Sitting of 27 March 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Central Argentine Railway Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow Water (Charges) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Fleetwood Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Standing Orders,
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

1. "That, in the case of the Swansea Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that, unless the consents required by Standing Order 22 are proved before the Committee on the Bill, so much of Tramway No. 5 as is situate outside the borough of Swansea be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

2. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramways Nos. 2, 3, 3a, 3b, and 4 are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

4. "That, in the case of the National Electric Construction Company Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Stand-
412
ing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY TREATMENT).
Copy presented of Treatment of International Questions by Parliaments in European Countries, the United States, and Japan [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 16th March, 1912, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. Henry Charles Rance, Assistant Superintendent, Class I., Ipswich, Post Office, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Fourth Annual Report of the Governing Body of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, South Kensington, for the year ending 31st August, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Address for Return, "showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by Vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 99, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "giving the number of arrests for drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin and the Cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, from the hour of 9 p.m. to 12 midnight on Saturdays, and from 12 midnight on Saturdays to 8 a.m. on Sundays, and from 8 a.m. on Sundays until 2 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., from 9 p.m. to 12 midnight on Sundays, from 12 midnight to

413
8 a.m. on Mondays, between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December, both days inclusive, for the year 1911; and similar Return for the rest of Ireland from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December for the year 1911, the arrests being given from 9 p.m. on Saturdays to 9 a.m. on Sundays, and from 9 a.m. en Sundays till 7 a.m. on Mondays (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 307, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Fetherstonhaugh.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    ASSESSING ABILITIES OF PETTY OFFICERS.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the new system of assessing abilities in the Navy is bearing hardly on a number of petty officers; and whether the Admiralty will revert to the old system of assessing abilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The working of the new system is now under consideration with a view to deciding whether any modifications are desirable.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman have further inquiry made? I know for a fact that the men regard this new system as adversely affecting promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will, with pleasure, have it inquired into closely.

  COAL STRIKE.

    ADMIRALTY STOCKS.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the value of the present stock of coal for the Fleet is over £430,000 more than on 1st April last year; whether that stock is to be still further increased by 31st March next year; and, if so, what are the reasons for the present and future increases in the amount stored compared with a year ago?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The figure quoted by the Noble Lord includes all descriptions of fuel and lubricants for His Majesty's ships. The increase is due to increased stocks of coal and oil-fuel, and
    414
    also to a higher basis of valuation consequent on higher market prices. The stocks of coal have recently been materially increased above the normal level to provide against a contingency which has arisen. But, apart from that, there is no appreciable variation in the basis of stocks of coal provided for during the total period of two years, i.e., as between 1st April, 1911, and 1st April, 1913, other than that necessary on account of a general increase in the requirements. Such increases as are provided for, both in respect of coal and oil, during the two years in question, are necessitated by the increase in tonnage and horse-power of ships, and are not due to any change in the basis or reserves.

    PERSONS OUT OF EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures to show the number of persons unemployed in different trades in consequence of the coal strike??
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): In addition to the ordinary monthly Returns obtained from certain employers and trade unions, special information has been asked for wit a regard to the progressive effect of the coal strike on employment. The figures are not yet available, but will be published in the next issue of the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette."

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RESERVE GOAL SUPPLY.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make inquiries to ascertain whether the London and North-Western Railway Company have on reserve a surplus supply of some thousands of tons of coal, which is now being disposed of at a profit; and whether he will take steps to see that the company are compelled to carry out all their Government contracts?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have no information on the subject of the company's reserve of coal. If the hon. Member is in possession of any facts which have a bearing on the effective fulfilment of Post Office contracts, and will place them at my disposal, I shall be glad to consider the matter.
    Mr. MOONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no later than yesterday the mail trains in Ireland from Dublin were an hour and a half

    415
    late in leaving owing to the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company have reduced the speed of the mail service trains in this country to forty-five miles an hour? Is that not breaking their contract?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know there has been some dislocation of the services, not only on that line, but on some other lines, owing to the regrettable coal strike.
    Mr. MOONEY: May I ask if it is not in the contract that the London and North-Western Railway Company must run their trains at a certain speed—in any case not less than forty-five miles an hour?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question. As to the actual terms of the contract, if there are any penalties which can be enforced Against the company, that matter will have to be considered when the company's claim for remuneration comes up for consideration.

    PROTECTION FOR WORKERS.
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the on rush of misery overspreading the country through the continuation of the coal strike, the Government will cause the mines to be opened and accord adequate protection to those men who are willing to work?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna, for the Prime Minister): I am not sure that I understand what the hon. Member means by the expression, "cause the mines to be opened." If he means, as the words imply, that the Government should compel owners to allow miners to work in their pits, and should compel miners to go to work, the answer is in the negative. In those cases, however, in which owners are willing to open their pits and men are willing to work, I can only repeat what I have said on previous occosions, that adequate protection has been provided by the local authorities in such cases as have arisen, and will be afforded, with the assistance of the Government if necessary, in such cases as may arise.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain miners engaged in the Cammell collieries, who voluntarily went to work on Monday last, were prevented yester-
    416
    day by the Union from continuing at work, and whether he can say if any steps have been or will be taken in that case to enable the miners who desire to work to do so?
    Mr. McKENNA: No information of the sort indicated by the Noble Lord has been brought to my notice. I do not understand whether the Noble Lord means that they were prevented by force, or whether they were only persuaded—quite peaceably persuaded—not to go back by members of the Union.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: I mean forcibly prevented.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information at all to support the statement of the Noble Lord.
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that if the Minimum Wage Bill is passed the miners will return to their work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill has passed through this House.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the case referred to by my Noble Friend he will make inquiry?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, but I should think that if the facts are as alleged by the Noble Lord they would already have been brought to my notice. I have heard nothing of them.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful in accepting reports from prejudiced quarters?
    Mr. BOWERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present is not an opportune time for considering the question of the nationalisation of mines?
    Mr. McKENNA: That does not arise out of the question. It should be addressed in another quarter.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    CHARGEMEN OF SHIPWRIGHTS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the advisability of placing all chargemen of shipwrights in the Royal dockyards on the same footing—that is to say, that these men, having similar responsibilities and duties, may receive the same rate of pay instead of, as at present, some getting 1s. and others 1s. 6d. per day as

    417
    charge pay; and failing this, will he consider whether the proportion of men now receiving 1s. 6d. per day charge pay can be increased?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The subject is under consideration in connection with the 1911 petitions from the chargemen of trades. But I can give no undertaking in respect of it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these matters are under consideration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have received the petitions. The matter is being very carefully gone into, and I hope the result will be announced on an early late.

    France and Morocco.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether our strategic interests in Northern Morocco could in any way be prejudiced by the terms of the protectorate that France is arranging with the Sultan; whether he is aware that the British residents and the Moors are apprehensive lest their interests might not be entirely safeguarded; and whether the Foreign Office will be made aware of the terms of the proposed treaty before they are finally ratified?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I am not aware of the terms of the treaty which the French Government propose to negotiate with the Sultan of Morocco, nor can I say at what stage it will be communicated to His Majesty's Government, but I would observe that British strategic and other interests are fully safeguarded under existing agreements?

    Persia (Outrages on Travellers).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, while proceeding from Teheran to Sultanabad, Messrs. Moir and Brooks, belonging to the firm of Messrs. Ziegler, have been robbed by Bakhtiaris, Mr. Moir being the British Vice-Consul at Sultanabad; and if it is intended to make representations to the Persian Government with regard to this outrage and insist upon compensation being afforded?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Minister, upon learning of the robbery,
    418
    made representations both to the Persian Government and to the Bakhtiari Khans, who no doubt will do their best to restrain their men. Sir G. Barclay added in a telegram on the 22nd instant that having received details of the goods stolen from the Vice-Consul he was about to present a claim.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if any compensation has yet been obtained from the Persian Government in respect of the attack upon Mr. Smart, the British Consul, and his escort; and if effective steps are being taken to make the roads in Southern Persia safe for British and Indian traders?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, the Persian Government have repeated in an Official Note their regrets at the incident, and have undertaken to pay compensation is a first charge on the next loan (as distinct from the joint advance of £200,000 just made). As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the information contained in the Secretary of State's reply to a question by the hon. Member for Melton on 21st instant.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do these claims which are to be a first charge on the loan amount to over £75,000?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I must ask for notice of that question.

