is to be increased to ninety-nine, in accordance with the Memorandum to the Estimates of 1906. No increase in the number of destroyers maintained ready for service is made by the Naval Law Amendment Act of 1912. In addition to the boats in Home waters, there are two in commission in China. The number of British destroyers with full crews in Home waters is sixty-five at the present time; but in instituting a comparison regard should be had to the nucleus-crew flotillas also.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it is as a grave dereliction of duty for the Admiralty to have established flotillas so much to our disadvantage compared with Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I cannot admit that at all. The question of the relative strength of the flotillas of the two countries would require to be stated in great detail for justice to be done to it. Then I am confident a more reassuring impression would be created than would be derived from the figures taken by the hon. Gentleman. At the same time we are rapidly increasing the number of our flotillas in commission.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Are not the German flotillas on the average newer than ours, and therefore more effective?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. We have a larger number of new boats than the other country in question, and, as I told the House on the Navy Estimates, no less than fifty-one new destroyers will join the Fleet in the course of the next eighteen or nineteen months.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether in the financial years from 1906–7 to 1912–13, inclusive, the number of armoured ships provided to be laid down for the British Fleet is thirty and for the German, twenty-four; the number of small cruisers, thirty and fourteen, respectively; the number of destroyers, 106 and eighty-four, respectively; and whether he will explain how

    847
    the margin of superiority thus indicated is in accord with the standard officially laid down?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member has omitted to include the battle cruiser "New Zealand" and the ships of the Australian Fleet unit, but with these exceptions the figures are correctly stated. I cannot with advantage argue out the details of Fleet strength at Question Time.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is this maintaining the 60 per cent. margin which the right hon. Gentleman himself laid down as essential?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the programme of new construction which I indicated to the House, on behalf of the Government, when introducing the Naval Estimates, is followed, 60 per cent. preponderance in battleships of the "Dreadnought" class will be maintained.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Then the right hon. Gentleman admits that until this year the Government did not keep up the margin of safety?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I made no such admission as that, and I carefully explained that our margin of preponderance rises as the value of the old ships decline.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that last year we had 60 per cent. margin of modern ships?

    "ALL-BIG-GUN" SHIPS (FRANCE, ITALY, AND AUSTRIA).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many ships of the all-big-gun type have been launched for France, Italy, and Austria, and what is the estimated number of completed ships of this class which these Powers will respectively possess at the end of 1915?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no official information on this subject.

    PROTECTED CRUISERS (NEW THIRD FLEET).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked what is the number of protected cruisers in the five cruiser squadrons attached to the new Third Fleet; and how many have been launched less than fifteen years and twenty years and over, respectively?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number is at present twenty-five. Of these, five have been launched less than fifteen years, eleven less than twenty years, and nine over twenty years.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these nine ships over twenty years of age are really an effective aid to our battle fleet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The relative value of ships must depend upon their age and characteristics; and those that are less valuable are placed in the third fleet, and the lower down the list in the squadrons they come in the third fleet, the less is their value for the purposes of war.

    PATROL FLOTILLAS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the original scheme of organisation for the patrol flotillas included ninety-seven destroyers and torpedo-boats; whether he is aware that the current issue of the Navy List accounts for only ninety-three; and whether it has now been decided to reduce the number in commission with nucleus crews to eighty; and, if so, what is the reason for these reductions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if destroyers paid off for refit are included. The number shown in the current Navy List is 91, and there are in addition six others paid off for refit. The number is about to be reduced to 80, as it is considered that twenty destroyers is a more convenient number to keep in each flotilla at the present time, now that the new organisation has been established.
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if one of the very important reasons is that he has not got enough men to man these ships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall have sufficient men at the dates when the new flotillas are put into commission, and they will be put into commission as their presence becomes necessary. The men will be there when the time comes to increase these flotillas in numbers.
    Mr. ASHLEY: At the present time the right hon. Gentleman has not got the men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: At the present time I have not got men to man more than the ships that are necessary.

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Sir REGINALD POLE - CAREWasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement as to the disposition and strength of the fleet in the Mediterranean in the immediate future?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be probably found convenient that the presentation of

    849
    the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy and the discussion on the Shipbuilding Vote should take place some time during the month of July; and I shall take the advantage of this opportunity to make a further statement upon the naval situation on behalf of the Government.
    Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement about the whole defence of the Mediterranean?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am answering the specific question in the Paper which has reference to the Mediterranean, and I do not apprehend there will be any difficulty in my making to the House any statement which it would be proper and convenient to make at this juncture.

    Foreign Auxiliary Merchant Ships.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what are the names, displacements, and nominal speeds of the merchant ships auxiliary to the German Navy; and what armament they are intended to carry?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures asked for are as follows:—

    France—

    Launched

    8

    Completed by 1st Jan., 1916

    13

    Italy—

    Launched

    4

    Completed by 1st Jan., 1916

    6

    Austria-Hungary—

    Launched

    2

    Completed by 1st Jan., 1916

    4

    These figures may be affected by new construction of which we know nothing at present.

    Shanghai (Chinese Military Governor).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a Report from the British Minister in Peking upon the action of the Chinese Military Governor at Shanghai in violating the laws of the Settlement; and will he state the facts?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Sir J. Jordan reports that on 25th March he received a telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai stating that the manager of the Ta-ching native bank had been seized outside the limits of the International Settlement, by order of the Military Governor, and taken to the Chinese city. The charge against him
    850
    was a vague one of falsifying accounts. The bank's premises being situated within the Settlement, the seizure of the manager without previous consultation with the Consular body was a violation of the principles on which the government of the Settlement is administered, and Sir J. Jordan accordingly made representations to the Provisional President, Yuan Shih Kai, who telegraphed orders for an inquiry to be instituted. On 3rd April another Chinese resident of the International Settlement was seized, on this occasion within the limits of the Settlement itself, and the Diplomatic body at Peking, having met to consider the situation, telegraphed authority to the Consular body at Shanghai to take all necessary measures for the protection of the rights and privileges of the Settlement. On 11th April Mr. Consul-General Fraser reported the release of the man seized on 3rd April, and on 17th April the senior Consul reported that the manager of the Ta-ching bank had also been set at liberty. Sir J. Jordan does not indicate in his despatch that he apprehends a repetition of these incidents, nor would it appear that the Diplomatic body at Peking consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter.
    Sir G. PARKER: Can the hon. Member say whether any apology has been made to the Chinese Governor of Shanghai?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will look into the matter again, because I am not quite certain on the point.

    Ottoman Government (Officers for Gendarmerie).
    Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether the Ottoman Government has lately applied to His Majesty's Government for officers for the gendarmerie?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Ottoman Government have lately applied to His Majesty's Government for five officers for the service in question.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the hon. Gentleman state why the gendarmerie officers; were withdrawn?
    Mr. ACLAND: That has no connection with the question on the Paper, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.
    Mr. MARK SYKES: Is the Government going to provide those officers?
    Mr. ACLAND: We are considering the conditions. The matter is still under consideration.

    Fugitive Criminals (France and England).
    Mr. NIELDasked whether he is aware that, in the case of fugitives charged with burglary or robbery, the delays consequent on correspondence for extradition between France and England being conducted through the Foreign Offices of the respective countries not infrequently interposes an insuperable barrier to the arrest of the criminal and to the recovery of the stolen goods; whether His Majesty's Government will make representations to the French Government favouring the substitution of direct correspondence between the police of both countries in place of the practice at present observed; and whether he is aware that the accelerated modern travel facilities, coupled with the existing machinery for extradition, furnish an incitement to crime which prompt action through the police of either country would serve to mitigate?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware that the practice at present in force between this country and France involves any delay in the apprehension of fugitive criminals. The police authorities of the two countries are in constant direct communication with each other respecting the movements of suspected persons, although they are not authorised to apply for their arrest. Applications for the provisional arrest in France of fugitive criminals, with a view to their ultimate extradition, are made by the British Consular officer in whose district the fugitive is located, on receipt of telegraphic instructions from the Foreign Office which are invariably dispatched with the utmost promptitude. In the converse case, in this country, the Consul-General of France, under instructions from his Government, makes direct application to the magistrate at Bow Street, for a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. When such provisional arrests are effected the necessary documentary evidence in support of an application for extradition follows as soon as possible in the case of both countries. The machinery is thus as expeditious as it is possible to make it, consistently with the necessary safeguards, and I do not see how any effective change can be made in it.
    Mr. NIELD: Is the hon. Member aware that not only in the case of provisional arrest, but in actual cases where the warrant has been applied for, in consequence of the delay in the correspondence between the two countries the magistrates have discharged the prisoners?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, I am not aware of it.

    Chinese Loan.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has any official information showing that the group of bankers negotiating the Chinese loan at Pekin are seeking to force the Government to borrow £60,000,000, although only £10,000,000 is needed; and whether he will instruct the British representative at Pekin to aid the Chinese Government in resisting the efforts of international financiers to place China under such financial obligation to Europe as would seriously threaten her autonomy?
    Mr. ACLAND: The initiative in this matter lies with the Chinese Government and only that amount which is actually requested by them will be advanced by the financial groups. Far from the autonomy of China being in any way threatened by the conclusion of the loan, its whole object is to enable her to establish a stable administration and so consolidate her position, and no attempt is being made to force China to borrow anything; the position is that if money is borrowed it should be on proper conditions.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Do I understand from the hon. Member's reply that China is asking for £60,000,000, or that the international bankers are compelling China to accept this sum?
    Mr. ACLAND: Oh, no. This sum was definitely asked for by China. They asked for £60,000,000, to be spread over five years, and that sum will only be advanced as it is required by the Chinese Government and as security is available.

    Walfisch Bay (Cession to Foreign Powers).
    Mr. COOPERasked if the Government have recently had under consideration the cession of Walfisch Bay to a foreign Power?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member for Canterbury on 22nd February, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Andover on 28th March.

    Ram Chand (Canada).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Bam Chand, who resided formerly in Canada and had been favourably known to the authorities in Vancouver and Victoria,

    853
    British Columbia; whether he is aware that Earn Chand is an Indian student who before leaving Canada for a holiday in India obtained a letter, dated 27th June, 1911, from Mr. L. M. Fortier, the superintendent of immigration at Ottawa, setting out that he might return without question to Canada, but that when he attempted, on 10th May, 1912, to land at Victoria, he was refused admission to the Colony, and forced to go on to Seattle; and whether he will ask the Canadian Government for an explanation of these events?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the evidence on which his question is based, I will make inquiry of the Canadian Government.

    Trinidad (Hart v. Soonanan).
    Mr. POINTERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the case of Hart v. Soonanan, which was tried in the Chaguanas Police Court, Trinidad, on 26th April last, and to the cross-summons arising therefrom tried in the same Court on 2nd May, in which Soonanan received a sentence of £5, or two months' hard labour, for an alleged threatened assault upon Hart, the estate manager, whilst Hart, who admitted having assaulted Soonanan, escaped without any punishment; and whether, seeing that similar incidents are constantly occurring and seem to be inseparable from the practice of indentured labour, he can hold out any hope that the system will be abolished in the near future?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no official information on the matter, but have seen newspaper reports from which I observe that it was a case of cross-summonses for menaces and assault, and that an appeal has been entered. Assaults and allegations of assault are unfortunately not unknown elsewhere, and I do not think that occasional Police Court proceedings afford sufficient ground for depriving the Colony of an indispensable supply of labour.
    Mr. POINTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the difference in the sentences, namely, that in one case where the assault was proved and admitted and the man proceeded against was let off, and in the other case where it was merely alleged that there had been a threatened assault the man was convicted?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I have no official information.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that there is a report to the effect that indentured labour was equally beneficial to the indentured labour and to the Colony to which it was sent?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not carry that particular reference in my mind.

    Tonga Group of Islands.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether, in view of the difficulty of administering the Tonga group of islands, the right hon. Gentleman will enter into communication with the New Zealand Government with a view to dealing with the group in a way similar to that which has proved so successful in the case of the Cook Islands?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The relations between this country and the kingdom of Tonga are regulated by treaties under which the internal administration is in the hands of the King and Government of Tonga. So long as those treaties last His Majesty's Government are not in a position to consider the making of other arrangements for the administration of the group.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS BY COAST-GUARDSMEN.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the men belonging to His Majesty's coastguard are ordered to distribute leaflets, forms, and other documents relative to the National Insurance Act amongst fishermen; and, if so, whether he is aware that these men are already fully occupied with the duties of watching the coast, compiling fishery statistics, recording air and water temperatures, and keeping a vigilant eye on the movements of warships?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): In order to give information to fishermen who are in the service of an employer of their special position under the Insurance Act arrangements were made by the Insurance Commissioners with the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for utilising the services of their officers at the fishing ports to exhibit posters, to supply leaflets if applied for, and to allow any fisherman who called to sign a form. Where, as in some few instances, the officer under the Board of

    855
    Fisheries was also a coastguardsman, he performed these temporary duties. In two or three eases the local officer has suggested that the coastguardsman in the neighbourhood would have a better opportunity of exhibiting the poster than he would, and the Admiralty have informed their district captains that if a coastguardsman applied for permission to exhibit posters he might do so provided it did not interfere with his ordinary duties. Such exhibition of posters would not appear to interfere with the important duties enumerated in the question of the Noble Lord.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will that be extended to Scotland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.

    MEN EMPLOYED IN ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, when a man meets with an accident for which he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and he neglects to enforce his claim, the approved society or the Insurance Commissioners can either take proceedings in his name or withhold any benefit to which he may otherwise be entitled; and whether the Insurance Commissioners would be prepared to take proceedings with a view of compelling the Admiralty to pay compensation to men employed in the dockyards supposing that they are certified to be entitled to it by a medical practitioner other than the surgeon in charge of the yard?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Where a person who appears to be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act unreasonably refuses or neglects to enforce his claim, his society or the Insurance Committee may themselves take proceedings to enforce the claim. No such power, however, rests with the Insurance Commissioners, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    EXPLANATORY LEAFLETS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the growing practice of public Departments publishing leaflets and other memoranda supposed to be explanatory of Acts, such as the Shops Act and the National Insurance Act; and, seeing that the publication of such documents amounts to an interference with
    856
    the functions of the Courts of Justice to interpret law, whether, in cases where the Courts of Justice interpret the law differently to the opinions expressed in such official memoranda, persons who have relied upon the information contained in such memoranda will be indemnified by the Government in respect of any costs that they may be called upon to pay?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In the case of most recent social legislation it has been found desirable by Departments concerned to issue leaflets and memoranda explaining in plain language the effect of the Acts to those persons specially affected by them. This policy has been continued in the case of the Shops Act and the Insurance Act. The publication of such documents in no way interferes with the function of the Courts of Justice to interpret law, nor am I aware of any case in which persons have been injured by information in such official memoranda.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (IRELAND).
    Mr. LARDNERasked (1) how many officials have been appointed in Ireland to administer Part II. of the National Insurance Act; how many of these are Civil servants, and how many are private individuals, and, if the latter, how many are employed wholly in the administration of the Act and how many are only engaged for part time; and (2) how many offices have been opened or are proposed to be opened in Ireland for the administration of the National Insurance Act, Part II., in Ireland; how many of these have been established in post offices in Ireland, and how many have been placed under the control of private individuals; and what scale of salaries is proposed to be paid to postmasters and private individuals, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Part II. of the National Insurance Act will be administered in Ireland by the Board of Trade through the twenty-four Labour Exchanges which have been or are about to be established, the staff of which consists of 103 whole-time officers, and through 129 local agencies, in which the staff are only part-time officers: eighty of these are Civil servants in the employ of the Post Office. The remuneration of private individuals and commissioned sub-postmasters is based on the number of unemployment books current in the area of the agency at

    857
    the end of the year upon a fixed scale. Any question as to the remuneration to be paid to salaried officers of the Post Office is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

    Motor Ambulances (Boards of Guardians).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say whether, on a motor ambulance employed solely by a board of guardians for the removal of chargeable persons, there can be allowed a remission of duty on the petrol used for the motor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no provision for the remission of duty on petrol used in propelling motor ambulances, but the question of the amendment of the law upon this point is under consideration.

    Hop Substitutes (Prohibitive Legislation).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will, at an early date, introduce legislation prohibiting the use of hop substitutes in brewing, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry in 1908, and in fulfilment of the conditional promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22nd July, 1908?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am unable to hold out any prospect of legislation on this subject during the present Session.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this subject is non-controversial, and that legislation in this direction is desired by all parties?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the year 1908 such a Bill was promised if general assent was given to the principle, but that general assent was not forthcoming.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is it not a fact that the opposition to that Bill was on the question of the marking of foreign hops, and not on the point raised in this question?

    Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will ascertain from the documents filed with the Board by the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia in respect of 1892 the amount due now on the fully paid-up policy No. 84,373, calculated on the estimate lodged with Mm on which that policy was contracted in that year, which estimate is still being
    858
    used by that society; and how much the £308 3s. now refunded by that society falls short of the sum due on that contract?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have not seen the policy of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, referred to, but I understand from a question asked by the hon. Member on the 15th May last that it was a tontine policy with participation in profits. The only official information which the Board have with reference to this society is that contained in the returns filed, which do not contain any estimate of profits.
    Mr. GINNELLasked what funds the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia had invested at the end of 1911; at what rate of interest on the whole; its income from this source in 1911; its gross income in 1911; its gross liability and gross assets at the end of 1911; in what way its returns show the society to have sustained its greatest losses; at what period its repayments in closing cases fell below the amount of premiums paid into the society in those cases; what proportion the repayments bore to the paid premiums in the cases closed in 1911; what proportion they bore to the sums to which the society in its estimates gave an unqualified undertaking that persons assuring with them would, on completion of a tontine period, be entitled to receive; whether the Board of Trade will require the society to fulfil the undertaking by which it induced the holder of its policy No. 84,373 to spend the insurable years of his life paying premiums into the society, or will require a refund of the premiums with interest; why the Board allow the use of prospectus and estimates calculated on the basis of prosperity to be continued by the society and its agents after they have become false and misleading; whether the Board will require this society to issue prospectus and estimates in accordance with its present facts and practice; if general meetings of the society are held, how convened, and the number attending the last of them; when and how each of the present directors was first appointed; the amount for which each of them is assured in the society; and the amount of the invested interest, salary, and liability, respectively, of each of them?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The returns of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, for the period ending 31st December, 1911, have not yet been received, and I am therefore unable to give the hon.

    859
    Member any information as to the position of the society at that date. The returns filed show that from time to time the society has written down the value of its investments; but each quinquennial valuation which has been filed by the society since it has carried on business has shown a surplus. The surrender values have, as in the case of other assurance companies, always been less than the premiums paid, except when the policies have been in existence for a long period, but during the currency of the policy the society has carried the liability to pay the whole sum assured in the event of death. The Board have no knowledge of any such undertaking as is referred to in the hon. Member's question, and they have no power to enforce the performance of contracts, and no control over the prospectuses issued by assurance companies. The regulations of the society require that thirty days' notice at least of every meeting of the society, specifying the day, the place, and the hour of meeting, and, in case of special business, the general nature of such business, shall be given, either by advertisement in one or more of the daily newspapers published in Melbourne and elsewhere, as the board may direct, or by circular, or both. The further information asked for by the hon. Member is not required to be disclosed in the society's returns, and I am therefore unable to furnish it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the hon. Gentleman compared the estimate sent to the members of the society with the actual facts of the society as requested?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No, I have not compared them.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he can now fix the date on which the promised debate will be taken as to the action of this country in regard to the renewal of the Brussels Sugar Convention?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet fix a date, but the matter has not been lost sight of.

    Irish Political Crimes (Amnesty for Offenders).
    Mr. HORNERasked whether His Majesty's Government contemplate an amnesty for fugitive offenders in connection with Irish political crimes, in view of
    860
    the prohibition contained in Clause 2, Subsection (4), of the Government of Ireland Bill, in relation to the return of fugitive offenders from or to any part of His Majesty's Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    COMMUTEE ON IRISH FINANCE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to make it known to supporters of the Government in this House that he has no objection to their signing the memorial asking him to publish that portion of the evidence given before-the Committee on Irish Finance in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was made or is now insisted upon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason; to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to his supporters signing such a memorial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not, and if I had I do not think it would make much difference.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not allow the evidence to be published at least of public officials who gave evidence and who have no objection to their evidence being seen in order to give to hon. Members of this House who consider that that evidence will assist them, an opportunity of discharging their duty as Members of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that question several times already. It is very undesirable that this matter should be disclosed piecemeal.

    LAND QUESTION.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the Prime-Minister whether he is aware that the recent national conference of the All-for-Ireland League passed a resolution declaring provisions for completing the abolition of landlordism to be the first and indispensable condition of tranquillity or contentment under the Government of Ireland Bill, and leaving their representatives free to take any course they may deem best during the remaining stages of the Bill if the Government fail to give an undertaking to settle the question by a measure of universal and compulsory purchase and sale on just terms either simultaneously or

    861
    within a brief period to be specified in the Government of Ireland Bill; whether he is aware that Mr. Gladstone in 1891 gave a written undertaking to settle the land question simultaneously with the establishment of Home Rule, or within a limited period thereafter to be specified in the Home Rule Bill, or to commit the power of dealing with it to the local legislature; and whether he is willing to give an undertaking to the same effect?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand it is the fact that such a resolution has been passed. I do not know to what written undertaking by Mr. Gladstone the hon. Member refers. The Government are fully alive to the importance of land purchase, as they have shown by retaining it in the Government of Ireland Bill as a reserved service. But I cannot make any further statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him whether he has ever read or heard of the written undertaking which was given in 1891 by Mr. Gladstone to the intermediary, the present Lord Morley, which was published at the time and intended to be published:—
    "It would be obviously inconsistent with the concession of Home Rule to Ireland that the power to deal with the laws relating to land in Ireland should be permanently confined to the Imperial Parliament. It would have to be exercised simultaneously with the establishment of Home Rule or within a limited period thereafter, to be specified in the Home Rule Bill, or the power to deal with it must be committed to the local legislature."
    Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what objection there would be to his giving the same undertaking now that Mr. Gladstone gave then?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is quite news to me that Mr. Gladstone gave any such undertaking. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly furnish me with the terms of it?
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I will with pleasure. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, might I ask if it is not a fact that under the Bill as it stands there is no power to end the land war in Ireland for at least fifty years, either through the Irish Parliament or through the Imperial Parliament, and whether he can suggest any form in which this great question can be discussed in Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first question, the Imperial Parlia-
    862
    ment retains untrammelled power to deal with the question as one of the reserved services, and any proposal made by any Government would be open to the Imperial Parliament to consider. With regard to the discussion of the matter in Committee, I think the question whether this should, or should not, be a reserved service will give an opportunity for its discussion.

    London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the persistent refusal and failure of the directors of the United London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited, to supply information relating to the stability of that company reasonably asked for by a substantial number of its shareholders, or to receive a deputation from those shareholders or to meet their representatives; whether the Board of Trade was consulted with reference to the acquisition by this company of the Omnium Insurance Company and approved of that transaction; whether the Board will now appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of the United London and Scottish Insurance Company and report at an early date; and whether, pending that report, the shareholders will be protected against calls which can be due only to mismanagement?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade are informed that an application was made to the directors of the United London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited, on behalf of some of its shareholders for information with regard to the company's affairs, and that the directors declined to furnish the desired information, but no facts have been laid before the Board which are sufficient to justify the appointment of inspectors to investigate the affairs of the company. The Board were not consulted with reference to the acquisition by the United London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited, of part of the business of the Omnium Insurance Corporation, Limited, and they have no jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of the transaction, nor have they any power to prevent the calling up of any of the uncalled capital of the company.

    Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although the Coal Mines

    863
    (Minimum Wage) Act provides that the Joint District Board for any district shall be adequately representative of the workmen and the employers in the district, the District Board (owners' side) for South Yorkshire has been constituted entirely from members of the South Yorkshire Coal 'Trade Association without any regard or reference to the right of collieries not affiliated with that association to representation on the Board; that a number of collieries in the Barnsley district not affiliated with the South Yorkshire Coal Trade Association, representing an annual output of coal of 3,000,000 tons, employing 10,000 men and boys, and working thin seams under special local conditions, have been refused any representation on the South Yorkshire Joint District Board; and whether, seeing that the Board of Trade have advised the representatives of the group of collieries referred to that their recognition of the South Yorkshire Joint District Board was made subject to any variation that the Board of Trade, upon the recommendation of the chairman, may sanction with the object of securing that the Joint District Board is fairly and adequately representative of the workmen and employers in the district, and that this group of collieries maintain that the Joint District Board is not at present properly constituted in accordance with the terms of the Act, and that they are therefore not bound by any agreements made by a Board so constituted, he will take steps to ensure that the group of collieries referred to shall have the representation they are entitled to under the terms of the Minimum Wage Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: By a Minute of the Board of Trade, dated 18th April, a Joint District Board for the South Yorkshire district, consisting of fifteen employers' representatives and fifteen workmen's representatives, with Sir Edward Clarke as independent chairman, was recognised as a Joint District Board under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, subject to any variation that the Board of Trade, upon the recommendation of the chairman, might sanction with the object of securing that the Joint District Board is fairly and adequately representative of the workmen and employers in the district. The question of the representation of certain collieries in the South Yorkshire district upon this District Board is one which has been the subject of communication between the parties concerned and
    864
    the chairman of the Board, and I understand that at a meeting of the Board held on 6th May the question of the addition of new members to the Board was discussed but was not proceeded with. Subsequent to this meeting the chairman intimated to the representatives of the collieries referred to by the hon. Member that any evidence they might desire to give would be received and fully considered by the District Board. I understand, however, that no evidence was offered, and on 22nd May, after further meetings of the Board, the rates and rules for the South Yorkshire district were formally published. No recommendation to vary the membership of the District Board was received from the chairman, and in the absence of such recommendation the Board of Trade are not in a position to sanction a variation in the constitution of the Board.

    Board of Trade Mercantile Regulations.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked on how many occasions legal proceedings, criminal or otherwise, have been taken in this country by the Board of Trade against shipowners or ships' officers for breaches of the Board of Trade Mercantile Regulations during the last six years?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Prosecutions for offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts average about 120 a year, which include proceedings against persons other than shipowners and ships' officers.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Labour Exchange and other officials are-insisting upon all applicants for unemployment books signing the application form in the presence of an official and delivering the same to him either at a Labour Exchange or some other appointed place; whether the workmen in a number of trades are refusing to fill the forms up under those conditions; and whether he will alter this system and allow the members of societies who propose to make arrangements under Clause 105 of the Act to forward their applications through their respective branch secretaries?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Arrangements have been made for the distribution of application forms for unemployment books to workmen at their place of work, through the officers of trade unions, at clubs and institutes, and at other convenient places. It is also being arranged that a Labour

    865
    Exchange official should attend at such of those places as may be convenient to receive from the workmen the application forms for unemployment books when filled in. It is desirable that these forms should be handed personally to an officer of the Board of Trade in order to secure that mistakes or omissions shall be rectified at once and subsequent inconvenience to the workmen thus avoided.
    Mr. LARDNERasked how many offices have been established in Ireland for the administration locally of the Labour Exchanges Act; and what salaries are paid to Post Office officials who are engaged in the administration of this Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: A divisional office and twenty Labour Exchanges have been established in Ireland in connection with the administration of the Labour Exchanges Act; four more are about to be opened. The experimental use of one or two Post Offices has been sanctioned by the Postmaster-General for the purpose of stocking application forms for applicants desirous of having their names registered for employment at the nearest Labour Exchange, to which these forms are sent by post. Any question as to remuneration to be paid to salaried officers of the Post Office is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the inability of many old persons in the West of Ireland to understand or answer correctly queries addressed to them by postal officials in English in connection with old age pensions, whether he will have those standard queries printed in Irish in leaflet form to be answered in writing; and whether, in making postal appointments in those districts, a knowledge of Irish will be required of all candidates?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I have obtained reports on this subject and cannot find that difficulty, such as the hon. Member suggests, is experienced at post offices in the West of Ireland in the transaction of old age pension business. I understand that the hon. Member has specially in mind the Galway Post Office, but I am informed that there are thirteen officers attached to that office who possess a knowledge of the Irish language. I can see no justification for the issue of leaflets, as
    866
    suggested, containing questions relating to old age pension business printed in Irish to be answered by pensioners in writing, or for requiring a knowledge of Irish from all candidates for postal appointments in the districts referred to by the hon. Member.

    Central Telegraph Office, London.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General the number of male telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office, London, who, during the fortnight ending 11th May, required urgent medical treatment whilst on duty or have had to be escorted by another official to their homes; whether a number of men were absent during the week commencing 13th May either through nervous complaints or undergoing hospital treatment for eye-strain; whether these cases can be attributed to the expressed official demands for the attainment of certain averages; and whether he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the prevailing conditions in that office?
    Captain NORTON: I was on the point of communicating with the hon. Member as regards the somewhat similar question he put to me on 13th May. I propose to embody in my reply the additional information asked for in the second sentence of the present question; but I may say at once that the inquiry discloses no ground for uneasiness in regard to the effect of the working conditions on the staff.

    Public Trustee (Fees).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Attorney-General whether the fees on the capital value of trusts accepted by the Public Trustee, on which the Department is mainly dependent, which are payable one-half on the acceptance of the trust and the other half on the final distribution of the estate, are credited to the revenue of the year in which they are received or apportioned over the period in which they are earned?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury, for the Attorney-General): The analysis of the fees published in the Annual Report of the Public Trustee shows that the half of the whole fee due in respect of the capital, taken upon the acceptance of a trust, is credited to the revenue of the year in which it is received. The second half, which is taken upon the final distribution of a trust, is likewise credited to the revenue of the year in which the distribution takes place.

    Education Inspectors.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education how many inspectors of elementary and higher education respectively have been appointed during 1912; how many are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge; and how many have had teaching experience in elementary or higher schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): Fourteen inspectors of elementary education have been appointed by me since the 1st January, 1912, and ten of these have had experience in elementary schools. I have appointed nineteen inspectors of other schools, all of whom have had teaching experience, three of them in elementary schools. Out of the thirty-three, four are graduates of Oxford and four of Cambridge.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, in making an increase in the number of women inspectors, it is intended to maintain the existing distinction whereby women are appointed to the inspectorate for a limited number of years instead of permanently, as in the case of men, or if, having regard to the desirability of securing the most highly qualified women candidates, it is now intended to abolish the distinction and appoint women on the same terms, as regards permanency, as men?
    Mr. PEASE: The system of appointing certain women inspectors for a term of years has not, in my opinion, been successful, and its abandonment is now under consideration.

    Elementary School Fees (England and Wales).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the total aggregate amount paid as school pence in respect of scholars in elementary schools in England and Wales receiving the fee Grant was, during the twelve months ending 31st July, 1911, £73,945 12s. 10d.; and whether he will issue a circular to local education authorities calling their attention to this burden on parents and to it being in the power of the local authorities to abolish these fees?
    Mr. PEASE: The total referred to in the first part of the question amounts to £63,897 0s. 2d. I have no reason to doubt that the local authorities are already aware of the facts referred to and of their
    868
    powers under the Education Acts, and in view of the publicity which has been given to this subject by the hon. Member's speech last Thursday and his question today I see no reason for the issue of the circular he suggests.

    Royal College of Science, London.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Royal Charter granted to the Imperial College of Science and Technology imposes on the governing body of the college an obligation to carry on the work of the Royal College of Science, London; and, if so, whether that obligation would be consistent with the restriction of the teaching at the Imperial College to postgraduate research work?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative so far as the purposes referred to in Article II. are concerned. When there is any proposal on the part of the Governors to confine the work to post-graduate research, a question of the interpretation of the Charter will arise, upon which I may have to express my opinion as visitor on behalf of the Crown. Until then I do not think I should be called on to answer the question.

    Royal Scholarships.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has under consideration any alteration in the conditions or regulations for the award of the national and other science scholarships offered by the Board?
    Mr. PEASE: No immediate alteration of substance is contemplated in the conditions for Royal Scholarships or other awards in science.

    Uncertificated Assistant Teachers (Durham).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he-is aware that there is dissatisfaction among the uncertificated assistant teachers serving in the area of the Durham County Council owing to the withholding of the annual increments of salary; whether he is aware that these teachers have declared that, failing redress of their grievances by the local education authority, they are determined to withdraw their services from the schools of the county; and whether he will place himself in communication with the local education authority respecting the grievances alleged to exist?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no official information on the matters referred to. It is for the local education authority to determine the salaries payable to the teachers in their service, and the Board have no right to intervene except when it appears that the efficiency of the schools is affected. I have, however, asked the authority whether they desire to make any remarks on the facts alleged in the question.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

  DISTURBANCES AT ROTHERHITHE.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is aware that a very grave state of affairs exists in Rotherhithe, consequent upon the deep feeling of resentment, shared by all classes, owing to the violent methods of the police, who cleared the streets at eleven o'clock last night by means of charges, in which many persons, including women and children, were injured, and whether he can make any statement on the matter which would allay the bitterness which now exists?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My hon. Friend brought to my notice this morning, at the Home Office, the fact that the disturbances had occurred last night in Rotherhithe in circumstances which led many of the inhabitants to conclude that the police were to blame. A full inquiry will be made into the facts of the case, but I am not at present in a position to say more.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: May I ask whether, in making this full inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman will receive information from both sides, that is from members of the public—I do not mean strikers—as well as from the police; and will he also press the matter on as urgently as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I propose that an impartial inquiry shall be held forthwith and all the relevant evidence taken.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of all the local doctors as to the cases they had to treat as to the result of last night's action by the police on the men and women and children?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, certainly, all the evidence will be sought and received upon any of the relevant points relating to the disturbance last night.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: May I ask if he will specially find out in what state the streets; were in when the police commenced the charges in clearing the streets?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is obviously a very necessary part of the inquiry.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make inquiry into the statement by the men that this charge of the police and batoning of women and children was to make way for a convoy some half-hour afterwards to go through?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I am aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

CO-PARTNERSHIP.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to promote the adoption of Co-partnership by statutory and other companies."
The Bill which I desire to bring in is one of a very modest and tentative kind and, with one partial exception, is entirely permissive in character. It sets out what I may call in the technical sense a model scheme of co-partnership, and by one of its Clauses it allows registered and statutory companies to adopt this scheme without applying to any Court for an alteration in their Memorandum of Association, or, in the case of statutory companies, without applying to Parliament. It further allows them to adopt the scheme with modifications if they obtain the permission of the Board of Trade. It goes on one point rather further in the case of statutory companies. In the case of new statutory companies when applying to Parliament for special powers, it has always been the custom of Parliament to impose its own conditions on them. A number of such conditions have been consolidated into one by a measure known as the Companies Clauses Act. The case of those companies is very different from the case of ordinary companies, and it is suggested in this Bill that the scheme of co-partnership set forth in the Schedule shall be an Amendment to the Companies Clauses Act; that is to say, it shall normally be adopted as a condition of the company's getting their Bill through Parliament, though it will, of

871
course, be perfectly proper for them to argue that the scheme is not applicable to the special case of their trade or business. These are really the two operative Clauses, one dealing with new statutory companies, and involving an Amendment of the Companies Clauses Act, and the other, which is purely permissive, dealing with existing companies whether statutory or otherwise.
I would say just one or two words about the scheme itself which is set forth in the Schedule. The root idea of the scheme is this: that there should be at once a standard return for both partners in industrial enterprise; a standard return for labour in the shape of wages, and a standard return for capital. There is no attempt whatever to endeavour to set forth an arbitrary return in the shape of wages for labour. That, I think, must be left to the process of collective bargaining which already exists. I lay stress upon this point, because I think that when I make that clear some of the hostility to co-partnership schemes that has existed among the Labour party and elsewhere may, I hope, disappear. Therefore that is left as it stands. But we do propose to say in this Bill that the standard return on capital shall be 5 per cent., and, once that is secured, all profits of the enterprise shall be divided rateably between the company and its employés. What I mean by divided rateably is this: supposing a company pays a dividend of more than 5 per cent., for every 1 per cent. more that it pays an extra one-twentieth shall be added to the wages of its employés. That is to say, if you take a company with a paid-up capital of £100,000 and a normal wage bill of £20,000, if it pays 6 per cent. it would have to give the employés an extra £1,000, or £21,000 in all, and if it pays 10 per cent. it would be £25,000. Similarly, a workman with an ordinary wage of 30s., will get 31s. 6d. with a dividend of 6 per cent., and 37s. 6d. if the dividend is 10 per cent. But there are two qualifications which I think it is necessary to dwell upon. In the first place, there are some companies which could not pay this large extra sum, those companies in which wages form a very large proportion of the outgoings. Therefore to meet those cases there is a provision that, with the consent of the Board of Trade, the scheme may be modified to suit their circumstances. Also, where there are large dividends paid, I think it is undesir-
872
able that a very large bonus should be paid in cash to the workpeople, and in such cases, following the precedent of the South Metropolitan and other gas companies, it is proposed that some part, at any rate, of the bonus that would be paid should go into the hands of trustees, and should be invested either in trustee investments, or, with the consent of the workpeople, in the stock of the company itself. There are further provisions for the issue of new stock to the employés with their consent, and for the adjudication of differences in the County Court.
This is put forward in an extremely modest spirit as a tentative proposal. I should be very sorry to attempt to dogmatise upon this subject. This Bill is really put forward largely with a view of inviting criticism and suggestions, and of drawing out all the difficulties there may be, but I do feel, and many feel with me, that it is necessary that the real community of interest between capital and labour shall be made, if possible, plain, material, and automatic; that is to say, that all engaged in industrial enterprise shall feel they are working for one another, and for the common interest which they all share. I therefore ask leave to bring in this Bill in order to make a contribution, however small it may be, to mitigate the industrial trouble and unrest under which the country now suffers.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Hope, Mr. Amery, Mr. Cave, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Worthington-Evans, Mr. Peto, and Viscount Wolmer. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

  PROTECTION OF WORKMEN.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move,
  "That it is the duty of the Government to afford all possible protection to men who desire to work in a lawful occupation, and that the claim of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to distinguish between cases in which he will afford such protection, and other cases in which he will supply it only after a breach of the peace has occurred, is unconstitutional and contrary to law."