    Colonial Civil and Police Services
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlement who recommended by a majority the abolition of the Queen's scholarships, whereby many promising native students were enabled to complete their education in this country, and now occupy important positions, were nominated by the Government or were directly empowered to represent any local body of opinion; whether the majority was a European majority; whether the single Chinese member voted in the minority; what is the annual sum saved by this economy; and whether he is aware that educational authorities have declared that the abolition of the scholarships, by removing the incentive to prolonged study, will have a detrimental effect upon higher education?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Unofficial members of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements are appointed by the

    419
    Governor subject to His Majesty's approval. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. No saving has resulted, since the money has been spent on improving education in other ways. I have no definite information as to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I may say that in 1907, when it was proposed td abolish one scholarship, the majority of the educational authorities in the Colony were in favour of the abolition, or considered that the money could be spent to greater advantage otherwise.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Report of the Director of Education for 1908, in which he said:—
    "There is no doubt that the Queen's Scholarships gave the first start to all higher work, and have been the chief inducement to boys to remain at school after passing Standard VII. …. One great advantage of the Queen's Scholarships to the Education Department has been that our best local teachers have been boys who have competed for and just failed to get the scholarship."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quoting from some document, and I think he ought to give notice.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Report of the Director of Education on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I must ask for notice of the question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the policy of abolishing scholarships part of a policy intended to exclude natives from the service of the Crown?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is part of the question of which probably the hon. Member will give notice.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether H. H. Suleiman Bin Almerhum Raja Musa, C.M.G., Sultan of Selangor, in the Federated Malay States, is of pure European descent on both sides; whether he has ever received any representations from the Chinese residents in Selangor to the effect that they dislike officers of alien origin being placed in authority over them unless those officers are of pure European descent on both sides; and, if not, whether he will exempt Selangor from the new regulation made by the Colonial Office whereby all British subjects who are not of pure European
    420
    descent on both sides are excluded from the civil and police services of the Federated Malay States?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to all three parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are we to believe that the residents of this Protectorate have no objection to H. H. Suleiman Bin Almerhum Raja Musa, C.M.G., being Sultan, but they have an. insuperable objection to any official being appointed over them unless he is of pure European descent on both sides?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to pursue questions regarding a distinguished ruler with whom we are in treaty relations.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his reference and his policy is more complimentary to that ruler, who is a non-European, than. my attitude towards that non-European ruler?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Ho Kai, Esq., of Hong Kong, was educated at HongKong and at Aberdeen University; that he graduated M.B., and is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons; that he was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn; that he has been for twenty years a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong; that he was created a C.M.G. in 1902; and that the King conferred the honour of knighthood on him on Monday of last week; whether he is now satisfied that there is some chance of British-born. Chinese being successful in the competitive examination for the Eastern Cadet service; and whether he will therefore alter the new Regulation made by the Colonial Office whereby all British subjects who are not of pure European descent on both sides, are excluded from the civil and police services of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay States?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first six parts of the question is in the affirmative. I do not see that the very distinguished career of Sir Ho Kai has any bearing on the question of the admittance of non-Europeans to the examinations for the civil and police services. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the ability of Sir Ho Kai to pass examinations is not sufficient to convince the right hon. Gentleman that non - Europeans can pass examinations will the case of Dr. Lim Boon Keng convince him? The hon. Member further asked, with reference to the new Regulation made by the Colonial Office whereby all British subjects who are not of pure European descent on both sides are excluded from the civil and police services of the Straits Settlements and other Colonies, whether, for the purposes of this Resolution, an Armenian is to be considered of pure European descent?
    Mr. HARCOURT: This question has not yet arisen. If and when it does I shall invite the ethnological assistance of my hon. Friend?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time he has got an Armenian in the Civil Service of that Colony, and that at the present time there is in this country an Armenian, born and bred in the Colony, who is excluded by these Regulations, and who is therefore proposing to enter for the Civil Service of India, where he is not excluded?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That subject will be better pursued after notice.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state by what means it is open to British-born Chinese and Malays in the Straits Settlements to demonstrate to him that they have any chance of being successful in the examinations for the Civil and Police Services so long as he refuses to admit them to the examinations; and, if he is satisfied that they have no chance of passing, will he allow them to sit for examination, seeing that no harm would be done thereby?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As regards the first part of the question, I shall be happy to give full consideration to any evidence to this effect that intending candidates may submit to me through the Governor of the Colony. The suggestion in the second part of the question seems scarcely consistent with the views expressed in several of my hon. Friend's previous questions. I should be sorry (in my hon. Friend's own words) to encourage British subjects to spend time and money in preparing themselves for certain branches of the public
    422
    service, only to find themselves excluded at the last moment by the fact that they have been unable to compete successfully.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What kind of evidence will satisfy the right hon. Gentlemen of their ability to pass examinations if he refuses to admit them to the examinations? Is his policy one of "heads I win, tails you lose"?

    Maritime Conventions Act.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether Australia has yet agreed to adopt the provisions of the Maritime Conventions Act; and (2) whether he is aware that on 14th December, 1911, the Secretary to the Board of Trade assured this House that Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland had definitely agreed to adopt the provisions of the Maritime Conventions Act; and, seeing that uniformity of law throughout the Empire with regard to the subjects of this Act is a matter of importance, whether he will press upon these Dominions and Colonies the desirability of passing legislation to adopt the provisions of this Act without any avoidable loss of time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, has been sent to the self-governing Dominions, and they have been invited to adhere to the Conventions and to pass legislation on the lines of the Act. The Commonwealth of Australia has in reply expressed its intention of adhering to the Conventions, but no other Dominion has yet replied. The Conventions are not yet in force, but the position of the self-governing Dominions is being and will be borne in mind, and they will be communicated with in due course.
    Mr. HOLT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Convention is in force in regard to this country, and will he try to get the Colonies to fall into line with this country as soon as possible?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, I am.

    Trinidad.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the state of confusion on the Tabaquite railway extension works now in course of construction for the Trinidad Government; whether the Government are sweating their contractors who, turn, are sweating their labourers; whether many of the labourers have to go without

    423
    wages in consequence of the low contract prices; and whether, seeing that this and other extensions are being carried out by money which is the result of special taxation partly upon the food of the poor, he will take such steps as will secure the work being done under such conditions as will allow decent working conditions to be given?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Tabaquite railway extension works are being carried out by the Government of Trinidad, and I have no reason to think that any such state of affairs as that referred to by my hon. Friend exists in connection with these works.
    Mr. POINTER: In view of the very definite information I have received in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire specially into it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If my hon. Friend will give me the information he has, of course I will make inquiries.
    Mr. POINTERasked why, although the abolition of the Savana Grande Local Road Board has been stated to be quite temporary, its re-establishment has been refused by the Trinidad Government, notwithstanding the earnest petition of a large number of influential residents in the district?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 20th February, 1911, as to the circumstances in which the Savana Crande Road Board was superseded. It appears that numerous complaints were received from all classes of proprietors in the district as to the neglected condition of the roads before the Board was superseded, and I have not heard that any petition has been received since for its restoration.
    Mr. POINTER: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman looks upon this as anything else than a temporary abolition?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It is always dangerous to decide what is temporary and what is permanent.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the irregularities and deficiencies in the Trinidad Post Office; and whether he will take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of the existence of any irregularities or deficiencies in the Trinidad Post Office.

    West Indies (Wireless Telegraphy).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what system of wireless telegraphy is at present in use in Jamaica, Trinidad, British Guiana, and Tobago; what system it is proposed to establish in British Honduras and the Bahamas; and what systems are under consideration for Barbados; (2) the estimated cost of erection and equipment of the wireless station in British Honduras, and what is the estimated cost of operation, including provision for the amortisation of capital; (3) the estimated cost of the wireless stations in the Bahamas and Barbados, including provision for the cost of equipment, erection, maintenance, and amortisation of capital; and (4) whether he will state the present cost of maintaining the wireless stations in Jamaica, Trinidad, British Guiana, and Tobago?
    Mr. HARCOURT: In Jamaica the Lepel system of wireless telegraphy is in use, and in Trinidad, British Guiana, and Tobago the Lodge-Muirhead. In the cases of British Honduras, the Bahamas, and Barbados neither the system which will be adopted nor the estimated cost can yet be stated, with the exception that the cost of erection and equipment of a 3-kilo-watt station in British Honduras has been roughly estimated at £2,000 to £2,500. The cost of maintaining the two wireless stations of the Trinidad-Tobago service is about £900 a year. The cost of maintaining the stations of the Trinidad-British Guiana service and the Jamaica station cannot be given, since these stations are in the hands of private companies.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that at a convenient opportunity I shall invite him to make a statement on this subject.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Who is going to pay the cost of this Bahamas station, and has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a statement in the engineering supplement of the "Times" this morning that the Poulsen-Pedersen system was worked at 200 words a minute before representatives of the Admiralty, the Post Office, and the War Office last October, and, in view of this great advance in wireless telegraphy will

    425
    he take the schemes of this particular company into consideration?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I did not get so far as the engineering supplement of the "Times." I will answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question if he will give me notice.

    Board of Customs and Excise (Ireland).
    Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed by the Board of Customs and Excise to establish the principal office for the south-eastern district of Ireland in Kilkenny, and thus reduce the city of Water-ford to the position of a sub-office; whether he is aware that Waterford is the largest and most centrally situated town in the south-eastern portion of Ireland, and is also the fourth chief seaport of Ireland; and whether, in view of the loss and inconvenience which will be suffered by traders if this arrangement is carried out, he will take steps to see that Waterford will continue to be treated as the principal administrative centre of southeastern Ireland?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am informed by the Board of Customs and Excise that no proposal to alter the status of Waterford as a Customs port is at present before them.

    Government Officials (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the number of Government officials appointel in Ireland since 1909 for the purposes of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The staff of the Inland Revenue offices in Ireland has been increased by thirteen for the general purposes of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. For valuation work the number of officials appointed since 1909 is 154, of whom six are permanently appointed. Under the National Insurance Act, excluding twenty-five temporary organising lecturers, twenty-eight appointments have been made.

    Income Tax (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that of the 4,539 persons described as officials assessed to Income Tax in Ireland 2,190 are not Government employés or paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, 1,622 being clergy-
    426
    men of the Church of Ireland, 341 Bank of Ireland officers, 49 Lights Board and Port and Dock Board employés, and 173 petty sessions clerks; and if he will give directions to the Commissioners of Income Tax to correct the Returns under Schedule E in future so as to exclude from the title Government officials any such persons as are not in Government employment in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In Table 151 of the fifty-third Report of the Commissioners, of Inland Revenue, to which the hon. Member would appear to refer, the number of assessments under Schedule E of the Income Tax on "Government Officials" in Ireland for the year 1908–9 was stated to be 4,397, and on 8th of February, 1911, my right hon Friend the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained that the statistical heading "Government Officials" included in this case the several classes of persons detailed in the present question. If the hon. Member, however, will refer to the corresponding Table in the subsequent Report, he will see that an explanatory note has been added to the heading "Government Officials," indicating that the figures include assessments which are not strictly upon Government officials. In future Reports the Commissioners will give sufficient particulars under this heading to remove any possibility of misapprehension.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has recently referred to these 4,539 persons as Government officials, and will he draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this incorrect statement and to the real state of affairs?

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether, having regard to Section 26 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, under which the Commissioners are to cause to be made a valuation of all land in the United Kingdom showing separately the total value and site value of the land, and to Section 25 (2), under which, in order to ascertain site value, the land is to be regarded as divested of any buildings and other structures, the valuers have been instructed in arriving at site value to regard the whole of the land in the United Kingdom as divested of any buildings in conformity with the provisions of the Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the purpose of estimating the full site value of any

    427
    particular hereditament, the hereditament is to be regarded as divested of buildings, etc.; but it is not necessary in making that particular valuation to regard every other hereditament in the United Kingdom as being also similarly divested.
    Mr. ROYDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on that point?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not care to ask the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on a hypothetical question. If it arises in connection with any particular case and there is any difficulty, of course we will seek their opinion.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, of the nine National Insurance Act lecturers for Belfast and the province of Ulster, none had, previous to appointment, taken any prominent part in or had practical knowledge of the work of any of the leading friendly societies having branches in Belfast and district; that a meeting of representatives of the various friendly societies in Belfast had communicated to the Irish Commissioners their dissatisfaction with the appointments, and had asked that someone acquainted with friendly society work should be appointed; and whether the Commissioners can see their way to remedy the grievance complained of?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Official lecturers are not appointed to represent the interests of societies with which they may have been previously associated, but to explain the provisions of the Insurance Act. The Irish Insurance Commissioners did not consider it an essential qualification of the lecturers that they should have been officials of friendly societies. Of the nine lecturers working in Ulster, one was a friendly society member, four were trade unionists, and two were women; and the selections generally have been confirmed by the success of the lectures. There are no vacancies for further appointments.

    WAR DEPARTMENT WOKKERS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether a request has been received from the United Government Workers' Federation for a
    428
    deputation representing the organised workers at Woolwich, Enfield, Waltham Abbey, Pimlico, and Weedon, to be received on the subject of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, whether it is proposed to receive the deputation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): The request has been made by the Federation, who have been asked to state the points upon which they require information. Their reply has been received, and is now under the consideration of the Interdepartmental Committee to which my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury referred yesterday.

    Sea Fisheries (Annual Report).
    Captain WARINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Annual Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of proceedings under Acts relating to sea fisheries for the year 1910 will be published?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that the Report has been published to-day.

    Houses of Parliament (Lighting).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in considering the manner in which the artificial lighting of this House can be improved, he will also consider the desirability of improving the lighting of the Terrace?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): There is no provision for this service in the Estimates. But the First Commissioner will be glad to consider the suggestion when the Estimates for next year are being prepared.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter before it is decided to replace the lighting of the House by gas with electric light; whether he is aware of the opinion of leading oculists that gas light is less harmful than electric light; and whether gas assists in the proper ventilation of the House?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: In reply to the first paragraph, an opportunity for discussion will arise on the Vote for the

    429
    Houses of Parliament. The First Commissioner is not aware that leading oculists have expressed any such opinion in regard to lights placed as these will be. The reply to the third paragraph is in the negative. Under the arrangements proposed, the House will be better ventilated than heretofore.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no preparations will be made for altering the lighting until the matter has been fully discussed?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No, I cannot give such an assurance as that.
    Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman think any useful purpose will be served by discussing it after the preparation has been made?
    Mr. MILDMAY: Will the alterations include some alteration in the method by which cold air is pumped up from under the seats?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not think it is contemplated to alter that form of ventilation.
    Lord BALCARRES: As the lighting of the House is generally approved, will the hon. Gentleman consider that it should not be altered until he has satisfied himself that the majority of Members and officials of the House is in favour of the proposed change?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: One pane in the ceiling has already for some days been lit in the new fashion. Perhaps the Noble Lord will point it out to me, and point out what objections there are to it.
    Mr. CARR-GOMM: When will the Vote for the Houses of Parliament be put down?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: That is not a question which should be addressed to me.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make arrangements, in the case of old people applying for their old age pensions, to enable them to secure copies of their birth certificates either free or for 6d., as in the case of applicants to approved societies under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An applicant for an old age pension can already have par-
    430
    ticulars of birth verified free of charge, if they are forwarded through the pension officer to the Registrar-General.

    Government Offices (Dublin).
    Mr. BRADYasked whether, seeing that under the legislation of recent years bringing into existence in Ireland new departments and branches of administration, the need of office accommodation for this work is greater now than when the original scheme for buildings for public offices in Upper Merrion Street was decided upon, and that this need is attempted to be met at present by the Board of Works hiring private houses in various parts of Dublin, sections of the staffs of the same office being often separated from each other by several streets, and that the buildings cannot be left in their present half-built state, the Government will proceed now with the completion of this work at a time when employment is badly needed by the working classes of Dublin?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I have nothing to add to my reply of 26th February.
    Mr. BRADY: What is the estimated cost of these buildings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The only cost estimated is that of the architect's plans—I think something like £2,000—and not the cost of the buildings. There is considerable doubt whether the buildings as originally arranged will be proceeded with in view of changes which may take place in the future.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it possible that the buildings have not been estimated for? How have they progressed as far as they have gone?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Estimates have been made and money has been voted for the buildings as completed, and a certain section has been completed. The new scheme has not been estimated for, and the money has not been voted by the House.
    Captain CRAIG: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that all building operations are stopped until Home Rule is passed?
    Mr. NANNETTI: As money is being spent for the purpose of relieving distress in Dublin at present, would it not be better to put this work in hand at once, and give honest labour to those who are in need of it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the buildings are wanted there is much in what the hon. Member says, but if they are not wanted it would be waste of money.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that the buildings are wanted at present, and that in consequence private houses are being taken all over Dublin, and that officers in a particular department are frequently separated from each other by streets?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Office of Works, I think, are not convinced that the building will be wanted in this particular form.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Will not the Office of Works consult the representatives of the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am in communication with hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject.

    Agricultural Co-operation (Ireland).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has yet received any reply from the Development Commissioners with regard to the application of the Department of Agriculture for a Grant in aid of the organisation of agricultural co-operation in Ireland; and, if so, what is the nature of such reply?
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state what decision has been arrived at by the Development Commissioners upon his application for a Grant to the Department of Agriculture for the organisation of agricultural co-operation in Ireland?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department have received a letter from the Development Commissioners stating that whilst they do not doubt that the existing work of the Department in some or all of the six directions mentioned in the proposed scheme might usefully be extended, they are unable to regard the scheme as one for the organisation of co-operation in the sense which the Development Commissioners feel bound to attach to these words. When I gave evidence before the Commissioners the chairman asked me whether, if the question of co-operation was eliminated altogether, I would be prepared to again bring forward one or all of the items
    432
    dealt with in the scheme, as it was possible the funds of the Commissioners-might be utilised for some of these purposes. Having now received the decision of the Commissioners on the question of co-operation, the Department has resolved to apply, as suggested, for funds for the promotion of the objects embraced in the scheme on their merits and without reference to co-operation.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: What ground had the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance that the money would be given to his Department?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I made no such promise. What I said was that the Development Commissioners had invited the co-operation of the Department in devising a scheme, and that I thought I could submit such a scheme as would meet with their approbation.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give a positive assurance?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the correspondence that has taken place between the right hon. Gentleman and the Development Commissioners be laid on the Table?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have not the slightest objection to the whole correspondence being laid.

    Industrial Development (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will make inquiries with regard to the iron mines and smelting furnaces at Creevelea, the pottery works at Drumkeerin, and the coal mines at Arigna, all situated in North Leitrim, with a view of reviving and developing these industries and giving employment in the district?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question regarding the Arigna coal mines asked by the hon. Member for South Sligo on 26th instant. The Department's mineral expert reported some years ago on the ironstone deposits and the pottery works referred to, and his report was communicated to the Leitrim County Council. The Department will be happy to afford any available information to persons interested in the development of these industries.

    Amalgamation of School Districts (Scotland).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Education Department has ordered the amalgamation of the Banff (Landward) and Orr school districts with Banff burgh in contravention of Section 22 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, which lays down that the school board making representations shall be that board whose identity would be merged by amalgamation; and whether, in view of the fact that in this instance the representations have been made by the school board which desires to effect annexation, he will refuse to ratify the Order?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and, as regards both parts, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the subject on Monday, to which I have only to add that I cannot find that the Act lays down the condition stated in the question.