  873
  4.0 P.M.
  Although the Motion is one of great and serious consequence, it is not one which, I hope, will necessitate my detaining the House for any long time in introducing it to their notice. I suppose that in all quarters of the House regret will be felt that we should so soon be called upon again to deal with an incident arising out of a great labour unrest and trouble in the Metrooplitan City. We do all regret it, but all of us cannot confess surprise at it. We have watched the course of the Government with considerable anxiety, with grave doubt as to whether their previous action was well calculated to promote the ends they had in view, and with a growing anxiety lest the constant interference of the Government in every trade dispute, instead of appeasing differences and leading to a permanent settlement, should only foment; unrest elsewhere, and provoke trouble in regions which were previously peaceful. It fell to my lot to speak in the Debate on the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill. I ventured then to ask the consideration of the House to the path along which we were moving. I traced the gradually growing interference of Government Departments, and the Government itself, in these disputes between capital and labour. I pointed out that as a necessary consequence both sides now, when a dispute arose, expected, if it was of a serious character, that sooner or later the Government would interfere, and that as a consequence both sides held back until the Government did interfere, and would not advance to meet each other to the full extent they might think right to do, because they were afraid they would prejudice their position when they came before the arbitration forced upon them by the Government if they had made that advance before. In the particular case of the coal strike the Government went further. They legislated to enforce a particular settlement in particular districts. Their legislation was, by the nature of the case and of the method in which it was drawn, far more effective for coercing employers than it was for enforcing the award upon workmen, and we pointed out to them then, that to allow the whole trade of the country to be held up to force the interference of the Government and of Parliament to settle the dispute in the national interest, and still to leave both parties to that dispute all the liberties and rights which others enjoyed, who have not abused them, so as to threaten national existence, was to invite a recrudescence of the same kind of agitation and the same
  874
  kind of unrest in that or in other trades. We have not had long to wait. Our predictions have unhappily been verified only too soon, and we now have the whole trade of the Port of London dislocated and held up with the obvious hope that such pressure may be brought to bear upon public opinion and the Government that fresh legislative interference may be wrung from them and that they may be compelled to intervene in order to settle the demands of the strikers. I conceive that it would be quite improper for me on this occasion to enter into the merits of this dispute. The actual facts are very largely contested, and though we were all very much interested and indebted to Sir Edward Clarke for his report, it is obvious that it was, under the circumstances, so hastily arrived at that it was not possible for him to hear all the parties who were concerned, and that in any case the dispute as it now exists involves people who were never heard before him and never invited to give evidence to him.
  But while it would be improper to go into details of the dispute or to attempt to assign praise and blame in regard to the several matters which are alleged on the one side or the other, there is one general aspect of this struggle common to it and to recent outbreaks of unrest of the same kind to which I must draw attention. It is a novel feature of these recent disputes. They begin with a local, geographical, or perhaps, as in this case, a personal grievance alleged on one side and not met on the other. What then follows? Is the dispute confined to the particular parties with whom it originates? On the con-contrary. The leaders of trade organisation have now adopted a policy of at once giving the dispute the greatest extension which is possible. They no longer ask with whom they have a quarrel but, having a quarrel with one employer or group of employers, they involve the whole of the trade in that locality in the dispute at once, and seek to involve the whole of the similar trades throughout the country in the same dispute, so that workmen who have alleged no grievance, who have made no representations to their employers seeking for a change in the terms or conditions of their work, who are content with the terms offered and are peacefully pursuing their occupation, are constantly called upon to come out in support of some dispute which, in its origin, was purely local and perhaps absolutely personal.

  875
  That carries these disputes into a new class. They no longer concern merely the particular disputants with whom they arose. The policy is a perfectly plain one. It is to hold up the whole trade of the country, to attack not the employer who is alleged to be at fault, but the great mass of the public, who have no interest in the dispute, but whose only interest is that the trade of the country shall be maintained, and by bringing this great and bitter pressure to bear upon the mass of working men who have no connection with the dispute, to force political intervention to bring the dispute to a close. I think the time has come when this House ought to revise its notion as to how such a state of things is to be dealt with, and ought to consider whether the course of action pursued by the Board of Trade under successive Governments in the last few years is really applicable to a state of things so wholly different from that to which it was first applied, and whether it is, in fact, tending to promote the peaceful settlement of grievances, or is not rather tending to provoke these outbreaks.
  Only this I say further, and it is germane to the occasion to say it, that putting aside the details of this dispute, the public interest in the case is not the cause of the struggle, but the way in which an extension is given to it. It is not the objects which are pursued by one party or the other, it is the methods by which those objects are pursued, and if you want to judge these methods impartially, to say whether they are such as ought to meet with the approval of this House and the country, I ask you to test it by supposing the position were reversed. Suppose a particular employer in the Port of London having a quarrel with a particular man had, in the first place, locked out all the others, and that that had been followed by a call by him to other employers—[An HON. MEMBER: "They have done it."]—throughout the country engaged in the same trade—
  Mr. LANSBURY: The cotton trade.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To lock out all the others, would you defend that?
  Mr. LANSBURY: No.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would right be upon their side? If it is not right for the employer how can it be right for the men?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Why did you not protest?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I say so much upon the subject because I wish the House to realise that by the action of leaders of organised labour in this case public interests are directly menaced, and it is the public interest with which we have most concern. I do no more than echo the words of the Chief Secretary when I say that in a dispute of this magnitude, or to which it is sought to give this magnitude, I wholly deny that it is a matter for employers or employed in these particular trades alone. I assert that the public have the most direct interest and the most direct right to make their voices heard in matters of such consequence. What are these interests? The great interest of the public is that the trade of this country should be carried on undisturbed. It is the interest of every man capable of making a free bargain, and, having made it, having offered or agreed to sell his labour freely without compulsion in a lawful calling, that he should be allowed to go about the pursuit of his calling freely, without intimidation and without being subject to threat or to outrage. Until last week I do not think any Government has ever denied its obligation to protect such men to the fullest extent of its resources. I said it was no surprise to some of us that we should so soon have to be debating an incident arising out of labour troubles again, but it is a surprise, and I think it must have been to the whole House, that we should have to do it on a Motion such as I have placed upon the Table of the House, or that we should be called upon at this time of day to assert as against the Home Secretary, the sworn guardian of law and order, the elementary duties of his office. Workmen who are dissatisfied with their terms of employment have a perfect right to strike. I, for one, do not wish to take that right away But workmen who are satisfied with the terms of their employment have an equal right to work, and we do not wish to see that right taken away with the connivance of the Home Secretary. I gather from the Home Secretary's cheers that he is now prepared to accept that it is the bounden duty of the Home Office to do everything in its power, with all the force that he can command, to secure the free exercise of their right to work by men who have made a contract with which they are satisfied.
  But that is not what he said on Thursday night. He then assumed to himself the

  877
  right to distinguish between the work which he would protect and the work which he would not, and the men whom he would protect, and the men whom he would not. He was prepared to protect the handling of what he called necessary cargoes by men engaged upon the spot, but he was not prepared to protect the handling of other cargoes, or to protect men who were not habitually resident in the place where the trouble arose. I wish that, even within the limits which he then set down, he had been a little more active in discharging the duties which he admits. He said, in the course of that speech, that there had been practically no disorder. I have here a series of statements, which I believe are also in the possession of the Home Secretary, made by men who have been pursued with intimidation, abuse, and violence in consequence of their endeavour to proceed with their ordinary and lawful work. I have here letters, which are not pleasant reading, from man after man who has tried to get to his work and has been turned back, or who has gone to his work and has been beaten and assaulted—letters recounting the way in which their houses are beset and their wives and families threatened. There is a letter from a wife written to the employer begging him to keep her husband out of sight because pickets are watching for him at his house, and have been inquiring for him, and she is afraid that injury will be done to him if he returns to his home. It is all very well to say that order is preserved. What does the Home Secretary know about preserving order under these circumstances? Order is preserved if no man dare exercise his right to work. Order is preserved when, under the pretence of peacefuel picketing, mobs of men assemble and drive men from their work and prevent them from leaving their homes. That is the kind of order which it is the duty of the Government to maintain. The duty of the Government is to protect the liberty of these men and to give them all the protection in their power—and until they have given them all the protection in their power they have not discharged their duty—in order that they may proceed with their work. The Home Secretary says that he is proceeding on the principle of only protecting necessary cargoes. I am quite ready to admit that some cargoes are more immediately and urgently required for the lives of London, or any other great town, than others. Some supplies are more imperative than others, but all those cargoes are necessary to the trade of the
  878
  Port and the trade of the country, and to hold up everything but foodstuffs, and without calling upon all the reserves, without calling upon all the forces you might bring into the field, and to set out at the beginning saying that you cannot protect any but what are called necessary cargoes, is to do ineffable injury not only to the Port of London, but to the trade of the country as a whole. I suppose there is not one of us moving in business circles or meeting business men who has not met in the last few days instances of orders sent abroad because delivery cannot be given at home, and so the effect of the strike, local in its actual and immediate application, spreads far beyond the immediate area of the strike, throws men out of work, and deprives of wages men who have no concern whatever in the industry immediately affected, but whose trade and the trade of the country is ruined by the inability of ships to sail, and the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to give protection for those who are willing to work. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in regard to the particular case brought to his notice on Thursday. He said:—
  "In this case it was not a question of protecting men who would usually be engaged at work at Purfleet, but it was a question of protecting men who had excellent opportunity for work at Newport, but were brought in specially as strike breakers."
  May I say, in commenting upon that, I think the Home Secretary is misinformed as to the facts. I understand that these men who were brought from Newport are men in the permanent employment of Messrs. Houlder, who have been forced to engage them in consequence of anterior troubles at Newport; that Messrs. Houlder have only an occasional ship to load at Newport; that they have not full work there for these men, and that work on any other ships or in any other employment is refused to these men by the organised labour in Newport. I understand therefore it was not free to these men, as the Home Secretary would represent, to take their labour anywhere in Newport and at once find a job. But if it were true, has the Home Secretary the right to decide for workmen where they shall work? Has he the right to prescribe that they are not to move, that they are tied to the soil, and that, whilst he would give them protection so long as they remain where they originally lived, if they choose to go elsewhere to better or change their conditions, his obligation to protect them ceases? It is a monstrous principle, and one more destructive of the personal liberty of the subject and one more

  879
  dangerous to labour it is impossible to conceive. The right hon. Gentleman will not protect these men because they ought to have been working at Newport and wish instead to work at Purfleet. He goes on to say:—
  "If these men hart carried on their work, or if actual disorder had arisen, it would be the duty of the Government to use every means in its power to restore order."
  If there is actual rioting taking place, if heads are being broken and men are being murdered, then the Home Secretary will really feel that he ought to interfere, but until he has evidence of broken limbs and heads, and perhaps the evidence given before a coroner's jury, it is not his duty to interfere. That is the doctrine of the Home Secretary—the doctrine which the Minister in charge of the Home Office lays down.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)indicated dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What is the course which that right hon. Gentleman recommended to the employers? He said:—
  "If you are to bring into this dispute a new element, if instead of taking on men from the shore in the ordinary way, you bring in ships for the purpose of supplying strike breakers, although the very same men might be housed on shore and do their work in the ordinary way, you are introducing a new element which is bound to provoke disorder."
  That sentence is not quite consistent with the last sentence I read, and I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway mean by that. I understand that in the first statement the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the men brought from Newport by Messrs. Houlder Brothers. But I understand from the second statement that the complaint is not that you bring in strike breakers—that is to say, he has given up the idea that the Newport men have not the right to work anywhere but in Newport; his complaint here is not that you bring in the Newport men and house them on a ship, instead of housing them on shore;. Is that all your grievances [An HON. MEMBER: "Not by a long way."] Why are not these men housed on shore? For exactly the same reason, that so many of the men who are housed on shore, men to whom this work would naturally belong, are not working now because, though you house them on shore, the Home Secretary is not giving them protection either at their homes or between their homes and the working
  880
  places. There can be no dispute about it. I have here a letter from the Chief Constable of Essex, written to a firm of shipowners, saying:—
  "It is quite impossible for me to find escort for your employés backwards and forwards. Why not keep them in the docks at such a time?"
  And yet the Home Secretary says if they do keep them in the docks or house them in a ship there, in order not to be exposed to terrorism in going to and from their work on land, that is provocative action, to which he will lend no countenance, and for which he will provide no protection until rioting has actually taken place. We have heard a great deal about the right to work. I think the party below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House have on several occasions introduced a Bill with that title. I do not know, whether the Bill is still alive, but their interest in the right to work has wholly disappeared. Here are men, many of whom had no grievance, and alleged no grievance, against their employers—here are men, multitudes of whom would be only too glad to go back to work if they could be assured of protection, but the Home Secretary requires to see their heads broken before he is willing to give them that protection. The fact of the matter is that this firm which brought the "Lady Jocelyn" from Newport with workers were faced with this situation. Some of the men who would ordinarily have handled the cargo were out on strike of their own free will and refused to do the work, and some of them who ordinarily would have handled the cargo were intimidated and afraid. Messrs. Houlder could not get local labour on the spot, not because there were not enough men willing to work, but because the protection was insufficient for those men, and in these circumstances they brought in other men in order that the trade of the Port might be carried on. Then the Home Secretary says that is provocative action to which he will not lend his sanction. I cannot but contrast the attitude of the Government in this respect with their attitude earlier in the Session in the matter of a certain meeting at Belfast. The right to work is a right to be exercised in an unprovocative manner. If you wish to work, you must be careful to give offence to no one, and if you have the misfortune to strike, the Home Secretary does not consider it his duty to protect others who are willing to work. But when a Cabinet Minister wants, not to work but to speak, the

  881
  Government do not then have any hesitation about calling out the military. The Government then are not slow to employ the military. What did occur at Belfast?
  Mr. O'GRADY: What was threatened?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What was threatened? I think, if the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment, he will find that I will give him a reply to that. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the action of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill), in holding a Nationalist meeting disguised as a Liberal meeting in the Unionist centre of Belfast, was less provocative than the action taken by Messrs. Houlder? The First Lord of the Admiralty is not a resident of Belfast. That is not his natural sphere of action. Why did not the Home Secretary confine him to Dundee, or at least to this side of the Channel? You would have an imported speaker, and you would have an imported meeting, and in order to secure the peaceful carrying on of the imported meeting by this imported speaker the Government were prepared to employ the whole resources of the police and military.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In order not to provoke disorder he abandoned the meeting in the Ulster Hall, and held his meeting in a place to which no exception was taken.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And what was the action the Government then took? In their own words this is what the hon. Member asked for: In view of the possible disorder in consequence of threats which had been made in certain quarters to interfere with the rights of free speech in the City of Belfast, he introduced into Belfast, in addition to the troops habitually there, five battalions of Infantry, one squadron of Cavalry, and two companies of Royal Engineers at a cost of some thousands of pounds. That was not too high a price to pay in order to secure the inestimable benefit of a speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSrose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interpolate remarks.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I rise to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman stated that something he read was in reply to what I said. It was not in reply to anything I said.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of Order.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was not even aware that the hon. Member was in the House. I referred to the hon. Member sitting next him. The Government were prepared, and I will not say they were wrong, to use whatever military force was necessary in order to protect the right, as they said, of free speech. But then are not they at least as much bound to protect the right to labour?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister says they are. Then why does the Home Secretary not do it? Why does he justify not doing it on the floor of this House? The Home Secretary said he had no direct responsibility for a particular district involved in the question,
  "but if at Tilbury or any other district the same method is pursued, giving only such organised protection as can reasonably be given for necessary cargoes—"[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th June, 1910, Vol. XXXIX., col. 424.]
  Was the First Lord's speech a necessary cargo? Was it really urgent that it should be unloaded? For a political purpose they use all the forces of the Crown to protect a colleague—they think no exertions too great; but to protect humble men dependent for their livelihood on their work and striving to keep their families from distress and starvation is a task which they do not consider unless the cargoes which they are handling are necessary cargoes as defined by the Home Secretary from time to time, and unless the men in the opinion of the Home Secretary are men who ought to be working in that particular part of the United Kingdom. A writer in the "Times" has already called our attention to the fact that the action of the Home Secretary finds its precedent in the old restrictive laws of the Plantagenet times. It had been the triumph and the achievement of labour to free itself from those shackles, and now the Home Secretary by an administrative act or an administrative refusal is trying to tie labour down to a particular place and refusing it protection where it can find employment. The action of the Home Secretary on Thursday night was so novel and so grave and was fraught with such serious consequences for our industrial future that I think it would have been impossible for us to leave that Debate where it stood, and not ask the judgment of the House upon the attitude

  883
  of the Government. I have seen it stated in some quarters that instead of seeking to bring to an end the unhappy dispute which now exists, the Opposition have gleefully chosen the first opportunity to raise a party Motion on the subject. No charge more malicious or more untrue could be levelled against us, and our whole conduct in these past trade disputes is a guarantee that we would be actuated by no such motive, and that we would not allow any such consideration to weigh with us. As long as we had any assurance that the Government was doing its duty or trying to do its duty, we refrained from intervention in other struggles; we refrained from criticism, or even from suggestions that might hamper them in the course of their action; and it is only because in this case the Home Secretary, in defiance of the law and the Constitution, has arrogated to himself a dispensing and discriminating power which has no basis in law or in justice that I have now to move this Resolution.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, if it were to receive the approval of this House, would bring as severe a condemnation upon a Minister as could possibly fall upon him. Every hon. Member in the House will understand—speaking not as a Minister but as a Member of this House—that the condemnation of this House is the severest punishment that any one of us can know. I should have thought that if that punishment were to be meted out to anyone upon a charge advanced with full notice, the right hon. Gentleman who made himself responsible for the charge would at least have put himself to the trouble of making clear and definite accusations, and would have brought forward particular instances and cases which could be met and refuted or admitted, and would not have confined himself, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, to a general attack, which for a quarter of an hour dealt with such matters as the coal strike, a sympathetic strike, and the Board of Trade, and other matters which did not in the least touch any action of mine. For the next quarter of an hour, it is true, he referred to what he believes to be my iniquities, and the concluding portion of his speech for some ten minutes was an attack upon my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdissented.
  Mr. McKENNA: One quarter of an hour out of forty minutes is all he thought necessary for bringing against me and endeavouring to establish the severest condemnation that the House could pass. Now I will answer his points. In his concluding observations he made one statement with which the whole House will agree, that the public interest should be the chief interest of this House. I would like to ask this House to consider the conduct of this strike so far as the Home Office has been responsible for it from the point of view of public interest. This strike has been proceeding in the Port of London for more than three weeks. It has covered the Port of London, an area which I believe includes about a thousand square miles. It has covered every trade in the Port of London, and it has therefore included the trades that are most necessary to the public, the trades in food. During the whole of those three weeks, until the last day or two, the price of food in London has not risen by a halfpenny. During the whole of those three weeks there has been practically no disturbance of any kind, and during the whole of those three weeks so much has labour been protected—the labour which the right hon. Gentleman charges me with refusing to protect—so fully and freely has it been protected that they are actually—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair"]—that the employers are actually now, and have been for the last few days, discharging men from employment in the docks because they have no work for them. The House must understand the circumstances of the dock strike, and I hope that it will credit me when I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair."] Hon. Members opposite will give no licence to anybody though they make charges of a most intolerable kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "We want to hear you."] The hon. Member has not failed to hear a single word I said. The House will believe me when I say that in everything I have said with regard to this strike, and in everything which I shall say, I am dealing only with the particular circumstances of the present strike in London, and that must be understood in relation to every observation that is made. In this strike in London there is a very peculiar and very exceptional fact. The whole of the lightermen are on strike. The lighters can only be used by men holding licences; consequently, as all the licence holders are out, there is no means of conveying goods by lighter. The result of that is that the amount of possible work to be done at the docks is restricted to the amount which

  885
  can be carried by cart and railway. It is impossible, or at least it would not bear the cost, to carry a great deal of the goods which might be carried by cart or railway. It would not bear the cost to do so as the freight would be so heavy that it would be an unprofitable basis of work. There is one article of vital importance to the public, which is ordinarily carried by cart and railway, and that is food. By a proper distribution of our forces it was possible for us so to contrive that full employment should be given to everybody in the Port of London for whom there was work possible, having regard to the fact that the lighters were laid up, at the same time to give absolute security for the food supplies of London, and further to accomplish these ends without disturbance. What was the method? Right from the very first day of the strike we—I, and the Home Office, who are supposed to have refused protection to labour until heads were broken—right from the first day of the strike, on Whit Monday, police convoys were organised in order to see first of all a meat ship unloaded, and then the meat conveyed from the dock to Smithfield Market. The work, which began with one ship, extended day by day until it now includes, I believe, close on 100 ships. We began with 200 men at work under protection. There are now at the docks 8,000 men at work under protection, and I observed, I confess, with some satisfaction that the Chairman of the Docks Committee of the Port Authority, in an interview which he had yesterday, reported in the "Daily Chronicle," I think it was, stated that the Port Authority had received more protection for labour from the present Home Secretary than they had ever received from any previous Home Secretary. Those are the facts. More labour has been protected without disturbance in this strike than was ever protected before, and the whole of the food trade of London has been safeguarded; but the right hon. Gentleman says, but the men who wish to work are not allowed to work because the Home Secretary prevents them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Where are they to work? Men are being discharged now because there is no work for them. Where were they to work? [An HON. MEMBER: "Purfleet."] I will come to Purfleet in a moment. You cannot find more employment for free labour at the present time at the docks, so long as the lightermen remain on strike. There is nobody to carry the goods, and anyone acquainted with the trade of
  886
  the Port of London will understand what I say. So much for the facts of the case. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said, "Order is preserved if no man dare exercise his right to work." Will he repeat that after what I have said? Will he still say that no man dare exercise his right to work in London at the present time?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not make the general statement that no man dare exercise his right to work, but I do say that there is a great number of men who would now work if they dare.
  Mr. McKENNA: Where? I do not know.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman, for instance, has seen the same statement, Messrs. Scrutton's, giving the names and cases.
  Mr. McKENNA: Messrs. Scrutton are not within my jurisdiction. I am coming to that case. I am dealing with the Metropolitan area, where, in the Port of London, in the Metropolitan area, are men wanting work and not able to get it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I gave the right hon. Gentleman a case in which he refused protection.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friends in the House generally can judge for themselves. I claim that without disorder, without calling in the soldiers, without breaking heads, without disturbance, I have given more protection to labour in London than has ever been given before. When I challenged the right hon. Gentleman who brings this serious charge against me and against the Government to give the name of a single trade, a single employment where men cannot work because they are not protected, in London, at the present time, he has to go down to Essex, where I have no jurisdiction.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: It is in the Port of London, and the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Metropolitan area.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Port of London includes Essex.
  Mr. McKENNA: My jurisdiction is limited, so far as the police are concerned, to the Port of London in the Metropolitan area.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Messrs. Deacon arid Sons applied for police protection in the Surrey Commercial Dock, and were refused.
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will give me particulars of that case.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I have disposed of the case so far as concerns the Metropolitan area, and I now come outside the Metropolitan area to the case of Messrs. Houlder Brothers, a firm of shipowners whose history is not unknown to the House. Two years ago Messrs. Houlder Brothers, who, at that time combined their own method with the use of the "Lady Jocelyn," sought to take the "Lady Jocelyn," with a load of strike breakers on board, into the port of Newport, Monmouthshire. The Home Secretary of the day refused to allow the "Lady Jocelyn," which Houlder Brothers brought with strike breakers on board, into the port.
  Sir J. D. REES: And the Secretary for War.
  Mr. McKENNA: I accept the correction. The Home Secretary and the Secretary for War—and both of us spoke in the subsequent Debate. The hon. Baronet opposite raised the same subject as to Messrs. Houlder Brothers, for whose methods he seems to have a particular affection—at any rate, he seems to have taken them particularly under his care in this House. He raised the case of the exclusion of the "Lady Jocelyn" from the port of Newport, and upon that occasion the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) made the following interesting statement. He said, with regard to the Newport case:—
  "If the Home Secretary in his defence of the action of the Government had confined himself to saying that 'police protection is not sufficient, and if these men are landed now there will be trouble and disturbance, with which it will be impossible to cope, and therefore to allow these men to laud would be so great an evil that as an administrative Member of the Government it is my business to prevent it,' I should have said he was quite right."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman does not read what I said further in the same speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is clear enough."]
  "If all that the Home Secretary meant was that he was prepared to say to Messrs. Houlder Brothers, 'At this moment we have not the force necessary to prevent a riot, and therefore I will do my best to prevent these men being landed, but if you insist on your legal rights I shall take steps to give you legal protection—"
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: In the case of the "Lady Jocelyn" and Messrs. Houlder Brothers, at Newport, Monmouthshire, two years ago, the responsible members of the Government of that day went much
  888
  further than I did. They refused to allow the ship to go into the port, and when the question was brought up before the House, the right hon. Gentleman never even divided against the action of the Government of the day. I have read what he said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have read the whole of what he said in that part of his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]. I have read the whole of the justification which he gave there; and he did not feel it necessary at that time, when the Ministers of the day went far beyond what I have done—he did not, so far from thinking it necessary to bring a Vote of Censure against the Government—even divide against them, whatever his reasons may have been. What did I do in the case of Houlder Brothers in the present instance? The House must understand that Purfleet is outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] How impatient hon. Gentlemen are—outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office, so far as the Home Office is responsible for the Metropolitan Police. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It is the custom for one police authority to lend police to another authority, whenever it has a sufficient number at its disposal to do so. As hon. Members know, it has frequently been the subject of complaint by hon. Members who represent Metropolitan seats, from time to time, that Metropolitan Police have been lent to other districts. There is power to make these loans under Section 25 of the Police Act of 1890, which empowers any police force, by agreement, to lend men out to another police force, the aided force paying the cost. It is quite obvious that the loan of police in this way can only be made when the authority making the loan has not immediate requirement for its own police. I was asked to lend the Metropolitan Police to Essex at a time when I had on my hands a great London strike. Essex had got the whole of the counties in its immediate neighbourhood, and the whole of the Midlands to draw upon if it wanted further assistance. What actually happened in this case was this. Needless to say, I did not want to lend any constables to Essex for any purpose in view of my own demands upon them. Representation was made at the Home Office that serious trouble was intended at Tilbury. It was made not by the Chief Constable, but, I believe, by Messrs. Scrutton. I sent down a police officer the same night to Tilbury to see for himself what the

  889
  situation was, in order that I might offer any advice that could be offered, and in order also that I might know definitely whether the situation was so urgent in the way of disorder, that in spite of my own necessities I should feel justified in sending Metropolitan Police. The report came back that there was no need, and that the Chief Constable of Essex did not require our assistance. The next morning the Chief Constable telephoned to us that affairs were much worse, and he would be glad if we could lend him men. He was told, in reply, that we could spare 100 men and twenty-five mounted constables, provided his need for them was "very urgent."
  How did I define that urgency? It was no good my merely telling the Chief Constable that we would despatch the men if they were "very urgently" needed. How was he to know what I meant by "very urgent"? I had to judge whether it was urgent. The responsibility rested upon me. How was he to know what my definition of "very urgent" was. He could not know what demands are made on the men in London. Down at Purfleet there are some very large oil stores; it would have been a disaster of the first magnitude if a crowd had attacked those oil stores and had in any way damaged them. I told the Chief Constable that if the oil stores were threatened I would send men at once. That was most urgent; and no matter what the claims were upon the men in London, they should go outside my jurisdiction, and I would lend them to him in the emergency. Then I told him "if you have not the necessary food that you require I will send the men down." I think the House will agree that either of these two would have been most urgent demands on the police. But I added, "If you only require them for the unloading of ordinary cargoes I have far more urgent claims upon me in London, and I cannot afford to spare them for that purpose." I further informed him that he could, if he wanted them, apply to Birmingham, which, being an inland town and not suffering from a strike at the moment, had no special claim upon its police force, and there, no doubt, he could obtain all the assistance he required. What happened? The men from the Metropolitan Police were not sent. The chief constable did apply to Birmingham, and got from Birmingham all the men he needed. He has received all the protection he requires he has not suffered from the lack of men, and we, in
  890
  the Metropolitan area, have been able to retain all the protection which we require.
  I come next to the question of the language I used last Thursday. Many hon. Members here now were not present then. I came into the House about twenty minutes past eleven. I had had no notice—that was not due to any fault of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—and, having heard not one word of the discussion, and not knowing what had been said, except what I was told as I came in, I had to speak within half a minute. The question of Houlder Brothers had been raised earlier in the same evening, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had also raised the question of the "Lady Jocelyn." When I rose to reply I had both the cases of the Houlder Brothers and of the "Lady Jocelyn" in mind. I make this statement in order that the House may understand the precise relevance of the language I used. In the first part of my speech I was referring to the Houlder Brothers' case, and I gave an explanation in as short a form as I have given now. In the second part I was referring to the case of the "Lady Jocelyn." I spoke of the use of that vessel as provocative action intended to provoke disorder. I am prepared at any time to justify that statement up to the hilt. Look at the facts. There are some hundreds of men on board the vessel; they have come here for employment; there is no employment at the docks which they can get. All the men who can get employment at the docks have got it, and 300 men were turned away yesterday because they could not get it. Still I am to go out of the way and use a vast force of police in order to give protection to the 400 men on the "Lady Jocelyn," whose labour is superfluous and redundant.
  Why do I say it was provocative? I had the history of the Newport case in mind. We have to deal with facts. The men out on strike regard the "Lady Jocelyn" as a banner, a flag; to them it, means everything that they hate and loathe under the name of blackleg. They may be wrong in having these feelings, and hon. Gentlemen may be inclined to say that the possession of such a feeling is so near a crime that soldiers ought to be brought in to shoot them down. But in the desire of any Minister to preserve order it must be a necessary part of his policy to acquaint himself with the best means by which order can be preserved.

  891
  If the "Lady Jocelyn" is brought in—she has a perfect right to come; I cannot stop her—but if she is brought in such a state of feeling will be aroused in the Port of London that instead of being able to carry on, as we are carrying on now, the work of 8,000 men, I should have to draw so many of the police from the necessary convoys; I should have to meet with such a state of feeling, that work would be interrupted and almost stopped; I should have riots and bloodshed, and a complete sacrifice of the public interest.
  Let it be clearly understood that to employ labour in itself is not provocative. To import labour for employment in itself is not provocative. But if you employ and import labour under such conditions and in such a way as you know from past history must excite the most violent feeling and opposition on the part of those on strike, I say that is unnecessary provocation, and we ought not to be called upon, with such great claims on the police, to withdraw them from their other duties in order to give protection in this case. That is the beginning and the end of what I have done and what I have said. I appeal to the House to look at the results; to see that London, in the midst of a great strike lasting over weeks, is still peaceful, still without any rise in the price of food, still without any exceptional means of repression being introduced, and I do ask this House to justify the Home Office in the action it has taken and to purge me from the charge which has been brought against me.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Home Secretary has stated that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire has not brought before the House any specific instances which he or any other hon. Member on that bench could contradict, and he has also stated, apparently to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of his supporters, that Messrs. Houlder Brothers have received adequate protection and have nothing to complain of. I will give the right hon. Gentleman—and I am glad that the Attorney-General will have an opportunity of replying—certain specific charges in accordance with the request he has made. What is the history of the charge which I brought against the Home Secretary on Thursday evening? The right hon. Gentleman has very kindly stated that any delay in obtaining his presence in the House was not due to any fault of mine, but was owing to a misunderstand-
  892
  ing of an hon. Member of his own party. I cannot admit, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was not conversant with the charge I brought against him when he came into the House, because he had had a report on the subject, and my impression was that the whole of his remarks on that occasion were directed to the case of Messrs. Houlder Brothers. This firm had a vessel called the "American Transport." It was under charter with a full cargo of Jarrah wood from Bunbury, Western Australia; she arrived at Purfleet on 29th May, and work was started in the afternoon of that day and carried on until dusk. Early on the morning of the 30th delegates visited the wharf and called out all the men employed by the Purfleet Wharf and Sawmills Company. They appeared very reluctant to obey the summons; most of them had been continuously employed by the Wharf Company for a number of years and were on the best of terms with the company. Messrs. Houlder gave the men until 4.30 to decide whether they would resume work on the morrow, intimating that otherwise free labour would be imported.
  "The men came back at 4.30 p. m. and said they were very sorry, but they were not to be allowed by their leaders to resume work. The steamer was idle all day Thursday, the 30th May, until Monday morning, the 3rd inst., when Houlders' Newport men commenced work on the cargo."
  I might point out to the Home Secretary that he distinctly stated that Messrs. Houlder had no business to bring men from Newport. That was absolutely distinctly stated. The bringing of men from Newport was a provocative action for which he would not give protection, because the men in Newport had ample opportunities to obtain work. I will not weary the House with the history of the dispute at Newport. If the statement is challenged by any hon. Member opposite I have here particulars which show that these men had entered into an agreement which had been settled by arbitration on two distinct occasions, on one occasion the arbitrator being, I believe, a Member of the Government—if it was not the President of the Board of Trade himself, it was someone appointed by him—and on both those occasions the union not only refused to comply with the award, but they refused to allow the men to join the union, and they refused to let them work for anybody else. Consequently, these men had not the opportunity to work in Newport which the right hon. Gentleman said they had.
  "The ship was idle until the morning of the 3rd inst., and then Houlders' Newport men commenced work on

  893
  the cargo, all necessary arrangements for housing and feeding the men on board the "American Transport" Having been made."
  Here I would point out that these men, at any rate, up to the present time were not on the "Lady Jocelyn" at all; they were on the "American Transport." The doctrine which the Home Secretary introduced on Thursday was a most extraordinary one. He said, "If men come from Newport by ship and remain on the ship, I will not protect them; but if they come on shore and live on shore I will protect them." Messrs. Houlder decided that they had no other course open but to bring up their Newport men to work in London. At that time they had no steamer loading in London. Then there is a paragraph stating that the leaders of the union in Newport would not allow their men to work:—
  "Work continued during Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th inst., under police protection, and owing to the action of the London Strike leaders in withdrawing engine drivers, electric tram drivers, etc., from the wharf, Houlders had to fall back upon their own staff to act as engineers, etc. Early on the morning of the 6th delegates visited the wharf (a large portion of police protection having been withdrawn in the meantime) and interviewed the wharf manager, peremptorily demanding that the steamer should cease work at once He naturally refused, and delegates said they would go back to Grays and bring up a large body of men to make an organised attack and compel stoppage of work. The foregoing was telephoned to London, and urgent telegrams were accordingly despatched at 8.15 a.m. by Houlders to the Home Office and the Chief Constable for Essex at Chelmsford, urgently asking for adequate protection. A message was also received from the wharf that it would be dangerous for any of Houlders' officials to visit the steamer as it was intimated that she was to be raided. At 11 a.m., on the advice of the few policemen labour seven or ten remaining, the wharf manager ordered the housekeepers, their wives and children, and everybody from the yards to take shelter on board the steamer, and arrangements were made at once to bring up two tugs from Gravesend to haul the steamer from the wharf into the river."
  This is a pretty commentary on the right of the ordinary Englishman who is desirous of doing—what? Work, which by the laws of the land he is entitled to do.
  "In the meantime a gang of about eighty men had gathered on the foreshore, while hundreds could be seen making for the wharf along the adjacent roads. The strikers, however, cleared off about dinner time Subsequently, however, a squadron of mounted police rode into the place at full gallop, and this evidently had the effect of keeping the strikers quiet for the remainder of the day, but about 130 men—"
  These are not members of the union, and hon. Members below the Gangway do not care what happens to them. But they are working men—
  "about 130 men, with women and children, were kept in the steamer (which is merely a cargo steamer without any conveniences) for the whole day under circumstances of the greatest discomfort. In London, Houlders visited the Home Office, but in spite of an appointment made with Mr. McKenna—"
  Mr. McKENNA: No appointment was ever made by me with any Mr. Houlder.
  An HON. MEMBER: One of the directors.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: These are the facts; given to me.
  Mr. BARNES: Where did the hon. Baronet get his facts from?
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is from Messrs. Houlder.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is quite untrue.
  Sir F. BANBURY (reading)—
  "In London Houlders visited the Home Office, and, in spite of an appointment made with Mr. McKenna, they were informed that he could not see them, and they were recommended to see Sir Edward Troup, which, they declined to do."
  I may say that on Thursday when I saw Messrs. Houlder, about half-past ten, they informed me that they had been in the Home Office during the whole of the afternoon and evening, and I made that statement in the House on that day on their authority.
  "Sir Edward Troup informed Mr. Combs, a director of the Purfleet Wharf Company, that he could do nothing, as Purfleet was outside the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, and he thought it was very silly of Houlders to have brought up their men from South Wales."
  What business was it of that gentleman to say that it was silly or not silly?
  Mr. McKENNA: On whose evidence does the hon. Baronet make that statement?
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a written statement made by Messrs. Houlder.
  Mr. McKENNA: Quite so. We know Messrs. Houlder.
  Sir F. BANBURY (reading)—
  "Mr. Frank Houlder and Mr. Maurice Houlder determined to visit the steamer, and did so later in the afternoon, and it was arranged with the wharf manager and the Chief Constable for Essex that if 150 provincial police could be obtained, Houlders would undertake to house and feed them. Arrangements were made about midnight for these police, and they were drafted into Purfleet early the following morning. It will thus be seen that Houlders have now the responsibility of housing and keeping at Purfleet nearly 300 people. On. returning to London the Messrs. Houlder tried to interview Mr. McKenna at the Home Office, but were informed he was at the House of Commons. They proceeded there, and, after promising to see them—"
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Baronet that I have had no communication of any sort or kind with Mr. Houlder. I made no promise to see him; I have had