    Preserved Cream.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he intends issuing Regulations laying down a standard for fat in preserved cream, and requiring the words, Preserved cream, boricised," to be inscribed on every bill, invoice, card, or other announcement in respect of the sale of preserved cream; if so, when these Regulations will come into force; and whether those engaged in the preparation and sale of preserved cream have been, or will be, given an opportunity of expressing their views upon the proposed Regulations?
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the proposed regulations as to the sale of cream will seriously injure the trade and prejudice consumers to an unreasonable extent; and whether he can see his way to altering the proposed wording of the labelling and invoicing so as, while conveying the necessary intimation to the public, it shall not give an erroneous impression that the use of the article is prejudicial to health?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the anxiety felt as to the new regulations for the restriction of the use of preservatives in cream, he will postpone the
    434
    date when the Regulations become operative for a fortnight, so that all reasonable objections may be considered?
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, of the whole cream trade at least 90 per cont. is in preserved cream; and whether he will reconsider the proposed Regulations which, compel labels to be put on every vessel containing preserved cream stating the percentage of boric acid, seeing that such labels may injure the trade by unnecessarily alarming the public?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Some misapprehension exists in regard to these proposals. As a result of numerous investigations which have been made by medical inspectors of the Foods Department of the Local Government Board, and by others, I am satisfied that, in the interests of public health, regulations are required in regard to the sale of cream containing preservatives. I have accordingly had Regulations prepared, and public notice has been given of them. I am anxious that any Regulations which are made should interfere with legitimate trading as little as possible, and any representations which are submitted in regard to the proposals which are contained in the draft will be fully considered. The statutory period under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, for the making of objections will expire at the end of this month, but this would not, of course, preclude my taking into consideration communications; subsequently received. As the drafs now stands, no part of the order will come into operation until 1st June next, and certain provisions not until 1st January next. If the trade consider other dates should be chosen, I should, of course, take account of any facts which they may submit in support of a suggestion to alter the dates. The points of detail raised in the question have, I think, all been brought forward in official representations that have reached my Department, and will be carefully considered.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to substitute for the word "boricised," which rather suggests to consumers that they are going to be poisoned, some harmless word, say "aseptic," which would probably meet the case?
    Mr. BURNS: As between "boricised" and "aseptic," I do not think there is

    435
    much to choose. The latter word is rather suggestive of a bandage or an accident hospital.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that boric acid is very injurious to health, and that its use is prohibited as a criminal offence in America, and whether he will have its use here made a criminal offence, instead of poisoning people's insides?
    Mr. BURNS: It is true that boric acid and many other preservatives, when disproportionately used, are dangerous to health, and it is to prevent that that these draft orders have been prepared for the consideration of those interested. It is the temporary object of the Local Government Board to diminish the use of preservatives to the very lowest minimum. I hope it will be possible some day to get rid of them altogether.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as this is a very great ddeparture and really seriously concerns the milk and creamery trade, he will notify at once that some later day than 1st June may be fixed for these much disputed Regulations coming into operation?
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think that on the point of notice any complaint can be made. Everybody concerned has had forty days' notice. As to 1st June for the first introduction of the orders, I have already said that I am prepared to consider the question whether a later date should be substituted for June, and whether a later date still should be substituted for January. On the whole, the trade has been treated reasonably well, particularly when it is borne in mind that it is at the instigation of the honest producers of pure cream that action like this has been undertaken.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask if it is open to alter the Regulations between 30th March and 1st June?
    Mr. BURNS: Oh, yes; that is so.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: Are we to understand that when no preservative is added to cream there is no necessity for a label?
    Mr. BURNS: If pure cream is pure, there will be no need to say it is impure.

    Flour (Adulteration).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether
    436
    having regard to the fact that it has been established by departmental investigation that the adulteration of flour by the addition of various deleterious substances is largely practised by millers, and the matter has been under his consideration for more than a year, he can now state when he expects to be in a position to announce the steps to be taken to put a stop to this practice, in the public interests?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received a number of deputations on this subject since the Reports were issued from my Foods Department last year, and the matter has been carefully considered by my expert advisers from all points of view. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that, in some respects, the matter can be adequately dealt with by the ordinary law against adulteration. I am, however, still considering whether it may not be possible to deal with some of the practices to which the hon. Baronet refers by regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with the matter under the existing law, which he has just suggested as possible?
    Mr. BURNS: It is being dealt with by the local authorities who are responsible for the administration of the Act.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Have there been any prosecutions?
    Mr. BURNS: I will be pleased to ascertain for the hon. Baronet.

    London Postal Service (Supervisors).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Postmaster-General whether women supervisors of the London districts counter and telegraph force are being retained after the age of sixty; and, if so, whether he will state the number of these officers and the number of the general body who are at the maximum of their class?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At the present time one supervisor and five assistant supervisors over sixty years of age are being retained in the London postal service, and it is proposed also to retain two assistant supervisors who will reach that age during 1912. All these officers are reported to be thoroughly efficient. There are forty-seven supervisors and assistant

    437
    supervisors, and 165 women counter clerks and telegraphists at the maxima of their scales.

    Elementary School Teachers.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to include within the scope of his amended superannuation scheme for elementary school teachers persons who have, since the 1st April, 1899, retired from the teaching profession at the age of 65 on a superannuation allowance, and who, owing to lack of all private means and to the increased cost of living, find it difficult to maintain themselves in a manner befitting their position?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The point is being considered, but I am not able at the moment to hold out much hope of including in the scheme teachers who have already retired from the profession at, the age of sixty-five.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had under consideration the judgment delivered last Friday in the case of Smith v. MacNally; and whether he will issue a circular to local education authorities calling attention to the ruling of the judge in this case that the Education Act of 1902 intended specifically to exclude any inquiry into the religious belief of teachers in elementary schools?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the question, I have no reason to believe that the attention of local education authorities will not be sufficiently called to the judgment in the case referred to in the usual way, and I see no necessity for issuing a circular on the subject.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that local education authorities have been pursuing a practice of inquiring into the religious professions of the teachers?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not know of any other case at the present moment. If the hon. Member desires to call my attention to any case I shall be very glad to go into it.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not the fact that a Miss Marsh, near Glasgow, was dismissed by the county council because of a change in her religion?
    Mr. PEASE: That question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.

    Railway Amalgamations and Agreements.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether and, if so, when he proposes to introduce his promised Bill to carry out the assurance given by the Government at the time of the settlement of the railway dispute; and whether, before seeking to authorise by statute increased charges for the carriage of agricultural produce, he will take steps to ascertain the effect of such legislation upon agricultural production and employment in rural districts; and (2) whether, before embodying the recommendations of the recent Committee on Railway Amalgamations and Agreements in the forthcoming Railway Bill and permitting railway companies to raise their rates within their legal maxima to the possible detriment of traders and farmers, he will consider the advisability of requiring the companies to submit to the Board their proposals for increases of rates and of referring such proposals to a Select Committee before whom all sections of the trading community, including dairy farmers and other agriculturists, will be given an opportunity of stating their case?
    Mr. BUXTON: I hope to be able to introduce a Railway Bill very shortly, which is intended to deal with the matters on which the Select Committee on Railway Agreements and Amalgamation made recommendations, and also to give effect to the undertaking given to the railway companies in August last. The hon. Member seems, however, to be under a misapprehension as to the effect of that undertaking, and I would refer him to the reply given to a question put by him on this subject on the 24th October last. I do not think it would be practicable or desirable to require the submission of proposals to increase particular rates to a Select Committee.

    Education (India).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total amount to be expended on education in India this year; and how much of that is to be devoted to education for domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I presume that by "this year" the hon. and gallant Member means the financial year 1912–13. The revised estimate of educational expenditure is £3,068,000. That is the total of Imperial and provincial expenditure under the specific head "Education," but does not include expenditure on buildings or

    439
    expenditure met from local funds or municipalities. I hope shortly to be able to give details as to the allocation of the sum.
    Colonel YATE: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement that a Grant of three lakhs was given for domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians, and, considering the great disabilities that these people suffer from, will he not give a larger amount for the education of their children?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The sum of fifty lakhs mentioned at the recent Durbar is included in the £3,000,000, which shows an excess over last year of over a million sterling. I hope very shortly to be able to say what part of that sum will be given to the education of children of domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of giving more than three lakhs?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; that is the revised estimate for this year, 1912–13, and no further sum will be available in that year. That is only an instalment of the larger sum to be expended.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is being taken as the annual value for rating of the lands belonging to the Marquess of Clanricarde, in county Galway, as to the compulsory acquisition of which a notice appears in the "Dublin Gazette"; and what was the amount of final and highest offer made for them by the Congested Districts Board and rejected?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board have taken steps to acquire compulsorily certain lands owned by Lord Clanricarde, in the county of Galway, and as the matter is now pending before the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, I do not consider it advisable to give at the present time any further information than that appearing in the "Dublin Gazette."
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the Estates Commissioners expect to be able to prepare a scheme for the settlement of the Miss Dolphin estate, situate in Cross,
    440
    parish of New Inn, Loughrea, county Galway; is he aware that the estate contains some small holdings, and that agreements to purchase these holdings were signed and perfected five years ago; and whether all the grazing land was included in the originating request served on the Commissioners by Miss Dolphin for the sale of this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Formal proceedings for the sale of the estate of Annie Dolphin and others to the Estates Commissioners were instituted in October, 1908, and the estate has not yet been reached in order of priority to be dealt with. When so reached inquiries will be made into the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

    Night Marching (Motor Car Traffic).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that troops marching after dark along a road are exposed to considerable risk from traffic either meeting or overtaking them, he will consider whether means can be devised to indicate their presence?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This question is now receiving consideration.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to take any effective action in the near future?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope so. I hope that we shall take action at once.

    National Reserve.
    Mr. HUNTasked how many officers and men of the National Reserve have been asked and how many have agreed to serve in case of war under Territorial officers, and non-commissioned officers?
    Colonel SEELY: No official inquiry of the nature suggested has been made. It is understood that in some cases National Reservists have been approached on the initiative of county associations with a view to ascertaining their views on the matter, but no reports have been received from the associations concerned.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the Secretary of State for War state that the whole National Reserve Force would be mobilised behind the Territorial Force? If so, how is that going to be done when the National Reserve has got no organisation, rifles or uniform?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think that I can discuss the whole question of the National Reserve at question-time.
    Mr. HUNTasked, in view of the fact that Lord Haldane stated at the Guildhall that the National Reserve was behind the Territorial Force and could be mobilised up to its full strength on a national emergency, how many of the whole number of the officers and men now registered in the National Reserve were between fifty-five and sixty years of age; how many were between sixty and seventy years of age; how many between seventy and eighty; and how many over eighty years of age?
    Colonel SEELY: On the 1st January the National Reserve numbered 76,972, and of this total there were 16,964 who were either officers between fifty-five and sixty, or other ranks between forty-five and fifty-five. Officers over sixty and other ranks over fifty-five are registered as honorary members, and no record of their ages is kept. This class numbered 10,630.
    Mr. HUNT: How many of them are over ninety or one hundred?

    Ordnance Labourers (Portsmouth).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the labourers employed in the ordnance depots in His Majesty's gun-wharf and Tipnor magazine at Portsmouth are only paid 20s. 6d. per week; whether lie is aware that the lowest rate paid by the Portsmouth Corporation for unskilled labour is 24s. per week; and whether he will place the case of the men referred to before the Advisory Committee for consideration?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Admiralty is largely concerned in the rates of wages at Portsmouth, and the matter is now under the consideration of both the Admiralty and the War Office.

    Service as Sheriff (Exemption of Officers).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked why field officers in the Territorial Forces and field officers in the Special Reserve are treated differently in respect of exemption from service as sheriff?
    Colonel SEELY: I regret that I have nothing to add to the answer given to a similar question put by the hon. Gentleman on the 14th instant.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he had no reason to give the last time, has he no reason to give now?
    Colonel SEELY: I think I did give a reason the last time. It may not have been adequate in the view of the hon. Member, but I cannot give any other reason now. If the hon. Member wants another reason I will try to find one.

    Regimental or Battalion Command.
    Captain MORRISON-BELLasked if in future continuous good service of an officer with his regiment or battalion will not be held as entitling him to obtain command of a regiment or battalion, even if recommended by his commanding officer as being thoroughly capable for the position?
    Colonel SEELY: The command of a regiment or a battalion is entirely a matter of selection, but, as a matter of fact, the senior officer with the regiment or battalion who has consistently earned strong recommendations as being thoroughly capable, is usually selected for the command.
    Captain MORRISON-BELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any case where the rule has not been followed?
    Colonel SEELY: No; I do not believe that I know of any case in which this rule has not been followed.
    Captain MORRISON - BELLasked whether it is the policy of the War Office to pass over for command officers next for command of regiments or battalions who do not hold Staff College certificates but are qualified in every other respect, and to grant them to those that hold these certificates?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.

    Territorial Force (Musketry).
    Mr. HUNTasked to what extent the advance in the musketry of the Territorial Force, which has earned the appreciation of the Army Council, is attributable to the facts that coaching is now permitted during the firing of the standard test, and that the rapid firing (practice in standard test) is now carried out at a second-class figure target at 200 yards instead of at a first-class figure target at 500 yards, as in previous years?
    Colonel SEELY: The amendments in the Regulations, for the standard test mentioned were only introduced about five months after the commencement of the musketry year 1910–11. It is, therefore, impracticable to estimate how far the improvement of the musketry is due to these changes, but undoubtedly coaching at the firing point would tend to improve the shooting.
    Mr. HUNT: Could not the right hon. Gentleman still further increase the efficiency in musketry of the Territorial Force by again decreasing the range and increasing the size of the target.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I beg to give notice that on this day three weeks I will call attention to the condition of the sea fisheries in Scotland, and move a Resolution.
  MIGRATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to give notice that on this day three weeks I will call attention to the question of emigration and immigration of the British race within the Empire, and move a Resolution.
  FINES IN FACTORIES.
  Mr. LEACH: I beg to give notice that on this day three weeks I will call attention to the question of excessive fines in factories and workshops, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED.
  METROPOLITAN COUNCILS (EXPENSES OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.
  "To remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by the councils of Metroplitan boroughs." Presented by Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

  EDUCATION ACTS (1870 TO 1911).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, and to make provision for regulating the Parliamentary Grants to secondary schools."
  444
  The object of the Bill is to deal with the regulations relating to Government Grants for secondary education, and to remedy what we on this side of the House think is unfair discrimination in regard to these regulations. As the secondary school regulations have been under consideration, quite recently, I do not desire to detain the House at any length in regard to the circumstances in which I bring in the Bill. We say that the regulations are unfair, and discriminate against denominational secondary schools, because the £5 Grant is refused to them while, though they work on the same terms, it is given to secular secondary schools. One regulation of which we particularly complain is Article (5), which says that there shall be no denominational instruction in denominational secondary schools without the written demand of the parents. Article (23) says there shall be no point where under the trust deed questions are asked as to the religious belief of the teachers, of the trustees, or of the managers in secondary schools. Article 24 says that a clear majority of the trustees or governors must be chosen by the local education authority. All these conditions discriminate against the denominational secondary schools; in other words, there is a system of preference or protection of secular or undenominational secondary schools. What we want is free trade with regard to the Government Grants. We say, "Put us all on the same terms as far as the Government Grants are concerned. The denominational secondary schools are doing equally good work in the matter of general education, and they have just as good a claim and as much right to the Government Grants as the secular secondary schools." That has been the policy of legislation in the past. Under the Elementary Education Act of 1870, Section (97), expressly provided that there should be no discrimination on the ground of religious belief in the matter of the Government Grant for elementary schools. When we come to the Act of 1902, Section (4) of that enactment provided that so far as secondary education is concerned the local authorities should not make any discrimination of this character when they are making Grants in aid of this secondary education. Unfortunately at this moment there is no statutory provision requiring that the same rule should apply to both denominational, secondary schools and secular secondary schools, and that there shall be no discrimination against the former class of

  445
  schools in regard to Government Grants. It is that gap which this Bill seeks to fill up. The Bill is supported by a large number of educational institutions up and down the country, among them the Manchester Diocesan Church Schools Society, the Church Schools Emergency League, the National Society, and the leading bodies of Roman Catholics. In fact, quite recently, as reported in the "Times," at a largely attended meeting of the executive committee of the Catholic Education Council, held at the Archbishop's House, the following resolution was passed:—
  "That the council do give its support to the Bill proposed to be introduced by Mr. Montague Barlow, M.P., dealing with the Secondary School Regulations, and do invite the support of the Catholic Members of the House of Commons for the said Bill when introduced."
  Without desiring to put the matter at greater length before the House, I do wish to appeal to hon. Members on behalf of this Bill in the name of fair play and justice. The two systems of education in this country should have equality of treatment. It is no good attempting to take up the position that there are not two systems in this country, or attempting to act as if one was dying and the other was going to take its place. If there is one thing more clear than another it is the vitality, the obstinate vitality, of denominational schools. Let me conclude by reading a few sentences from Mr. Gladstone's speech in 1870, when this question was under discussion so far as elementary education was concerned. He said:—
  "It is a great mistake and error in our view to think that secular education given by State machinery is per se better and more valuable than the same education given by machinery voluntary in its character. I think we are justified in feeling that this enormous power (of voluntary denominational schools) which exists in the country, ought to be turned to account."
  That is exactly the position we take up. The position was emphasised in the Act of 1902, and, so far as it is based on equality, it is the position taken by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer during these Debates. It is in that spirit I ask leave to bring in this Bill, and I hope the House will allow me to do so.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Montague Barlow, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Alfred Cripps, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Pollock, Mr. James Hope, Mr. Nield, and Mr. Butcher. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to draw the attention of the House, and particularly of the President of the Local Government Board, when he appears in the House, to the anomalous position in which county councils find themselves at the present time owing to the different attitudes of the various Government Departments in respect of loans made to-local authorities for the purpose of providing land for small holdings. The President of the Local Government Board has repeatedly assured us in this louse during the past few months that it is open to the county councils to exonerate the small holders from payment of sinking fund charges when those are added, as they have in most cases been added, to the rents of small holdings, and to fix those charges upon the ratepayers of the county. The President of the Board of Agriculture has similarly stated on a recent occasion in this House that he is prepared to assure the county councils that they may go forward with the process of exonerating the small holders from the sinking fund payment, and charge the ratepayers generally, and have the burden thrown on the county rates. It transpires now that loans upon this footing are being applied for to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Commissioners are, in reply, stating that they are not in a position to> make any loans to county councils for the purpose of small holdings, unless the whole of the sinking fund charge is charged to the small holders in the rent of those holdings. In other words, the county councils are being made to look very ridiculous and are being placed in a wholly anomalous position owing to the rather absurd squabble which is going on, and it is not by any means the first time such squabbles have taken place between the two Government Departments, or the three Government Departments, with whom they have to deal. It is not at all fair on the county councils that they should be left in this anomalous position. What I want to ask the Government is, once and for all, to get us out of this anomalous position and to declare plainly what the Act of 1908 really means, and if the Small Holdings Act of 1908 cannot operate to enable the county councils to