  895
  no appointment with him. The whole of his statements as regards myself are pure myth.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Messrs. Houlders have not had any interview with the Home Secretary, because, according to their statement, he would not see them. Did they see Sir Edward Troup?
  Mr. McKENNA: I asked Sir Edward Troup about it, and I believe they declined to see him. I never made any appointment with them of any sort or kind.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a statement Messrs. Houlder have given to me, and authorised me to make in the House of Commons:—
  "On returning to London, the Messrs. Houlder tried to interview Mr. McKenna at the Home Office, but were informed he was at the House of Commons. They proceeded there, and. after promising to see them and keeping them waiting the whole of the evening, word was conveyed to them that Mr. McKenna had left the House, and although an attempt was made to see his Parliamentary and private secretaries it was stated they had also gone."
  That was on Thursday evening, and when I saw Messrs. Houlder in the Lobby they told me exactly the same story then as they tell me now.
  "Sir Frederick Banbury, Bart then put the questions in the House which have already been reported, to which Mr. McKenna, having in the meantime been found and brought to the House, duly replied."
  That is Messrs. Houlders' case. I venture to say that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is of a most unsatisfactory character. All that he has to say is that food is still in London. Here we are in the height of the twentieth century, and we are to congratulate ourselves that in a city of 5,000,000 inhabitants we can get the necessary food without increase of price and without bloodshed! The Home Secretary takes credit to himself and says that he has given as much protection to the docks and to the merchants of London as any of his predecessors did. In the time of his predecessors there was no occasion to give protection, because law and order was maintained, and people who endeavoured to prevent, other people working or obtaining the necessary supplies of life knew perfectly well that such a gross outrage would not be permitted.
  May I very shortly allude to the case, which I threw across the Table of the House of Commons and which the Undersecretary for the Home Department has had an opportunity of studying, in reply to the request of the right hon. Gentleman
  896
  for anybody on this side of the House to give him a single instance of a refusal of police protection in an area within the district of the Metropolitan Police. I may say, in passing, that that seems to me to be a most extraordinary doctrine on the part of the Home Office. Are we to understand that the Home Secretary of this great country, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, is responsible for law and order only in London? Unless that is so, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground, and I think I may describe it as a mere subterfuge without in any way transgressing Parliamentary etiquette. I will put the case shortly, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have read it. It is the case of Messrs. Deacon, timber merchants, who have sent me certain particulars, and authorised me to use them:—
  "The Port of London Authority, after declining at first to deliver goods (timber) belonging to us and stowed at the Surrey Commercial Docks, on account of the strike, agreed to do so if we obtained protection from Stratford till we got inside the docks. We believe it is a fact that they are bound to deliver goods to the owner on demand by Statute, although this was refused last August. For nearly three weeks we were unable to get any goods from the docks. On obtaining two policemen from the inspector at Stratford, the writer drove a van to the docks and got a load of stuff on Saturday. 25th May. This was done owing to our carmen being afraid of violence in the future if they went. We would point out that the number of police on duty outside the Rotherhithe Tunnel, through which we went, was totally inadequate to properly protect us if any real opposition had been offered."
  He then goes on to give the request that he made to the Home Secretary. I do not know that I need read it, but it comes to this: they could not get protection. They telephoned to the Home Office on Friday, 24th May, and these are some of the points they made:—
  "Being taxpayers, we expect protection in return. If we cannot get this why are taxes demanded of us? … We would suggest that the docks be kept open and a notification by proclamation or otherwise be issued, that the utmost protection will be afforded to all and sundry to carry on their lawful occupation. The idea of permits being allowed to circulate signed by Ben Tillett or other strike leaders seems to us to be the absolute negation of government, and creates a position absolutely intolerable in a trading and civilised community."
  Here is the letter addressed to the Right Hon. R. McKenna, Secretary of State for Home Affairs:—
  "Referring to our letter earlier to-day, we have just been refused protection by the police at Stratford, the inspector stating that he could only give this in case of food, etc., being transported. Whilst agreeing that food comes first, we renew our demand upon you for protection to conduct our business."
  I think the firm go on to say:—
  "If we can get a few friends the writer intends to make the journey to the docks early to-morrow morning himself."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The right hon. Gentleman might read the letter intervening between those two.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I did not read the whole of the letter. The following reply was received from the Home Office on 29th May:—
  "Gentlemen,—In reply to your letter of the 28th inst., I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that the police are doing and will continue to do their utmost to protect from violence or even intimidation all persons following their lawful occupations so far as their resources allow, and having regard to the paramount necessity of protecting the food supply of London."
  The answer to that is this:—
  "We are obliged for your favour of the 29th. In reply we quite agree that the police are doing all they can in the way of protection so far as their resources allow. We have still a right to protection, even if the resources of the police are exhausted. We again beg to give you notice that we are now making another effort to get goods from the Surrey Commercial Docks, and, failing proper police protection, we shall protect ourselves to the utmost."
  Here is a firm of gentlemen being reduced to say, "We are unable to get police protection"; they are obliged to write to the Home Secretary and say: "We are going to protect ourselves…" They are obliged to make arrangements with several of their friends in order to get their goods! To this, the only reply received was an acknowledgment of their letter.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the postscript to that letter?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
  "I have got some goods since without police projection."
  [Laughter.] I really do not know what hon. Members are laughing at. These people are doing what everybody in Great Britain will have to do: combine themselves into a force in the same way as in the old days Members did going home from the House of Commons. Members combined themselves together to walk home to be protected from violence from outside, and that is the origin of the cry, "Who goes home?" Traders in London will have to combine together to protect themselves from the violence of people who desire to prevent them earning an honest livelihood, and that apparently is a matter of congratulation to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I have given specific instances—I hope I have not wearied the House in so doing—in order that the Home Secretary may deal with
  898
  them; for he requested the Opposition to give him specific instances. Having been in the House on Thursday and to-day, I have ventured to draw the attention of hon. Members to the extraordinary change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. On Thursday the right hon. Gentleman was full of anger against anybody who did any work outside his particular locality, explaining that provocative action must ensue if people attempted to earn an honest livelihood. He was going to give no protection for people under those circumstances! Further, he said unless a riot ensued he was going to do nothing. Now the Home Secretary has completely changed his attitude. I am not at all sure that, as the result of my effort of Thursday, and the speech of my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that if information were received that 800 men are going to work on the "Lady Jocelyn"—I should not be at all surprised to see it—that he would not send down a considerable force of men to protect that vessel. It is an entire reversal of his policy of Thursday. If nothing else has been done this has been done: On Thursday, when there were only a few Members in the House, and when the situation had not attracted the notice of the Press, we had one answer. That answer has attracted the notice of the Press; a Vote of Censure is removed, and we had another answer.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Towards the end of his remarks the right hon. Gentleman ventured upon the observation that he hoped he had not wearied the House. I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did exactly the opposite. In fact, if he will allow me to do so, very respectfully I would desire to commiserate him upon the case which has been handed to him. When we come to this House there are always certain parties and certain interests which try to have us. I can remember quite well my own earlier experiences, when I am afraid I was a little more innocent than now, after my experience as a Member of Parliament. I used to seize with unquestioned and uncritical avidity every letter that happened to be sent to me, like those that the right hon. Gentlemen has been reading. I was perfectly convinced, especially if the senders were business people, that there was no guile nor dishonesty in them. I have become a wiser man since. The only reflection I would make upon the matter now

  899
  is why the junior Member for the City of London has taken such a long time to attain to the same degree of wisdom, He gave us two cases. Apparently in neither case had he taken the trouble to cross-examine those who supplied him with the information. The Houlder case is completely shattered by the simple fact that the Home Secretary states that what was the most important statement in the letter is untrue. After that what more can we have, or do? Even if that were not so the fact that the area affected by the complaint is outside the Metropolitan Police district does not make a case which is germane to the charge that is now being put forward against the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary did not say—he can defend himself, or some of his colleagues can defend him—but I do not wish any delusions to be carried away by hon. Members in the later part of the Debate—the Home Secretary did not say that he was not responsible for law and order in England. He said he was not responsible for the Metropolitan Police outside the Metropolitan Police area, unless requests under certain circumstances had been made to him for their services, and the state of order in the Metropolis seemed to justify him in giving the aid asked. If the Houlder letter was what I have described, what are we to say about the Deacon letter? Outside "Alice in Wonderland," I have never heard a document so amusingly absurd in its lack of common sense, and its lack of relating its conclusions to the facts that preceded them than this letter. We are told that this firm goes down to the docks—it blows a trumpet and seems to go with its knees knocking—nevertheless, it gets what it wants at the docks. Then it writes a threatening letter to the Home Office and says to the Home Office if it is not protected, if it cannot get the goods that it requires from the docks, why is it called upon to pay rates and taxes? A second time it informs the Home Office that it is not being properly protected, and in a postscript which the hon. Gentleman who read the letter very carefully did not read until he was asked, we are informed that goods were delivered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I say I think that is hardly fair. I sent the whole of the documents before I made my speech over to the Front Opposition Bench so that they might be read by the Prime Minister and others.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not desire to make an unfair charge, and if he feels the statement I have just made to be such, I withdraw it. Let me put it in this way: that the statement I referred to destroyed the irrational fear of the persons who wrote that letter. They got their goods. They admitted there was sufficient protection as far as they were concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They got their goods from the docks.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They only got some of their goods.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: They got some of their goods without protection. I have not read the correspondence, but I understand that if they did not get all the goods they wanted the failure was not owing to the Home Office failing to give adequate police protection, and that so far as the goods were available they got them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They did not require any more police protection, and their threats about bringing down their friends to help them at the docks were made the day before they made the attempt. When that attempt was made, neither they nor their friends, according to the circumstances, need have been afraid at all. The final point about the correspondence is this. Until I heard that postscript read I was under the impression that they did not get the goods that day. Because I was under the impression that they did not get the goods that day I said to myself, "That is one point against the Home Office."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I must have read the thing very badly. It was some time after this that the firm state:—
  "Since then we have been down one clay and obtained a certain amount of goods."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Well, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us> whether the day that they threatened to take their friends down to the docks they went down, and because there was no adequate force of police they did not get their goods?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Surely the junior Member for the City of London knows perfectly well that is the point. It is no use bringing vague charges like this and reading letters written by a man who has got more capacity for fear than for common sense, and written one night

  901
  before he undertakes his adventure. Does the right hon. Gentleman come and tell us when he informs us about this man's fear that he does not know whether it was justified or not? The whole point of this charge surety is not especially the fact that certain rather foolish people were afraid, but that those people when they went to the docks, specifically and definitely for goods, found that there was an overwhelming force of strikers, that there was no law and no order; that there were no policemen, and that the docks were in possession of mobs, and that they were therefore foiled in their purpose? If that is not their case, then it is a very serious waste of valuable Parliamentary time to discuss it. These are the specific cases which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City has brought before us. I venture to say that there is not enough evidence to justify a jury in giving a verdict of murder against a dog! What did the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench say? There were two notes that I made of his speech that I should like to refer to. He, too, was armed with letters, but he took the wise precaution not to read any of them. He, too, has been told of wives writing to employers and begging the employers to keep their husbands out of sight because their houses are waylaid and beset with pickets. There is not a single strike that has ever taken place but that we have had these accusations. [An HON. MEMBER: "They always have been."] They always have been, and whenever these things have been investigated, in nine cases out of ten, they have been just as fictitious as they are now detailed in the Deacon letter!
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: A man's leg was broken two nights ago.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: There is a very grave doubt as to why that man suffered his leg to be broken. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen knew the case as well as I do they would not laugh. The hon. Gentleman opposite has told us about legs being broken. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these blacklegs, whom he is so anxious to protect and in whose interests this Resolution is proposed today, have done more damage to life and property in London since they been employed than the ordinary workmen would have done in six months, working 10,000 times a greater volume of work.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Nothing of the Sort.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If it is life and property the hon. Gentleman wishes to protect he finds himself in most unenviable companionship in supporting his own Front Bench in reference to this Resolution. The next point, I notice, is the conversion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire to the doctrine of the right to work. He chaffed us in a very pleasant way, and asked us why our interest in the right to work has now wholly disappeared. When did his interest begin to show itself? We have had a right-to-work Bill several times before this House. I do not remember that the right hon. Gentleman ever said a word in its favour.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Or ever will.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not think he ever will except in special circumstances, and the special circumstances are these: that when the employers again desire to degrade the industrial conditions of their men and employ blacklegs then the doctrine of the right to work is going to be launched forth in this House and from public platforms by those who do not believe in it at all. Let us widen this question a little further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to hear that cheer. Why should the Home Secretary decline to do what the Opposition ask him to do? The Government ought not in any circumstances to give any legal protection that any employer was likely to ask them to give. That is a good Conservative doctrine. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that their own Chief Secretary for Ireland, in 1886, found himself, in reference to Irish evictions, in the same position that the Home Secretary is in reference to the Port of London today. Lord Clanricarde asked Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, as he then was, to give him, in precisely the same way, protection to evict his tenants that the Opposition are asking to give protection to employers to degrade labour in the Port of London today. Lord Clanricarde used the same taunts against the Conservative Government that was in power in 1886 that hon. Members opposite are using against the Government now. He talked about the feeble attempts of the Government to maintain law and order in Ireland, and he talked about the Land League. What was the reply of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach? On the 25th of October, 1886, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach wrote a letter to Lord Clanricarde, in which he laid down a very

  903
  sound principle—a principle from which the Home Secretary has not departed in the present case. He said:—
  "In the event of application to the Government for the services of the constabulary and military on such occasion—"
  That is the occasion of evictions—
  "compliance with the request would certainly be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties, and would most probably be postponed to the utmost extent permitted by law."
  That was the policy of the Tory Government in that day. It is perfectly true that this case subsequently found itself in the Courts, and that a legally minded person decided in different terms; but that is not the point. The point is that the Home Secretary is not a judge, and just in the same way Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was not a judge. The Government have got to take a civic as well as a legal view. Certainly that is the distinction between the Judiciary and the Executive.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Not in the obligation to observe the law?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Surely there is, in considering the circumstances in which certain cases become of such importance that they have got to be met subject to the letter of the law. I hope the Noble Lord, on reconsideration, will not dispute that point. That is the whole difference between a man responsible for law and order as a statesman, and a man responsible for the enforcement of law and order as a judge. There is a fundamental difference. I am not going to pursue the point, but I am amazed at its being disputed at all. That was what was laid down by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and I am going to found my argument upon Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's statement. There has been no attempt this afternoon to consider the effect of what certain action is going to be. The strike is not a thing that has arisen out of malicious intent upon one side or another. The strike has arisen because labour and capital came to certain disagreement which could not be settled without a strike being resorted to. Various persons have made independent inquiries; and the result of these inquiries has been to place it beyond the shadow of dispute that, both sides were in the wrong; both sides made mistakes, and both sides broke agreements. That was stated from both sides in this House, and I say so again. Both sides were wrong. The Government comes in, and offered to meet the party. The men make a certain
  904
  conciliatory offer to the employers. The employers considered and rejected it. The Government made a certain conciliatory offer to the employers. The employers considered and rejected that too. Now, surely, the Government is perfectly entitled, not only so, but it is the Government's duty to examine the whole circumstances of the case, and if they find there is any unreasonable attitude taken up by any body of employers, the effect of which is going to degrade the status of London life, and lower the standard of London citizenship, the Government have a duty to maintain that status and tell the employers they are going to do so, whatever the consequences may be. The Government must impose duties, as well as maintain rights. And that is a point upon which we can stand and put forth our arguments in support of what the Government have done.
  What is this case? It is no secret. The employers want to smash up the Transport Workers' Union. There is no doubt about that. They think they can beat the men, and consequently they reject the men's advances and the Government's advances and are employing blacklegs. In considering that, I do not want to say anything unreasonably provocative. I made a remark in reply to an interruption a few moments ago, when I used the rather ugly expression, but necessary expression, "blackleg." A blackleg is a peculiar species of workman. He is not a man who is desirous to work and is found regularly in employment. That is the mistake which so many hon. Members make. A blackleg is a totally different species of workman from the ordinary workman. He is a man very 10th to work at all, for which neither hon. Members opposite nor ourselves here have the least sympathy. Blacklegs require to be much more carefully looked after than they can be, even by the police, whom they like to protect them. I do not want to dwell too much upon an unsavoury subject, but I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has any information, whether, as a matter of fact, the Moroccan Wharf at Wapping at the present moment is closed because of the infectious diseases brought in by blacklegs? I venture to say if hon. Members of this House who are very much interested in the "Lady Jocelyn" case would just take the trouble to go on board the "Lady Jocelyn" they would get enlightenment which would make them very sorry for the rest of their lives, and they would never in future

  905
  mention the "Lady Jocelyn" case, her crew, or her owners.
  6. 0 P.M.
  I go back and emphasise this, that the Home Secretary and the Home Office has a double duty to perform. I do not deny the arguments advanced from the other side so far as they go. If I were in the Home Secretary's position I should find myself compelled to give what protection was absolutely necessary to the labour that was necessary to enable London to live just as fairly well as it can in the unfortunate circumstances in which it is placed at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has a duty imposed upon him, and I am not going to say anything against his carrying out that duty. He has this further wider and more permanent duty. He has got to see to it that no organisation of employers can use him for the purpose of restoring in the Port of London the deplorable and altogether objectionable conditions that preceded the organisation of labour in that port. It is very difficult I am sure for my right hon. Friend to steer between the two duties, to dovetail one into the other, and while satisfying one to do his duty in respect of the other; but if it is difficult and practically impossible to lay down any principle upon which he can act, I am perfectly certain the Resolution moved on behalf of the Opposition proposes the worst thing the Home Secretary could do, and expresses the very worst sentiment any body of sensible men could express in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the right of free speech and tried to draw a parallel between the Port of London and Belfast. I do not object to the parallel. I accept the parallel. If the right to work, as he calls it, was a genuine right to work; and if there was any deliberate and organised attempt by any malicious or anarchically-minded men to disrupt without due cause the ordinary operations of labour, then the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring his police upon the spot and stop those attempts. The right hon. Gentleman ought to act on terms of equality. When you speak of the right of the employers in the Port of London to tear up agreements and to refuse to come to agreements after they have torn them up, to reject conciliation, "whether offered by the men or by the Government, and to bring in blacklegs, whom they will not employ in times of peace, in order to establish a special and specific machinery to destroy organised labour in
  906
  the Port, and to lower wages, casualise labour that has become more and more decasualised, it is a colossal piece of absurdity to put that kind of policy and action alongside the right of free speech, and say that the defence given to the one side will not be given to the other. Let me emphasise that point. The employers were not bringing those men from Newport to keep them in London; they are not bringing the inhabitants of doss-houses from Sheffield and other places in order to make regular dock labourers of them; they are not giving them the extra money necessary to bribe them down to London, and they are not giving them their beer and the carnal facilities they have got to offer them, as permanent things. No, it is for a special purpose, and this is the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman opposite describes as the right to work. Ten days after the strike is ended the men who are being condemned as intimidators and breakers of the law will offer themselves at the docks and they will be taken back, and those men whom the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to protect by the police and soldiers will find their way back to the places from which they came, and they will not then be employed in the docks because they will not suit the purpose of those who are employing them at the present moment.
  I do not desire to sit down without making it perfectly clear that the present situation is one which requires very careful and very firm handling so far as the employers are concerned, as well as the employed. If there is going to be coercion, let it be imposed upon both sides. We are told that the employer does not want to be interfered with, and that he desires to be allowed to employ the labour that he likes. That is his case, and that is his strength. I am aware that all he wants is to smash the unions. The very wording of this Resolution is fallacious, because it does not contain the whole of the truth. It is not wide enough in its description, and it is very carefully worded. The words have been carefully selected, and they have been selected just as carefully as the selection which have been read out to the House. If the Home Secretary were foolish enough to accept the advice given by the Opposition, he would create a temper, both on the part of employers and employed, that would not wear away for a great many months to come. What we want is to get this thing settled with as little bad temper

  907
  being left behind as we possibly can. The workmen want the employers to federate, that is to join a union. I think the employers ought to candidly accept the situation and try to encourage and not discourage the workmen to do the same. An agreement between the two bodies, one representing the employers and the other the employed, must be the basis of whatever peace we can get in the Port of London. The Government to-day and during the whole of this dispute should be very careful not to do anything whatever to make co-operative and joint bargaining and collective bargaining on the part of the men impossible, because that would destroy the organisation which is the basis of that bargaining. It is for these general principles, and upon more general grounds than have been raised before, that I, for one, shall go heartily in the Lobby with the Home Secretary and oppose most seriously from the bottom of my heart the iniquitous Resolution which has been moved by the Opposition to-day.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I am bound to say that I regret much that has fallen from the last speaker, having regard to the extreme importance of the principle which is now being discussed by the House. After I have dealt shortly with one or two points which have been raised, I want to address myself to what I think is the exceptional position of the Home Secretary. In the first place, I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), speaking for the Labour party, lays down the principle that the Executive, instead of protecting everyone on the same basis, should take sides in industrial disputes. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what you want."] That is what the leader of the Labour party said. Not only did he say that, but he quoted—I do not think he quoted accurately—in support of that contention what Lord St. Aldwyn had said when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland in relation to Lord Clanricarde. When we are supporting what we consider a right principle on a most important constitutional point, it is an absolute fallacy and falsehood to suggest that you are actuated by any desire to break up the unions. At the same time I desire to protest absolutely against the way in which the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to those workmen whom he calls blacklegs. I want to say that whether a man is a unionist or a non unionist, as
  908
  long as he is acting within his legal rights, he is entitled to the full protection which can be afforded him by the law.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I did not use the expression "blackleg" as synonymous with non-unionism. All non-unionists are not blacklegs.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: What the hon. Member said was that the free labourers who interfered with the rights of unionists to monopolise labour were blacklegs. I deprecate the use of any such expression which, with all deference to the hon. Member who is the Leader of the Labour party, could only have been used for purposes of prejudice, and not for the purpose of elucidating this great problem. Let me follow up that argument by one other statement which was made by the hon. Member for Leicester. He drew a distinction between what he called the civic and the legal aspect, and, as I understood him, he drew that distinction for this reason—that whereas from a legal point of view certain principles have to be observed from a civic point of view, you may put aside those principles when you do not happen to agree with the people who ask you to put them into force. I say that is a monstrous suggestion when you are dealing with a principle of this kind. There is no distinction whatever between civic and legal principles in dealing with this question, and there is no distinction whatever whether you are dealing with union and non-unionists or employers or employed. I do not want to divert what I have to say by any question of prejudice as to details, because we are really dealing with a question which goes to the whole basis of the security of civilised life and society. I am sorry the Home Secretary is not present for the moment, but I see the Prime Minister is here. The first point upon which I join issue with the Home Secretary is that the right hon. Gentleman, who, in matters of order, is the representative of the Government, declared, as I understand him that his responsibility was limited to the London area—[HON". MEMBERS: "No."] That is the effect of what he said.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman said that as soon as it became a question in Essex it was outside his jurisdiction.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend said a totally different thing. He

  909
  said that he was the head of the Metropolitan Police, and in that capacity his direct responsibility was limited to the Metropolitan area.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Let me reply to that point, because I do not wish to misrepresent anyone. I will take up that position. What has that to do with the subject matter of the present complaint? Let us assume that it is quite true that the Home Secretary is in a special position as the head of the London police. No one will deny that, but, unquestionably, as Home Secretary, he has another responsibility and a much larger and wider responsibility, and it is that which has been called into question by the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain).
  The PRIME MINISTER: What is it?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I will tell the House what that responsibility is, because it is of extreme importance. In matters of order and dealing with riot or bloodshed, in a certain sense every citizen, every policeman, every soldier, every Minister, and every Member either of the Opposition or the Government side has the same responsibility. That was laid down, I think, in precise terms by Lord Bowen when he was dealing with the Feather-stone inquiry. No one will deny that statement. Now I bring that home to the position of the Home Secretary. Conditions are brought to the notice of the Home Secretary under which he is called upon to give assistance in order to protect a citizen in carrying out his legal rights and duties, and to prevent riot and bloodshed. I say the very moment that that position is called to the notice of the Home Secretary the full responsibility rests upon him to do what he can to give protection and to prevent the spread of riot and bloodshed. When these special conditions are brought to his notice responsibility is thrown upon him in a special manner, because to the country and to this House the Home Secretary represents the Government as regards questions of law and order, and as regards dealing with these questions of riot and bloodshed. I cannot understand the position which the Prime Minister takes up.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What position?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government of this country are prima facie responsible for the
  910
  proper protection of all citizens in carrying out their legal duties in a lawful manner? That is the first point. Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Minister specially responsible for the Government carrying out its duties in that respect is the Home Secretary? If he admits those points, then I have substantiated my position that a very heavy and distinct responsibility rests upon the Home Secretary, because he is the Member of the Government through whom the Government ought to carry out what is one of its first and primary duties, that is, giving proper protection to every citizen in this country in the conduct of his legal business under legal protection, and in a legal manner. Therefore, I entirely join issue with what the Home Secretary said, as I understood it, in the sense of limiting his responsibility within the area of London when he is head of the police and not giving due weight to the equally large responsibilities which he has in all parts of the country, as Home Secretary, and therefore as representing the duties of the Government in matters of riot or disorder. When the Home Secretary was speaking in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), he somewhat diverted the discussion from questions of principle to questions of fact. I am not going into the discussion as regards these questions of fact between the Home Secretary on the one side and the, hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) on the other, because it is not necessary. It is most important when the House is dealing with a great question of principle that it should not get involved upon questions of fact which do not really affect the principle at all, but which divert the attention of the House from the real matter of importance which is in issue before us. The Home Secretary claimed that; as regards the protection of citizens in the performance of their legal rights in a legal manner, he was entitled to discriminate. He said the Executive were entitled to say they will protect some citizens and will refuse to protect others. If a doctrine of that kind were once laid down, we should bid farewell to that security which is the essential condition to all civilised society.
  It is not for the Executive of the Government, and it is not for the officer of the Executive of the Government to make a discrimination between one person and another. He has got a duty, which he equally owes to all, to protect every man within the limits of the legal rights to which

  911
  he is entitled in the exercise of his lawful everyday business and pursuits. That is the first point on which I absolutely join issue with the principle laid down by the Home Secretary. He made no answer on this point to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Instead of making any answer to a most important attack, not made so much upon him personally as upon him in connection with the duties of his office, he merely dealt with questions of disputed facts which, were they to be decided one way or the other, would not in any way interfere with the leading principle, namely, the equality of treatment of all citizens without any discrimination of any sort or kind. Undoubtedly the other night he did say in his speech that he drew a distinction between imported labour and the labour already situated at the docks. I know of no constitutional principle on which a discrimination of that kind can be justified. What does it matter to the labourer who is desirous of earning his livelihood whether, for the purposes of his labour he is living on the spot or whether he happens to come from a distance? It is a monstrous suggestion that because a labourer comes from a distance in order to carry out the ordinary peaceful duties of labour, such as the loading or unloading of vessels, protection is to be withdrawn from him on the ground that if he went home again to Newport he might be able to find employment in the port there. How can you carry on civilised society, how can the Government carry out the duties thrown upon them as regards the protection of the free labourer and his equal rights if they seek to raise this discrimination: "We will protect you if you seek employment in your own village or in your own county, but we will refuse to give you protection if you come outside the area of your own village or your own county?" I protest from every point of view against the unconstitutional doctrine laid down by the Home Secretary that it is either the duty or the right of the Executive to make a discrimination. That is not their duty at all. They are bound, and absolutely bound, to give protection to all citizens, irrespective of the work they are doing, and irrespective of the claim they are making at the particular time.
  There are two other matters on which I want to say a word or two in reference to what was said by the Home Secretary.
  912
  I think the Home Secretary referred to the Newport case in a way which was quite unjustifiable. I recollect very well that at the time the Newport case was discussed in this House a speech was made from the Treasury Bench by the then Secretary of State for War, who is now the Lord Chancellor (Lord Haldane). I need hardly say you will find nothing in that speech of the doctrines advanced by the Home Secretary to-day. If you read that speech you will find it laid down in the most absolute terms that it is the first duty of the Government in a civilised country to give legal protection to all citizens as regards-their ordinary business duties without discrimination and without distinction. What he said was this, and it is the one exception to the principle:—
  "Under very exceptional circumstances, there may bean extreme case of necessity which possibly entitles you to interfere with an ordinary citizen as regards his legal right."
  Let me remind the House of the illustration which he gave. It will show the very different view which was taken by the them Secretary of State for War from the view taken by the Home Secretary to-day. He said:—
  "I give this illustration. Suppose you saw a man going to throw a lighted match near a powder magazine. I think in an extreme case of that kind, although prima facie a man has a legal right to throw a lighted; match on one side, you are entitled to interfere."
  Who would deny the necessity which arises under exceptional conditions of that kind?: The very fact that such an exceptional condition was taken for the purposes of illustration confirms what the then Secretary of State for War laid down in the widest terms, that there is to be no discrimination in the treatment of citizens, but that all are to be alike protected in their lawful pursuits and as regards their lawful business. There was one other topic referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He said:—
  "Is it not a monstrous thing that in the twentieth century goods are not to be moved from the docks of the city, which is the centre of the civilised world except under the permits of Mr. Ben Tillett? "
  Surely that is a monstrous position to which we have come under the conditions of government at the present time. I want to back that up if I may. I had a letter to-day from a neighbour of mine in the country, who was wanting certain goods which were being imported into the Port of London, and he sent me this letter from the person from whom he bought these goods:—
  "I regret to say I cannot forward them to you., because I have not got the permit of Mr. Ben Tillett."

  913
  Is it not a monstrous thing we should be reduced to that in a civilised country at the present moment? Unless the Government with true courage accepts the true constitutional doctrine, that apart from politics or any other consideration they insist as a first principle that people should be allowed to carry on their legal business in a legal way, I see no alternative but an increase of that industrial unrest which has done untold harm to the country during the last few years. The way to deal with industrial unrest is to deal with it with a firm hand and to show that you hold the balance of justice equally as between all parties in all industrial disputes. I hear the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister assenting to that general proposition. I hope, when they come to practice, they will obey the same principle to which they are now giving their assent in the House of Commons. It is of vital importance—in fact there is no matter of greater importance—that in a question of this kind, dealing with a first principle in civilised society, this House should insist on that principle of equality without which you cannot have liberty, and on that principle of justice without which you cannot have other than conditions of industrial unrest.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I always listen with great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, particularly when he is dealing with matters of constitutional law, on which he is so high and recognised an authority. He spoke, I think, with rather unusual vehemence, but he addressed very few of his observations to the Motion before the House. That Motion, I may remind him and other hon. Gentlemen, is a Motion of Censure upon the Home Secretary, and through the Home Secretary upon the Government, based upon an allegation that my right hon. Friend had drawn either in words or in practice—and words are really of very much less importance than practice—a distinction unwarranted by law and by the Constitution in cases in which he will and cases in which he will not afford protection. Had my right hon. Friend done so, he would have well warranted the censure of this House. I will not go back to the initiation of this Debate, for I must confess that in a now somewhat prolonged Parliamentary experience I have never heard a more complete and crushing reply than that which was given by my right hon. Friend to the speech in which this Motion was introduced, and no attempt,
  914
  not the faintest attempt, has been made to question or to undermine his position. What my right hon. Friend proved was this, that in so far as the Metropolitan area and that part of the Port of London within the Metropolis is concerned, he has during the whole time this strike has lasted, afforded protection without discrimination or distinction to persons or cases, protection which has proved perfectly adequate for the purpose, for all the labour for which there was a demand in the Port. Is that disputed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] By whom It is no good saying you dispute it unless you can produce cases, actual cases, in which free labour, as it is called, labour which is actually being employed at the docks, is not being protected, or in which there has been a demand for labour at the docks and the necessary labour to supply that demand has been prevented.
  Mr. PETO: It happened this afternoon.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman can get up and produce his case after I have spoken. This Vote of Censure was put down on Monday. What I am saying is that so far as the Debate has gone and so far as we have any knowledge of the events which had taken place at the time when the Vote of Censure was put down, not one single case is produced in which full and adequate protection has not been given to every labourer employed throughout the whole of the Metropolitan area.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that protection has been afforded to everyone who was legally entitled to it at the docks?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have not heard a single case to the contrary.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: He himself admitted that he had discriminated against men imported on the "Lady Jocelyn."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should have anticipated that the Leader of the Opposition would understand the distinction between the case he is putting and the case with which I am dealing. I will come to that other case presently. The right hon. Gentleman does not know the case. I was confining my observations for the moment to the cases within the area of the Metropolitan Police. I have said so. When I ask for a case in which within that area adequate protection has not been afforded, what does the right hon. Gentleman think

  915
  it pertinent to do—to get up and mention a case which is admittedly outside the Metropolitan area altogether? We cannot conduct Debate in a reasonable spirit if interruptions of that kind are made. I repeat my challenge, which is perfectly plain and explicit, to so far as the Metropolitan area is concerned, in which my right hon. Friend is directly responsible for the conduct of the police, no case has as yet been alleged, certainly no case has been proved, in which during the whole of this strike adequate protection has not been afforded. I come now to another question, the question which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken, namely, What is the limit of the responsibility of the Home Secretary in regard to these matters? I can speak as an old Home Secretary. I held that office for three years. They were three years of great industrial trouble and strife. During that time I believe I had to deal with problems even as grave, and certainly more grave so far as public order is concerned, than even those which have unhappily emerged during the course of the last two years. I did not escape criticism, but the criticism to which I was exposed generally proceeded from a different quarter. I believe I acted on precisely the same principles of administration as those upon which he has acted. I do not see the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) in his place, but I am sure that from more than one public platform in his genial way he criticised my action.
  I only mention that because the person who holds that office is obliged to acquaint himself with, or bitter experience teaches him, what are the extents and limits of his functions. I do not think they are quite correctly apprehended by my hon. and learned Friend. Let me state them as I understand them. In the first place, the Home Secretary is head of the Metropolitan Police. As such, he is the police authority for the Metropolitan area, and he has the same responsibility within that area for the control and management of the police as in municipal boroughs the Watch Committee has, or as the Standing Joint Committee of a county, neither more nor less. In the next place, as Home Secretary he has an authority which has gradually grown up and developed for which it is very difficult to find any legal or even constitutional origin. He has a conventional authority—I do not think I can describe it as anything else—which has no
  916
  legal sanction, of giving advice to the local authorities of the country, with whom, be it remembered, by the law of England, responsibility for the preservation of order rests. It does not rest with the central Government. The central Government is not responsible for the preservation of order. It is a legal duty cast by the law of England from time immemorial upon the magistrates and on the local authorities. The Home Secretary has absolutely no responsibility, and he has no power of interference with the discretion of the local authorities in the discharge of that duty. But a convention has grown up under which the Home Secretary is called upon to advise, and often spontaneously advises, local authorities in cases of difficulty and emergency as to how that duty may best be performed. In this way he is able to bring into more or less co-ordination the various local authorities of the country; and in regard to a matter which, happily, not very frequently happens, namely, the necessity of the employment of troops, he becomes the medium of communication between the local authority and the War Office or the officers in command of the troops.
  In the case which happened when I was Home Secretary, and in which, unfortunately, life was lost through the action of the military, they brought in the military to suppress what was apprehended to be and what turned out to be a dangerous riot. It so happened in that case (I am speaking from memory, though I am sure I am accurate) that the call for the military was made without any intervention by the Home Office at all. It was made directly by the local authority to the officer in command of the troops. I was Home Secretary. I was in constant touch with the industrial situation. I knew nothing, absolutely nothing, of what had taken place until unfortunately the loss of life occurred. I was called an assassin for it for many years afterwards; but that is neither here nor there. I merely mention that as an illustration of the manner in which our administrative machinery actually works. I protest altogether against the doctrine, to which I was very sorry to think that the hon. and learned Member in his speech just now gave countenance, that the Home Secretary and the central Government was responsible for the maintenance of order in the different localities of the country. That is not the law of England, and never has been the law of England. It

  917
  is not part of our constitutional practice, and I trust it never will be. To go back, let us see how far we have advanced. I say that the Home Secretary is directly responsible, as head of the police, as the police authority, in the Metropolitan area. He has also got by convention this duty of advising, and to some extent coordinating the action of local authorities elsewhere, but he has no direct power or responsibility in that matter. Thirdly, in common with other local authorities, he may be called on in case of need to lend whatever surplus of police force may be at his disposal to assist the local authority in another area in the discharge of this duty of preserving order. That is a liability and responsibility which he shares with all police authorities in the country. When I have said that, I believe I have exhausted what, under the law and constitutional practice, are the powers and duties of the Home Secretary with regard to the maintenance of order. I should be glad to know of any other.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the responsibility lies upon the Crown, and therefore upon the constitutional advisers of the Crown to keep order from one end of the country to the other.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is just where the Noble Lord is entirely wrong.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The King's peace.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The King's peace according to the constitutional law of this country, it is the duty of the magistrates of the various localities to maintain. They can call, for the purpose of maintaining the King's peace, and have the right to call upon every citizen, be he ordinary layman, or soldier—and that is the only way in which soldiers come in—to render such assistance as is reasonable and proper, and is at the time in his power to give. That is the law in this country, as well settled as any law can possibly be.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises the over-ruling responsibility of the Government, as representing the King, to keep the peace in all parts.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree, but I am dealing with the actual facts. I say, according to our law and our constitutional system, the manner in which the King's peace is preserved is the manner I
  918
  have described, and the persons responsible—and no one knows this better than the hon. and learned Member—are the magistrates, and if they do not do their duty they are liable to indictment for the non-performance of it. You never heard of the indictment of a Government. You could not indict a Government. Let the hon. Member try against the Home Secretary or any other Member of the Government because the peace has been broken. There is no grand jury could or would return a true bill, whereas if the magistrates fail in their duty they could and they would. I believe I am stating, and I hope so, the constitutional practice. There is really no difference of opinion among legal or constitutional authorities as to the truth of what I have said.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is an opinion delivered by Lord Campbell to the exact contrary of the doctrine he has laid down?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity subsequently of stating what Lord Campbell said. I am stating what I be believe to be practically the unanimous opinion of all the great constitutional authorities. Nowhere was it more clearly laid down than in the report made by Lord Bowen in the investigation to which reference has already been made, and which followed on the Featherstone riot. I come to the very important question of discrimination, or alleged discrimination. I entirely accept, and so does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the general proposition that it was the duty of the authority responsible, whatever that authority might be—whether he be the Home Secretary or whether it be the local police authority—to afford protection to every citizen without any distinction or discrimination in the exercise of his legal rights. That, again, is elementary law. Certainly no discrimination of any kind ought to be made by reference to the judgment of the police authority. Whether those rights ought or ought not exist, or whether it was expedient or inexpedient that they should be exercised, they have every right to protection. But even within the limits of the area for which my right hon. Friend is entirely responsible cases may arise, and constantly do arise, in which, without making any invidious or unjustifiable discrimination on such grounds as I have suggested, the police and the person responsible for the police must, having regard to the forces at his

  919
  disposal, distinguish between the urgency of the relative demands upon him. No one will dispute that.
  You must obviously have regard to the limited forces at our disposal, and none of our police forces are kept, or ought to be kept, with more than a very narrow surplus apart from the normal requirements. Therefore the police authority must have regard to the forces at their disposal, which are not more than adequate for the normal requirements that may be made upon them. They must, when calls come upon them from different quarters, distinguish to the best of their ability as to the character and urgency and the amount of support that ought to be given. Take an extreme case of a man ill tempered and provocative, an eccentric man, if you like, and I am not referring to the industrial dispute at all, who chooses deliberately, in the exercise of what is his legal right, to parade before a certain number of his fellow citizens emblems or other symbols, or to indulge in conduct which he knows will be provocative, and which will inspire and arouse feelings of resentment and very likely lead to dispute. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but when he calls on the police authority to give him protection the police authority is entitled to say, "There are other calls more urgent than yours, and although you may not be exceeding your legal rights in what you propose to do I cannot give you that protection until, at any rate, I have satisfied myself as to every other demand made upon me."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: For example, the First Lord of the Admiralty at Belfast.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have purposely not taken an industrial case, but I will take any case the Noble Lord likes; it does not matter who it is or what it is.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The First Lord of the Admiralty at Belfast was precisely the case you were taking.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry we have had so much of the First Lord of the Admiralty at Belfast, not because I think it is a peculiar case, but because it rather diverts attention from the real point at issue. As a matter of fact, the First Lord of the Admiralty set a most admirable example. I have never known a better example set by any public man. When he found, in the exercise of a perfectly legal right, that to give an address, at a
  920
  particular hall in a particular part of Belfast, which he was absolutely entitled to do, and which he was entitled to call upon the authorities to protect him in doing, when he found that that might have, and probably would have, the result of provoking disorder, and possibly riot, abandoning all amour propre, and, I have no doubt, sacrificing the convenience of a, great number of other people, he deliberately changed his place of meeting, and held it in a spot which I think most people-would agree was not provocative. In doing so the First Lord of the Admiralty set an admirable example, which I trust will be widely followed by others in all parties in social, political and industrial life.
  I am sorry to have been diverted from the argument I was endeavouring to address to the House. The point I was making was this: While it is absolutely-wrong for the police authority to discriminate on such grounds as those of political justice or interest, or of social expediency or even between the different demands of the different persons he has to protect, he is bound, otherwise he does not perform his duty as an administrator, to make an estimate of the relative urgency of the different calls which are made upon a comparatively limited force, and in the exercise of his honest judgment to apportion it in the first place to the call which is most urgent, and in which the largest number of persons are interested. If that is true of the police authority acting within the area of his own jurisdiction, how much, more is it true when, as was the case—and now I am coming to the case put by the Leader of the Opposition—with my right hon. Friend, when he was asked to lend a portion of the police force for use in another area for which he has no direct responsibility at all. That is a very serious thing to do at any time. You have got a very small margin, as I think you ought to have, of police for the normal requirements of your own district, and when your own district is in an abnormal condition, as was the case here, when you have got a serious labour dispute covering a very large area of ground, and affecting a very considerable number of men engaged in different employments—when you have got an abnormal condition of things like that, it is not only right, but is the primary duty of the person responsible for the administration of the police, to be most careful how and to what extent, and for what purpose he lends any of his force for use in another area.

  921
  I think my right hon. Friend was not only right, but was bound, when the demand was made to him from Essex, a place outside the Metropolitan area, to say to the person making the demand "Your necessities may be great, but you must satisfy me of their urgency, and of the ground of the urgency, before I can send to you any of my Metropolitan Police. If property is actually in danger, if oil stores are actually in danger, or if there is any reasonable apprehension of an immediate breach of the peace, or riot and disorder, then I can spare you the men; but if it is a less urgent case than that, go elsewhere. There are many police areas in the country which are entirely unaffected by this strike. They can supply you with men. I cannot spare my men for, I will not call them non-necessary, but non-urgent purposes. As far as I am concerned, I must withhold my assistance. I must keep it for absolutely urgent demands." That was the position taken up by my right hon. Friend. Does anyone say he was wrong? If I had been in his place—I was not here, but I entirely endorse everything he did—if I had been at the Home Office, I should certainly have pursued exactly the same course, and so would every right hon. Gentleman on that bench. He would have said to himself, "I am perfectly sure," and the more he felt the necessity of protecting free labour here in London the more would he have felt the cogency of these considerations, he would have said, "I must not denude London of the necessary supply of police for service elsewhere, unless I am absolutely convinced that there is an overwhelming and imminent necessity." That is the course which was taken by my right hon. Friend, and the course which, by this Motion, the House of Commons is invited to censure.
  I have endeavoured to present to the House what I believe to be, and what I believe are, the accepted principles which ought to govern our administrative actions in matters of this kind. If those principles, as I have put them before the House, are correctly stated, then their application to the facts, which are not in dispute, which are now under consideration, does not admit of any controversy at all. I am not at all sorry, indeed, I am very glad, that this question has been raised. I am glad because it will afford a complete vindication of my right hon. Friend, who, in circumstances of great difficulty, both during the coal strike and during this
  922
  strike, has maintained the best traditions of the Home Office, and has preserved order in London, so far as he could do so, by advice, and in other parts of the country, where many men, less strong-nerved, might have lost their heads, and might have committed serious mistakes. I am very glad, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is going to be vindicated, as he will be to-night by the House of Commons. But, glad as I am on personal grounds, I am still more glad that the House should have had this opportunity of once more bringing itself face to face with what are the actual administrative problems which the Home Secretary of this country has to deal with, and what are the legal and constitutional principles by which alone those problems can be solved. Those principles have been completely carried out in the administration of my right hon. Friend and I ask the House to endorse his action.
  Mr. PETO: In following the Prime Minister I am, of course, at a great disadvantage, because from very long experience it is well known to every Member of this House that the Prime Minister is a past master in the art of choosing the ground on which he can make the strongest possible defence, and of confining his remarks, both before learned judges and before this House, to the ground he has specially chosen himself. In the earlier part of the Prime Minister's speech he chose to ignore the exact terms of the Motion before the House. He confined his remarks to a defence of the Home Secretary, and ignored the position of the Government. I must say that it came as a shock to me, as an ordinary layman, not versed in these nuances of the law and constitutional doctrines, to hear the Prime Minister, almost below his breath, tell the House that the central Government is not under the duty of maintaining law and order in the whole of the country. I venture to think that will come as a shock to the ordinary man in the street who reads a report of the Prime Minister's words to-morrow. Ordinary plain people have been under the impression for years and years in this country that His Majesty's Government was responsible for much more than the maintenance of law and order in the country, and it will come as a shock to them to find that in defending the action, or want of action, in permitting people to carry on their avocations in this country, the Prime Minister shelters himself behind these thin veils of ancient constitutional ideas,

  923
  they, of course, may be perfectly correct—I have no doubt they are as the Prime Minister stated them to be—but they apply to ancient usages in this country, when we had beadles, and when we had not got police, and when the only possible alternative would have been armed military intervention.
  The Prime Minister, in the early part of his speech, said the Home Secretary had given a complete and crushing reply, and that he completely proved his case so far as his action in the Metropolitan area was concerned. I venture to say that even at the present moment within the Metropolitan area there is not protection being given to people who want to do the work of unloading vessels which are actually lying at the quays at the London Docks and the Tilbury Docks. One of the principal grounds of this Motion of Censure against the Government is, that the Home Secretary discriminates between what he is pleased to call necessary cargo and what he calls unnecessary cargo, for which he does not give protection. The specific case I am going to quote is of four vessels of the Canadian Pacific Line. First, there is the "Mount Temple," which arrived in the London Docks just before the outbreak of the strike. It had a most valuable cargo, including foreign motor cars from the United States, which had been shipped by the Canadian Line. On that vessel and on three others, one firm in London alone have £20,000 worth of motor cars. Up to midnight before the strike broke out, some of those cars were taken from the docks. The firm in question are perfectly willing to have the whole of their property unloaded over the quay, and taken by road or rail. They do not want the cheap lighterage facilities, which the Home Secretary referred to as being the reason that so little work was going on at the docks. I believe it is the fact that 90 per cent. of the in-and-out cargo is taken delivery of over the side from lighters, and if you have no lighterage service on the Thames, you cannot expect a large amount of work to be done at the docks. The firm in question were promised by the manager of the Canadian Pacific Company that at one o'clock this afternoon the goods should be taken off. Men who were prepared to do the work were engaged, and he was to report progress at two o'clock. At two o'clock he telephoned that a body of 4,000 strikers, outside the dock, refused to allow the work to proceed, and he is conse-
  924
  quently doing nothing and is unable to do anything further in the matter.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is not this the case of 300 blacklegs who were dissatisfied with their conditions of labour? I was there at the time. Did they not ask the strikers to come down and help them?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. PETO: The hon. Member could not have been there, because I have been in the House all the afternoon, and he has been assiduously attending to his duties also. It is not the business of the Home Secretary or the Government to distinguish between one kind of cargo and another, and say that the people may have, say meat, but must not have fish or, if they are to have all kinds of food, a certain modicum of supply that the Home Secretary thinks necessary, but on no account will he give protection to unload raw material of the industries which are actually on the Thames, because in the long run, even if it does not happen in the course of three weeks, it is no use providing meat if you do not provide the workers who have no interest in this particular dispute with the raw material on which they are to find employment and wages to buy the meat.
  In the earlier part of the Prime Minister's speech he entirely confined his remarks to the Metropolitan area. There is nothing whatever in the Motion to draw a distinction between people who want to do their work in the Metropolitan area or just outside it. When we have a port of vast dimensions like this, it is a very poor line of defence to take an arbitrary county division, and, because some of the docks happen to be in Essex or Kent, for the Home Secretary to practically wash his hands of all responsibility for maintaining law and order there, and for the Prime Minister to defend his action and the action of the Government, and only bring forward certain ancient constitutional doctrines which he has now put before the House. The hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) complained that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) had gone into detail, and he said he wished to enlarge the area of the discussion. I noticed with Rome amusement that the Home Secretary a few minutes before complained that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had not devoted a sufficiently large part of his speech to detail, but had dealt with the general question-He said he thought he ought to have given more than fifteen minutes to quoting

  925
  specific cases in which the Home Secretary had failed in his duties. He asked what was a strike? It was not a malicious movement. It was simply, and in fact a declaration of war. That is exactly what I should like hon. Members opposite to remember also. I entirely agree. A strike is a declaration of war. There is no possible doubt about that, and it is an appeal to strength and to endurance, and it is because it is so that it is so absolutely essential that, if we are to have just and fair and equal government in this country, neither side should receive from the Government, either moral or physical assistance in order to take sides and help one or the other to win. So far, I am entirely in agreement with hon. Members opposite; but that is not our contention. What we say is, that whatever forces there are available must be used in order, as it were, to keep the ring. We cannot have such proposals as, for instance, that made by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Thorne) yesterday, that the town council of West Ham should pull up all the roadway leading to the docks, which argument he supported by the curious theory, that because the ratepayers paid for laying it down, it is perfectly proper to employ the ratepayers' money for pulling it up. Since we have that class of argument being used on one side, it is perfectly evident that the Government must use all the force at its command in order to maintain law and order. The Home Secretary said that a quarter of an hour of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to attacks upon the First Lord of the Admiralty. That was a monstrous thing to say. There was no attack whatever on the First Lord of the Admiralty; but there was a specific statement by the right hon. Gentleman that he entirely approved of the action of sending sufficient force to maintain law and order in the neighbourhood of Belfast. It is interesting to recall that for every word that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) read to the assembled crowd at Belfast, the country was put to an expense of 14s. or 15s. for the maintenance of law and order.
  I want to call attention to one or two of the wider questions which are brought into this question. A manifesto has been issued by the strike committee, and they say the employers are to depend upon the brutal weapons of starvation and intimidation, and police and military repression. That is a statement which, although I do not want to introduce any acerbity into the
  926
  discussion which can possibly be avoided, really ought to be contradicted most emphatically. It would be very easy for us to say that on the other hand the strike committee are depending entirely in the long run on this same brutal weapon of starvation for the success of their movement. That is the reason why this Transport Workers' Strike is so entirely different from any other. But when we get a strike carried on on the lines of allowing by permit necessary supplies to be taken to hospitals and that is spoken of as charity which may be misunderstood. I think it is time that the House took very serious stock of what is the real method by which this kind of warfare is now conducted. It is most instructive to look into the history of the Debates which took place two years ago, when there was a somewhat similar strike in Wales, and see what a long way the Government have moved in those two years in their ideas of what constitutes their duty. Once the Government come in and say that people are not allowed to do what is perfectly within their legal right to do it is very easy to descend to the much wider idea of the Home Secretary, as put before the House last Thursday evening. In that dispute the case is given very clearly in a very few lines of a letter which was written to the Prime Minister by Messrs. Houlder Brothers:—
  "We were told that if we placed the loading of our vessels in the hands of other men than those by whom it had hitherto been done, we should be committing a provocative act which would lead to a breach of the peace, and we were furthermore explicitly informed both by Mr. Sydney Buxton and by Sir Edward Troup that if we attempted to bring in the labourers whom we had engaged, no steps would be taken to protect them from violence."
  What was the action and what were the words used by the then Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) in connection with that dispute? Speaking in that Debate, he said he had directed the following telegram to-be sent to the Mayor of Newport, and this was the very commencement of his action in this dispute:—
  "It has been represented to the Secretary of State that the police have not been able to preserve order in connection with the strike of stevedores. He desires to remind you that the police and magistrates are responsible for the maintenance of order and the prevention of outrage or intimidation, and that if the local police are insufficient, immediate steps should be taken to obtain assistance from other police forces."
  A more proper telegram, and one more entirely in accordance with the ideas which lie behind this Motion could not possibly have been sent. But it very quickly changed from that position and a new theory was introduced that, although they

  927
  admitted that it was the duty of the Government to see that if the local police authorities had not sufficient force to maintain order they should assist them, yet there might be a case. The Home Secretary said:—
  "They would have to take that step only at such a time and in such circumstances when the police arrangements were carried to a point which would enable them properly and adequately to safeguard them."
  That was the case of bringing in these free labourers. He admitted that they were perfectly within their rights and must be protected. The only new departure was that they must select the time and the place presumably for bringing them in at such a time that the Government would be able to have the protection which was required. That was a very small departure from what had been hitherto understood. The Home Secretary prepared a telegram with full deliberation but it was never sent. I will read the first word or two:—
  "It is the duty of the local authority to provide a sufficient force to suppress disorder, riot or outrage. It is also their duty to use all legal means to prevent occasion for conflict between the parties."
  That second sentence is the one that the present Home Secretary has departed from. He still thinks it is the duty of the Home Secretary to see that the local authorities are in a position to suppress disorder, but he does not think it is any part of his duty now to see that they have sufficient force to prevent a conflict between the parties. The telegram finishes:—
  "In the last extremity they may prevent and forbid the landing of imported labour."
  That would mean preventing Messrs. Houlder Brothers from the exercise of what in ordinary circumstances would be their legal rights.
  "The last step could only be taken if local authorities can show that the landing of imported labour will inevitably cause riot and bloodshed and will lead to a general and disastrous strike."
  Such approval as was given from the Front Bench on that occasion was strictly limited to that condition, that if the landing was done at such a time when there was no adequate provision to safeguard a breach of the peace, and when it was done at such a time also that it would be sure to provoke an immediate outbreak of riot and so forth, then a more suitable time could be chosen. But of course the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly definite in stating that if all that the Home Secretary meant was that he was prepared to say to Messrs. Houlder's, "at this moment I have not the force necessary to prevent a riot, therefore I will do my best to prevent these
  928
  men being landed, but if you insist on your legal rights I shall take steps to give you legal protection"—if that was the only departure in the direction of not giving the protection which all citizens have a right to, that action would meet with his approval. Let us compare the position two years ago with the position which the Home Secretary laid down the other night. The Home Secretary laid down three entirely new principles. His speech of Thursday was, I think, extremely clear, and certainly it was not long. The first was that his duties were limited to suppressing actual disorder, and to protecting what he termed necessary food stuffs. There are two principles involved in that, the first being that he is the sole judge of what is necessary in the course of a strike. For all we know, this or any other strike might go on for six months or more before it was decided one way or the other, but the Home Secretary is the sole judge, not of what is legal and right for employers to do, but of what is necessary as regards cargoes, and what unloading of ships may be allowed, though in other cases cargoes may be required for the trade of the country. I have pointed out the absurdity of attempting to draw such distinctions. There is no possible distinction between the meat a man may be able to buy to-day and the cargo that might be necessary to provide him with the wages to buy it tomorrow. The second principle the right hon. Gentleman laid down was that he is only to preserve the peace when the action taken is not provocative. That he explained in two passages of his speech. He laid down the extraordinary theory that while it might be right for people if lodged on shore to unload vessels, the situation was entirely altered if the men were lodged on board ship. Does anybody suppose that Messrs. Houlder, or any other firm, would bring men by sea from Newport and make themselves responsible for the daily food and lodging of 300 men for the mere fun of the thing, or to spite the Home Secretary? Their motive in doing so was perfectly clear. It is because it is safer for the men to be on the ship than on shore, and because they need less protection; and yet the Home Secretary says that the mere fact that they are on the ship is so provocative that he does not think it necessary to lend additional police for their protection. He further explained that theory by using these words:—
  "It is not, it cannot be, the duty of any Government on every occasion to assist employers in actions which

  929
  are primarily intended, as I believe in many cases—I do not say in this case—to provoke disorder."
  As I understood the Home Secretary this afternoon, he has now taken back this proviso. He does now say in this case the action is specially designed to provoke disorder. I ask the House really to consider this proposition. Here is a business firm, and there is a Member of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House seriously to believe that a firm whose entire business consists in getting goods quickly loaded and unloaded, and who are put to enormous cost if there is delay and if ships are held up, would deliberately go out of their way to bring men, not to get ships loaded and unloaded, but to provoke disorder! Really to believe that we must believe that instead of being a business nation we are a nation of mad people. I do not think that proposition needs any further discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said that these men had ample opportunity for work at Newport. That point has already been met. There is no proof except in the Home Secretary's imagination that these people had ample opportunity for employment.
  The right hon. Gentleman said it was only his business to protect necessary cargoes. Surely that is a new theory of government. It is impossible for responsible people who represent the Opposition in this House to allow new doctrines of that kind to be enunciated without uttering some protest. It is not a question of slave traffic, or something of that kind, but it relates to the legitimate trades of the country, which have been safe-guarded hitherto. If they are to be interfered with, and if the Home Secretary is to say, "I am the sole judge of what is necessary for the people, I am the sole judge of what is a necessary cargo, I am the sole person to determine whether any particular action is what I am pleased to call provocative and is consequently entirely outside of the law and the protection of the State"—if that is so, then this Debate was absolutely necessary in order that those responsible for the trade and commerce of this country should know that they no longer have a Government which they can depend upon to protect them in carrying out their rights, and that they have no proof whatever that because for hundreds of years certain things have been lawful and have been protected they will continue to be protected to-day and to-morrow. We have now a Government, which includes the Home Secretary, who is the sole
  930
  arbiter of what business is to be carried on, what is necessary, and what is unnecessary. It will be necessary for every employer of labour to refer to this new autocratic authority in order to find out not whether his business is lawful, but whether in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman it cannot be protected as formerly, so that he may take the quickest possible means of getting out of such a business. If he has invested capital in a business which comes under the ban of the Home Secretary, who says he will not protect it in the event of a dispute between the employer and the employés, the employer will clearly understand what is possible in future in this country. Let employers realise what is possible under the new Home Secretary-made law, in order that they may be able to carry on their business in some other country where there are less extraordinary ideas of what are the duties of government.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I gave notice of my intention to move as an Amendment to leave out the words, "and that the claim of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to distinguish between cases in which he will afford such protection, and other cases in which he will supply it only after a breach of the peace has occurred, is unconstitutional and contrary to law," and to insert instead thereof the words, "but that it is not the duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to expend public money in providing protection for a body of professional strike breakers, collected at so much per head and employed by an unlawful association for the purpose of inciting to public disorder and provoking peaceful workmen into breaches of the peace."
  After consideration, I do not propose to move the Amendment, but I desire to address a few remarks to the House on the lines of the Amendment. There is not very much more to be said in reply to the Vote of Censure after the perfectly smashing speech we have heard from the Home Secretary. It makes the Motion one of the flimsiest which in my short memory of this House has been submitted. One or two things have been said on which I should like to make some observations. It is rather interesting to have from a Member of the old Constitutional party doctrines like those to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire (Mr. Peto).

  931
  It is perfectly amazing to him that a Liberal Prime Minister should rely upon the ancient usages of the Constitution. Apparently the hon. Member would wipe the whole thing aside, and start absolutely de novo. Then it is something quite new to have, especially from the Conservative Member for an English rural constituency, the suggestion that the power of "the great unpaid"—the power of the magistracy in the counties—should be wiped out and replaced, for that is what it comes to.
  Mr. PETOindicated dissent.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: The hon. Member shakes his head. It appeared to me he suggested there should be direct responsibility on the part of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. PETO: My contention was that it had always hitherto been believed in this country that it was the duty of the Government to see that local authorities had sufficient force placed at their command, if they had not got it, when there was an outbreak of disturbance.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I do not know where the hon. Member has been to get that doctrine from, but I suggest to him that he will not find it in any single text-book, or in any utterances of any single representative person. The sole authority for keeping order locally is the police authority, whether the magistracy or the Watch Committee, and it is only when they, in the exercise of their discretion, say that they do not think they have adequate power to cope with the trouble, and when they formally ask the aid of the Government, that any Government can aid them. I ask the hon. Member to find any authority for his proposition, or any authority contrary to that which I have stated. I very much admired the great adroitness of the hon. and learned Member (Sir A. Cripps), who, having listened to the reply of the Home Secretary, and finding that the whole case was up, promptly proceeded to indulge in the merest generalities—much more general than even he is in the habit of indulging. In connection with this Vote of Censure there has been no direct statement, but there has been a certain assumption for which, as I shall show to the House, there is not the slightest foundation. It is the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, and it is the assumption that ran through the two last speeches we have
  932
  heard from the opposite side. It is that the persons on board of the "Lady Jocelyn" were a body of perfectly orderly, genuine workmen, who were desirous of obtaining employment, and that they were induced by Messrs. Houlder Brothers, as their employers, to come to the Thames. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto) has accepted the view that strikes are in the nature of war. Very well, let us get rid of all cant, and accept the thing on that basis. The questions that arise are, was the "Lady Jocelyn," which was used in this dispute, owned by Messrs. Houlder Brothers, and were the persons on board that ship ordinary workmen? The answer to the first question is that the ship was not one belonging to Messrs. Houlder Brothers, but was a ship that has been utilised as a sort of floating boarding house for professional strikebreakers by the Shipping Federation and the National Free Labour Association to my knowledge since 1890. The second proposition is that the men who were aboard of her were not Newport men, but men selected from doss-houses, from gaol doors, and from a number of other places by the National Free Labour Association. I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion has been very badly had, and that the persons responsible for the National Free Labour Association have, not for the first time in their history, rather badly deceived the Conservative party. I would first like to deal with the Shipping Federation, and if the Home Secretary and the learned Attorney-General will give me their attention I am going to make a suggestion. We have heard from the outset a great deal in denunciation of the wickedness of trade unions who having been formed purely for trade union purposes have branched out and indulged in political work, and done things which the law has called ultra vires. Here is a Shipping Federation which, by every test you can apply to it, is a trade union pure and simple. Notwithstanding that, it has not merely acted as a trade union but has sought to supplant the insurance societies connected with shipping. This trade union, the Shipping Federation, has engaged in business, and is doing insurance work under the Workmen's Compensation Act without complying with the conditions of the Board of Trade as to deposit, and is seeking to supplant nearly every kind of association of shipowners. It is acting in violation of the Merchant Shipping Act as pimps for the purpose of engaging—
  Mr. SPEAKER: What on earth has this got to do with the subject under discussion?
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: With respect, I may point out that the Vote of Censure does suggest that the Home Secretary has differentiated in his attitude as to police protection between one class of men and another class of men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That he denies.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: If the denial is accepted by the Opposition, and that part of the Vote of Censure is promptly expunged, I have not another word to say upon it. But I do submit with very great respect that it is relevant to the latter part of the discussion to discuss the character of the people against whom the Home Secretary is alleged to have differentiated.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member is justified in taking this opportunity of making an attack upon a body of people who are unrepresented here and cannot reply, and who really are only quite remotely connected with this matter.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: With very great respect the whole position is this. Were the men on the "Lady Jocelyn" genuine workmen imported by Houlder Brothers, or were they persons introduced by the Shipping Federation in connection with this strike for the purpose of creating public disorder and inciting men to a breach of the peace?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in using his position here as a Member of this House to make a series of charges as to which he knows no attack can be made upon him outside by those who are charged. It is an abuse of his privilege.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: After that observation it would be very difficult for me to pursue my argument, but I do suggest with very great respect, that when we are asked to deal with a certain condition of things, and where an essential part of that condition of things is the character and motive of those who are fighting on the one side, it is of almost imperative importance that the House should be placed in possession of all the facts.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to refer to any facts which relate to this particular dispute, but he is going
  934
  into all sorts of charges. He is charging this federation with having broken the insurance laws, and the mercantile laws, and he is making charges in relation to a number of different subjects which are really totally irrelevant to the matter which we are now investigating. If he limits himself to the subject we are now discussing, I should not stop him.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: After that ruling, with the profoundest respect for what you have said, I will confine myself as narrowly as I can. One point I will deal with in a sentence, and I would ask for the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The short point is this: that there could have been no running of a boarding-house if the Shipping Federation had not got itself registered as a company contrary to the Trade Union Act. What I do commend to the right hon. Gentleman is this, that he should see that this is a trade union fulfilling every form of the definition of a trade union, and inasmuch as the Trade Union Act says that if a trade union is registered as a company the registration is void, I suggest that he might at once take action against it and remove the difficulty of the "Lady Jocelyn" or any other business activity in which this trade union masquerading as a company indulges contrary to law. I will leave that matter there, and I now come to the past history of this "Lady Jocelyn." This is not the first time that there has been a very serious charge brought in connection with this ship. There was serious trouble in 1890 and in 1891, and I will suggest to right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Front Bench to inquire quietly what their own Home Secretary did in regard to the "Lady Jocelyn" in the dispute at the Victoria Docks in October, 1891. They will then find that the conduct with which they are now charging the present Home Secretary was the conduct of their own Home Secretary in 1891, and if they refer to the Report of the Labour Commission set up by their own Government they will find that the "Lady Jocelyn" and another ship at that time were sources of the very gravest disorder. It was not disputed that the men on these two ships were armed with revolvers and that a number of shots were fired, and that the men on board did act as a party of inciters to trouble. The next point is with regard to the characters of the men on this ship. Either this ship or another, when stationed at Hull during the dispute of 1893, was forbidden by the Port

  935
  Sanitary Authorities, on the ground that small-pox had broken out on it, and this ship or another ship, while stationed at Liverpool during the shipping dispute of 1892, was forbidden by the Port Sanitary Authorities in Liverpool on the ground that cholera had broken out on it; and I think that there are other grounds on which this matter might be dealt with as a matter of policing by the Home Office, as well as in the way suggested by the Opposition.
  As showing the character of the ship, a number of the men who are on board the "Jocelyn" are, as I have said, professional strike breakers. That is to say they are men who are in the first place collected at so much per head by the Free Labour Association and supplied to the Shipping Federation. It is not an unknown fact that some of them have been supplied at so much per head by these people a number of times over. More than that, a number of these men have been taking the place of men on strike in not one, but a number of strikes, and a number of industries. That is to say, when the men on board the "Jocelyn" went to Liverpool some of them had been engaged to break a strike of engineers in the North of England, some of them had been engaged to break a strike in Hull, and some of them had been engaged to break a strike in West Ham. The question arises on that point as to whether, if people do go about in this way—they have a perfect right to do it—many of them armed with revolvers, they are to be vouchsafed at the public expense precisely the same protection as if they are genuine workmen, genuine free labourers, genuine non-unionists, seeking to get work. I submit that it would be wrong in principle for money to be expended on people going about in this provocative way, as though a man going up and down the street and threatening to crack on the head everybody whom he meets, should ask for police protection while he was indulging in the process of provocation. I ask hon. Members opposite sincerely not to believe that people are only armed in this way, and that this boat is only used in this way, to get the fullest possible protection for these men from the strikers. There are other reasons in connection with this very ship. In the strike of 1892 one of the reasons for using her was to prevent the men getting away after the capitation fee had been drawn on account. If hon. Members opposite really think the sort of thing which goes on in connection with this
  936
  vessel is worthy of their protection, I would suggest that they investigate matters a little further. Not only are the conditions of the vessel grossly insanitary, but they are also grossly immoral in character so as to retain the men on board. If hon. Members have any doubt about it, let them go down and inquire for themselves.
  If in that condition of things you are to afford the same protection that would be given to a perfectly genuine workman seeking employment from being threatened and molested, then I for one say it is not a right principle. Hon. Members opposite have been rather badly had over this Motion. The Free Labour Association, who are responsible for engaging these men and running the agitation on the employers' lines, are a body of some seven or eight men, who during the past few years have taken part in a great number of bogus agitations. The National Free Labour Association is only one alias out of five, and under this one alias these particular persons carry on their bogus agitations. They were brought into existence for this purpose by Mr. Laws, of the Shipping Federation, for the admitted purpose of smashing trade unionism and to promote Toryism. There has not been any General Election and there has not been any municipal election in the last twenty years where these particular people have not issued manifestoes on behalf of the Conservative and Moderate parties. They have confessed to receiving large subscriptions from the Conservatives, and I could give particulars if it were at all necessary. I need hardly remind the House that the head of this particular gang has derived some fame from a letter which was sent by the late Prime Minister, and which began "My dear Peters"—in other words, these are precisely the same individuals who ran the great bogus agitation as to the East London water supply, the same people who ran another big agitation when they obtained large subscriptions from the wharfingers not in favour below the Tower Bridge, and afterwards drew subscriptions from wharfingers above the Tower Bridge on the ground that it was going to injure their business.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is continually bringing in irrelevant matter, and he takes this opportunity to vent his spite on a particular body by bringing all sorts of charges against them which are irrelevant to the matter in hand. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the matter under discussion.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I have no spite, and I act from a high sense of public duty. When to my knowledge political scavengers of this character are utilising a perfectly genuine sentiment of this kind through the instrumentality of a great party in the State to create a wrong impression, I think I would be neglecting my duty to this House if I did not bring to its knowledge all the facts on which I base my statements. You are, Sir, supreme in your position, and it is impossible for me to speak contrary to your ruling. I have indicated what is the character of this agitation, and I could have supplied many details. I shall have to take the opportunity of doing it elsewhere. I say, with all sincerity in conclusion, that in my belief this whole thing has been engineered by this particular gang of people, who have captured the innocent mind of the Front Opposition Bench in their attempt to discredit genuine workmen and a genuine trade union movement by representations of a disgraceful character against the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The latter part of the speech to which we have listened seemed to me to consist of an attack upon certain individuals, while in the earlier portion of his observations the hon. Member gave an example of that intolerance which is so often shown by organised labour against all other men who are desirous to work. The attacks we have heard upon the men on board this ship seem to be very unworthy. Insinuations were thrown out, and it was suggested, that they are not ordinary workmen, because they came from gaol doors and other places. All sorts of insinuations of that kind were thrown out, without any attempt whatever to prove them. At any rate we have no evidence before us that these men upon whom the attacks are made were not willing to work; and we have still less evidence to show why they should not have as much right to work as any other body of men. Earlier in the evening we listened to a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, who insisted considerably upon the question of the right to work. I refer to that subject, because it seems to me that the ideas which we hold about the right to work, and the ideas which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite hold on the same question, are very different ideas, and are very much at the root of a great deal of the trouble we experience. The
  938
  fact is the right to work is the right of every man to do the work he is willing to do and which is offered to him; whereas the right to work as understood by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that a certain class, the aristocracy of labour, should have the right to work under more favourable circumstances, which involves the denial to other people of any right at all.
  We contend that the action adopted by the Government, and certainly the language which is used by the Home Secretary, must at any rate have a tendency to show sympathy on the part of the Government, a preferential sympathy for trade unionists over free labourers. I do not think it can be denied that the tendency of the whole action of the Government, and the tendency of the words used by the Home Secretary, puts trade unionists in a preferential position over others. In that way and to that extent it shows that the Government offers a sort of inducement to all men to join the ranks of organised labour, and that the Government would approve of organised labour practically absorbing the whole labour of the country. This question is one which lies between three parties—the labourers the employers and the public. This question of whether or not pressure should be put upon every labourer to join a trade union is one which, of course, has considerable interest for employers; but in my opinion it is far more interesting still to the community at large. I am quite prepared to admit that in the case of some employers, and in the case of some trades, it may even be of advantage that the whole of the men employed should be trade unionists. I have had a long experience of this subject myself, and I have had experience in both directions. Many years ago I was interested in a business in which the action of the trade unionists became so intolerable that it was one of the principal causes why that business has broken down. But, on the other hand, I have been interested in a business in which undoubtedly the assistance which the management received from the trade union officials was very considerable, and certainly in that particular case the fact that the whole of the men belonged to trade unions was no disadvantage whatever. Therefore, I think employers may not necessarily be all opposed to or in favour of the whole of the men being members of trade unions. I feel sure that in many cases the fact of the whole of the workmen being trade unionists may be an advantage.