  447
  do what many of them would like to do, namely, to charge the sinking fund -charges to the ratepayers generally in exoneration of the small holders, then surely it is the business of the Government, if that is their intention, to bring in as soon as possible an amending Bill, so as to save any risk of the county councils being surcharged in consequence of doing what is ultra vires an Act of Parliament.
  I have taken some trouble to look up the various Small Holdings Acts. I find that the provisions of the 1907 Act, as regards the acquisition of land for small holdings, were by reference (a most obnoxious system) to the Act of 1892, and that, in fact, the details as regards the acquisition of land are not set out in any way in the Act of 1907. It is impossible to say whether this matter was discussed while that Bill was passing through this House, because it was sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, and there is no Parliamentary record of their proceedings. In the year 1898, that is after the passing of the first Small Holdings Act, and before the passing of the Act with which the present Government have been associated, the President of the Local Government Board announced in this House that in the opinion of the Law Officers the amount of rent charged to small holders must be limited to the interest on the loans, with a margin over and above for eventualities—that is to say, that in the period between the coming into operation of the 1892 Act and the introduction into this House of the 1907 Act, it was acknowledged by the various Governments of the day that the smallholders could not be charged with any part of the sinking fund of the loan which was raised for the purpose of acquiring their land. In 1907 the Government introduced their Bill, and they did not, apparently, at that time say who is in fact going to pay the capital value of the land acquired for small holdings; but immediately after the Act has been passed, a question is asked in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the answer given by the then representative of the Treasury, before he had become Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, was as follows:—
  "The intention of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of last Session, is that the charges to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, should be included in the rent (those are the sinking fund charges), but so far
  448
  as the Board are concerned, they will offer no objection to the inclusion of those charges in the calculation of rents, when the county council is itself willing to defray them."
  Therefore, according to the opinion of the representative of the Board of Agriculture at that time, it was possible for a county council to charge those sinking fund charges to the ratepayers, but no provision was made to that effect in their Act. Then comes the Small Holdings Consolidation Act of 1908, which, like many Consolidation Acts, turns out to be not a mere codifying measure, and, as the result of ingenuity on the part of the Government draftsmen, they apparently make new law, and they introduce a Subsection into that Act, Sub-section (3) of Section 7, which puts it beyond all question that those sinking fund charges are to be thrown upon the small holder. I see that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Runciman) differs from my opinion. I shall be very glad to hear if he is able to mention a single legal authority by name who has stated, either to him or anyone else, that this Act can bear any different interpretation. I suggest to him and to the House that there are not two ways of construing that Act, and that the only construction to be put upon this particular Section is that the county councils will be going beyond their powers unless they charge the small holders themselves with the sinking fund charges in their rents. That Section is as follows:—
  "A county council shall not acquire land for small holdings save at such price or rent that, in the opinion of the council, all expenses incurred by the council in relation to the land will be recouped out of the purchase money for the land sold by the council, or in the case of land let out of the rent, and the council shall fix the purchase money or rent at such reasonable amount as will, in their opinion, guard them against loss"
  4.0 P.M.
  I have the support of the Law Officers of the Crown, for at any rate a period of the time during which the present Government has been in power, in support of the view that that Section cannot mean anything else than that the county councils must throw those charges upon the small holders. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is prepared, as I understand, to dispute that suggestion. If the Law Officers have changed their opinion it is only right that this House should know what the opinion of the present Law

  449
  Officers is. It is very unfair upon the county councils, upon the small holders, and upon those Members in this House who are interested both in county government and in the small holders, that they should be left in any doubt as to what is the meaning of the Government's own. Act of Parliament. It is more than ridiculous when it comes to a matter of administration that the Presidents of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Agriculture should say to the county councils, "You may do what you like in this matter; you are not the least likely to be surcharged, because in our opinion you are not acting ultra vires so far as our Act is concerned," while, on the other hand, the Public Works Loans Commissioners, without whom the county councils cannot get any further in this matter, say, "You are acting ultra vires when you endeavour to throw these charges upon the county rate, and we are not prepared to make loans to you upon that footing."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Have the Loans Commissioners said that the county councils are acting ultra vires?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The Public Works Loans Commissioners have certainly stated to the county councils that they are not prepared to make loans under this Act to the county councils unless they charge both sinking funds and interest to the small holders.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite another matter from saying that the Public Works Loans Commissioners have declared that the county councils will be acting ultra vires.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I apologise if I I have stated the position incorrectly. As a matter of fact, the Public Works Loans Commissioners are not entitled to make any suggestion as to whether a local authority is or is not acting ultra vires. But it is rather absurd that those who, like the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague of the Local Government Board, are in a position to guide the county councils in this matter, guide them in certain directions, and then they find they are brought up against a stone wall presented by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, because in their opinion such a transaction cannot properly be carried out under the Act. It seems to me that we have come to a time when we are entitled
  450
  to ask the Government to say plainly what they intended in their own Act in this respect, and whether in fact the construction put upon that Act is what they intended when they brought it in. If they did not so intend, the time has arrived when it is only fair to all parties that the Act should be amended. Why are the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues afraid of moving in this matter? At any rate, why are they reluctant to do so? I suggest, in the first place, that they are naturally not very anxious to offend the small holders, who are becoming exceedingly sensitive upon this matter On the other hand, they do not like to take upon themselves the responsibility of doing anything which might raise an outcry on the part of the county ratepayers, who are already seriously overburdened largely as the result of Departmental administration. What are the two alternatives? One is that the small holders should pay for land which will never belong to them, but which will eventually belong to the county councils. We say, and I think the House will agree, that that is not fair to the small holders. The second position is that the county ratepayers, whether they like it or not, under considerable pressure from the Government, shall pay for land for which they may have no use hereafter if the small-holding movement turns out to be a failure, and which land has actually been acquired as the result of very considerable pressure from a certain political party in this House and also of pressure imposed upon them by the Government of the day. It is not even fair to ask the county ratepayers to pay for property which they themselves, through their representatives, are reluctant to purchase, and which they have purchased only under very considerable pressure from a Government Department. The only way out of this muddle and difficulty is so to interpret the Act, which I believe to be impossible, or alternatively so to amend the Act as to make the charge for sinking fund a Treasury, charge, and thereby make logical the process of pressure or of "gingering" which has been carried on to such a very severe extent in connection with the small-holdings movement. At any rate, I think we are justified in demanding now from the Government what is their interpretation of the Act, what the county councils are able to do in this matter, and what shall be their procedure when they want to adopt the alternative now suggested by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which they cannot adopt because the

  451
  Public Works Loans Commissioners say that they will not grant loans upon any such footing.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to endorse all that my hon. Friend has said about the confusion in which this matter stands. The President of the Board of Agriculture will recollect that I raised the point earlier in the Session, and told him what had been the position in my own county council, where I endeavoured to ascertain whether it was not possible to relieve the small holders of the onerous charge of the sinking fund, at all events for the acquisition of the land if not also for the buildings. We were given to understand that it was the opinion of the President of the Board of Agriculture and of the President of the Local Government Board that it was within the power of county councils not to charge the sinking fund upon the small holders, but to put it upon the rates. We were also told that certain county councils had done that without being surcharged, and that they would not be surcharged so far as the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture were concerned. That in itself is not a very satisfactory position, because the Government are not capable of giving an interpretation of the Act in that direction. The Act is as it is, and can only be interpreted by the Courts of Law. I suppose that if any ratepayer chose to raise and carry to the Courts the question whether the county council was or was not acting ultra vires, the promise of the Government that the county council should not be surcharged would not be valid. If the Courts held that the council had acted ultra vires it would be liable for having so done. Therefore the position is not at all satisfactory. And when my hon. Friend points out, as he has done, that the Public Works Loans Commissioners are refusing to grant loans on the very ground that the sinking fund is not charged to the small holders, I think the position becomes very serious, and something will really have to be done to put it on a satisfactory footing. That is how the position stands at the present moment. The county councils do not really know what they can or cannot do.
  It seems to me that there is both a question of fact and a question of policy which it is desirable should be considered. I would press very strongly that it is a most unjust thing to put these sinking fund charges, at all events for the purchase of
  452
  the land, upon the small holder. There are two or three ways out of that difficulty. One is to put the charges upon the Treasury. There is a good deal to be said from that point of view, although I quite realise that it is open to many objections which no doubt at once leap to the mind of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and it would no doubt need a good deal of consideration before being adopted by the House. Another proposal is that the county council should pay them through the rates in that they eventually acquire the land, and, therefore, presumably in the end, if they bought the land at a reasonable price—which is not always the price put upon it by the Government Commissioners—they will not ultimately make a loss when the land comes to be sold. A third alternative, which, I think, would be the best, is that of vesting the freehold of the land in the small holder. I can see no reason whatever why that should not be done. The loans will work themselves off in a period of years very little longer in most cases than the period over which the Irish farmers purchase their holdings. It seems to me it would be a far wiser policy immediately a small holder is put upon the land to invest him with the freehold of it, not making him pay any more than he pays today, so that under proper conditions, if he remained, he would become the owner of the land, but would not be able to mortgage it until the sinking fund charges had been paid off. Those are really the courses, one of which ought to be adopted if justice is to be done and the small holdings movement is to have any chance of success.
  It is obviously unfair that these charges should be put upon the small holder, who, although he knows perfectly well that he is paying the charges, yet is not acquiring any permanent interest in the land. I recollect when the Bill was going through the House the discussions which took place upon this subject. I have not made those deep researches into the debates of the period which my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bathurst) has evidently done, but I recollect the right hon. Gentleman, who then represented the Board of Agriculture, arguing that, as a matter of fact, no injustice was being done to the small holder under this provision, because he was getting the land on far easier terms owing to the credit of the State. As far as my recollection serves, that argument was answered, and proved to be utterly fallacious and unsound. Still, it held the field