  939
  But when you come to the question of the community, then I think the matter is of much more importance. It is undoubtedly not in the interests of the community that anything should be done or any step taken in the direction of making these general attacks upon the community. It is quite obvious that if the whole of the labour of the country could be forced into the trade union ranks it is a step which would facilitate what of course many of them are driving at—that is, the carrying on of the general strike. The general strike would then be not against the employers of labour in general, and certainly not against employers of labour in particular, but it would aim at holding up the whole community of the country, being able to starve the community into such a position that the interference of the Government would be necessary, and the trade unionists in that way would gain their object. If the trade unions get so far as to absorb the whole of the labour of the country, is it not obvious that the starvation of this great city may become possible? Who saved London from starvation within the last few weeks but the free labourers? But if you have the whole labour of the country forced into trade union ranks, starvation, which has not been a success and has failed owing to the free labour coming forward to save London, might, under trade unions, if they had their way, become possible, and a great city might be threatened with very disastrous consequences indeed. I think the position of the community is a very serious one, and that any words or action on the part of the Government which tend to encourage, and to make at all possible this very alarming possibility to the community of being what is commonly called "held up" by labour, and starved into submission—that any action on the part of the Government which encourages that position should be looked upon very carefully and as such as should certainly lay the Government open to very just and proper criticism.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken can hardly be aware of the facts in regard to the question of the food supply of London to which he referred. He cannot be aware that offers were made to the Home Secretary by the strikers to unload cargoes of food, and it is, therefore, not quite fair that he should state that, but for the intervention
  940
  of free labour, London would have been in danger of starvation. I should like to comment on the special regard which hon. Members opposite are just now displaying for the interests of the public in disputes between capital and labour. It is well known that in most of the strikes which have occurred in recent years it has been the employers who have been responsible for endangering the interests of the community. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire asked what, if employers had done this kind of thing, action would have been taken by the country, and he said that no doubt they would have been condemned wholesale, and probably steps would have been taken by the Government. As a matter of fact they have done it over and over again. I may recall the instance of the lock-out of the engineers. In that case a terrible strike was carried on for six months, and there was not the slightest concern shown for the public interest or for the welfare of the community. But when men are compelled to take such action, as I submit they have been compelled to take during this dispute, then we find that the whole force of the Opposition Press, and, I regret to say, a section of the Press representing Gentlemen on this side of the House, is active in denouncing and condemning the workmen in all directions.
  Many of the speeches which have been delivered to-night are quite wide of the facts. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) declared that goods had only been obtained from the docks on permits signed by Ben Tillett. One would have imagined that a gentleman of the high legal reputation which the hon. and learned Gentleman possesses would be careful of his facts. Mr. Ben Tillett has never signed a permit or been asked to sign one during the whole course of this strike. I thought it was common knowledge that a colleague—John Jones—signed these. The same misstatement appeared in a letter read by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—a letter from one of the firms for which he was holding a brief, a letter full of purely ex parte statements absolutely unsupported by evidence. My complaint against the Government is that the protection which they have afforded has been all on one side. Instead of not giving protection, as hon. Members opposite complain, they have, in my opinion, gone too far. The assumption in these Debates always is that when workmen strike they are in the wrong; they are

  941
  always supposed to be engaged in a conspiracy, and, therefore, it is argued, that the employers are entitled to employ all possible forces to break down the strike. In the case of the strike of last July the employers in the Port of London declared that they had the men beaten, and that they ought to have been left alone to smash them; they resented the interference of the Government and of the Board of Trade in bringing about a settlement on that occasion, and ever since there has been an expression of regret on the part of the employers that they were not allowed to pursue their policy—to beat the men and compel them to revert to the old brutal struggles that used to take place at the dock gates before 1890. It is merely a policy of cheap wages; the talk about free labour is nonsense. There is no free labour in this country, and the least free of any, as is well known, is the so-called free labour which is imported into strikes in the Port of London and other places.
  I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has committed his whole party to a policy of union smashing and to a preference for blackleg labour. As far as we are concerned we shall make that fact prominent on almost every platform throughout the country during the next three or four weeks, and I hope that the Tory trade unionist will read these Debates and get a glimpse of the policy inaugurated by the Opposition here. I fancy they will give short shrift to the political party opposite, as well as to hon. Gentlemen on this side who express agreement with a policy of that character. The attitude of the strikers has been commented upon, and complaint is made that the Government have not afforded more protection to blacklegs. But I can give dozens of cases to show how the police have got out of hand; how they break the strikers' heads, and ride down women and children. I only hope the report is not correct that one child was killed in the attack which the police made on the people on the other side of the water last night. There is also a report that a police sergeant, on 11th June, in the course of the morning, fired a revolver upon the strikers from the bridge of a steamboat, and that he stood there in order that he might get a better aim. I hope that that statement too is incorrect. I will give what facts I have to the Home Secretary, and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry. If the charge is proved to be inaccurate, I shall be the first to withdraw it. There are
  942
  dozens of cases we have to submit to the Home Secretary in that way.
  I want to know, seeing that the employers in the Port of London have been absolutely responsible for bringing about this strike, why the Government has not taken the same attitude towards them. Of course they cannot do it. What they could do would be to follow up the policy of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and advocate a reversion to the old English method of settling disputes. Seeing that the employers are absolutely responsible for this strike and for the damage caused thereby to the community and to the Port of London, and inasmuch as a statutory body like the Port of London Authority has had the impertinence to flout the Government and to take up the policy of union-smashing, I say the time has crane when these things must be considered in all their bearings. The employers want the Government to stand hands off, and to allow them to smash the unions and to introduce sweating wages, coupled with the abominable conditions that existed prior to 1890. From the time that agreement was arrived at, and almost before the ink was dry, down to May this year, the employers have persistently broken the contract; they have adopted a deliberate policy of forcing the men to strike, and that was the policy they had in their minds in August, 1911, although they were prevented carrying it into effect on that occasion. It has been calculated by men who ought to know, that as a result of the breaking of contracts by the employers £500,000 in wages has been filched from the poor dockers who suffer from the vicissitudes of our industrial system. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not sue them?"] I am asked why the employers have not been sued. We could not hope to get justice, and I think I can prove that by my own personal experience. I went into a Court to give evidence in favour of an employer who was suing another employer for payment for a certain machine, and the employer, on whose behalf I was witnessing, lost his case because of the mere fact that I stated I was a trade unionist. Again, there are no contracts to sue upon; these men work from hour to hour and week to week; they have no claim at all and the only way they can get an increase in wages is by a threat on the part of the union that unless the employers keep their contracts the men shall strike.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that there has been a breach of contract by which the workmen have lost £500,000. Surely if there has been a breach of a legal contract there is a remedy for it in the Courts of Law.
  Mr. O'GRADY: There is not such a contract apparently as action can be taken upon. We do not want the Government to legislate on this matter. I may recall a case in which Mr. Gosling withheld action in one dispute for three weeks in order that the matter might be discussed before the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice decided that the men were entitled to be paid the wages which they claimed, but even then they were not paid. The leaders and the men themselves want this thing settled upon fair and square lines, and, in order to attain that end, they offered certain guarantees, always provided something was done to make their contracts legal so that they could obtain their wages under them, or that some compulsion was imposed upon employers to keep their contracts. The strike is spreading from London to other ports in the kingdom. I believe that 98 per cent. of the ports of the country will be idle within the next week or two. It will probably spread to the railways; it will spread all the way round. My complaint is that the employers, instead of being treated in a manner that would bring them to their senses, are getting Horse, Foot, and Artillery, police, and all the rest of it to keep on with the policy that they have set themselves to carry out.
  With regard to the Motion before the House, I hold no brief for the Liberal party. I am in the happy position of never having been a Liberal. Like the great great majority of my race, I was always a Nationalist. But among the many speeches I have heard in this House I have never heard a more crushing reply than that of the Home Secretary to-day. On the whole, I think that we have a grievance. In view of the delicacy of the negotiations at present, I do not want to say anything that will increase the anger either of the employers or the workmen; but I say very deliberately that if this kind of conduct is to go on, if this union-smashing policy is to be backed up in this House by hon. Gentlemen who ought to know better, and who at least ought to have a sense of fairplay and decency when these questions between capital and
  944
  labour come up, we shall have to take our own course and risk the consequences. That is our position put in a nutshell. I hope the Government will keep on its even-handed way, and hold the balance fairly and squarely between the two parties. In the meantime I plead with hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should consider this matter really from the point of view of national and public interest. Instead of going on with this policy of union-smashing and the employment of blackleg labour, let them do their level best to bring both sides together, and to get a settlement fixed up that will ensure peace in the Port of London for at least the next five years.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Personally, I am concerned first and foremost with the preservation of peace, and I want to know from the hon. Member opposite, does he or does he not justify the intimidation of and the assaults upon blacklegs?
  Mr. O'GRADY: I want to know if they have taken place. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman cite me generally a number of cases? I do not want one here and there. They happen in a state of war, but generally there has been no attack upon and no intimidation of free labour.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I will give proof presently that during this strike there have been assaults and intimidation upon what is termed blackleg labour. I want to know from the Labour party, once and for all, do they justify, if it exists, the assaulting of people whom the Leader of the Labour party has described with so-much skill as blacklegs? The hon. Member himself (Mr. O'Grady) accused the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London of believing too easily everything he read and everything he was told. No Member will accuse me of that crime. I have had the privilege of seeing a good deal of these labour disputes during the last fourteen years. Fourteen years ago I was honoured by being appointed by the Government as counsel in a case in which Mr. Ben Tillett was concerned, and I have had the privilege of going through one or two strikes since then. Does anyone suggest that in these strikes intimidation is not freely used against non-union labour?
  Mr. W. THORNE: On both sides.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Against non-union labour?
  Mr. W. THORNE: And against unionists.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: You may put that in if you like. My point for the present is with regard to non-unionist labour. Is it suggested that violence is not used in the course of these strikes?
  Mr. LANSBURY: As the late Leader of the Opposition once said, there are limits to human endurance in any dispute. We do not deny that there is violence, but there is violence on both sides.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Do you justify it?
  Mr. LANSBURY: You never justify violence, but you can explain it. It is exactly in the same way as the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) explains his violent language to the Ulster Orangemen.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his frank answer, but it is not quite an answer to my question.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is the only one of which I am capable.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Do or do not the Labour party justify violence against blacklegs in the docks or elsewhere? With regard to the contribution of the Prime Minister concerning the duties of the Home Secretary, I have had an opportunity of looking at the authorities, and I think it is a fairly new proposition to suggest that the Home Secretary is not responsible outside the Metropolitan area for the maintenance of law and order to this extent. In the Metropolitan area he is responsible directly for the Metropolitan Police. Outside the Metropolitan area I submit that he is certainly responsible for seeing, if necessary, that the local authorities do their duty, and in case of need he has the power and duty of calling out the military to suppress riot and put down disorder. With regard to the local police, the right hon. Gentleman knows his powers far better than I do. He has very considerable statutory powers over the local police. But this is the point with which I am dealing more specifically. He is the person who, as representing His Majesty's Government, is bound to put into force such powers as he possesses to prevent a breach of the peace even outside the Metropolitan area. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other night, said that a communication was made to the
  946
  Home Office not from the Chief Constable, but from certain large shipowners at Tilbury, last Wednesday, as to the state of disturbance there. In reply to a question of mine he said:—
  "The communications which I mentioned as having reached me on Wednesday were made verbally, and no record of them has been kept."
  There is no doubt some misunderstanding about that answer, because I am going to read telegrams which were sent and received at the Home Office upon the Wednesday. I venture to submit they have a very material bearing upon this case. On the Wednesday this telegram was sent by a shipowner:—
  "Reference telegram 3rd, have now to report that serious intimidation from large body of pickets prevails at Tilbury. Scruttons, Ltd., intimate that two of their foremen have been badly injured; one now in hospital. Union pickets are in complete charge of bridge, railway, and ferry, constituting sole access and means of communication between different points in dock Earnestly beg you will at once take steps to reinforce local constabulary, who have proved quite inadequate to deal with situation, which is now very critical."
  That is from a shipowner. I gather it was received at the Home Office.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a certain question to which I gave him an answer. I have answered specific questions which he put as to what was the communication made to me to which I referred in my speech. I replied that the communication made to me was a verbal communication, and that no record was kept. I never referred to that letter.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: This is from a shipowner, is it not?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not ask me about letters I have received from shipowners, but what was the communication to which I had referred in my speech on Thursday night. The hon. Member sees the difference.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite see the difference, and I will show the House in one moment that the difference is this: that the right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that he had upon the Wednesday received a communication from a shipowner or shipowners—
  Mr. McKENNA: A shipowner.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I very naturally asked that the communication to which he referred should be laid upon the Table of this House, and that I should have a copy. I quite agree that I ought to have expressed it more carefully. The right hon.

  947
  Gentleman replied that the communication he had received was from a shipowner, was verbal, and that no record had been kept. I have read a communication from another shipowner which admittedly was received at the Home Office on the Wednesday. I know it was received. Let us deal with it for a moment. It refers to serious intimidation by a very large body of pickets. It says that Scruttons, Limited, intimate that two of their foremen had been badly injured. Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest reason to doubt that this is true?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House when I gave my answer. If he had been he would have remembered that on receiving that communication from Messrs. Scrutton, whose account I accepted, I sent down a special officer to Tilbury to report to me as to whether the circumstances were as serious as alleged. He reported, on the authority of the Chief Constable, that they were not so serious as to require any constables being sent down.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, and I heard it except that about the Chief Constable.
  Mr. McKENNA: The authority of the Chief Constable.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I certainly did not hear that. I believe it is correct. But I am dealing now not with disturbances, and especially with the fact that two people had to go to hospital. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point that there were no disturbances.
  Mr. McKENNA: Outside London.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree, outside the Metropolitan area.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know that the statement he is quoting has been repudiated, and the papers published and apologised for it, and it subsequently turned out that the reporters had got their information from the Shipping Federation?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Then a further telegram was sent upon the same day:—
  "Beg call your attention to inadequacy police protection at Surrey Commercial Dock. Several men have already been injured by Union pickets, and present indications are that Union attacks and intimidation on
  948
  a much more violent scale may now be expected. Fear superintendent in charge does not appreciate gravity position. Earnestly trust that you will make investigation into matter, and arrange protection on same scale as Albert Victoria Docks."
  This telegram and another were sent to the Home Office. The latter said:—
  "Have despatched following telegram to Chief Constable, Kent Constabulary: About 300 Union pickets have been assembled at Greenhithe since last night, and are preventing access to our depot ship 'Lady Jocelyn.' They have wrecked and sent adrift one of the ship's boats, maltreated the boatman, and are preparing for other acts of violence. Greenhithe is outside the jurisdiction of the river police, who communicated with your force last night. But understand that up to the present absolutely no attempt has been made to afford adequate protection or to disperse the pickets. Beg you will give matter your immediate attention."
  That was received by the Home Office on the Wednesday. Does that show that there was no disturbance going on? Not only at Greenhithe but at the Surrey Commercial Dock, which is within the right hon. Gentleman's jurisdiction. I myself do not draw any very keen distinction between the fact as to whether it is in the Metropolitan area or just outside. Surplus police were in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman, and could have been sent outside his jurisdiction to where the disturbances were. But whether the disturbances arose inside or outside the Metropolitan area, I submit without any technicality that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible equally in one case as in the other. Upon these telegrams there are two distinct charges made, namely, disturbances in the Surrey Docks, which are within the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman, and at Greenhithe, which is outside his jurisdiction. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there were disturbances? I am not inclined to believe people too easily, but I have seen people who have told me that they have seen these disturbances. They have seen the picketing down one side of the river banks which have resulted in violence. They have seen stones thrown and injury to people at whom they were thrown. Does any hon. Gentleman here say that either one is not to believe what is thus told him? I submit there is not the slightest doubt that there have been cases of considerable violence and intimidation. What was the result in the case of the "Lady Jocelyn"? The result was that there was difficulty in getting either food or water aboard that ship.
  Mr. W. THORNE: There was plenty of water in the river.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Apparently there was, and one boat, I understand, was

  949
  upset for the purpose of showing the occupants that there was plenty of water in the river. Frankly, I agree with two hon. Members on the Benches opposite below the Gangway, because I know them well enough to know that they are absolutely straight. They make no secret of it, that they know perfectly well that there has been intimidation, and they make no secret of the fact that they do not see that there was very much harm in it. But it is different with the Home Secretary. He is paid to see that law and order is kept. That is the point which is the important thing here. I say that it is an important matter. The Home Secretary has an important office as head of the police force in London, and the practical control of the police throughout England. He is paid to see that peace is preserved. Surely it is an important matter that he should see that it is done? Is the mere fact that a man is a blackleg, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester pointed out, sufficient to disentitle him to protection? The Home Secretary has not attempted to deal definitely with that point. He said, so far as the power lies in him. He says if there is sufficient police. But admittedly here there were surplus police ready to be sent down if necessary; surplus police who would have been sent down if an outbreak had occurred. Yet there was this scene of disorder going on outside. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well when he boasts here that a large number of non-union men are working in the docks and on the river with police protection, that it is not the protection of the police that enables that to be done, but the protection of a civilian force more or less of an irregular kind which apparently has raised up feelings in that neighbourhood at the present time. That is the point I wish to press. On Wednesday warnings were given but no attention was paid to them by the Home Office. On Thursday, the chief constable communicated with the Home Office and requested help and reinforcement, and then it was that although the Home Office had this surplus force at its command it declined to send down any force except for certain purposes, namely, the carrying of food or in case riot had occurred, which had not occurred at that particular moment. But the right hon. Gentleman did not send them down to protect the people who at that time had been threatened and were being assaulted, namely, the non-union men trying to work, and consequently the
  950
  people who were trying to bring food and water to the non-union men were not protected. That is the complaint I make against the Home Office. It is difficult to intervene in a Debate like this without appearing to take sides, and it makes one more or less of a partisan on one side or the other.
  I submit to the House, quite apart from this strike, it is best for all parties that the Home Office, entrusted with the preservation of peace in England, should carry out that duty whether they like or dislike the particular people who want to be protected. In this case it happened to be what are called blacklegs. We may like them or not. There are two courses open to the Home Office. First, the unpopular course, which is the course of duty to see that every person acting within his right should be protected from personal violence and intimidation. That is the unpopular view. The second is what I may call, without disrespect, the vote-catching view, fitting oneself to the exigencies of the times, at one time dealing with the employers and another time with the other party, trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I am not urging these matters more than is necessary for the purposes of discussion, but I want to impress upon the House that the duty of the Home Office is perfectly clear. On the one side, I do not say whether it is right or wrong, we have men who want to smash trade unionism. On the other side we have the Labour Members frankly trying to assist trade unionism. It is far better for the Home Office to carry out the duty entrusted to it independently, seeing that protection is given to those who need it. The Labour Members do not represent all labour.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I wish they did; things would be changed very smartly.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Labour Members do not represent all labour, and I know they do not even represent all trade unionists.
  Mr. W. THORNE: They represent the common-sense trade unionists.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have no doubt we all in this House represent common sense. Mr. Ben Tillett and Tom Mann and others represent some part of trade unionists in England, but I do not wish to make that point. The position I am making here is the necessity for preventing disorder. The Home Secretary asked us to give specific

  951
  instances of intimidation and disorder at the present time. Surely he cannot really mean he is unaware that continual disturbances existed within twenty miles of London in the past week; he surely cannot be unaware that hon. Members who have addressed the House have given some instances. I have been told of various cases of intimidation within the last day or two. I am not speaking only of those which came before the Courts. Men going down to take part in the unloading of ships have been met by pickets and have been intimidated and turned back. I do not wish to deal too much in detail with these matters, but I can give plenty of instances, privately, if necessary, to the Home Secretary. Is there any hon. Member in the House who does not know that there have been definite organised attempts to prevent what are called blacklegs from doing their work, and that the pickets are doing their endeavours to prevent them from going to work?
  Mr. W. THORNE: As far as the north aide of the Thames is concerned we never had a picket at all. The police would not allow us to come within a mile of the river.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: All I can say is that the police, for whom the Home Secretary is responsible, have done their work badly. Pickets were at Fenchurch Street this morning.
  Mr. W. THORNE: You are glorifying that.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: No, I say the police are very negligent in allowing the pickets to work. The pickets were working at the East Indian Dock on Monday night, and the police have been pretty careless in allowing picketing upon that side. I do not know what power they had, but they used it extremely badly. All I am saying is no one can doubt that intimidations have been used during the strike. The telegrams I have read give a fair illustration of that. No one can doubt the position taken up by the Home Office is equally culpable. It was this: that although at the time they had the means in their power they did not afford the proper protection, and the Home Office had written to say that they were only prepared to send their surplus police subject to certain conditions, and that they were not prepared to send their surplus police to protect men who were anxious to work. I think there is not the slightest doubt about that. If there is any doubt, one has only
  952
  to read this letter sent out from the Home Office:—
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 4th inst., requesting the assurance of such police protection as may be necessary to enable the "Lady Jocelyn" to be brought into the docks, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that it appears to him that to bring the ship into dock at the present moment would be a provocative action, and would greatly increase the difficulty of the police in maintaining order throughout the whole area to which the strike extends. While, therefore, in case of actual disturbance or violence, the police would if called upon intervene to maintain order, Mr. McKenna cannot authorise them taking precautionary measures such as are justified when the question is that of convoying to the markets the food supply of London. The demands on the police are very heavy, and it is necessary to concentrate their efforts on the protection of necessary supplies, and not to divert them to support proceedings which would produce great irritation and increase their difficulties."
  The point I am making is that here the right hon. Gentleman has failed in his duty because he failed to give such assistance as he admittedly had at his disposal to protect men who were doing what they have a lawful right to do. He failed in his duty to send men to prevent a breach of the peace occurring at that time. Breaches of the peace had occurred and have been rampant during the last ten days, and it is clearly the duty of the Home Secretary to prevent violence of any kind, and in this respect the right hon. Gentleman has not done his duty, and that is why there is justification for this Motion.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in support of this Motion, which is practically in the nature of a vote of censure upon the Home Secretary, did not, I think, hear the speech which my right hon. Friend made in defence of his action this afternoon.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I heard the whole of it.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I think the Home-Secretary answered the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised. Speaking as a London citizen, I would like to add my testimony to what, other hon. Members on this side have said in support of the policy which my right hon. Friend has carried out in circumstances of very great difficulty. To anybody who knows the dimensions of the Port of London, and the differences and varieties of interests in that Port, the management of the forces of law and order at times like this is one of extreme difficulty. After listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and hearing their suggestions as to what ought to have been done, as a London citizen I feel very gratified

  953
  and satisfied that the present occupant of the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department is one who holds Liberal opinions, and not the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In London, and in all great centres of industry, it is very easy to lay down strict principles and watertight compartments, but you have to deal humanely with these matters, and there are so many differences and varieties of interests to deal with that it is a matter of extreme difficulty to act upon any cut and dried plan. I wish to speak upon a matter which occurred last night, and which is of great importance to those who work on the south side of the river. Last night an occurrence took place in the district of Rotherhithe of great gravity, and if it is a sample of the kind of police methods which hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to see put into forces then I am glad that they are not in power to enforce it. On the occasion I allude to the police attempted to clear a whole street, not of strikers, but of citizens of every class by the most violent methods. It is quite true that along this street the meat vans have to pass under a convoy, but I assert in this House, as I have asserted at the Home Office, that it will be found on inquiry that the condition of affairs in this street before the police took the action they did was one of absolute quietude, and until the police commenced this charging the crowd there was no difficulty or trouble whatsoever.
  I realise that the Home Secretary has met me in a very fair and frank way in this matter, for he has promised a full inquiry. The Home Secretary is not present, but I will ask the Under-Secretary to convey to him my thanks for his promise, and I can assure him that the matter is of the most urgent and vital importance. Here in this district, where so much suffering at the present moment is taking place, and where the crisis is so acute, you have the police acting in a very dangerous manner and practically asking for reprisals. I have been there this afternoon myself, taking every advantage at open-air meetings and other places of urging strikers, non-strikers, and citizens to help by maintaining order, and I am convinced that they are going to do it. I am also convinced that they would have done the same thing last night if they had been left alone. I have the greatest possible admiration for the members of the Metropolitan Police force, and I have testified to that fact before. I am not suggesting that the actual mem-
  954
  bers of the force were responsible for what took place, but I do suggest that someone in authority in the police force gave an order which, in my humble judgment, was a colossal blunder, and it will only be by the level-headedness and the peacefulness of the people of that district if serious consequences are avoided. It is a curious thing that this affair which took place last night very nearly coincided with the putting down of this Motion on the Paper. It is a curious thing that hon. Members opposite are trying to urge the Government to adopt more drastic measures. I am here not merely as a Member of the Liberal party, but as the representative of a large artisan constituency, and I am profoundly thankful that the leaders of the party opposite have not got charge of affairs in London during this crisis.
  To handle these difficult questions when a great dispute is on is an exceedingly delicate matter. It is all very well to say that you have to protect the right of the man who wishes to work. I think the Home Secretary made a clear and straightforward reply to that argument, because he asked for instances where there was work wanted and where work would not be protected. The answer was given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who referred to the case of Messrs. Deacon at the Surrey Commercial Docks. The defence of Messrs. Deacon was very fully and ably answered on this side of the House. The charge in the letter which justified the hon. Baronet in saying that they could not get police protection was a statement of Messrs. Deacon that in their opinion they did not consider there were enough police outside the Surrey Commercial Docks. On that statement, which rests upon the opinion of Messrs. Deacon this instance was given, and was received with very great cheering by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I think my right hon. Friend is perfectly justified in saying what he did. There are 8,000 men at work in the Port of London. As no one can bring any statement forward to show clearly that there is any big demand for work which cannot be satisfied, these charges fall to the ground. I think my right hon. Friend has justified his action up to the hilt, and I thank him for promising a full inquiry into the methods adopted by the police last night. I can assure him that the matter is of the most profound importance. This is a kind of attempt by certain officials of the police force to introduce new methods into the

  955
  management of the crowds in London. Usually the management of crowds is accomplished without any difficulty, but here there was an unprovoked attack upon innocent citizens which certainly produced terrible results last night. We ask the right hon. Gentleman for an immediate inquiry and to hear all sides. If I thought there was any fear that this matter would be hushed up or that an inquiry might be burked, I would not support him or the Government any further. This is a most serious matter to those who sent me to this House, and at the risk of wearying hon. Members I may say again that I have been this afternoon to my Constituency and told them their case has been put forward as keenly as possible, and they would get from this House and from the Home Secretary ample justice and ample hearing at the inquiry.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure everyone in the House will sympathise with the hon. Member who has just spoken, and understand he has been obliged to give, and has only been performing his duty in giving, a somewhat narrow and local application to the subject under discussion. I feel a little embarrassed, so many hon. and learned counsel have spoken to-day, and have dwelt so fully with the question from the legal and constitutional point of view. I have neither the knowledge nor the ability to follow in their steps, and must confine myself to a much wider and more general aspect of what I believe to be the very grave error on the part of the Home Secretary. I propose to confine myself to this: the impression the words of the Home Secretary, as they will be diluted through the Press and through other public reports, will give to people, both employers and employed, throughout the country. In these days when we are governed so much by a cheap Press, when we are governed so much by impulse, and when few of us have time to think, it is the impression that gets at large amongst big bodies of men acting together that may overflow as it were the banks of our civilisation and carry all things before it. The words the Home Secretary uttered the other evening were after all only the putting of the final coping stone to the building that has been in course of erection for some years. There is no doubt—and I think the words of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) bear me out—that there is a general impression not only amongst the work-
  956
  ing classes, but amongst all classes in the country to-day, that, under the Trades Disputes Act of 1906, the moment an industrial dispute breaks out the picket is above the law. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said there was that impression, and I claim the hon. Member for West Ham as an authority on my side. He looked at it as a definite grievance that the police had prevented picketing on the other side of the Thames, and from that I judge he felt the police were acting beyond their legal powers, and that therefore the pickets were within their rights. That completely justifies what I said. We have to remember that frame of mind is very prevalent in the country, and we have to remember that this Government, acting, I believe, with the best intentions, but producing, in my opinion, very grave results, have throughout the time they have been in power continually interfered with trade disputes, and by that very interference have caused another widespread impression that a trade dispute has only to start to bring in the Government to help everybody, masters and men alike, out of the difficulties into which they are getting. What have we seen in the last few weeks? We have seen this strike beginning under rather peculiar circumstances. If we may use a military simile for a moment, and I know military similes are popular in labour disputes at the present time, we should say it was an act of criminal folly on the part of any commander-in-chief who entered upon a campaign without seeing to his commissariat, and without seeing there-was money to pay and to feed his troops. Would it not seem to be an act of folly, and even of criminality, that strike leaders should choose a moment to lead their men into action in a big strike when it is perfectly obvious they have not been at the pains to see that those men can be provided with pay or their children with food. I do not believe any strike leader would have committed an error of this kind had it not been for that second impression that the mere threat of a general strike, or the mere calling of a general strike, would be sufficient to bring the Government into the field to put an end to all the troubles, and to force the two parties into a settlement. Just at that moment, the most delicate moment in a trade dispute that can be conceived, the Home Secretary makes that announcement—an announcement which I admit has been considerably watered down by

  957
  the Debate which has taken place to-day—which has created an impression in the country, and which must have created an impression in the country, that, added to the immunity of pickets, he, as Home Secretary, is going to confer on strikers the further privilege that anything in the shape of strike breaking will come under the condemnation of the Government. I admit freely the Home Secretary said this afternoon that is not his meaning, and it is not what he is going to do. I admit that, and I welcome that gladly; but I cannot have any confidence that the details of this Debate will filter into the country as fast, or as accurately or as inaccurately, if you choose to put it so, as the statement he made the other night. The harm has been done. The harm is that you have one of the first officers of the Government making a declaration which is understood by many men in this country to mean that it will make strikes easy. To my mind on the scale on which they take place to-day there can be no greater tragedy to a country than a big lock-out or a big strike. If I may make one personal remark, I am proud to think that during the twenty years I have been directly responsible for the management of a large number of men there has never been any question of a lock-out or strike. I can hardly imagine myself any circumstances under which I would be a party to a lock-out on a large scale. There is a spirit in these modern strikes which I fear may not be helped by what the Home Secretary said, a spirit of less responsibility. It is a spirit that if carried on must make more difficult the attainment of that mutual and collective bargaining on which trade unions for so many years, and rightly from their point of view, have insisted, and to which I was going to say the majority of the employers of this country were coming to agree and to work with in harmony. The great tragedy of these general strikes is, that when so many of the men's leaders think to promote the interests and the welfare of their own class and to elevate them and raise their wages, I feel perfectly certain that the only result of those strikes must be, so far from raising their position, is to depress it, because the harm that is done and the damage that is done to the commerce of the country is far greater than anything the men can hope to get back, and any temporary advantage they may obtain. Feeling that as strongly as I do, and that few of the leaders and few of the Members
  958
  of the front Ministerial Bench have any idea of what the struggle to-day is in the world's competition to secure trade and orders to keep our works in this country going and to keep our people fed, feeling that is so little realised makes me feel all the more hopeless when a right hon. Gentleman of the Home Secretary's ability and of the Home Secretary's standing, in the middle of a dispute of this kind, can give utterance to such words as he used the other night, even though this afternoon he has, as I think most rightly, qualified them so considerably. It is for those reasons I shall support the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CROOKS: May I say with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I too regret that I have not had any legal training at all, as otherwise I should be able to say such awfully nice things to everybody without meaning anything in particular. We are under a very great debt of gratitude to the Opposition for moving this Motion, and I venture to say that this is but the opening of many such Debates on labour questions that will take place in this House. An hon. Member who addressed the House some little time ago with considerable force asked whether we favoured intimidation and assault. He repeated the question two or three times. When you talk of intimidation and assault you do not agree with it a bit, not at all. You are trying your best to prove that we are the only people guilty of intimidation and assault, but what is going on at this moment? You have convoys conveyed along the road by the police. Is that intimidation to anybody at all? Is that not intimidating men who are trying to save their souls? Is it not intimidation for you to introduce men to take the bread out of their mouths? I remember many placards in my lifetime calling for London work for London men, and you are bringing shiploads of men to take the place of London men. The intimidation is going on and went on last night at Rotherhithe, where you had intimidation and assault. Those people are our people now; they are your people at election time; they are only our people when they are in trouble. All my life I have heard of them as citizens of a great and glorious Empire on which the sun never sets, but that is when there is no strike. Those are the very men who are trying to justify that they are Englishmen and citizens of no mean city, and who are being intimidated

  959
  and assaulted, and whose wives and families are being starved, to satisfy what? An hon. Member opposite just now enlarged upon the virtues of free labour, but I did not hear anything of the men out of work. We hear of all the expense to bring in this free labour, which has to be kept chained up in a ship, and at an expense which is thousands of pounds more than what the granting of the concessions asked for would cost.
  What in the name of common sense are the masters standing out for? Is it liberty. It may be liberty if you like, but not the liberty of the workman. Force has been tried for 1,900 years to our knowledge. They crucified Christ to end a movement which did not end but went straight on. Here they had a chance greater than was ever offered before. The men were willing to be bound down in hard cash that they would keep their agreement. Why did not the masters accept that? Because they had not got them low enough down. You talk of heroes who have come to rescue London from starvation. Is that so, having regard to the fact that the men in the very first instance offered to convoy the things through the streets so that the people should not starve. You talk of starving people. Have you thought about it that the only people who starve are the workers? If bread were a sovereign a loaf you would not go without it; you would be all right; it would make no difference to you. It is the poor fellow who is trying to stand on his hind legs and demands to be treated as a man who suffers. You talk of intimidation and assault. Come up some of the streets I know, into some of the houses I know, and see the starving little children facing you and the women crying. That is the heroism that would be praised if they were in a besieged city. That is the heroism the "Times" would be full of, but when it is a case of workmen then of course it is a wicked thing. There is no heroism that can compare with the sacrifices of those poor creatures whose hearts are rending. Is there a man in this House who would not have his head punched a thousand times rather than have his little child go without food? When he sees that, go and talk to him about intimidation and provocation. If a solicitor took 6s. instead of 6s. 8d. he would have to go out of his union, and probably never get back any more. When a brief is marked, if you have a very good man, you have to give a very good price.
  Mr. W. THORNE: What about the refresher?
  Mr. CROOKS: It is a refresher. Instead of making a violent attack upon the Government, the House ought to have been thinking how it could have ended this struggle. The masters might have been thinking that now is their chance to get the men in subjection. Let me tell any hon. Member—and the last speaker will know this, because he has been in business—that a discontented man is not worth having at any price. If you are going to compel men to go under and to starve them under, what do you expect? They are Englishmen, they are Britons, and at the first opportunity they will fight again. How can they help it? You would do it yourselves. There is not a man within sound of my voice who would not do it if he had the chance. Here is a miserable pass. What is there in it? You talk of a declaration of war. Against whom? Against women and children. The men will not give in, because they are in exactly the same position I have been in myself. I was warned once when I said, "I do not think I will look at this job." The master said, "You will have to. Remember you have a wife and children dependent upon you." And I thought, "What will they think of their father running about for the likes of you"? If anybody says, "You shall do it," you simply put your thumbs into the armholes of your waistcoat and say, "Go on, make me." We cannot help it; it is our breed. The whole of this business could be settled with the masters to-morrow. They are asked to sacrifice nothing. If you have a railway strike you go down to the Board of Trade and get them to introduce a Bill to enable the companies to charge higher fares. It seems to me that the House argues all the time about business and dividends, and never about human beings. Supposing that the other side of the House say they are absolutely right, and we think they are absolutely wrong, so we determine to have a ring outside and fight it out. Somebody sends a message down to the Home Secretary saying there is going to be a row, and that he had better bring in his police. He says to those who think they are in the right, "clear out," and he says to us, "you clear home, we are not going to have any bother here."
  The Home Secretary has been giving you a chance of intimidating. The police have been riding on the pavement. Are we really in a state of siege? Last night

  961
  there must have been 80 to 100 police escorting two flour vans, and nobody attempting to interfere, and yet the police shoved a man standing at the corner who looked as if he were looking for a job. I do not think the London police would do that. Had the other side been in office there would not have been policemen but soldiers. I rejoice you have shown your hand, and what you would do with us if you had your way. The Government are giving you a great deal too much now, because they are on your side. The police are all for the protection of blacklegs. You talk of "free labour." God help us! Is there any free labour in the world? Men are running down coal mines, and going into the dark to wrestle with bales of wool. Are they doing it because they love it? Are there any of you who would change places with any of these men on the "Lady Jocelyn," even with a concert party going on there to-night—music introduced, I suppose, to keep them cheerful. You talk of intimidation, provocation and assault. Think of the private policeman, the civilian policeman, in a grey uniform with a helmet. These are the gentle persuasive persons sent there for the protection of free labour, with a big shillelagh to keep order. Have you run across any picket doing the same thing? Has he stood at the door with a big stick, preventing men from going in? I challenge you to prove any case of the kind.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the hon. Member aware that men were injured at Tilbury last Thursday when they were trying to do their work?
  Mr. CROOKS: The Noble Lord has forgotten the provocation. You cannot hit an Englishman, or a Scotchman, without his wanting to hit you back. He will not have it, and good luck to him for not having it. You began the fight, you began the intimidation.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I invite the hon. Member to address his arguments to me.
  Mr. CROOKS: I can assure you that I know it is wasted on them. I apologise, and thank you for helping me to do something useful, instead of arguing with them. They ask for fair play. They have never given fair play. They have introduced shiploads of men to starve the wives and children of London. Because the men resent this, and are willing to make any sacrifice that they may be able to stop
  962
  this awful dispute, the masters think they have got the men, and can bring them to a reasonable frame of mind. The masters are not content and want to crush it out of them. God help them, and this country as a whole, if the manhood of our nation can be crushed out so easily. You can beat them for a time, but I would advise the masters, in the interests of London, in the interests of the community, and in the interests of the country we love, to make some arrangement with the men and stop the starvation that is going on.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am quite sure the House has much enjoyed the histrionic efforts of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). I have never seen a better display, or one more interesting, but whether it is a very convincing argument on the subject of this Motion is another question. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Grady) seemed to fail to understand the point of view which could prevail with Members on this side of the House. I want to ask him whether he would appreciate that Members on this side of the House fully appreciate the difficulty and the delicacy of the present situation. Our difficulty is this. How are you going to make agreements with the trade unions which they would adhere to in circumstances when certain difficulties arise, and from the point of view of the masters, if an agreement is to be made which can really put an end to these difficulties, they and we and the public at large ask the question, What sort of terms are to be held sacred and binding, and, when entered into by the trade union, will be adhered to? Continual hopes are expressed by hon. Members below the Gangway that an honourable way will be found out of this difficulty. We agree. Honourable on both sides. And let us find an honour which will bind both sides and both parties. But have we at present reason to believe that an undertaking or arrangement by this very union will, when circumstances of temptation arise, be adhered to?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Can we have the same for the masters?
  Mr. POLLOCK: Will hon. Members below the Gangway appreciate that very serious difficulty and doubt have been created, not merely in the minds of Members on this side of the House, but in the minds of a still larger area of the public at large, as to what are the agreements which will be held sacred and binding upon the trade unions, and which will finally

  963
  put an end in an honourable way to the difficulties which have beset the country during the last few years?
  Mr. WILKIE: If the employers will carry out their agreement, we are willing to do the same.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged, because I am quite sure that is the hon. Member's belief and hope; but may I ask him to see our point of view, and when we refer to the experience and the history of the past, we say that there is little foundation for that hope being realised. That is a different point of view. Again, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Grady) and several hon. Members opposite referred to the fact that an offer had been made to the employers of guarantees, and so on, provided they will all be bound, that they will once more make a binding agreement. But they must appreciate the very grave difficulty of the various employers, who have got very varied interests, all joined in one federation, and unless they appreciate that point they fail to appreciate one of the real difficulties of the situation. Until both sides appreciate the difficulties which belong to each side it will still be impossible, with the best hopes and aspirations in the world, to come to an end of these labour troubles, which have caused so much disaster not merely to the labour men themselves, but to the public at large. The public at large desire to see some ground and hope for a real solution to be found which shall be held binding, and shall be adhered to not only by employers, but also by the trade unionists of this country. A great many of my hon. Friends on this side represent a great deal of labour, both union and non-union labour, and it is impossible for hon. Members below the Gangway to claim that they represent exclusively all the labour of this country. We constantly have appeals made to us by what is called free labour, which I dare say the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) would call blackleg labour, in order that men may have freedom to work, as they had before, without the intervention of a trade union. I would ask hon. Members opposite not to be swept away by the aspiration or hope that in the future there will be some honourable position found for labour. Labour has got to earn a character for standing by its agreements, and it must also try to appreciate the difficulties that exist on both sides. We cannot have a
  964
  bargain made between one. It must be a bargain between two sides.
  I desire now to turn to the speech of the Prime Minister. He gave us his important testimony that in the course of his Parliamentary experience he had seldom found a Motion which had been so conclusively answered as this had been by the Home Secretary. He told us he had analysed the Motion somewhat carefully, and he gave us, as he always does, a very interesting account of his view of the law-He never pleases his own party so well as when he conducts a Debate by the method of challenge. He challenged us time and again to produce proof of this, that, and the other. He pleased his own party by that, but when he proceeds to conduct his argument by challenge he is never so unconvincing to us. There are those of us who remember his forensic efforts, and we remember that the method of challenge is a very old forensic device. What did he point out as the ground of the sufficient answer that had been given by the Home Secretary? He said the Home Secretary-had really no powers which he could have emphasised in the difficulties that he was faced with, and that he had no right to intervene for the purpose of affording protection to men who desired to work in a lawful occupation. But at the same time he admitted this, that although the Home Secretary had complete control of the Metropolitan Police, he also had a conventional authority to advise outside authorities. This Motion I suppose would have been quite right and quite in order if it had included words which called attention to the fact that the Home Secretary had not exercised his conventional authority of giving advice to the authorities who are concerned in the maintenance of order. Does he really ask the House to read this Motion in that narrow manner? Then to suppose that the public at large are ready to be satisfied because the Home Secretary, in dealing with the police who are under his jurisdiction, fails to give advice to the Essex authorities, who perhaps technically had control of the police in the county of Essex, was there ever a more narrow construction placed upon a Motion? If that is the sort of answer that the Prime Minister thinks is sufficient, I am quite satisfied that the country at large will not be satisfied. They look to the Home Secretary to exercise all his duties, and if he finds his duties in relation to the Metropolitan Police circumscribed, we ask

  965
  him to take a freer and more conventional view of his duties and also to exercise that conventional power which the Prime Minister says he had, and give advice to those authorities who, in the immediate neighbourhood, have got and ought to exercise the control that is required in order to enforce law and order among all the subjects of His Majesty.
  The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) congratulated the Home Secretary on the manner in which he had dovetailed his duties as between those who were calling him in one direction and those who were calling him in another direction. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have fulfilled his duties to the public at large much better if, instead of thinking how to dovetail his duties as between one class of voters and another, he had exercised his true functions, which are to preserve the peace of the country at large, and to bring all the forces and powers of advice he has as the central authority to bear for the purpose of ensuring that intimidation does not exist, and that those persons who are desirous of exercising their lawful right to work in a lawful occupation shall have the opportunity of doing so. The Prime Minister referred to the Featherstone case, and no doubt the way in which during his Home Secretary ship he exercised the authority he had added greatly to his reputation. But the Featherstone case was one in which an inquiry was held, and a good many propositions were laid down which are now accepted as the law of the land. One of the first propositions laid down was that when a call for help is made to refuse assistance is a misdeameanour; and when the Home Secretary knew there was likely to be a call for help, or when there was in fact a call for help on one side of the river, he had no right to accept a narrow view of his duties, to refuse assistance, and to lay blame on other authorities.
  Is it to be said that a non-union man, a blackleg so-called by the hon. Member for Leicester, is to have no rights? Are we not to claim for him the same privileges as any Member of this House enjoys? Is it to be said that a trade unionist only is entitled to have protection for his particular views? We heard the hon. Member for Leicester giving an account of the type of persons who came in the "Lady Jocelyn"—the type of persons introduced for the purpose of providing the necessary labour for the supply of the markets of this great city. I thought it was an
  966
  unhappy reference he made. However unfortunate they may be, however much they may be the outcasts of society in his view, they are still entitled to the protection of the law, more even than others if they are endeavouring once more to earn their living in a lawful occupation. That is the sort of answer we are given. If that is the sort of view that is presented to us, I can well understand that there is difficulty in ending the present troubles. I can well understand also that there are great fears on the part of a large portion of the public that they have not got in the action of the Home Secretary what they are entitled to have. The Prime Minister seems to wish to confine the Motion as if we were dealing with a single area, or as if we ought to deal with a single area. The terms of the Motion are intended to apply to all persons in all areas, and we expressly by this Motion say that it is no part of the Home Secretary's duties to distinguish between cases in which he will and will not supply proper protection. If we go back to the earliest foundations of society, it is quite clear from what has happened in the past that we must ask some central authority to exercise care and protection on behalf of the community. It is only when that care and protection are exercised that the executive power may expect to have in return proper duty and allegiance paid to them by every individual citizen. It is on the ground that this Motion is wide enough to indicate the shortcomings, as we believe, in the public eye of the executive officer who is in charge on behalf of the Government that we ask the House of Commons to pass it. We say that no answer has been made to the charge brought against the Home Secretary, unless we are to construe his action in a narrow legal sense in which it ought not to be construed.
  Mr. J. WARD: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock), in the first part of his speech, dealt with the question of the guarantees which it was possible for trade unionists to give to employers in this particular trade to induce them to makes agreements. I am afraid that during recent discussion—and especially in what is called the "capitalist Press"—too much has been made of the agreements that have been broken and of the impossibility, or the alleged impossibility, of compacts between capital and labour being kept. I would like to refer to one fact which during the discussion has not been noted by any previous speaker. The Board of

  967
  Trade publishes every year a book containing some thousands of agreements. As a matter of fact, if you take the building trades as an illustration, there are agreements from John o' Greats to Land's End that are religiously kept. Among the 12,000,000 or 14,000,000 of workers in the country there will be at least between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 working under agreements signed by the representatives of the workers and the employers. Breaches of agreements between trade unions and organisations of employers are of the rarest possible occurrence. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But for some reason or other recently—I do not know whether it is for the purpose of political propaganda, such as the necessity of showing that the Trade Disputes Act is not working properly and ought to be remedied—for some reason or another the one or two cases of breaches of agreement are used continuously in the public Press and in discussions in this House, but no reference is ever made to the thousands of agreements that have been in existence for the last ten or twenty years about which there has never been any complaint. I venture to suggest that even the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire (Mr. Peto), who, I believe, is an official of the Free Labour Association, would not deny that grievances between employers and workmen on the scale suggested in this Debate have been of the rarest possible occurrence. They are very rare compared with the thousands of cases in which there are no disputes, and whenever there is any necessity to insist upon some extra provision in cases where breaches have taken place the matter should not be decided by the two parties in the middle of the dispute, but possibly by the intervention of third parties.
  But in the dispute which we are now discussing there has been an offer on the part of the workmen's organisation to give tangible proof of their intention to abide by any agreement that the employers may make with them, but the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) has stated in much more graphic language than I can employ that the employers imagine that they have the men down. They have them down, I believe, to the delight of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But they are only down, take it from me, so long as the employers use their personal opportunity with reason. If it is discovered that this
  968
  is a wholesale attempt to ruin the organisations of the country that have done so much to raise the status of labour among our people, then it is a moral certainty that the dockers in London will not be left for long, and therefore those who think that they have won in this battle had better make terms while others are perhaps in that frame of mind, for fear that the whole of what they think they are securing may slip from their grasp sooner than they anticipate. I should imagine that all parties on this side of the House are delighted that this opportunity has been given for the discussion of this question. Hon. Members on the opposite side have urged that the Government ought to employ the military the first thing. It was at Tonypandy that complaints were made that troops were not sent in and that police were sent instead of soldiers, but occasionally that is repudiated when mentioned on public platforms in the constituencies, and therefore it is that I am delighted at last to see the Opposition toe the line on the subject of blackleg labour and the support that they think the State ought to give to it, and the promise of the kind of support that they will give to it if they ever get the chance. I think that is one of the most delightful things myself. I do not know whether the Opposition imagine that it is a good tactical position to take up, but I think time will show that it is completely the opposite. The hon. Member for West Stafford (Mr. Lloyd) said they do not care much about the people in the country.
  Mr. LLOYD: I never said anything of the kind. It is a deliberate misrepresentation. I said that we did not care about tactics.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Precisely so. What is the difference? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The allegation a moment ago was that the Home Secretary was balancing his policy on a question of tactics, and the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) made the suggestion that the Home Secretary did not go so much on the legalities of the situation as on the process of balancing his conduct between the two for the purpose of making as far as he could a good tactical impression upon the electors of the country.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I quoted the words of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) when he said he dovetailed in between the parties.
  Mr. J. WARD: And the hon. Member gladly adopted the suggestion, and elaborated it in the way that I have suggested; and as regards what the hon. Member for West Staffordshire said it amounts to this, "We do not care for tactics"—that is, they do not balance their policy in accordance, not with the political, but with the electoral situation. What is that in other words than merely stating that you are prepared in this situation to ignore the people of this country?
  Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. As far as I understand our policy we do what we think is best for the country, quite irrespective of votes altogether.
  Mr. J. WARD: I leave it at that. I think that the hon. Member has really clinched the argument that I was just making. I would just refer to the first part of the speech delivered in proposing this Motion. The hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said that what he objected to was that when workmen had made a perfectly free bargain they should not be supplied with the proper protection to carry it out. The question, of course, is whether these men in this case have made a free bargain. These men, I understand, especially those who are particularly in dispute, reside upon a certain vessel that has been described several times during this discussion, and are not ordinarily employed as workmen. They are engaged regularly to go to a particular locality where there happens to be a trade dispute.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: As the hon. Member has made that statement I would ask whether the men engaged for Smithfield are regularly employed?
  Mr. J. WARD: That has nothing to do with the question. They are not employed regularly for the purpose of entering into trade disputes and for no other purpose. That is an aggravation. That is entirely different from the case that was urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, the case of the man whom he described as a poor working man who wanted to continue in his work while the Government were not prepared to give him the necessary protection. It is an entirely different thing. Consequently, I venture to suggest that it ought not to be considered on quite the same lines or the same basis. The question has been put
  970
  most definitely to this House, I believe, by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. "Do you agree with intimidation or assault?" I shall only answer for myself—so far as I am concerned, "No," definitely "no," and so far as the trade unions of the country are concerned, also definitely "No"; but when the passions of men are aroused—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—you have no passions. Hon. Members opposite usually, about eleven o'clock, have no passions whatever; they are quite passionless in matters of this description. When one comes to consider the enormous body of men involved in these disputes the absence of any particular cases of real violence or intimidation is proof positive that so far as the organisations themselves are concerned they do not countenance that method of proceeding in the slightest degree. Wherever intimidation or violence is used, it is unorganised; it results from the mere passions of the moment; it really has nothing to do with the issue we are considering to-night. Therefore it is well not to force the Home Secretary to make a display of force in the way suggested by the Opposition. It would be creating disturbance, it would be asking for disorder, it would be making it almost impossible to maintain order, if you were to attempt to intimidate and overawe those who come out on strike.
  10.0 P.M.
  After all, men are entitled to strike and to combine together for that purpose. We have a recent illustration showing that intimidation is not entirely confined to disputes in which the working-classes are engaged, we recently have seen that one of the most noble professions, when its political passions were aroused, can intimidate, more politely I dare say than we or the class we represent, but no less effectively, and none the less severely. They have all the accomplishments and education necessary to keep them out of the meshes of the law, but intimidation is none the less there, as one can see by the manifestos and the speeches that have been delivered. It is quite clear from the Motion that has been made, and from the speeches we have heard to-day that the Opposition, for good or for evil, have thrown in their lot with the organised blacklegs. Not a word has been said today in favour of those who are asking for better wages or more settled conditions of employment; not a word of sympathy has been uttered by Members of the Opposition in favour of the men who are demanding decent wages, with proper working

  971
  conditions, to enable them to keep themselves and those who are dependent upon them. Not a word in their favour has been spoken; it has been condemnation from beginning to end, not altogether backed up by facts, or where there was a suggestion of facts, they were tumbled to the ground. When one considers this hostility to organised labour, and the character of the discussion to-day on the part of the Opposition, one can clearly see what the working people of the country are to expect if ever hon. Gentlemen opposite get into power, so that they can put their principles into practice. Opinions which they may to-day express harmlessly are such as it will be our business to see that they never get the chance of putting into force.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I may at once, I believe, on behalf of those who sit on these benches, repudiate the tone of one or two of the speeches that have been delivered from below the Gangway on the other side. I speak with the deepest sense of personal conviction, and I believe I voice the opinion of my Friends on these benches. We say that in this Motion, as in every other proposal that we put before this House, we speak with the most profound sympathy for the working classes of this country in the difficulties under which they labour in their endeavour to better their position in regard to their share in the profits that flow from the general industries of this country. Two questions are involved in the Debate to-day. One is a question of vastly less importance than the other. The one of less importance is as to whether, under the circumstances of this particular dispute the tight hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, representing the Government of this country, has done his duty or not. I venture to think that is an absolutely minor question. The larger question is the question involved behind that, what is the true policy that the Government of this country ought to adopt in relation to what we on this side, whatever they may say below the Gangway opposite, recognise to be the particular grievances of the working classes of this country. On the minor question, as the Prime Minister said, the issue is largely one of fact as to what has taken place. On that issue, at this hour of the evening, obviously I cannot dilate. But let me say this, whatever may be said within the walls of this House, I am convinced, as the public of the city of London know, that there has in
  972
  fact been a large amount of serious intimidation of the labour classes, and the constitutional duty of the Home Secretary in regard to that, as the Prime Minister pointed out, is, as the chief of the Metropolitan Police and as representative of the Executive Government of this country, of great importance. The Prime Minister said that the duty of maintaining order and the prevention of outrage in the country rests upon the local police authorities. With great respect to the Prime Minister I for one, as a lawyer, challenge entirely that statement of the law. Think for a moment what the true and only corollary must be if that be correct. The necessary corollary is this, that the Executive Government of this country which, in all other matters, is responsible to Parliament, in that matter alone if disorder takes place in the country of which the Home Secretary is cognisant, and in regard to which he fails to take measures to deal with it, in that one respect the Government of this country is not to be responsible to this House. I say that is not the constitutional doctrine of this country; that the responsibility of Government to Parliament is entire, and extends to all the duties of the Executive Government, and that the duties of maintaining good order in the country are not exceptional.
  I pass for a few moments to what seems to me to be a vastly more important question, and that is the true relation that the Government of this country ought to have to these great and serious questions that are disturbing the industrial peace of the country. I am referring to what is called the industrial unrest. It is customary amongst certain people to deprecate that industrial unrest, and to refer to it as a misfortune to the country. From one point of view I regard it not as a misfortune, but as a piece of good fortune. I believe it represents a genuine and earnest desire on the part of the working classes of this country to better their conditions in life. I for one am in full sympathy with that wish. If that is so, what relationship has this question to the question of strikes? It seems to me a broad question. If in a trade, such as the transport trade, you have an almost endless available supply of free labourers, and if where unionists strike that free labour is adequately protected by the Government, as I for one think it ought to be, then you arrive at a result which seems to be very serious: it is this, that strikes cannot possibly succeed. I believe that that is the question we shall have to face.

  973
  If adequate protection is given to free labour, which is the right of these men working as free labourers, it means that in a struggle between employer and employed the victory must inevitably be with the masters. If that be so, it explains the feelings that have been expressed from the benches opposite below the Gangway, to a large extent it explains the intensity of their hostility to free labour. It explains the desire on the part of trade unionists that the Government should not intervene to protect free labour, but should leave trade unionists to fight it by themselves. I say this country would not tolerate that solution of the industrial question. If that is so, to what result are we led? If strikes become impossible, as I believe in a great many trades they must if you give adequate protection to free labour, then we are further faced with this great question, which all of us see looming ahead in the near future, and which many of us are unwilling to face, although, I think, it must be faced. How are you going to deal with disputes arising between employers and employed throughout the industries of this country, if strikes and collective bargaining have failed as a method of solution? There is only one way of dealing with them. You will have to introduce some system of adjustment between employers and employed, under which both sides may meet in conference, and for that purpose, in order that labour should have fair conditions, I, for one, think it is absolutely essential that some standard of wages and some standard of living should be recognised as right. It is idle to suggest that an arbitrator is to do what is reasonable towards the employer and what is fair towards the men. He must be given a standard upon which he can act. That brings us face to face with this tremendous problem of the living wage. I submit that is really the problem underlying this question which has been discussed to-day. If you deal with strikes and intimidation as you ought to, then it follows that this larger question will have to be faced.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I listened with interest, but not with surprise, to the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who assumed to-night, as they always assume, that in any action we take on these questions we are animated by sympathy with the employers and have no sympathy with the workmen. That is their view. I am not surprised at the view they expressed, but I shall not take the trouble
  974
  to repudiate it. I should like to put to those who hold that view this conundrum: How is it that so many of us are here on these benches to speak in the House of Commons? We should not be here if the working men of this country took the view of our action which is taken by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is because they realise that we are just as much interested in the real welfare of the working classes of this country as any other section of this House that we are here. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway make one mistake. They think that the working classes are represented solely by that section of the working classes which is ready to obey their orders. We do not take that view. I quite agree with one remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). I should be very sorry if the employers thought that, because they had won a victory, as he says they have on this great question, they are entitled to ride roughshod over the trades unions. I should be as sorry to see tyranny of capital as tyranny of labour. We stand here for freedom both for capital and for labour. I recognise as fully as the Prime Minister—who expressed it so clearly this afternoon—that the duties of a responsible Government and a responsible Minister in a case of this kind are complex and difficult, and it would have been for no small reason that I asked for time for the Motion to be considered which is now before the House. The view which I take now, and took then, on the question was expressed in the speech from which a quotation was given very unfortunately by the Home Secretary. I am sure the Home Secretary had had that extract given him and had not read the speech, for to have made the quotation which he did make by itself would have been, in my opinion, as improper and dishonourable as anything could be. The view which I expressed—and I hold it now—was that at a given time a thing that a man or a firm has a perfect legal right to do he may desire to do at a time when the Government are not able to give him the protection to which he is entitled; but I went on to say that they cannot, and they must not, lay down that they will not as soon as they can give every man the right and protection necessary to enable him to carry on any legal occupation in this country.
  I listened with great amazement to what seemed to me the curious doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister as to the responsibility of the Home Secretary in maintaining order. If he had said that

  975
  the duty primarily rested with the local authorities I should have agreed with him. But he went far beyond that. He implied that the Home Secretary has no more responsibility than the mayor of a provincial town, and he rode off from the whole Motion on the ground that the things complained of had chiefly taken place, though in the Port of London, outside the Metropolitan area. I think that that is a defence unworthy of the Government and of the Prime Minister. Lawyers on this side have contradicted in the most explicit way the doctrine which he laid down. But we have to guide us testimony far more important than any legal opinion, and that is the practice, and the practice even of this Government, in the very case to which the Home Secretary referred and about which I spoke two years ago. The Home Secretary then never for a moment dreamed of denying that the responsibility was his. He accepted the responsibility, and defended the action which he took. More than that, only last year, in the great industrial dispute which then took place—I am speaking from memory, but I am satisfied that what I am about to state is correct—the then Home Secretary took the control of that dispute in his own hands. Although the Prime Minister told us that the Home Secretary is only the vehicle by which the local authorities ask for police, the then Home Secretary refused to allow the police to go when the local authority asked for them; he stopped them when the local authority wanted them, and later on he sent them on his own initiative without any action on the part of the local authority. It is idle and unworthy for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Home Secretary's responsibility ends with the Metropolitan area. The Prime Minister expressed his rejoicing at the opportunity which this Motion gave. For other reasons, apart from those which concern us, I think we have reason to be glad also. One reason is that the Prime Minister most emphatically, though not in express terms, has condemned in the most explicit way the very action which it was our object in making this Motion to bring before the House. I think we have reason for satisfaction, though a very chastened satisfaction, that the Prime Minister to-day, as usual, played a part which he always plays with so much distinction in the Government of which he is the head. In his speeches he has given expression to those statesmanlike ideas
  976
  which carry on the tradition, not only of the Government of this country, but of every civilised country. At the same time, while he invariably expresses these pious sentiments, his colleagues, not only by their action, but by their speeches, are constantly, and without any rebuke from him, giving expression to doctrines and carrying out practices which in my belief are subversive of society.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that in his whole career he had never heard a more complete or crushing reply than that given by the Home Secretary. If it was a complete and crushing reply it was a reply to an attack that had never been made. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman praises it, for with, if I may so say,' equal effect he himself rode off on precisely the same side issue. The right hon. Gentleman can surely never have read the Motion on the Paper or he would have seen that the reason we brought it forward was not because of what the Government has done in this matter, but of what they had said in regard to it. I say advisedly, that important as their action is in this matter, a declaration of policy and, as I believe, an entirely new policy, is far more important, because it is far more widely known in the country. Both of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke to-day spoke as if the Home Secretary had said nothing unusual. Why, I myself received—and I have a list of them here—telegrams from forty or fifty societies representing employers of labour in this country, calling attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday, and protesting against what they—as I—regard as a new doctrine which was laid down in that speech. There was a curious instance in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who went out of his way to say that he endorsed everything the Home Secretary had done; but he did not say that he endorsed everything that the Home Secretary had said. The whole defence of the Government is that they have maintained the right to work within the area of London. I have received innumerable letters, many of them from workmen, signed in the presence of witnesses, pointing out the extent to which intimidation prevails within the metropolitan area. It is difficult, as the House will acknowledge, for anyone outside to appreciate what is done in cases of this kind, and if the House will permit me, I shall read part of a letter I received to-day from a friend of my own, who is

  977
  the proprietor of a wharf and a wharf within the metropolitan area, and which will give the House some idea of what the state of matters is which the right hon. Gentleman think so pleasant and gratifying. He says:—
  "I am in the midst of it, loading vessels at our place with men willing to work, but literally in fear of their lives. The police inspectors deplore the weakness of the Home Secretary. They are not allowed to break up huge processions formed specifically for intimidation. Yesterday and to-day huge crowds, over one thousand strong, were allowed to stop at the wharf at the dinner hour to overawe the men. They marched right through the wharf, although their route was entirely outside it."
  HON. MEMBERS: "Name, name."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to give names. I am willing to give the letter to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Give us the name of the wharf?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know why the hon. Member wants the name of the wharf, as well as he does. Possibly the Home Secretary may give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] When I said that I did not mean to make it conditional when giving the letter. I am perfectly certain he would not dream of giving it to the hon. Member if I asked him not. I am not going to dwell upon the amount of intimidation and the efforts of the Government to repress it within the Port of London, but I am going to say that the speech and the words used by the Prime Minister this afternoon are the most complete justification of the Motion which we are now moving. The right hon. Gentleman said—I did not take down his words, but I think it will be found from the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow that I am quoting him fairly accurately—that if there had been any discrimination this Motion would be justified, and he said also that the man responsible, whoever he was, had no right to judge whether or not the law was right or proper, that his business was to see that the law was properly carried out. Judge it by that test! When the right hon. Gentleman made that pleasing declaration that it was the practice and determination to protect all free labour within the Metropolitan area I asked him if he was aware that the Home Secretary himself had distinctly stated that he had discriminated even in the Metropolitan area.
  I quoted the case of the "Lady Jocelyn," and the right hon. Gentleman, with that geniality he attributed to the hon. Member
  978
  for Merthyr, but which I find is not absent from himself, at once assumed that I knew nothing about it, and that this vessel was, not within the Metropolitan area. As a matter of fact, it was he and not I that was misinformed, and I think there is some evidence for my statement. In a public letter addressed to the "Times," which has never been contradicted, and which I may assume therefore is correct—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] On an important matter of this kind I consider that the Home Secretary would have denied the statement if the facts had not been accurate. This is the statement made:—
  "Referring to your letter of the 25th inst., I have this afternoon seen the Home Secretary, and he has agreed to afford protection to the men housed on the 'Lady Jocelyn' going into the Alexandra Dock, on the understanding that the men are employed exclusively in the discharge and distribution of food supplies. On this condition the 'Lady Jocelyn' will be admitted into the Royal Albert Dock."
  Mr. McKENNA: What date is that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The 1st of June. Now what does that mean? It exactly fulfils the condition which the Prime Minister said would justify a vote of censure. I do not in the least say that I like to see labour coming from outside in these disputes. Not at all. I consider that one of the greatest evils which the Government have done by not from the first making it plain that they would give protection to men who wanted to work, is that men have been brought from the outside, and it is they who are responsible. I would rather not see this labour come in, but what has that to do with it? They have the right to bring it in, and the Prime Minister says if they have that right the Home Secretary, or whoever is responsible, is bound to give them the necessary protection. He discriminated in another way. He said if it is to discharge necessary food supplies. What business has he to make any such distinction? I quite admit that at a crisis, if there is a limit to the number and strength of the force which is available, it is right to make a distinction and to employ them first of all in these necessary food supplies. But that is a very different thing. We are here in the centre of the Metropolis of this country. The right hon. Gentleman represents society. He has a right to call upon all the forces of the Crown, he has a right to enlist every man for the service, but I say he has no right whatever in a civilised country to refuse to men who

  979
  desire to work their elementary right to be allowed to do so. An hon. Friend behind me pointed out what is the inevitable effect of the shilly-shallying of the Government. They, as I say, represent society, and if they do not fulfil their duty, and protect the men who deserve protection society will protect itself. That has happened in other countries. Has any hon. Gentleman read the account of the disputes in Brisbane in Queensland. Just as the chief constable asked for protection and did not get it from the right hon. Gentleman so did the local government of Queensland. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did get it."] They did not get it at the time they wanted it, and so the local government of Queensland applied to the Central Commonwealth Government for protection. There was a Labour Government in power, and the Prime Minister instead of sending protection sent a subscription to the strike fund. The Government have not done that yet. What happened? The whole of the population of Brisbane determined that if the Government would not protect them they would protect themselves, and they rose and did protect themselves. I say without hesitation, if the Government fail to do their duty, that is what will inevitably happen in this country. I say this censure is on account of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to me will have a very simple task. It is to say definitely, "Yes" or "No," whether the Government approve the doctrines laid down by the Home Secretary. On Thursday he laid down two doctrines which I consider novel. He said this:—
  "If it was merely to provide protection for the loading of cargoes, we had such abundant demands for the London police that I could not undertake to send men for that purpose."
  Then he went on to say, if there were an outbreak of disorder, then he would send them. The right hon. Gentleman said the Chief Constable of Essex could not judge of his definition of what is urgent. I think he was right.
  Mr. McKENNA: I said Messrs. Scrutton could not.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I know as much of this case as he does. It was Scrutton's who applied first, and he himself told us there was a telephone communication from the chief constable.
  Mr. McKENNA: The next day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: And that was the day to which I am referring. What did the right hon. Gentleman say his idea of urgency is? "I will send protection after disorder has occurred, after the heads are broken. I have no responsibility to send it until they are broken." This is the second novel doctrine which I ask whether or not the Government endorse. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "It is recognised by the House that it is the duty of Government to preserve peace and to take all necessary steps for that purpose; but when action is taken of a kind which is known to be provocative, it is too much to ask that police shall be imported from outside in order to prepare the way for provocative action."
  An hon. Friend on these benches said:—
  "What provocative action?
  "Mr. McKenna: In this case it, was not a question of protecting men who would usually be engaged at work at Purfleet, but it was a question of protecting men who had excellent opportunity for work at Newport—"
  which is not true, as a matter of fact—
  "but were brought in specially as strike breakers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1912, cols. 423–4.]
  What are strike breakers? Every man who comes in against the union which is organising the strike is a strike breaker. This is the question I now put to the right hon. Gentleman: Does he maintain that wherever there is a strike, and where the men who have organised the strike are numerous enough and aggressive enough to prevent local men from doing the work, what the Home Secretary said that the Government are under no obligation to protect men who came from outside? These are plain questions, and we expect plain answers to them. We brought forward this Motion not in the least because of any effect it would have upon the House of Commons. We brought it forward for one simple reason. It is to make it perfectly plain that we at least will not be responsible for the conduct of a Government which does not give to every citizen what is his elementary right, the right to work if he desires to work at a legal occupation. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), because my hon. Friend below the Gangway denied that we were influenced by considerations as to whether we would win votes or not, said that we were scouting the opinions of the people of this country. I say for myself, for my colleagues who sit on this bench, and I believe for every one of my hon. Friends behind me, that whether we ever obtain office or not we wish it to be clearly understood in this country that, in

  981
  office or out of it, we stand for freedom to work on the part of every man who desires to work.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): This Debate has taken a very peculiar course. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion which stood in his name attempted to prove the case by reference to facts. He spoke obviously in ignorance of some of the main facts. He spoke without understanding all that had happened, and without really being in a position in which he could criticise my right hon. Friend. When the facts had been explained, as they were by my right hon. Friend, when they had been stated, and when they could not be denied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I state when they could not be denied, and when they have not been denied, then the course of the Debate shifted entirely, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has shown us quite plainly that so far as he is concerned he could not tread the same measure as the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Motion. He said this, I do not profess to give the ipsissima verba, "Our complaint is not of what the right hon. Gentleman has done, but in respect of what he has said."
  Mr. BONAR LAWwas understood to indicate assent.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Do you agree with him?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I deal first of all with the proposition put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I will explain my view in plain and explicit terms. That means this, that with regard to the action of the Minister whose conduct is attacked, there is no action of which the Opposition can complain. It means that as to the Motion which has been lodged, and in respect of which the day was demanded by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the conduct of the Minister attacked is no longer open to criticism. I had the right hon. Gentleman's assent a moment ago when I quoted his own statement, with which he agreed entirely, that his criticism was not in regard to the action of the Home Secretary, but to what he had said.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Motion.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman is at
  982
  last dealing with the Motion, because the Motion in point of fact starts by affirming a proposition which is not in dispute, and it then says—
  "the claim of the Home Secretary to distinguish between cases in which he will afford such protection, and other cases … is unconstitutional and contrary to law."
  At least let there be no confusion in the House or in the country. What I have asserted is accepted, so far as I understand, by the words that have been used by the right hon. Gentleman—that is, that you are not attacking the conduct of the Home Secretary in connection with this matter. I recollect, not many minutes before the Leader of the Opposition spoke, the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), who was speaking on the Motion of Censure, attacking the conduct of my right hon. Friend, calling him before the House to explain his conduct and to justify what he had done, said that the conduct of the Home Secretary is quite a minor matter, that this is entirely a small question, and that he did not propose to deal with it at any length. I took down what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. The words were:—
  "Whether the Home Secretary has done his duty or not is a minor question."
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: In comparison with the other.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman at his word. Then bring forward your Motion on the other.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am asked to deal with the question which is raised in reference to the conduct of the police. It seems to me there is very little room for discussion with reference to this, because the matter is quite clear, and there is no difficulty in stating what the legal propositions are which must be applied, and, as far as I am aware, there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] Somebody seems to doubt that. I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and in so far as he was affirming the legal proposition or what was the constitutional duty of the Home Secretary, I do not think there is any division

  983
  of opinion. The general obligation on the police undoubtedly is to maintain order and to protect the inhabitants. The place, the time, and the circumstances, must be left to the discretion of the police authority under the Home Secretary in the Metropolitan area, and I am quite certain that nobody who understands, or who has considered the question with which we are dealing, will doubt those propositions for one moment. He must further, in order to determine the place and the conditions under which he will interfere, consider the number of police available. He must consider also the degree of danger at different points within the Metropolitan area. He must also consider the degree of importance to the public of the proceedings which it is sought to protect. All these are matters which must enter into his consideration if he is doing his duty. That he must discriminate is perfectly plain, because discrimination means that he must exercise a discretion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I repeat that that means that he must exercise a discretion. Where I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite is when they have said that to discriminate on political grounds was contrary to his duty. There I quite agree. But to discriminate, which is the charge made, in circumstances which are before him, and of which he must judge, is his duty, if he is regarding the public interest, which it really is his paramount duty to watch over. "What are the circumstances with which we are dealing here? I have listened to the greater part of the Debate, and, so far as I know, there has not been one single fact stated which has in the slightest degree proved that the Home Secretary has failed to do his duty in this respect. I heard the right hon. Gentleman quoting from a letter. It is always very difficult to deal with facts which are quoted from a letter, which no doubt he had only just got and which he read to the House without giving us either time, place, or circumstances. I am sure the House will see that it is impossible to deal with circumstances and facts of that character. You cannot refute what you do not know, and therefore I am entitled to say that in this Debate there has been no facts proved or put forward which justifies the statement that the Home Secretary has not performed his duty. If anyone challenges that statement, let us look at the facts. What has happened? There has been labour employed at the docks,
  984
  and, as we now know, there is more labour available in the docks than can actually be employed. So long as you have the lightermen out you cannot employ the men who are actually there to be employed in consequence of the order which my right hon. Friend has maintained. Therefore it would be idle to say that he has failed in any way to do what he should have done or that he has 'discriminated in this respect.
  I found it somewhat difficult to understand what the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech meant to deal with, when, after the statement which I have just quoted, he referred again to the failure to protect, and dealt with that in connection with these men. I have stated what my view is with regard to it. I have stated what I understand to be the law, and, so far as I judge it, and I listened to every word that the Home Secretary said, there is not a particle of difference between us. [An HON. MEMBER: "On Thursday."] I do not shirk that at all. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on Thursday and he explained to-day that when he came into the House he was dealing with a state of facts which was in his mind, but which were apparently not facts which the hon. Baronet had dealt with in his absence.
  Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Noble Lord no doubt is a master of precise language.
  Earl WINTERTON: Speak the truth.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If my right hon. Friend has one state of facts in mind and makes a speech which is relevant to that state of facts he is perfectly justified in saying, as he has said, in reference to all he was dealing with then, that he adhered to every word, but at the same time he has not said a single word to-day in explanation of his position as Home Secretary, with which I should dissent or from which I do dissent. I agree with every statement he has made with regard to his position as Home Secretary. Again, I am speaking of what was stated to-day after we had had a considered Motion. I want to know what does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he has told us that in some way or other the Home Secretary is failing in his duty with regard to these matters. I want to know what he would do in circumstances similar to those in which the Home Secretary was placed. I am now

  985
  dealing with his statement to-day. Supposing you have this condition of things—supposing you have what I consider an emergency created, a strike in which there are a number of men with heated passions, and, at the same time, the absolute necessity of protecting the food supply of the Metropolitan area, and a limited number of policemen to deal with that protection—all those policemen, or a vast number of them, available to see that food is brought into the Metropolitan area—and supposing you have a state of things such as was described during the earlier part of the Debate in which some men who are known to act as a great provocation, whether rightly or wrongly I am not going to argue, and who wanted to come into the docks, are you to withdraw your police from the protection of the food supply in order to allow these men to come in? [An HON MEMBER: "Call up your reserves."] Does the hon. Gentleman mean call up the reserves of the police? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] They were called up, and they were all available. I want to know if the action which you would take under the conditions or circumstances I have described, would be to call up the military forces of the country? Is it to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman that in such circumstances
  soldiers are to be requisitioned? As I understand the proposition which he put when discussing this very question in June, 1910—dealing with the same circumstances as have arisen to-day—it was the proposition as I have stated it. He agreed with it, and all I have to say. after listening to what he said tonight, is that unless it is his policy in such circumstances—notwithstanding that the police may be needed for the food supply, and wanted to protect the Metropolis in every district, and to protect the inhabitants against burglary and other crimes—to call up the military forces to assist, he would be widening immensely the area of disturbance and would be adding to the unrest instead of stopping it. My view in regard to the matter and in regard to the whole of this Debate, as I understand the statement made earlier in the Debate, is that there never has been on a definite and precise Motion brought before the House of Commons attacking the conduct of a Minister—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 336.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Arson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Butcher, John George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Campion, W. R.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Fell, Arthur

  Baird, J. L.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cator, John

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Forster, Henry William

  Barnston, Harry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Chambers, J.

  Cibbs, G. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Goldman, Charles Sidney

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Grant, J. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Crichton Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Boyton, James

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Croft, H. P.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stanier, Beville

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hills J. W.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Moore, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Swift, Rigby

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Homer, Andrew Long

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nield, Herbert

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

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

  Jackson, Sir John

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinail

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, Henry

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

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

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

  Lloyd. George Ambrose

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, O, (Ramsey)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Royds, Edmund

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Younger, Sir George

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

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Eyres-Monsell and Major Henderson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boland, John Pius

  Condon, Thomas

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brace, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cullinan, John

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Armitage, Robert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  De Forest, Baron

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cameron, Robert

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Barton, William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dillon, John

  Beale, W. P.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Doris, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clynes, John R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  988

  989

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Logan, John William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields).

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Reddy, Michael

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Field, William

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roch, Walter F.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gill, Alfred Henry

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ginnell, Laurence

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

  Rowlands, James

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Glanville, Harold James

  Manfield, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Martin, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Griffith, Ellis James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Sheehy, David

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hacket, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Shortt, Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molloy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Snowden, Philip

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Harwood, George

  Morison, Hector

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Summers, James Woolley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Muldoon, John

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Needham, Christopher

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hebhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hegge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Grady, James

  Waring, Walter

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Webb, H.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  King, Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lansbury, George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland

  Leach, Charles

  Radford, George Heynes

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. BONAR LAWrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Original Question put, "That it is the duty of the Government to afford all possible protection to men who desire to work
  in a lawful occupation, and that the claim of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to distinguish between cases in which he will afford such protection, and other cases in which he will supply it only after a breach of the peace has occurred, is unconstitutional and contrary to law."
  The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 337.

  Division No. 94.]

  AYES.

  [11.15 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Crott, Henry Page

  Keswick, Henry

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Denniss, E. K. B.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle)

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

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

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Barrston, Harry

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Macmaster, Donald

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bird, Alfred

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Grant, J. A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Greene, W. R.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Boyton, James

  Gretton, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Brassay, H. Leonard Campbell

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Moore, William

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Burn, Colonel C. B.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Nield, Herbert

  Cassel, Felix

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

  Cator, John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Pagét, Almeric Hugh

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pease. Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Chambers, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Jackson, Sir John

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Stewart, Gershom

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Royds, Edmund

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Swift, Rigby

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

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

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Winterton, Earl

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wright, Henry Filzherbert

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Stanier, Beville

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Younger, Sir George

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Eyres-Monsell and Major Henderson.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire).