  453
  at the time, and when the Bill was going through the House the Government absolutely refused to entertain the view which we are now putting forward that injustice was being done to the small holder. I think events have proved that injustice is being done. I submit that it is the duty of the Government to do something to clear up the uncertainty that exists, and also to develop a sound line of policy which will be just both to the county councils and to the small holder. I am not particularly anxious that these charges should be put upon the rates. I prefer the alternative that the small holder, in that he pays for the land, should be vested with the freehold of it. I do not wish to see the rates largely saddled with these charges; at the same time I would rather do that than see a perpetuation of the injustice which is at present being inflicted on the small holder. I hope the Government will clear the matter up as regards both fact and policy, and at the earliest possible date, if necessary, introduce a Bill to amend the Act in these particulars.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think there is a very important question involved in this matter. First of all, I would ask whether the person to determine this matter in the first instance is not the auditor. Neither the Board of Agriculture nor the Local Government Board has any power in regard to surcharge at all. Primâ facie the auditor makes the surcharge, and the question is whether the Department will remit that surchage for the benefit of those who have been surcharged by the auditor. If the question of law arises it arises in this form: Has the auditor acted within legal authority or not in making the surcharge? What the Department do primâ facie is not the deciding factor; that is decided by the auditor himself. In addition to that, it is not the function of a Department by remitting a surcharge to introduce a power of charge which the Legislature has not given. If the Department did that it would not be adminstering the law; it would be creating some new obligation upon the rates or upon the small holder which does not exist under the law at present. That ought to be a matter for the Legislature. If the auditor has made a surcharge, and it is shown that the matter in dispute arose out of a mistake, or a mere technicality, it is quite right that the surcharge should be remitted; but it is not right to remit the surcharge if it has been properly made in
  454
  respect of an illegal payment, or by a system of remitting surcharges to make a payment legal which according to what the Legislature intended is illegal. That is a very important matter. The Department has not got dispensing power; the Department has to see that the law is administered, not altered.
  Upon the other point, the important question of principle as to who should pay the sinking fund in connection with the shall holdings, it is certainly unfair that the small holder, who has only an annual interest, or at least a terminable one, should pay in respect of the freehold which ultimately he does not possess, and for the benefit of someone else—the county council. I think that unfair and unjust. I am all against putting an obligation of this kind upon the ratepayer or the county council if we can possibly prevent ii. I myself believe that the county council have in a very full way tried to administer the Small Holdings Act. I know they have in my own county, where I am a member of the small holdings committee. We have done all we possibly could, and gone rather in the direction of making a demand, because there was every desire to increase the number of small holders as much as we possibly could. I believe every one who is cognisant of country life will desire so to do. A much better system than the present, as the Noble Lord suggests, is to increase the number of small freeholders. Ownership is a very much better system than occupation. As I was going to point out, and as the Noble Lord has pointed out, when you have the occupier, in the form of a sinking fund, really paying freehold value—for that is what it comes to—it ought to inure to his advantage when the time comes. That is the proper solution of this difficulty. There is a great deal of difference in principle between small freeholds and small occupation.
  I am certain myself—quite apart from the localities, which have done all they possibly could to increase the number particularly of small owners—that we want a larger number of small owners and email freeholders in this country than we have at the present time. I therefore horoughly endorse what the Noble Lord has said, that the proper solution would be to allow the occupier to pay on condition that if he pays for the sinking fund in course of time he becomes the owner. I entirely object to a charge being put upon the ratepayer by the Department which the

  455
  legislature has not put upon him. If it is the law, if the auditors decide that the sinking fund cannot be put upon the rates, and if the local council should be surcharged, it is not within the competence of the Department to alter a legal principle of that kind. They must do it by legislation and not by administration, by legislation, and not by administration, though I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London here, I think it ought to be taxes and not rates in this case, because the compulsion has not come from the locality but from headquarters. I am not complaining of that. It was part of the Act that the full discretion was not left to the local ratepayers as represented by the county council. An additional power was given to the Board of Agriculture to push the matter further than perhaps the local bodies desired. I do not, however, want to find fault with this because I am in favour of the principle. But I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply, that he will be able to tell us what in his view is the best solution of what is a difficulty of a very practical kind.
  Mr. LEACH: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has delivered a most interesting speech. The same remark applies to the hon. Members who preceded him. I have no intention of following them, and perhaps they will excuse me if I introduce another subject if you, Mr. Speaker, declare it to be in order. I want to call attention to—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow this matter to be disposed of first, and I will find him an opportunity later of raising the question that he wishes to raise.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: As one considerably interested in small holdings, I would say that inasmuch as the movement for the provision of small holdings has been taken up by the Government in the interests of the State, the State ought to find sufficient financial aid to make the movement a success. We must all agree that it will handicap small holders, apart from the injustice of the principle, if they have in addition—as they probably have—to make a payment covering a fair interest for capital expended, and also a percentage—I understand reaching to 15 per cent.—for administration and equipment expenses, they have to make a contribution to a sinking fund. I am afraid that the small
  456
  holder, save in very exceptional cases, will not be able to make his enterprise a success. On the other hand, if even it is made legal for the money to be raised from the rates, I submit to the House that, having regard to the extremely heavy increase of the burdens on the local ratepayers, that that will be an unfair and unjust alternative at present. Hence I think that the third alternative is the only one that can be found to possess any degree of justice all round, namely, that the small holder should be put in a position similar to the Irish tenant-farmer: be allowed to make his payment to the sinking fund over a given period of years, and ultimately own the land he tills. I submit that would be an encouragement to the development of the land to its utmost capacity, would secure employment for people, would encourage the dwelling of more people in the rural districts, and also at the same time tend to encourage the greatest possible production of our own native food supply. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out some prospect of an alteration in the system in this direction. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend for a moment that it is right that the small holder should make a contribution to a sinking fund by paying towards the cost of the land, while at the same time never having the prospect of owning the land. On the other hand, having regard, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, to the great burdens of the local ratepayers, I trust he is not prepared to increase those burdens by calling upon the ratepayers to raise the money to carry out this transaction.
  The establishment of the small holder is not on the principle of Free Trade. It is an effort—I think a wise effort—to use an especial means to counteract the movement outwards of the rural population, the depletion of the country due to the fiscal policy which for many years we have adopted. I do not pretend to follow that for a moment. But I would point out that, seeing this is a non-economic movement in the interest of the State, that it is the State that should find the money, and not the local ratepayers. Further, in support of that contention, we must remember that the large number of local ratepayers are agriculturists themselves, and the setting up of these small holders means competition, and making it more difficult for those agriculturists to carry on their industry with a degree of success. I am quite prepared, in the interest of the State, to do

  457
  all that can be done fairly and reasonably to encourage the increase of small holdings, but to do that and then to call on the agricultural ratepayer to find the money to set up opponents in his own business, is, in my own opinion, contrary to every principle of fair play and justice. From every point of view in the interests of the small holder, of the ratepayer, and of the State, too, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope that the principle we have given effect to in Ireland, and which has borne such good fruit, may be extended, and that, in the first instance, in connection with small holders of this country arrangements will be made whereby those paying to the sinking fund over a period of years shall ultimately own the land. I heartily support the appeal that has already been made to the right hon. Gentleman to deal strongly with this question. We do want to see more people living in the rural districts, and the only way to do that is to make it better worth while for them to stay there.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This subject has been raised this afternoon on two entirely different grounds. First of all, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire has asked me a number of questions in regard to purely Departmental matters. He laid stress particularly in the fact that three Departments are concerned in financing the Small Holdings Act, and he thinks those three Departments at present are not in agreement on this subject. Let me, first of all, take the Local Government Board. There is no disagreement between the view held there and the view which we hold at the Board of Agriculture in regard to the sinking fund charges. I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, too, that the Local Government Board have not exceeded their Departmental functions in anything they have done in respect to sinking fund charges for small holdings. There has been no attempt, as he suggested, to override the law, and I understand that no occasion has arisen for the President of the Local Government Board to exercise the power entrusted to him of waiving a surcharge, if one had been made. No auditor has yet made a surcharge in a case of the kind. There are three counties which from the very first have raised a sinking fund as a charge upon the rates. None of the auditors, who, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, are semi-independent of the Local Government Board, have ever taken exception to that charge.
  458
  The first difficulty has not yet arisen at the Local Government Board in the form which he suggested, and I doubt if it ever will arise. In any case the view of the Local Government Board is that nothing improper is done by charging the sinking fund upon the rates. I come now to the Board of Agriculture. I stated in this House, on the 5th March, somewhat briefly, the views which are now held by the Board of Agriculture. I cannot go into the past history of what may have been said on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. I have not looked through the whole of the Debates and I cannot answer for the individual opinions of everyone who has spoken on the subject, but I have taken the greatest trouble to go into the whole problem to satisfy myself, because I believe it the duty of the Board of Agriculture to give a lead. The hon. Gentleman asked me what legal justification there was for the views I expressed on the 5th March. I repeat the words I used then. I said it was not the intention of the Government to compel the county councils to put this charge upon the small hollers, and that there was nothing in the Act which compelled the county councils to lay this charge upon the small holders.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that that is entirely contrary to the views expressed in this House by his predecessor.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not had an opportunity of reviewing the past but I took my own view, and I repeat it again I did not make that statement without authority. The hon. Gentleman asked me to quote the Law Officers' opinions. I must point out to him that to quote the Law Officers is contrary to practice. Anything done is done by those responsible as the heads of their Departments, and such legal guidance as was given to me justified me in saying there is nothing contrary to the 1908 Act in placing the sinking fund as a charge upon the rates. I went further on the 5th March, and said I was prepared to circularise the county councils giving them that view as the opinion of the Board of Agriculture. I have no intention of quoting the opinions of the Law Officers, but the hon. Gentleman may take it from me I was not acting without the necessary advice. The other Department referred to is the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I do not know whether they can be called a Government Department at all. They are interested in the