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Crooks, William

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

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harwood, George

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cullinan, John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Alien, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Armitage, Robert

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

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

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Higham John Sharp

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dillon, John

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Doris, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barton, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bentham, G. J.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Boland, John Plus

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Falconer, James

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Furness, Stephen

  King, Joseph

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Lansbury, George

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cameron, Robert

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leach, Charles

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greig, Col. James William

  Logan, John William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Claney, John Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Clough, William

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lyell, C. H.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hackett, John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir

  McGhee, Richard

  994

  995

  Maclean, Donald

  O'Shee, James John

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Snowden, Philip

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Summers, James Woolley

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sutherland, John E.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Martin, J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhamptom)

  Meagher, Michael

  Priestley, Sir A. (Grantham)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Meehan, Patrick (Queen's Co.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Radford, George Heynes

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wadsworth, J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Reddy, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morison, Hector

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Webb, H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, Sir J. (Denbighs)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Needham, Christopher P.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Grady, James

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sheeny, David

  O'Malley, William

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Customs and Excise.
  Customs and Excise.
  Motor Car Licences (Devon).
  Motor Car Licences (Devon).
  Surveyors of Taxes.
  Surveyors of Taxes.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SMALLER FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  SMALLER FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ASSISTANT CLERKS).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ASSISTANT CLERKS).
  WORKMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
  WORKMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
  ROYAL PARKS.
  ROYAL PARKS.
  DISPENSING CHEMISTS.
  DISPENSING CHEMISTS.
  APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS.
  APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS.
  ACCUMULATED FUNDS.
  ACCUMULATED FUNDS.
  LECTURES TO OFFICIALS.
  LECTURES TO OFFICIALS.
  SOCIETY SECURITIES.
  SOCIETY SECURITIES.
  SANATORIA (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  SANATORIA (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Public Companies (Deduction of Income Tax).
  Public Companies (Deduction of Income Tax).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Estates Commissioners' Report.
  Estates Commissioners' Report.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL AEROPLANES (LADY PASSENGERS).
  NAVAL AEROPLANES (LADY PASSENGERS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  SOLDIERS' MESSING.
  SOLDIERS' MESSING.
  Preventives of Infection.
  Preventives of Infection.
  Port-of-Spain, Trinidad (Convictions).
  Port-of-Spain, Trinidad (Convictions).
  Church of England Schools, Birkenhead.
  Church of England Schools, Birkenhead.
  Sleeping Out Conviction, Pontefract (Remission of Sentence).
  Sleeping Out Conviction, Pontefract (Remission of Sentence).
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Metropolitan Police (Resignations).
  Metropolitan Police (Resignations).
  Shops Act.
  Shops Act.
  Expulsion of Malatesta.
  Expulsion of Malatesta.
  Private Motor Cars (Fatal Accidents).
  Private Motor Cars (Fatal Accidents).
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
  FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
  Refusing Workhouse Task (Essex Quarter Sessions).
  Refusing Workhouse Task (Essex Quarter Sessions).
  Flogging Vagrants.
  Flogging Vagrants.
  Fortune-Telling (Conviction at Marylebone)
  Fortune-Telling (Conviction at Marylebone)
  Censorship of Plays.
  Censorship of Plays.
  Refusal of Licence (Tidal Basin).
  Refusal of Licence (Tidal Basin).
  Imprisonment of Mr. A. B. Desmond.
  Imprisonment of Mr. A. B. Desmond.
  Plural Voting.
  Plural Voting.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Tuberculosis in Beef.
  Tuberculosis in Beef.
  Glanford Brigg (Vaccination Officer's Income).
  Glanford Brigg (Vaccination Officer's Income).
LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC."
  ADMINISTRATION OF FUND.
  ADMINISTRATION OF FUND.
  Blandford (Dorset) Post Office.
  Blandford (Dorset) Post Office.
  Small Holdings.
  Small Holdings.
  School of Forestry (Scotland).
  School of Forestry (Scotland).
  Land Court (Scotland).
  Land Court (Scotland).

HIS MAJESTY THE LATE KING OF DENMARK.
The KING'S answer to the Address of the 16th of May last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield) as follows:
"I return you My most sincere thanks "for your Loyal and Dutiful Address, expressing sympathy with Me in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of My beloved Uncle, King Frederick of Denmark.
It affords Me great comfort and gratification to receive this expression of your cordial feelings towards Myself and the Royal Family, and to be reminded of the warm interest you take in all that concerns Them."
The Earl of HADDINGTON—Took the Oath.
The Earl of ROSSE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House. That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ivybridge Urban District Water.

Dublin and South Eastern Railway.

Dover Corporation.

Fylde Water Board.

Metropolitan Railway.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BELFAST WATER BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 13th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
LOCH ERICHT WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON TRUST COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  WAKEFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    WOKING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH KILLINGHOLME PIER BILL. [H.L.]
    TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EGREMONT URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    RAMSBOTTOM URBAN DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    PRESTONPANS COMBINATION WATER SUPPLY (FINANCE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons: Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Willingdon), and reported from the Committee. (No. 67.)
ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]

    ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A this day at Twelve o'clock.
    The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered, except to members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 68.)

    JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
    Report from, that the One hundred and forty-third Volume of the Journals (1st and 2nd George V, 1911–1912), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journal have been delivered.
    SUNDAY REST FOR RAILWAYMEN.
    Petition against the running of trains on the Lord's Day; of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to make such provisions with respect to the prohibition of catching Seals and Sea Otters in certain parts of the Pacific Ocean, and for the enforcement of such prohibitions as are necessary to carry out a Convention between His Majesty the King and the United States of America, the Emperor of Japan, and the Emperor of all the Russias—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 69.)
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to certain burghs and parishes in the counties of Linlithgow, Stirling and Dumbarton—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard): Then it was moved, That the Order of the 24th of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next" be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a; agreed to: Bill read 1a accordingly, to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 70.)

    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Annagassan, Lossiemouth and Macduff—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard): Then it was moved,
    26
    That the Order of the 24th of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next" be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a; agreed to: Bill read 1a accordingly, to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 71.)

    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Hove, Porthcawl, Rhyl and Southend-on-Sea—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. (Granard): Then it was moved, That the order of the 24th of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next" be dispensed with in respect, of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a; agreed to: Bill read 1a accordingly, to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 72.)
    HOWARD ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
    Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 7th day of May next unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice, nor any Petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 9th day of May next" be dispensed with in respect of a Bill to authorise the Trustees of the Will of John Howard, deceased, to transfer to a company with limited liability to be hereafter formed the business of the testator and certain lands and premises held in connection therewith; and for other purposes; agreed to: Petition presented accordingly, together with a printed copy of the proposed Bill attached thereto, and read and referred to two English Judges.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order).

    NATIONAL INSURANCE—MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
    LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE rose to call attention to the unsatisfactory position of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the profound ignorance which prevails throughout the country in regard to the interpretation, policy, and provisions of the Act, especially amongst the agricultural labourers and domestic servants in the rural parishes; and to move—
    "That it is most essential, in the interest of all those affected by its provisions as well as of the taxpayers and ratepayers of England, that the operation of the Act should be postponed by a Privy Council Order under the powers given in the Act until January 1, 1913, in order to give sufficient time for the Official Commissioners to understand and explain its provisions, and, if necessary, to suggest such amendments as will render the Act workable and really beneficial as a scheme of National Insurance."
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Motion on the Paper six weeks ago in the hope that I would be able to bring it on before the Whitsuntide holiday, but unfortunately, owing to the adjournment, I was obliged to put it off, and I have taken the first day I could after the House resumed. As far as I am concerned I am content that the Motion should have been adjourned, because I am the more convinced every day that the object which I have in view is perfectly right. All that has happened since I put the Motion down shows what a great advantage it would be to the Act, owing to the way in which it has been altered and revised by the Commissioners, if its operation were postponed.
    I think the Resolution speaks for itself, and I shall not detain your Lordships with many words on the Insurance Act of last year. It is common knowledge that it was introduced without any mandate from the country and without any consultation with those principally concerned in the working of it—the friendly societies and the medical men. It is admitted now to have been introduced with no sufficient care in preparation and drafting, and it was in this state that it was hurried through the House of Commons by means of the guillotine and the closure without reasonable or fair discussion. I am told that forty-nine clauses were not discussed at all in Parliament. But during the progress of the Bill clauses were inserted setting up a Commission with entirely novel and unprecedented powers to revise, amend, and
    28
    alter the Bill in almost every particular. The consequence is that at the present moment we have not only to try and digest what is before us in the Act itself, but what is practically in many respects an entirely new Act. And I believe that this week there have been issued by the Insurance Commissioners 20,000,000 copies of Provisional Orders—Provisional Orders which may be altered at any time. I would remind your Lordships how different was the procedure adopted by German statesmen in regard to their measure of this kind. They took five years to prepare the Bill in consultation with everybody who would be interested, and they gave the German Parliament two years in which to thoroughly debate the details of the Bill. Our National Insurance Bill only saw the light a year ago, and we are asked to put it into force within fifteen months of the first being known about it at all.
    In addition to the clauses setting up this Commission with the enormous powers to which I have referred, a proviso was inserted in the last clause of the Bill to the effect that—
    "His Majesty in Council may, should necessity arise, substitute some date or dates not being later than the 1st January, 1913, as respects the provisions of this Act relating to health insurance."
    I assert that the necessity has now arisen. I would call your Lordships' attention to another fact. In the National Insurance Act which became law in December last it was provided that there should be six months before the Act came into operation, in order that it might be fully known and in order that plenty of time might be given to the Commissioners to amend and revise it. That is, in my opinion, a considerable fact in this discussion, because we shall have to see how far this six months has been made use of in any way. The Act itself is practically a legislative contract between Parliament and the contributors under the Act. Employers and employés are compulsorily forced to make these payments, and in return Parliament undertakes that there shall be given medical and other benefits under Section 8 of the Act. There is a penalty for the employer if he does not pay, not only his own contribution but the contribution of those who are employed by him, but there is no penalty as far as I know upon Parliament if they do not give the benefits of the

    29
    Act. Therefore it is essential that we should see whether the Government are in a position to give the benefits which they contract to give.
    The penalty of £10 under the Act applies only to the employer, but some time during May a pamphlet, marked A, was issued by the Official Commissioners on the duties of employers, and curiously enough this sentence was inserted in one paragraph—
    "A worker who, without reasonable cause, fails to, deliver a contribution card when the employer requires it for the purpose of paying contributions or for production to an inspector, is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10."
    This would appear to be creating a new criminal offence by Provisional Order, and that appears to me a very strong measure indeed. I suppose the answer will be that this is done under the vague words of subsection (2) of Section 68 of the Act, in which "other persons" are put in generally. All I can say is that it would have been more honest and straightforward to have put into the Act itself a provision that the workman was liable to this £10 penalty as well as the employer, and not put it in insidiously within six weeks of the Act coming into force. This question has been constantly raised at meetings addressed by the itinerant lecturers who have gone round the country under the command of the Government Whip, and they have always denied that there was any provision in the Act with regard to that. Two other points, however, arise on this paragraph. First, what is "reasonable cause"? because I suppose if the workman is to be prosecuted by the unfortunate employer he will be heard in defence in a Court of Justice, and I think he would be able to give very good reasons for not paying if he could not see that he was going to get the benefits under the Act. In that case I think the employer would be in a very difficult position. Secondly, are the Commissioners under the Act, entitled to make Provisional Orders and Regulations with penalties attached? They claim, or it is claimed for them, that any Regulations made by them or for them are to be read into the Act and have the force of law. I cannot find anything in the Act which allows them to repeal a law when they have once made it. But no doubt we shall have some reply with regard to that.
    I should like to ask what has been done by the Government or by the Special Commissioners to explain the Act in the country and to secure the co-operation of the medical profession and the great and small friendly societies. So far as I can learn, they took no steps at all for three months. The Commissioners went to sleep for three months, or, probably acting under orders, took no active steps; and as regards the doctors the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to insult and abuse the medical profession as a "selfish trade union." My Lords, there is no more generous or kindly profession in the world, especially to the poor in the rural districts, than the medical profession. I venture to say that the demands which they have made are largely fair and reasonable, and are made quite as much in the interests of the poor people whom they have to attend as in their own interests. They will be called out at all hours and will be called out more in the future when nothing will have to be paid by the people themselves. It is absolutely necessary in a large and scattered rural district that a medical man should have either a motor-car or horses and carriages. How is he to keep horses and carriages, much less a motor-car, on £200 or, £250 per annum? Yet that is what I am told will be the average income of a medical man under the terms of the Act. How much more liberal is the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he wants to find spies and inspectors to send into your houses! They are advertised for at from £350 to £500 per annum. We could do very well without some of those officials, but the Government cannot bring this Act into force and give medical and sanatoria benefits without the medical profession.
    Up to the end of April nothing whatever had been done towards bringing the Act into operation. But in April the Commissioners sent official lecturers all over the country. They were very able men. I presided at several of their meetings in Lincolnshire at the request of the Commissioners, and I heard what they had to say. They had two great disadvantages. In the first place, they had to follow a number of men who had been sent out by the Government Whip as unofficial lecturers to popularise the Act, and who had been making speeches absolutely regardless of either facts or accuracy, or, to put it in

    31
    milder language, they had shown an absolute ignorance of the Act itself. Questions were constantly asked the official lecturers as to whether what they said or what had been stated by the unofficial speakers was true, and when I was in the chair at one of these meetings I was appealed to by some very stanch Radicals as to which statements were true. The answer I gave was that as they had an official lecturer there it was not for me to say which statements were right or wrong. The next day I received a letter from the Official Commissioners in which they stated that they declined to be responsible for the opinions and explanations of their own lecturers; they must be taken to be saying as far as they could what they understood to be the Act, but the Commissioners were not responsible for their opinion. It is rather hard upon lecturers to be sent down to the country and then for their opinions to be treated in this way. I think that after three months a brief might have been made for them. They did a certain amount of good, however, and cleared the decks in a great many instances.
    But latterly the Commissioners have issued an enormous number of pamphlets for which they are responsible. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have followed all these pamphlets. I have done my best to do so, but they have come a great deal faster than I have been able to manage to digest them. What is really the present position? I will only speak of what had been done up to May, for anything that has been done during the last six weeks clearly can be of no use in the way of giving information in the country districts. I would like to call attention to a speech made by Sir Robert Morant on May 20 at a meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce. He then said that—
    "There were some important practical matters to be dealt with by the Commissioners, complex and full of detail, and regulations to be framed within the four corners of the Act in a way that would suit the societies, great and small, which had to administer them."
    This is within two months of July 15, when it is proposed that the Act should come into operation. How are employers and employed to be informed on these complex questions of which the Commissioners two months ago could not make head or tail? But that is not all. Sir Robert Morant stated that, though some five or six sets of
    32
    Regulations had been drafted, they must be taken and regarded as experimental Regulations only. The outstanding difficulty, he said, was that they had not yet a list of approved societies, nor did they know precisely what societies existed in different localities. So that when we have done all we can to master these Regulations we have to realise that they may be done away with the next day; and I am told that, in the Provisional Regulations issued this week, among other things which have been withdrawn is this notice as to a penalty in the case of the workman. At any rate, that provision has been softened down.
    Remember that the words I have quoted were used within two months of July 15. I think it may be said with perfect truth that the general body of workmen in town and country have no knowledge whatever either about the general provisions of the Act or what friendly societies have been or will be approved. We know now, from speeches delivered at meetings of several of the principal friendly societies, that they never wanted the Act at all, but are willing to make the best of it provided they are given time in which to prepare the necessary regulations. I heard the other day that one of the largest friendly societies in Lincolnshire received a letter saving that their application to be approved could not be agreed to unless they sent up their rules and regulations within twenty-four hours. It is said that they sat up all night to make them, but I do not think it is very satisfactory to people who have to pay their money to know that they have to go into a society whose regulations have been revised and made up in twenty-four hours. The reason why the societies want more time is obvious. The regulations and benefits which will do for the towns will not do for the rural districts. In the towns people want a great deal of medical attendance and are to a certain extent short lived, but in the rural districts they are strong and healthy and do not care quite so much about medical attendance. What they really want is what I may call deferred benefits between the ages of sixty and seventy, when they can claim the old-age pension. At one meeting over which I presided, and at which a member of the Advisory Committee as well as the lecturer was present, it was distinctly stated on

    33
    behalf of these friendly societies that they desired to form branches with benefits suitable to various classes of labour, but that it would be impossible for there to form these branches until they knew whether they would be approved themselves and exactly what the labourers required.
    I do not think I need say anything more about the friendly societies. But I would like to say that it is not only for rural labourers that they wish to establish branches. They also desire to have branches for other classes, like domestic servants, fishermen, seamen, and others, who do not want exactly the same benefits as are now being provided for the towns. On the part of rural labourers there is a great distrust of any advice given them by the employers, distrust principally caused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Limehouse speeches and the way in which employers and employed have been set one against the other; and when they are told that they ought to become members of an approved society they look upon the advice with distrust, and they cannot be got to understand that the most pitiable condition a man can occupy is to become a Post Office depositor. Again, the small societies in the villages are very suspicious. They do not know what is going to be done with them, and some of them are inclined to think that they had better dissolve and divide what money they have before the Government, as they think they will, lay hold of it. I think that one of the things most necessary at the present moment is to try and keep going these small societies in rural districts, to get them recognised as approved societies, and then to group them together for pooling purposes so as to form societies of 5,000 members each. That is one way of getting good societies for the agricultural labourer. The other way is to get the friendly societies to institute branches with particular benefits for them.
    But there, again, you are met with the same difficulty. Up to the present moment no replies have been sent to any of these smaller societies, and therefore they do not know whether they are going to be approved or not, and the friendly societies will not start branches until they know how many of the smaller societies are approved and how many members they
    34
    will take away from them. Therefore until it is known which are to be approved societies and which are not, it is impossible to do anything in the rural districts. I look upon domestic servants and casual labourers as absolutely hopeless at the present moment. I doubt whether there is a single Minister on the Front Bench opposite who can tell us anything about the casuals or what will happen to them. But, whatever happens, we do not want to see the hard-working healthy English labourer put into the same position as casuals. There is another question I should like to ask to which I hope I shall get an answer. Large employers do not pay the wages themselves. What will be the position of a pay clerk or a foreman who presents the stamps and the remainder of the wage to a workman if the workman refuses to accept it as full payment of his demand? The workman says. "No, I do not want your stamps; I have got no card; I want the full wages upon which you engaged me." What will be the position in that case of the pay clerk or the foreman under the Workmen's and Servants' Act? Can he refuse to pay the remainder of the wages unless the receipt is given, or must he pay the remainder of the wages and not be able to produce his receipt when he goes back to the office? This is a question which presents some difficulty.
    There is only one other class to which I wish directly to refer. As far as Lincolnshire is concerned the farmers and others are quite prepared to carry out the Act if they can only see their way to do so, and to form associations purely and entirely for rural labourers, or, if that cannot be done, to get branches from the larger societies. But fishermen are in a worse position than rural labourers. At the present moment the Board of Trade and the Fisheries Department have not come to an agreement as to what is a foreign-going fishing vessel. Under the Act fishermen in foreign-going vessels are to pay a good deal less than what is paid by other workmen—I think they are only to pay a penny or twopence. But, as I say, no decision has yet been come to as to what is a foreign-going fishing vessel. I was present at the meeting of the National Sea Fisheries Association when the matter was discussed. Mr. Runciman was present, but unfortunately, although he was most desirous to remain, he was called suddenly away to a

    35
    Cabinet meeting, but he left Sir Thomas Elliott to describe the position. He asked us to name three practical fishermen who could advise the Department as to what was a proper definition of a foreign-going vessel. That we have done, but no decision has yet been come to. The Board of Trade have got their own ideas, but all I can say is that the definition of a foreign-going vessel in the Merchant Shipping Acts is useless for this purpose. That is the first difficulty with regard to fishermen.
    The second difficulty is that the Insurance Commissioners have declined to accept the Royal Provident Fund as an approved society, and I must say I think their decision is quite right under the Act. But if that is the law, what happens? No branches of the society can be approved. The sick funds are affiliated to the branches, and they are also disqualified by the Act. I think that the sick funds must be at once dissociated from the Royal Provident Fund and must be started as fresh trusts and apply to be approved on their own bottom. But until the status of the fishermen is known it is impossible to do anything at all. In a recent circular issued by the Insurance Commissioners they warn domestic servants, especially women—and what they say with regard to domestic servants applies to every other class—under no circumstances to become Post Office depositors. They tell them that the Post Office is not really an insurance at all and advise them strongly not to join that category.
    We are now within a month of July 15, and we do not know half of the friendly societies or half of the small societies which are eventually to be approved. It is most unfair to hustle those who are to be contributors into the few societies which have been approved, some of them only provisionally approved, and it is still worse to hustle 9,000,000 people into becoming Post Office depositors. But that must be the result if you bring the Act into force on July 15. I therefore appeal to the Government to give the Motion which I have brought forward their friendly consideration. Remember that the first list of approved friendly societies was only published on Friday last, but they are not very well satisfied with the rules that they have sent in in such a great hurry. Terms have not yet been come to with the
    36
    medical profession, and only last week a circular was issued to all the county councils asking them to send in their regulations for sanatoria in their counties within seven days. That is pretty strong hustling, because if the Commissioners had been men of business they would know that most county councils cannot be called together within seven days. Nothing has been done with regard to sanatoria or with regard to medical benefits. All that has been done is absolutely provisional and experimental. I do not think that in the hay season you will get many labourers to read this list of Provisional Orders which is to be circulated throughout the country, and I very much doubt the legality of enforcing fines against the employer or the workman when you cannot give in return the benefits which in the Act you have stated you will give.
    I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long, but I have done my best to put the matter clearly without any controversy so far as I could help in the matter. I am satisfied more every day that it is in the interests of the Act itself, and in the interests of the system of national insurance, that the date fixed for the Act to come into operation should be postponed. Every day shows, if you would only give time to get a full list of approved societies and if you would only come to terms with the doctors, that then, long before January, or, if you like it better, by October 1, there would be plenty of opportunity for making the Act to a certain extent a success notwithstanding its unworkable nature at the present moment. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is most essential, in the interest of all those affected by its provisions as well as of the taxpayers and ratepayers of England, that the operation of the Act should be postponed by a Privy Council Order under the powers given in the Act until 1st of January, 1913, in order to give sufficient time for the Official Commissioners to understand and explain its provisions, and, if necessary, to suggest such amendments as will render the Act workable and really beneficial as a scheme of National Insurance.—(Lord Heneage.)
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships will dispute what Lord Heneage has said as to the manner in which this Act was passed through the other House and also through this House, and I think I shall be able to show to your Lordships that the haste which is being displayed in bringing it into operation is quite equal to the haste which was displayed in making it into law. Such little experience as I have had coincides with that of Lord Heneage, that at the present time, at all events in the rural districts, the people are in a state of absolute perplexity and bewilderment with regard to this Act. Lord Heneage has already given instances of matters which are very important but which remain entirely in doubt. It would be easy to multiply them to any extent you chose. I will only mention one or two.
    The question of casual labour has been raised several times in the House of Commons, and the usual answer given was that it was under consideration. Within the last few days a draft Order was issued with regard to casual labour which appears to me to leave the matter in a much more confused state than before. The Order provides that persons employed in any of the following capacities: hop-picker, fruit-picker, pea-picker, flower-puller, potato-raiser, or gardener, are outside the Act except in the case where, previous to their hop-picking, fruit-picking, and so on, they happened to be employed persons. Just think what an amount of confusion that creates! It means that every farmer who employs hop-pickers will have to examine into the antecedents of all these casual labourers. The difference it will make to the farmer is this, that whereas if they were previously not employed he will not be liable to pay anything in respect of them and they will not have to pay anything, but if they had been employed the contributions in respect of them will have to be paid.
    Lord Heneage mentioned the case of fishermen. Some sets of fishermen hold shares in the vessel and in the catch. In the draft Order made in regard to them it was stated that whereas fishermen who are employed in the ordinary way will have to pay in the ordinary way, persons who
    38
    hold shares in a vessel will come like other people under the Act. What does that mean? A person who has a share in a ship or in the catch is not an employé. Will those men be regarded under the Act as employed, or does it merely mean that if they like to appear as voluntary contributors they can, and if they do not they will not be under the Act at all? Then there is the case of outworkers. We have not yet had any definition of an "outworker." In the first instance, all outworkers appeared to come under the Act, with the exception, of course, of Irish outworkers, because there is a special clause which provides that Irish out-workers are to be treated quite differently and are not to come under the Act. Then, in the same way, there was a single exception made with regard to the wives of persons who are insured and whose main employment does not consist in a particular form of outworking. It is very curious, but that one exception in the Act was made in the middle of a by-election in Somerset, where it appeared that very great interest was taken in the matter. I suppose there were a great many wives of insured persons there. At all events, it was a coincidence that that particular exception, and that one only, so far as England is concerned, was introduced in the Bill at that particular moment.
    Cases like those I have mentioned are without number, and they have to be dealt with by July 15 if this Act is to be brought into operation on that date. Then take the case of a jobbing gardener. He works for A on Monday, for B on Tuesday, and so on. Naturally there is a good deal of anxiety as to who is to pay for that man. I will give an instance of the value of the Government lecturer in solving these matters. One lecturer, when asked who would pay in respect of this jobbing gardener, said—
    "The man who first employs him in the Week would pay, but he would soon get to know the others and would ask them to share the obligation with him."
    You must remember that these Government lecturers mere under a great disadvantage, because they had strict instructions that if any question was asked them with regard to which they entertained any doubt they were to say nothing at all, or, at all events, they were to be most careful to say nothing which could involve

    39
    the Commissioners in any way. This particular lecturer seems to me to have been either a wag who was pulling the leg of his audience, or else he was a person who was not fit to lecture at all, because how can any man possessed of commonsense, and after ail these lecturers ought to have some commonsense, say such a thing as this seriously—that the man who first employs him is to pay for the jobbing gardener and then attempt to recover their proportion from the people who employ him on other days. These are instances which could be multiplied as much as you like.
    But what I wish particularly to call your Lordships' attention to is this, that whether it is from the careless and slipshod way in which this Bill was drawn and in which it was allowed to pass through Parliament, or whether it is from this extraordinary hurry which is being displayed in order to get the Act brought into force on July 15—from whichever cause it is, and I think very likely it is from both, this Act is being, in some of its main particulars, brought into force by the Commissioners under Section 78, which gives them extraordinary powers which were never before given to any body of men, and which certainly I hope will never be given again. They are really working the Act in their own way, and not according to the words which the Act itself contains. I will give your Lordships an instance or two, first of all with regard to the constitution of the Advisory Committee. The Act says that as soon as may be after the passing of the Act the Commissioners are to appoint an Advisory Committee, for the purpose of giving the Commissioners advice and assistance, consisting, amongst other persons, of representatives of approved societies. There were no approved societies; there could not be approved societies for this excellent reason—that time was not given to make the regulations which would enable any societies to be approved. Therefore the Commissioners, in an Order made under Section 78, say—
    "And whereas before the Insurance Commissioners can grant approval to a society for the purposes of the Act it is necessary that regulations prescribing the form of certain of the rules of such a society should be prescribed by the said Commissioners and by reason of the premises—
    whatever that means—
    "a difficulty arises with respect to the constitution of the Advisory Committee."
    40
    Then they propose to constitute the Advisory Committee in a different way. It was not a "difficulty"; it was an impossibility. The Commissioners proceed to say—
    "The requirement of Section 58 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, that the Advisory Committee shall, amongst other persons, comprise representatives of approved societies shall be modified—
    that is to say, altered—
    "so as to require that the first Committee appointed under Section 58 of the Act shall comprise, in place of representatives of approved societies representatives of such bodies of persons corporate or unincorporate as, in the opinion of the Insurance Commissioners, are desirous of transacting insurance business."
    The result of that is that the Commissioners just put on to the Advisory Committee the persons they saw fit. That is the result so far as the Advisory Committee is concerned. There was no time to pass the regulations which were necessary before a society could be approved. That was probably a slip in the Act. But to say that the Commissioners are to have the right to alter the Act in any way they think fit appears to me very wrong indeed.
    Again with regard to the composition of local insurance committees. The Act says that a committee shall be constituted for every county and county borough, and it is further provided that every such committee shall consist of such number of members as the Insurance Commissioners determine, but in no case less than forty or more than eighty; of whom three-fifths are to represent the insured persons resident in the county or county borough who are members of approved societies and who are deposit contributors in proportion to their respective numbers. Just listen to what the Commissioners say with regard to that provision. They say—
    "In the absence of definite information, not only in regard to the number of persons in each county or county borough who will be insured, but also in regard to the number who will belong to each of the different societies which propose to transact insurance business under the Act, and in regard to the respective numbers of the persons who will become members of approved societies and of the persons who will become deposit contributors, it is impossible to adopt any system of proportionate representation—
    That is going against the provision in the Act—
    "but the spirit of the Act will, as it appears to the Commissioners, be observed if the committees are

    41
    so constituted that there shall not be lacking any important element of the various kinds of experience which it is desirable should be comprised the first committes."
    That is, as I say, entirely to alter the provision in the Act. Your Lordships will see that what the Commissioners did was this. The Act said that insurance committees were to be set up. The Commissioners state that it is impossible to carry that out, but that they will appoint provisional insurance committees, and this is the way they proceed to constitute these committees—
    "In Our opinion the most practical method of achieving the object in view was wherever possible to utilise the machinery in the possession or at the command of central representative bodies for obtaining the names of suitable persons for inclusion on each of the committees; and accordingly we invited the assistance of members of the Advisory Committee representing respectively (1) the National Conference of Friendly Societies, (2) the Holloway, Deposit, and Dividing Societies, (3) the Trade Unions, and (4) the Industrial Assuance offices."
    The representatives on the Advisory Committee of those four bodies undertook to furnish the Commissioners with the names of suitable persons to the number specified for each of the four groups in the case of each provisional insurance committee. Therefore these three-fifths who are supposed to represent the insured persons are entirely nominated at the instance and through the medium of the members of the Advisory Committee. That is the way in which the provisional committee is constituted. I merely instance that to point out how entirely the Commissioners have created a sort of Act of their own. It may be good or it may be bad, but it is not the Act which passed through Parliament.
    Further than that, the Act said that there were to be representatives of the deposit contributors. There is no such thing as a deposit contributor, for the excellent reason that three months are given from July 15 during which a person may join an approved society and become an employed contributor. It is not until three months from that date that you will know who is a deposit contributor. How is that dealt with? The Commissioners state that the members selected for inclusion on each provisional insurance committee will form a temporary or nucleus committee which will be charged with the duty of representing these deposit contributors.
    42
    In the first place the people do not exist and, in the second place, those appointed to represent them—and you might just as well have appointed anybody else—certainly do not represent the deposit contributors.
    Then we come to the doctors. It is proposed that on these provisional insurance committees there shall be representatives of the doctors. We were told just before the House of Commons rose for the Whitsuntide recess that there were the most amicable and friendly negotiations going on with the doctors. That was what the Secretary to the Treasury said. But how were these amicable and friendly negotiations commenced? At the beginning of them, the moment that the medical profession had taken exception to some things in his Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer described the doctors in his most elegant Limehouse style. He proceeded to threaten them, and said that if they did not mind, all the privileges they enjoyed under his Act would be taken away and he would set up dispensaries and in other ways alter the disposition of the money provided for medical benefits. That may be a good way to start negotiations, but I must say I should hardly have thought it.
    Have we advanced one single inch since that time? The moment the provisional committees were started the State Sickness Insurance Committee of the British Medical Association declined to take any part in forming them or in the business which was to be submitted to them. There have been several meetings. I observe that there was one with Mr. Lloyd George on Thursday last. What happened? According to the published account of what took place the doctors merely repeated their six points, and the negotiations did not advance a single step. I believe they are meeting again this afternoon. I noticed the other day that the Chairman of the Scottish Commission said—
    "I am certain that we are going to make an arrangement with the doctors. The doctors may have to come down a bit and the Government may have to go up a hit, but that there will be an arrangement I feel positively and absolutely certain."
    That is just the point. Who is going to go up and who is going to come down? It seems quite clear from what has passed hitherto that before Mr. Lloyd George

    43
    brings the doctors into line he will have to eat a good deal more of the Welsh national vegetable than he ever anticipated when on February 17 he was calling the doctors names and attacking them.
    On July 15, or any time after that, you may have the insurance committees started. But what are they to do? What powers will they have? Will they have power to impose a charge on the rates? The Commissioners may establish a body which they call a temporary body for purely temporary purposes, but that they can give that body any powers seems to me doubtful. Suppose that some county council declines to appoint an insurance committee. What is going to happen? There is no remedy so far as I can see. Now as to the cost. This Act is being brought into operation, so far as I can ascertain, absolutely regardless of cost. There are at this moment in the offices of the Commission high officials, borrowed I suppose, from the Treasury, the Home Office, and the Board of Education. But that is a mere trifle. Is there any estimate of the cost of this Act? There never was one; and, moreover, I very much doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer really cares what the thing costs. All that he cares about is that the Act should be started on July 15 in order to enable him to go and say what enormous benefits he has given to the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always reminding us that this Commission is a perfectly independent body, that it acts entirely for itself, and that he personally takes no part in administering the Act. I really cannot understand how he can say such a thing. For who is the chairman of the Advisory Committee? Mr. Lloyd George.
    LORD HENEAGE: Mr. Masterman.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No. Then who is the chairman of the Joint Committee? The Secretary to the Treasury. More than that, the Commissioners themselves were created by the Treasury, and all the things they have done and are doing have been and are being done with the advice and consent of the Treasury. Further, to show how far the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is from being in any way impartial or independent in regard to this matter, your Lordships may remember that he took the chair at
    44
    the meeting which was held to establish the Liberal Insurance Committee, which committee, he said, was to be established for the purpose of "expounding the Act and pounding those who oppose it." The meaning which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attaches to the word "oppose" is this. Any one who differs from him in any particular whatsoever opposes the Act. If ever there was a measure which was made up of nothing but details this is the measure. Nobody differs from the principle of the Act. The whole question has reference to the manner in which it is carried out, and when any question is raised with regard to the careless way in which then; principles are carried out in this Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately declares the questioner an opponent of the Act and proceeds to write those eloquent letters which your Lordships read about once a week in the newspapers. It seems to me that if you want the people of this country to understand the Act at all, you must give them time in which to do so; if regulations are to be made, time must be given for the making of them; and if committees are to be appointed, time must be given to collect the men who are to sit on those committees. For these and a good many other reasons I entirely agree with the Motion which my noble friend has made.
    LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I intervene in this debate only because this is a question which is of serious importance to the rural districts of the West of England, with which I am intimately connected. We are very simpleminded folk down there; we live very far apart; we are not like people in large towns, who can meet together and discuss Acts of Parliament. We meet very seldom, and we are now asked to discuss and understand, not only a very complicated Act of Parliament, but a series of Regulations which are constantly being altered and constantly being issued in fresh batches. The Government ask us not only to understand accurately the anatomy of their child, but to investigate most carefully every article of attire of the huge trousseau with which they are providing it. I found in my part of the world, not unnaturally, a very strong feeling amongst farmers that they would refuse to carry out the Act, and I gave them what I believed to be sound advice. I advised them that as long as this law is on the Statute-book

    45
    every man must obey it and endeavour to carry it out. Personally I have, on the Bench, fined gentlemen for passive resistance to one Act of Parliament, and I should be the last person in the world to advise others to offer passive resistance to another Act of Parliament. I think we may take it as certain that the farmers and employers generally in the country do mean to work the Act to the best of their ability, but I must say I think they have been very unfairly treated. To cover an Act of Parliament with all these Regulations, which take any ordinary man days and days to read and understand, is treating employers of labour very unfairly.
    We had a big meeting at which there was present a lecturer sent down by the Government. He was a courteous and intelligent gentleman, who, I think, knew the Act thoroughly. But he could not answer our questions, because our questions are not dealt with by the Act and have not yet been dealt with by Regulations. He spent a happy two hours with us and then had to catch a train to address another audience, who were quite as anxious as we were to interrogate him about the Act. The last advice he gave us was to procure all the leaflets we could and study them. I have done so. I have studied them with great care, but I was rather disgusted to find on the back of each leaflet the following notice—
    "It must be clearly understood that nothing in this leaflet is to be regarded as determining any of the questions that have to be decided under the Act, whether by the Commissioners or otherwise."
    In these circumstances I do not see much use in issuing the leaflets. They give information, and then the reader is told on the back that the information is worth nothing.
    There are two questions affecting rural labour which I should like to put to His Majesty's Government. The first has reference to the position of an agricultural labourer who is receiving less than 2s. 6d. a day in cash, but who is getting in addition a cottage and garden free. How is the weekly value of that cottage and garden assessed? Is it by the rateable value? And in that case would the rateable value be added to the cash value of the man's wages, and the employer's contribution and the man's contribution
    46
    be adjusted in that way? Noble Lords opposite will see that it does make a difference. If you calculated the employer's and the man's contribution purely on the man's wages there would be one scale, but if you threw in the value of the cottage and garden there would be another scale.
    The other question I wish to ask concerns the vexed subject of casual labour in agricultural districts. In the West of England casual labour is a very great asset to the tenant farmer, to the small holder, to the market gardener, and to the landowner. I do not know how we should get on without it. In the busy months when extra hands are wanted there is a great supply of casual labour in the West of England. There are a great number of men there who much prefer to work for different masters than to remain in the employ of one master throughout the year. I quite understand that as the Act stands the man who employs the casual labourer on the first day of the week on which he is employed, whether it be a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, is responsible for putting on the stamp. May I take a typical casual labourer's week? On Monday he goes out shooting with a neighbouring landowner as a beater. I was informed by the lecturer that if the labourer went out with the landowner in that way and the landowner gave away the whole of his game, then the beater was not employed for profit or business and the stamp need not be put on; but if, on the other hand, the landowner sold a single bird then the beater was employed for profit and the stamp had to be put on. The landowner may understand that, but I am certain the ordinary beater would not understand it. On the next day, Tuesday, or on the Wednesday, the labourer goes out with a thrashing machine. The first question the employer has to ask him is whether that is his first day's employment, and the man has to produce his card. The same thing happens on the Thursday, when he goes to work for sonic small holder.
    On each occasion the man must produce his card. The employer is bound to ask him to produce it to see whether that particular day is the first day in that week on which he has got employment. It is obvious that the employer must do that to safeguard himself from the penalty of £10

    47
    for not putting on the stamp. I think one of the great drawbacks of the Act is that this penalty of £10 is much too heavy, not for the rich man or the large employer of labour, but for the small employer who might inadvertently make a mistake. The casual labourer will have to carry his card about in his pocket for thirteen weeks, and every time he works for a fresh employer he will have to produce that card. I can imagine that the card will be in a curious state at the end of the thirteen weeks. It is suggested that the employers should agree to pool the insurance. That may be all right in some forms of business, but in the case of the casual labourer in rural districts it will have a very curious reside. There would have to be a Sunday-afternoon meeting of the sportsman, the owner of the thrashing machine, and the small holder to decide how the 4d. was to be divided amongst them during the ensuing week. I think this question of casual labour should be referred to the Commissioners, and that they should bring out some scheme applicable to rural districts. If something of that kind is not done the casual labourer will cease to be employed. That will be a bad thing for him, a bad thing for the farmer, and a very much worse thing for the land.
    Then there is the question of our village clubs. These village clubs are and have been for years past the centre of life in some of our best villages. They are very much older, many of them, than the great friendly societies. In the best class of village there is nothing the inhabitants are more proud of than of the village club, and I feel that if things are hurried, as it appears they are to be, many of these village clubs will disappear. Your Lordships must recollect this, that many of the members of these clubs, if the clubs disappear, are not in a position to join the great friendly societies. They will have no alternative except to become Post Office contributors—that extraordinary form of self-paid pauperism which this Act introduces into the country for the first time. We are anxious to save the labourer, and especially the more elderly labourer, from the fate of becoming a Post Office contributor.
    In Devon and Somerset we are forming a county association to amalgamate all
    48
    the old village clubs, but it is obvious that that work must take time. It is not difficult for the great friendly societies to enrol new members; they have their organisations and staffs. But with us, dealing with widely-scattered parishes in widely scattered counties taking in Exmoor and Dartmoor and districts of that kind, it is obvious that these county associations cannot be formed by July 15. We attach, as I say, the greatest importance to these county associations, and I believe the Government do, too. All I ask is that the Government should give us time in which to form them. I am quite aware what the answer is. It is that there will be no benefits of any kind until January 1 next. It is said not to matter whether the Act comes into operation on July 15 because no one will get any-thing until January 1 next. If that is so, what is the use of bringing the Act into force on July 15? It seems to me, especially as regards these rural questions of the casual labourer and the village clubs, that it would be very much wiser for us to be given an extra six months in which to form these associations, and for the Commissioners to bring out more leaflets and pamphlets, but leaflets and pamphlets which will give us some idea of what we are to do before the Act comes into force.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am disposed to apologise for intervening so early in this debate, and, indeed, for taking part in the debate at all. I was unable last year to follow the long course of the measure in another place, and I was also, through no fault of my own, altogether absent from the debates in your Lordships' House in the autumn session of last year. But I am anxious to say one or two words of a more or less general character upon the points of principle which have been raised by the three noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, dealing with any minor points that I can in the course of the few remarks which I shall make, but leaving other points of detail to be dealt with by some of my noble friends who are more conversant than I am with the ins and outs of what we all admit to be a complicated measure. I ought to say, my Lords, that His Majesty's Government are far indeed from objecting to the discussion initiated by my noble friend opposite.

    49
    On the contrary we welcome it, because we fully recognise that there still exists, particularly in the remoter parts of the country, much uncertainty as to the actual provisions of the Act, and still more uncertainty, perhaps, as to what is going to happen when the Act is brought into positive operation. I also fully appreciate that the attitude of all the noble Lords who have spoken is not one of hostility to the Government in this matter; it is not one of fundamental objection to the Act as an Act, but they think it their duty to call attention to what they conceive to be certain deficiencies in the Act itself, and in particular to ask that its operation may be deferred for some time.
    It is important, in the first place, that I should endeavour to deal with this demand for delay. So far as I was able to follow the progress of the measure until it became an Act, this demand, or a similar demand, has been made throughout its whole discussion in Parliament, proceeding, I think, from a complete difference in outlook between the Opposition and the Government in this matter. The ideal of noble Lords opposite, as I take it, is that the measure should not come into operation until everything is cut and dried. All the approved societies ought to be formed; every individual should have decided whether he can join an approved society, and, if so, what, or whether he should become a mere deposit contributor through the Post Office. Everything, in fact, in relation to the Act must be comprehended by practically everybody concerned. The view of His Majesty's Government has been that that is an impossible manner in which to deal with a measure of this particular kind. The view that we have taken all through—it appears in the debates in another place, it has appeared in the debates here, and it will appear in the course of this debate—is that this measure is one to which it is necessary to apply the principle of solvitur ambulando; that it is only by bringing the Act into operation, by observing the methods of societies and of individuals, and, it may be also, by discovering the existence of errors and mistakes, either, if you like, in the Act itself or in the administration of the Act—that it is only by taking such a course that it is possible in this country to bring the Act into full and complete operation.
    50
    I say in this country because I firmly believe that in a country like this, whose main dread is of being bureau-ridden, this is the only method by which an Act of this kind can be worked. There are no doubt some countries in Europe—I quite admit it—in which the more complete measure which some members of the Opposition might like to see brought into operation could be applied, other countries in which far stronger personal pressure could be put either upon employers or upon workpeople to carry out, either at short or at long notice, the provisions of the Act; but here, as we all know, things are different. People are most jealous and suspicious of interference with their personal liberty by Government, or, indeed, by anybody else, and therefore I think it is not out of place to point out that all the difficulties to which noble Lords have drawn attention, all the anomalies, if you like, which attach to the Act, are due to the fact that we are introducing the contributory principle—a principle generally admired by noble Lords opposite, but one which is, I frankly admit, in some degree foreign to the genius of the people of this country. I cannot help, in passing, making the reflection that if we had obeyed the urgent call of noble Lords opposite and applied to the Old Age Pensions Act the contributory principle with the prospect of compelling workpeople to subscribe through their employers for benefits which might only come home to them forty years hence or more, if they should live so long—I cannot help reflecting what the practical difficulties would have been in adding a principle of that kind to our Old Age Pensions Act.
    The arguments against delay appear to me to be these. So far as the large benefit societies are concerned, I believe it is true to state that they do not want delay. I see that Lord Heneage shakes his head. But what I think points to the truth of that statement is the very observation that he made, that until the Act comes into operation many members of the benefit societies are in a condition of doubt, and the benefit societies themselves—
    LORD HENEAGE: I said that until the larger societies knew whether the smaller societies were going to be approved and grouped together for pooling purposes with 5,000 members they could not themselves furnish branches specially for rural districts.
    THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Precisely. I think it is not unfair to infer from that statement, exactly as made by the noble Lord, that the large benefit societies will welcome the early bringing into operation of the Act. I am speaking, of course, in this case in particular of a long delay—say, a delay until January 1. It has been mentioned that if the Act is not postponed until January 1, it might, at any rate, be postponed until October 1. There, again, that comparatively short delay covers just the harvest time and the hop-picking time to which allusion has been made, and also, what is not at all unimportant as regards the officers of the friendly societies, the usual holiday time. All those periods are covered by the three months interval, and I venture to say therefore that, so far as fresh active operations are concerned, not much of a new kind would be likely to be done if a postponement until October 1 took place.
    The noble Earl who spoke last but one, Lord Camperdown, drew attention, with no little censure, to the provisional arrangements which are provided for by, I think, Section 78 of the Act. It is reasonable to remind the House that provisional arrangements of this kind are by no means uncommon. There are various precedents for them, and if you look at any of those precedents I think you will all admit that the actual words of the section constituting the provisional arrangements are often somewhat startling, as they seem to be in this particular Act. I take only one instance, that of the County Councils Act of noble Lords opposite—the Act of 1888. I see there a section which says that the Local Government Board may, within six months after the day fixed for the first election, make such Orders as appear to them necessary for bringing the Act into full operation; and then follow these words—
    "Such Orders may modify any enactment in this or any other Act, whether general or local or personal, so far as may appear to the Board necessary for the said purpose."
    That seems to give a vast, and, if you like, most dangerous power to a public Department to play ball with any Act of Parliament on the whole of the Statute-book; but it is quite clear that in all such cases where you are bringing an entirely new force into operation, as was the case in that Local Government Act, such vague and wide powers are almost necessarily given to the
    52
    public Department concerned. I feel, therefore, that the alarm which the noble Earl expressed as to what may happen under this section in this particular case is in no way well-founded.
    Then Lord Heneage dealt with the question of what he called Provisional Orders, but which more properly, I think, ought to be described as Provisional Regulations, because the term "Provisional Orders" is one to which a different meaning as a rule attaches. Those Regulations are made under the section of which I have just been speaking, and what I have said so far applies to them. In our opinion you cannot bring a novel systems of this kind into operation without making some such provisional arrangement; and I also venture to think that it is quite fair to warn the public, in the terms to which Lord St. Audries objected, that such arrangements must not be taken as laws of the Medes and Persians which cannot be altered, but that they are subject, as we see the effect of their application, to various modifications and alterations.
    That brings me to the question of the amount of information which the Commissioners have hitherto been able to supply to the public on the details of this Act. Noble Lords have mentioned the various leaflets which have been circulated, and they have also alluded, I am glad to have observed, in terms of generous commendation to the personality of the various lecturers who have been round the different parts of the country to explain the Act. At the same time some complaint seemed to be expressed that these lecturers were not, perhaps, sufficiently primed with information, and that they expressed themselves in certain cases unable to answer questions which were put to them. We certainly should desire that the lecturers should give every possible information on any point which has been decided, but it clearly would not have been wise of them to express a personal opinion upon a disputed point to which Government sanction had not been actually given. And, above all, I am certain that they have been most careful, in a manner which noble Lords opposite would commend, to abstain from the smallest appearance of holding a brief for the Government in this matter, using the Government in the political sense, and that they have confined themselves to the bare skeleton of the Act

    53
    and the explanation of its details without anything that could be regarded as most remotely connected with political argument.
    On the question of delay our argument is that, even if we postponed the coming into operation of the Act, we should not be able to bring the process of explanation and information home until the Act is actually in operation. That is to say, supposing the Government agreed to a postponement the only effect would be that the actual bringing home to the people of the meaning and working of the Act would also have to be postponed, and you would gain very little in the way of general knowledge during such an interval; whereas it may be hoped that within six months or a year after the Act has been actually brought into operation public information will be increased to a large, indeed almost to a surprising, extent. Noble Lords very naturally dwelt on the particular difficulties which attach to the dissemination of information and to the ensuring of a grasp of the Act in rural districts. We fully admit the existence of those difficulties. It is obvious, as the noble Lord who spoke last said, that in scattered districts where there is by no means the amount of conversation, in comparison, which takes place in more crowded areas, and where, without suggesting any imputation on the ability of the rural labourer, which I should be the last to make, the absence of that conversation and frequent society has a tendency to make people's minds work more slowly than is the case in crowded districts, a special difficulty exists, and we are proportionately grateful to those who reside in the country who have given time and trouble to assist both in the explanation of the Act and in the work, as to the importance of which I fully agree, of consolidating and joining together for the purposes of this Act the various rural societies. I should like to say that I fully agree with the noble Lord who spoke last as to the importance of some of these small rural societies, many of them of long standing, and I entirely appreciate that they are regarded with a peculiar and intimate sort of affection by those who belong to them, who would dislike and resent, if such a thing were possible, being forced into one of the large and to them somewhat bleak sort of societies in place of the smaller body with which they are familiar.
    54
    And among those who have contributed the help to which I have referred I am well aware that many members of your Lordships' House are numbered. I know that the noble Lord who has made this Motion has presided at more than one such meeting. I think I am right in saying that the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) has played a not inconsiderable part in his county in helping on this work. I am aware that Lord St. Audries has also been active, and should like particularly to mention his Lord Lieutenant, Earl Fortescue, who has given a great deal of time and trouble to helping to start the Act in Devonshire. It is only right also to mention in this regard that a great many of the friendly societies have themselves circulated private papers of information to their members, which I have no doubt have been of service in informing the public generally of the more complicated parts of this Act. I hope Lord St. Audries will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal with the interesting legal point which he mentioned, as to how far a. free cottage is or is not considered as forming part of the wages of an agricultural labourer. That is a legal point with which I have no doubt one of my noble friends will deal.
    One other point I desire to mention is this, not so much because there is any misapprehension in this House, because I do not think there is, but it is desirable surely to dissipate any misapprehension which may exist outside. Noble Lords have spoken freely of the Act coming into operation on July 15 as though at that time, on that date, everybody had to be a member of an approved society or become a deposit contributor. It is desirable to make it markedly clear, although I know it has been admitted by one noble Lord, that such is not the case, but that a further three months will exist after July 15 during which that choice can be made. Everybody has a free choice until October as to whether he will join an approved society, and, if so, what, or whether he will become a deposit contributor. It is, I think, desirable to attempt to remove the confusion which seems to exist in some quarters, although again I do not say that it at all exists here, as to what has to be done with regard to domestic servants. Domestic servants bring their cards, and if a servant fails to get a card his or her employer can get one. During the three

    55
    months while the servant is deciding to what approved society he or she will belong the stamps are placed on the card, and when October comes the servant takes the card to the society and gets the benefit of the value of the stamps. Even supposing the servant does not find the right approved society by October, say not for some months later, he or she would still get the benefit of the reserve value acquired up to that time.
    It is important to point out that it is not the case that if the master or mistress fails to deduct 3d. from the servant's wages he or she is thereby subject to a penalty. He or she is entitled to make the deduction, but is not compelled to make it. What has to be done is to see that the stamps are affixed in accordance with the regulation. There has, I fear, been some misapprehension in the public mind as to the manner in which penalties are liable to be incurred. There have been, I think, cases before in which somewhat widespread terror has been caused by the appearance on Government circulars of the penalty which is attached to the non-performance of a public duty. That, no doubt, is an alarming fact to some recipients of public circulars, but I venture to say that the amount which, if people are merely ordinarily careful, will be received in penalties in connection with this affixing of stamps will not be such as to add to the revenue any sum which is likely to be appreciated by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The risk of incurring penalties is, I venture to assert, a slight one. It is slight, I also venture to assert, even in the case of those casual labourers to whom Lord St. Audries drew attention in an amusing picture of a casual labourer who works on different days in the week for different employers. That, I take it, was meant to be a somewhat extreme instance. I have no close knowledge of the West of England, but the number of casual agricultural labourers who change their employment as frequently as that is, I venture to think, small in most parts of England. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown mentioned the case of hop-pickers. The arrangements to which he drew attention were the result of a series of conversations with deputations from hop farmers in the South, and were arrived at, as I am told, by agreement between the Commissioners and the hop farmers.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Did the farmers understand that they would have to inquire into the antecedents of all their hop-pickers?
    THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was going to draw attention to the fact that the noble Earl had seemed to indicate that the farmer would have to apply himself to a study of the biography of every hop-picker who came into his temporary service. I take it that what would actually happen is this. When a hop-picker goes to receive his wages—whether they are weekly wages or not I confess I do not know, but I imagine they are generally weekly—the farmer would ask him whether he had an insurance card, and if the hop-picker could not produce a card—
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the noble Marquess will look at draft Order No. 1A he will see that a hop-picker is put out of the Act unless he was immediately before in employment. As I understand the Order, it means that if the man had just previously to his hop-picking been engaged, say, in a factory, he would then be liable for the 4d. and his employer would be liable for the 3d. Therefore the employer, in order to know whether he is liable, would have to ascertain whether or not the hop-picker had been previously employed.
    THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; but clearly he would have to take the word of the hop-picker as to what his previous occupation had been. I think it would take the form of saying, "Have you an insurance card?" and either the man would produce one or he would not. I confess I do not see, from the way my noble friend puts it, in what manner the employer would become liable to a penalty supposing the hop-picker failed to produce his card. However, this is one of those minor points from which I expressed my intention of keeping aloof in these few remarks, and therefore I pass from it. I will merely say that, speaking generally and after listening with close attention to what has fallen from the three noble Lords, I cannot believe that we are wrong to start the machine in the manner in which we propose to start it. It is quite easy, I admit, to produce cases, particularly what may be called typical, but which are, in one sense, imaginary cases, which indicate the

    57
    possibility of much confusion arising in the minds of individuals. I do not doubt also that there is, and that there will be for some little time, in the minds of many of those affected no little share of the perplexity and doubt to which noble Lords have alluded, but I have endeavoured to show that that state of affairs is inseparable from the introduction of a great measure involving so much novelty, some novelty in principle and much novelty in detail, and affecting hundreds of thousands of people who are not accustomed to study closely the detail of any subject. Where I confess I do remain unconvinced is that that state of things would be at all bettered by a postponement, either for three or for six months, to an extent which would outweigh the inconvenience that we are informed must necessarily result from such postponement.
    I do not hesitate to say that if it is found that there are sections in the Act which either involve a wrong method of proceeding, or which might be so amended or improved as to more completely grease the wheels of the machine, we shall not pause in introducing a Bill with amending clauses for that purpose. I hope that may not prove to be necessary; but I assert quite frankly that nobody—not, I believe, the most experienced of noble Lords in this house or any of those outside the House who are most conversant with local conditions and with the lives of the people specially affected by this Bill—can say with confidence whether some amendment of the terms of this Act may or may not be necessary. That is a matter on which wise people will, I think, reserve their judgment until the Act has been in operation for a short time; and I should be indeed glad if I thought that your Lordships were prepared to agree that the noble Lords opposite have not really proved their case, that in the interests of the public it is better to start the machine in the manner in which we propose, and that there are at any rate fair grounds for supposing that no harm will be done by what noble Lords consider so great an acceleration, but which we consider to be merely the most practical method of getting to work with as little delay as possible.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friends who brought this matter before the House are at any rate fortunate in one respect. They have not
    58
    been met from the Bench opposite by a rebuke or by the imputation that their action has been the result of sinister motives. The noble Marquess, indeed, stated a moment ago that he was very far from objecting to the course which they had taken. In fact, be welcomed it. He even bestowed the golden largesse of his praise upon some members of this House who have interested themselves locally in preparing for the coming into operation of the Insurance Act, and he told us that in his opinion it was conceivable that amending legislation might be necessary. The noble Marquess will forgive me if I remind the House that His Majesty's Government have two voices when they are discussing this question, and that the voice which comes from the courteous lips of the Leader of this House is only one of those voices. May I be permitted to give to the House an example of the other voice? I happened to notice a few days ago a letter addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the course of a recent by-election to the Liberal candidate, and I find that in that letter the noble Marquess's colleague said—
    "The Tory Party were doing their best to postpone and prevent the actual enjoyment of these great advantages by the working classes so that they [the working classes] should not find out too soon how they had been deceived by Tory canvassers…The Tory Party are getting perfectly frantic in their eagerness to put off the Act so that the people should not really know what has been done for them."
    That is what I ventured to describe a moment ago as the imputation, the most unjust imputation, of sinister motives to those who, like my noble friends, consider that there are excellent reasons, reasons which the noble Marquess himself thinks worthy of discussion, for considering whether the operation of this Act should not be postponed for a while.
    Now, my Lords, is the request of my noble friends really an unwarranted one I think Lord Heneage was perfectly justified when at the outset of his speech he reminded the House of the Parliamentary history of the Act which we are discussing. That Act was not preceded by any inquiry, and in that respect there is a striking contrast between what happened in Germany when the question of insurance was dealt with and what happened in this country—a contrast striking both in regard to the amount of time allotted respectively

    59
    in the two countries and in regard to the amount of expense to which the public was put in each case. Let me give the House the figures for the purposes of comparison. In the case of Germany—and I am taking my figures from the same letter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I quoted a moment ago—the total cost to the public of a national insurance which covers old-age pensions, sickness, and permanent infirmity, was £3,000,000 sterling. In the case of this country the Chancellor informs us that the expense incurred for the same purposes this year will be £15,000,000, and that it will eventually reach £20,000,000, of which I suppose £8,000,000 may be charged to the Insurance Act; and yet the German measure took five or six years to prepare, while this Act received only fifteen months' investigation. Apart from this, we have none of us forgotten that the Insurance Bill was absolutely transformed during its passage through the House of Commons, and that clause after clause of the measure went through without any discussion or examination at all. Of course, the result was what might have been expected. We have in our hands a measure which all insist is a crude and imperfect measure, and His Majesty's Government are perfectly aware of the fact, for what other reason, indeed, did they put into the Bill the proviso suggesting the idea that it might be necessary to postpone the operation of the Act? It was, of course, put in upon the presumption that when the time came none of the parties interested in the Act might be found ready.
    Well, are they ready? Are either those who are going to administer these benefits or those who are going to be the recipients of them ready? It is idle to pretend that they are, and the noble Marquess himself does not for a moment suggest it. Then what was the argument of the noble Marquess? He turned to us and said, "Oh, you want everything to be cut and dried before the Act is to come into operation." No, my Lords, I do not think we do. I can well conceive that there should be omitted points and unsolved difficulties when the Act comes into operation, but before the Act comes into operation do let us emerge from the region of chaos and confusion in which we find ourselves at the present time. Do let us try and get out of this atmosphere of lecturers, leaflets, pamphlets, and Provisional Rules by
    60
    which this question is fogged and confused. The noble Marquess says it will all come right—solvitur ambulando. But suppose we amble into a quagmire. Will the noble Marquess remain quite satisfied, and is he certain that this experimentum in corpore vili which he recommends may not result in great hardship to a number of people whom we all wish to treat considerately and justly? The fact is that the success of this Act depends on the construction of a vast network of machinery of an extraordinarily intricate character, partly constructed by private agency and partly by Governmental and Departmental agency, and my noble friends have been able to show that that machinery, far from being ready to be set in motion on an early day, on the 15th of next month, is at this moment out of gear and incomplete, and that the working of it is hardly understood at all by many of those who will be most affected by its operation.
    Something has been said during the course of this discussion as to the manner in which the question of postponement is regarded by the friendly societies themselves. I think the noble Marquess stated that he believed the great societies were in favour of proceeding without further delay. I am told that at the meetings which took place at Whitsuntide the great societies, on the contrary, in most cases showed evident signs of a desire for more time to acquaint themselves with the probable working of the Act. But what of the Government themselves? Are they ready? They are improvising this machinery, altering it from day to day, putting it together without sufficient time for consideration, and" inundating the country with advice and exhortation and explanation which I am sorry to say in most cases has only added to the confusion of mind which prevails. Then I should like to ask the noble Marquess, What about the Commissioners themselves? Are they quite ready? Are they pressing the Government to go ahead without any delay? I have had no communication with them and do not know what their views are, but I should very much like the Insurance Commissioners to be allowed to vote by ballot on the question of postponement or no postponement. Again, the Advisory Committee, which we know will play a part of such immense importance in these transactions, was only brought together, if I remember aright, in the

    61
    month of May, with three months to constitute itself and acquaint itself with the immense volume of difficult business which it will have to transact. Then there are the Insurance Committees? I fancy there will be about 260 of these altogether. They are to number between forty and eighty members apiece, and three-fifths of those members are to represent members of approved societies. But very few of the approved societies are yet in existence. If you consider the stipulations of Section 59 it seems to me quite impossible that those committees can be set up in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and no doubt it is for that reason that we are having, not only provisional regulations, but provisional committees set up to bridge the gulf.
    What is true of the Insurance Committees is still more true, I think, of those district committees which will be formed under the Insurance Committees, and which will have to do what I suppose may be described as the spade work of this business throughout the country. Between 1,000 and 2,000 of these committees will, I am told, be necessary, and they are to be appointed by the Insurance Commission within six months under schemes to be prepared after consultation with the county councils and approved by the Insurance Commissioners. Now how are all those conditions going to be complied with with any approach to decency in the time which is at command? In all those respects I maintain that my noble friends are right when they contend that we are not ready, and shall not be ready by the 15th of next month, to set this Act in motion.
    But, my Lords, hardest of all seems to be the case so well touched upon by my noble friend Lord St. Audries—the case of the smaller clubs. I desire to associate myself entirely with him in what he said as to the important part that these small clubs play in our village life, and as to the cruel injustice of doing anything which would have the effect of depriving them of the status and position which they now enjoy. I know that both the Act and the Regulations provide, and I think provide in a reasonable spirit, for arrangements under which these smaller societies will be allowed to retain, at any rate in great measure, their independence and their individuality. But they want time to look around, and what we are afraid of is
    62
    that in your hot haste you will hustle these small clubs, either into winding themselves up and perhaps allowing their members to become deposit contributors, or into joining without adequate consideration and without sufficient knowledge of the facts other societies perhaps not properly constituted and perhaps not of the complexion which these little clubs would really desire to join if they had full opportunity of considering their position.
    It is within the knowledge of most of us who have taken any interest in what is passing in the country at this moment that many of these little clubs have been seriously considering whether they should not dissolve. In fact, I am under the impression that some have dissolved already. His Majesty's Government are quite aware of the importance of this matter, and that is one of the points to which the circulars which are falling so thickly all over the country are directed. I received a circular the other day dealing with the question and offering some extremely well-meant suggestions as to the kind of action which might be taken. It is numbered A S 31, and an extremely elaborate account is given of the different alternatives which are open to the existing societies. They may fall in under a scheme of centralisation, under a scheme of affiliation, or under a scheme of association—these are all technical expressions which now will become part of the jargon of this question; but I will undertake to say that if this paper were put into the hands of the secretary of an ordinary village club and he was given an hour to read it and then told to explain what courses were really open to his club he would be absolutely incapable of doing it. There are other documents of the same character. There is a little leaflet, No. 13, in which there is more official jargon of the same kind, and in which the alternatives open to these clubs are described in language which I am entirely unable to reconcile with the language of the circular that I have just quoted. I merely mention this because it seems to me to be an illustration of the manner in which we are puzzling the people of this country by the avalanche of documents which is being scattered broadcast.
    Then as to the question of postponement. Should we really be depriving anybody of

    63
    any substantial advantages if the operation of the Act were postponed for a few weeks or a few months? What can you do when the Act comes into operation? You can do nothing in respect either of maternity benefit or medical benefit or sick benefit. In the case of sanatoria benefit you can do only what you may be able to do with the existing inadequate accommodation, and, as far as we know, without the co-operation of the doctors, which, after all, counts for a good deal in this matter. Disablement benefit cannot come into operation for a year's time, so that, as my noble friend put it, you are in this position. You have entered into a contract with those who will pay these contributions under the Act. They are to pay their contributions, and you are to produce certain benefits in return. You will receive the contributions, but you will not be able to produce the benefits. What you will be able to do, no doubt, will be to pay the little army of officials of all kinds with which you are covering the country, most of them, remember, appointed altogether outside the scope of the Civil Service Commission and therefore without any guarantee whatever of their fitness for the work.
    One word only as to the doctors. Your Lordships probably have not forgotten that quite recently, on May 1, the House of Commons passed without a Division a Resolution that the Insurance Act will fail to confer medical benefit until the cooperation of the doctors is assured. I hope we shall be told to-night whether His Majesty's Government are in a position to hold out any hopes to us that the co-operation of the doctors has been secured. The doctors have been alternately cajoled and intimidated, but, so far as I have been able to observe, neither the cajolery nor the intimidation have been successful in driving them away from their point. A deputation of the doctors was received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a week ago. He treated them respectfully, I will say that, on that occasion. He then invited them to submit a statement of the facts upon which they based their claim, and they promised to do so. I should like to know whether that statement has been put in, and whether His Majesty's Government discover in it any hope of that co-operation without which obviously the Act must be to a great extent a failure. I do not know whether the point is one that I can reasonably ask
    64
    for information upon, but it would be interesting to know whether, supposing His Majesty's Ministers are not able to come to terms with the doctors, they have in view any other plan for obtaining the assistance of the medical profession. If I might put it quite crudely, is it their intention to bring in "strike-breakers" for the purpose and thus obtain the assistance that they desire?
    My noble friends have touched, and I do not think I need follow them except to a very slight extent, upon some of the unsolved and still outstanding difficulties of the Act. We have not received an answer to the point which was raised in regard to the employment of what I think is called seasonal labour. It has not been explained how an employer is to satisfy himself when he takes on a casual labourer whether the contribution is due in respect of the man and whether as a matter of fact it has been paid; and, as my noble friends have pointed out, this is the case where the new offence created by the Regulations comes in, and where the £10 penalty not mentioned in the Act itself but introduced in these Provisional Regulations, appears for the first time. Then there is another point that I do not think has been touched upon—I mean the case of the married woman. The history of the case of the married woman outworker is rather a singular one. At first these out-workers were included within the scope of the Bill. Then at a rather remarkable moment—the Somerset by-election happened to be going on—wives of insured persons were promised exemption with suspicious alacrity. But since that a further complication has arisen. His Majesty's Government have appointed a committee to deal with the question, and the committee has advised to the effect that if the scheme is to be an equitable one they must be included with all the other outworkers. So that first they were put in, then they were left out under pressure, and now the committee suggest that they should be put in again. Perhaps the noble Lord who will follow me will explain how the matter stands. With regard to the moot question of domestic servants I will only say this, that it is a little remarkable that, considering the extreme difficulty of that part of the case, no explanatory leaflet dealing with it has, so far as I am aware, yet been issued. If I am right in regard

    65
    to that, it is a remarkable piece of evidence. The point that I particularly refer to is the question of substituted benefits under use 13. I do not think any explanation been vouchsafed upon that point.
    I will not take up the time of the House by going further into these somewhat technical matters, but I would like to ask whether the noble Lord who will follow me can tell us that the postponement of the operation of the Act would really injuriously affect the interests of any of those who are concerned in this piece of legislation. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned—and we know how closely they are officially mixed up in the whole of the machinery of the Act—would it not be to them a relief to be given little more time to turn round? So far as the societies go, would it not be a fair and reasonable thing that they should not be hurried into a decision which must so vitally affect their interests in the future? And, lastly, would it not be in entire accordance with the intentions of Parliament, which expressly provided for the possibility of postponement, that such a postponement should take place in circumstances which seem to most of us so urgently to call for it?
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lord, if I venture to take part in this debate for a brief period, it is because I have taken a deep interest in this Act and to some extent co-operated in the preparation of its machinery. I think that no one who has listened to this debate can regret that it has taken place. It has given evidence of interest in and study of this intricate subject, and it has drawn attention to points of difficulty which only become realised when people have to consider these things from a practical standpoint. The debate has shown something else. The speeches that have been delivered have given us ample evidence that many of your Lordships, I think a good many, are doing on this occasion what you have done on other occasions—you steadily refuse to allow the issue to be mixed up with politics. Many of you may and probably do object to the way in which this Act is being worked, but I have not gathered from any noble Lord who has spoken that he has not put his best ability into assisting the working of the machinery of the Act in that part of the country with
    66
    which he is concerned. I think it is a great feature in this country that this should be so. I had myself cause to appreciate it in connection with the intricate arrangements for bringing the Territorial Force into operation, and I shall ever be grateful to many of your Lordships for your assistance in that matter. Perhaps it is just this practical character of the British mind that makes this question one which is sure to be brought up in the form in which it has been brought up to-day. I think it is a great advantage that it should be so.
    But the present issue is whether it would not be better to postpone bringing the Act into operation to a period subsequent to July 15. If your Lordships will allow me, I will give some reasons which make me think that postponement would he a very great evil indeed. I am well aware of the difficulties of launching a new system of the kind, well aware of the time that was taken in Germany; but in Germany the whole machinery was the machinery of the State, whereas the scheme of this Act is to work through the existing friendly and other societies. That makes a great difference. If you postponed the coming into force of this Act you would injure the societies in a very serious way. Their members are already dropping off because of the new system which is coming into existence, and if you asked the best and most experienced of them I believe they would tell you that at this moment there is no evil they would regard as so great as the postponement of the coming into operation of this Act. Up to the present time societies have been approved representing about 5,000,000 of insured persons, and they are being added to. These are the latest figures, and they show that within the last few weeks rapid progress has been made. Therefore I say it would be a very great evil to expose these societies to the risk of seeing their clientele fall off by reason of the machinery not being ready.
    I turn to the side of the State. I did not gather from the noble Marquess that he had as clearly put before his mind what would be the effect of postponement as regards benefits. If payments are postponed there would have to be postponement of the time from which benefits would accrue. To take any other course, to defer payments for three months and at the same time let the benefits come into

    67
    operation at the time appointed, would necessitate a sum of £3,000,000 being provided from the coffers of the State. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a large surplus just now, but it is possible that it may be wanted for other purposes, and it is not desirable to create a new mode of applying that surplus unless there is strict necessity. To my mind there are very formidable difficulties in postponement.
    Now turn to the other kind of difficulties. I ask your Lordships to visualise what will happen on July 15. When wages become due—it may be a week later than July 15—the employer, on making the payment, would ask the servant for his or her insurance card, which the servant can obtain at a Post Office, and to this card the necessary stamps would be affixed. If the servant does not produce a card, a card will have to be obtained by the employer. It is a very simple procedure. You have to see that the servant has a card upon which the stamps can be placed or else you send for a card yourself, and you must not pay wages without going through these formalities. It is a simple procedure, and I venture to say that in a few years it will become a matter of course. I have been told in Germany that all sorts of objections were raised there at first, but the system has become so much part of the national life and the benefits of this great system have been so clearly realised in Germany that it is regarded as a matter of daily routine to do the stamping.
    Various other difficulties have been put by some of your Lordships. It is asked how is the servant to find his society; it might not be ready by July 15. That may be so. There is an immense deal to be done, but it need not all be done by July 15. For three months after that there is nothing necessary except to put the stamps on the card and so secure payment of the contributions. By that time a great many more societies will have been approved than have been approved up to the present. As I have informed your Lordships, up to the present time societies approved represent 5,000,000 of insured persons. Five millions is a substantial fraction out of the 14,000,000 who will be insured when the Act comes into full operation. I think it will happen very
    68
    often in the country that the servant will not wish to join a society at once, but will prefer to keep his card until the little society he wishes to join is ready. But let the system come into operation. These little societies may take the form of dividing societies, slate clubs, or what not. It is a great fallacy to suppose that no society with less than 5,000 members can be registered. The smallest society can be registered, subject to the section of it devoted to this form of insurance being managed by the members themselves and not being conducted for profit. They do not need to federate with any other society. They need only to be brought together with other societies and pooled for the purpose of valuation of assets; but that takes place at a later time.
    I do not propose to go into the details of that further than to say that I listened with the greatest interest to the practical speech which Lord St. Audries made. I agree with him that it is in the most eminent degree desirable that small societies should be encouraged to work together more than they have done in the past. The business which they will have to undertake is new and on a larger scale than hitherto, and it is better that there should not be a multitude of these small societies working independently but that they should work together. We feel that these societies form part of the life of the country, and therefore it is desirable that plenty of opportunity should be given them in order to enable them to get upon their feet. As I have said, no one will need to join a society for three months, and at the end of three months he need not join a society but can become a deposit contributor, and if he does not wish to remain a deposit contributor he can withdraw his account and transfer himself to a society. So that really the 15th of July, about which date conjured up, means nothing except that persons will have to put stamps on the cards. But it will have the beneficial effect of waking a great many people up to the unknown terrors of this system. People cannot learn to swim without going into the water, and one of the advantages of bringing this Act into early operation is this, that we shall all learn to swim. When July 15 comes we shall apply our minds to this new branch of our domestic relations.

    69
    The noble Marquess asked whether the Insurance Commissioners were ready. If he had asked that question a month ago I should have said that the Commissioners were not ready, but great efforts have been made during the past month. The whole resources of the Civil Service have been placed, as far as they could be, at the disposal of the Commission, and immense progress has been made. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships in detail with what has been done, but, speaking for myself, I anticipate that the whole of the machinery will be in working order by the time when something has to be done—that is to say, by October, when people are expected to join their approved societies. The noble Marquess also asked about the position as regards the doctors. His Majesty's Government fully realise the situation as regards the medical profession and the extreme desirability of carrying the doctors with us in a cordial spirit and of enlisting their co-operation in this great experiment, but in view of the fact that negotiations are now going on I think it would be undesirable that I should say more on the subject at this moment.
    Then the noble Marquess referred to the case of the hop-pickers. Hop-picking, by an Order, has been exempted from insurance as being a kind of subsidiary employment that would not ordinarily come into it; but it has been said that a hop-picker is to come in if he is a person who is ordinarily in employment. All the farmer has to do is to ask the hop-picker whether he has been in employment and whether he has a card. If the hop-picker deceives the farmer the farmer will not be fined for believing him. All the farmer will have to do will be to put the question. Another point was raised by Lord St. Audries, who asked whether, in the case of a man who, in addition to his wages, had a free cottage and other emoluments, the value of the cottage and the other emoluments would be counted in. Yes, they would. They are valued now by the pension officer, who has experience of that kind of work in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act. I think I have now dealt with the main points that have arisen in the course of this discussion. The Act does not come into operation on July 15 for practical
    70
    purposes, except to the limited extent I have explained, and I think it is desirable that it should come into operation then to that limited extent. It will focus people's minds on what they have to learn, and I do not think it would be a service to the country if we postponed the coming into force of the Act. July is a good time to start, and, as I have explained, the burdensome part of the work will not become operative until October. To postpone the payments would, as I have explained, be to postpone the benefits, and it would be a great disappointment if the benefits did not come into operation in January next. I have explained also that the societies would suffer because the confusion which is causing their members to fall off would operate still more severely.
    My answer to the Marquess's question as to whether it would not be better to postpone the Act is that I do not think a postponement would be advantageous to the country. I admit that it would have been better if we had considered this thing academically for a longer time, but the bulk of people will not take the trouble to learn at all; it is only practice which teaches them. The thing to do is not to postpone a great social reform of this kind, but to do the best we can to bring it into operation. The machinery is sufficiently ready to justify the very limited extent to which the provisions of the Act would impose a burden as from July 15 next. On these grounds I submit that we should be guilty of an error of judgment if we postponed the operation of the Act. That there will be difficulties I do not for a moment deny. I recognise that there are difficulties in applying the Act to the Army and Navy, but still it can be done, and the difficulties are being overcome. In conclusion, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion it is to the advantage of the country that this Act should be brought into operation as soon as we reasonably can do so.
    On Question, Motion negatived.
    House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.