  459
  administration, but they must act upon their own judgment in the making of loans. But it is quite untrue to say that the Public Works Loans Department said that the action of the county councils in making this sinking fund a charge upon the rates was ultra vires. They have done nothing of the kind. They acted strictly within their legal powers when they said they were not prepared to make loans to county councils in respect of a scheme—and one county council only is concerned—which throws the sinking fund charge upon the rates.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I happen to know the exact statement, and it was that they could not approve any scheme in which the sinking fund charge is not a charge in the rent of the small holder. That is what they say.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is only expressing it the other way round; it is identically the same thing. That was what they did in respect of the County Council of Wiltshire. But in that case they acted strictly within their legal rights. They may or may not make a loan according to their own discretion. It is not their duty to interpret an Act of Parliament or to say a certain course is legal or illegal. It is their duty to say whether they will or will not make a loan in this case, and they said that such loans in conformity with their views cannot be authorised. That is what they did. I told the hon. Gentleman last Thursday, and I repeated it on Monday, that we are now in communication with the Public Works Loans Commissioners upon this point. Communications are passing, and until they are completed I cannot say what will be the final decision of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Then the hon. Member said it is impossible for county councils to finance small holdings, and that the Public Works Loans Commissioners stood in the way. That is going beyond the fact. It is possible for the county councils to finance small holdings without going to the Public Works Loans Commissioners at all. If the Public Works Loans Commissioners were the only source the county councils would have to accept them whatever might be the views of the Commissioners irrespective of any legislative Act, but that is not the position. The county councils can, if they like, adopt other means. I admit a difficulty has arisen, and in a way which makes it impossible, I think, for the county
  460
  councils to proceed in connection with the Public Works Loans Department's administration, and it is that we are dealing with at the present time, and until a decision is finally arrived at I do not mean to say more about the functions of the Commissioners in respect of the administration of the Act.
  The Noble Lord opposite asked me questions with regard to three alternatives which he thinks are open to those administering this Act, or, at all events, to those who are responsible for the policy of small holdings. He admits it is unfair to charge the sinking fund upon the occupier or small holder, and I am glad he drew a distinction in respect of sinking fund on land and other sinking fund charges. I am afraid there is a good deal of confusion in the minds, not only of small holders, but of the county councillors themselves in respect of this charge. I would like to draw a sharp distinction between the three alternatives. Sinking fund charge in respect of buildings should, I think, be borne by those who benefit by them during their lifetime. I think it is perfectly clear that those who use a building should during that portion of its lifetime pay their fair quota for exhaustion. Therefore, I do not think it is unfair that the sinking fund charge should be borne by the small holder in connection with buildings.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Of course, that is entirely different to our system of tenure throughout the country, and unless there is some system of compensation those who would have paid for the building would get nothing out of it when they left.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: But they might have a portion paid to them in the amount of the exhaustion. I do not want more, and, as far as one can gather from small holders, the amount of the sinking fund charged in respect of buildings are so paid. But difficulty arises about the period. Many are of opinion that in the life of a building the period is placed far too short. I know that in respect to some periods it has been pointed out, I cannot say with what justice, because the investigation is not complete, that provision is made for the repayment of the whole cost of some buildings over ten or twenty years, when it is well known that buildings of the same material elsewhere have existed for a period of forty or fifty years. That means the small holder, in respect of this building, has paid far more than the natural exhaustion of the building. I am quite

  461
  alive to that fact, and with the concurrence of the President of the Local Government Board, I set up a committee of inquiry into the cost, life, and payment of buildings upon small holdings. The Local Government Board is represented upon that committee. It has already started its inquiry and has accumulated a good deal of information and is receiving assistance not only from county councils, but from private land owners all over the country, and I hope when we have that Report we shall be able to have more justification in asking for the extension of the period over which the payment is to be made.
  So much for the sinking fund in respect of buildings. There are also sinking fund charges in respect of other things which appears under a different class of accounts. There again I think it is only right that the small holder should during the period of exhaustion pay for the amount exhausted during his tenure, and I do not think it should be difficult to arrive at that. When you come to the land an entirely different problem has to be dealt with. In the ordinary normal case there would be no exhaustion. In some cases the land will be badly used, but, on the other hand, the freehold would be worth a good deal more when the small holder went out. I have seen some poor land made good productive land as a result of the occupation of the small holder. But in normal cases you can say the small holding will be worth as much when the occupier left as when he came in. I think it is unfair that the charge should be borne by the occupier or owner. The Noble Lord opposite suggested three alternatives. It might be borne by the State. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) objects to anything being paid by the State out of which the State gets no benefit. Perhaps we might get out of that by saying if the State pays the sinking fund the State should own the freehold. I believe that is not a good way to solve the problem. I do not propose to press the matter too far that the Exchequer should pay the sinking fund, and so I may relieve the mind of the hon. Baronet. The next suggestion is that the county council should pay. I think the county council are justified in paying, and if they are prepared to pay the sinking fund I think they would be doing nothing illegal, and I should do everything to encourage them to take that course. I understand the Noble
  462
  Lord holds very much the same view although he dislikes to add any further burdens to the rates. I should like to point out quite clearly that the large farmers are not the only ratepayers in the county. The small holders are also ratepayers, and they themselves are bearing in proportion to their acreage a proportion of the rates. They are paying a larger proportion in respect of their acreage in the way of rates than the large farmers.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean small holders under the Act?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, the acreage is becoming now a very considerable one, running up to 100,000 acres, and before long it will be double and treble the size it is at present. These small occupiers are also ratepayers, and it is scarcely fair to suggest that they, apart from other farmers in the county, would be receiving benefit without bearing their proportion of the burden. My view is that under the present rating system they are bearing a larger proportion than, in justice, ought to be placed upon them. The third solution put forward is also pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that the sinking fund charges in respect of the land ought to be borne by small holders, and that they should become owners. That brings us back at once to the whole controversy over the Small Holdings Act when it was a Bill. All the old objections then raised to ownership being a solution of this problem stand again to-day. I mention only one to show that really it would be doing harm to the spread of small holdings and the small holdings' movement if you were to say small ownership is the only solution of this problem. Men do not go into small holdings with the idea of remaining in them all their lives. A large number of small holders are those who take them with the idea of getting a step higher. They choose small holdings because they want to become large holders. If you are going to tie them down to their small holdings, you will be putting a most serious obstacle in the way of the spreading of the small holders' movement. I have seen many of the schemes which are now being worked, some of which are financed by benevolent landlords, and I have seen side by side with them county council holdings where you have at least thirty applicants for one holding. Under the ownership scheme you are tied down with many financial restrictions, which is

  463
  a great disadvantage. What I have seen of these other schemes leads me to believe that there is really no demand for small ownership, and that there is an ever-increasing demand for small tenancies. That must be taken into account by any Government Department which has the administration of the Small Holdings Act. I admit the difficulty which has been raised, and so far as I can at the Board of Agriculture, I shall endeavour to remove that difficulty, and I hope to be able to do so.
  Mr. SANDERS: There is one other point to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention; it is in connection with the sale of timber. That is a matter upon which there has always been great difficulty and confusion. So far, I believe the attitude taken up by the President of the Local Government Board has been that if you buy a holding or a property and turn it into small holdings, although it may be worth £10,000 and you sell £50 worth of timber, instead of being allowed to use that timber for repairs or to sell it in order to use the money for Repairs or alterations, at the present time the Local Government Board says you must use that £50 for paying off the loan, and if you want to do any alterations you must borrow another £50 to do them. That seems a very cumbrous plan, and I think the practice of county councils is to try and dodge this provision by a manipulation of their accounts. In ordinary estate management you can use the timber you cut for repairs on the farm. As a rule it is a matter of small monetary value, and to say that you must use the money to pay off the loan and borrow the money again is a costly and cumbrous process. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see if he can put this matter on a more satisfactory basis. As to this question of the sinking fund, I think he will admit that it is at present in a most unsatisfactory position. I do not think the President will deny that what I am going to say is a true account of the position. The first stage is that the Government pass a Bill, and they actually say, in so many words, that they could not have passed it unless they had made it clearly understood in the House that the county councils would not be compelled to put any charge on the rates for the sinking fund. The second stage is that the Law Officers of the Crown advise that it is illegal to put the sinking fund on
  464
  the rates, and the President of the Board of Agriculture made that announcement in the House of Lords in so many words. The third stage is that the Board of Agriculture, in spite of the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown say that they will allow county councils to put that charge upon the rates. In other words, the Board of Agriculture say that they will allow and rather encourage county councils lo break the law in this respect.
  Three counties did this on the advice, or on the suggestion, of the Board of Agriculture at that time, and when the right hon. Gentleman came into office he went a step further. He says that not only will he allow county councils to take that course, but he thinks that it ought to be done, and in spite of the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown and the announcement of Lord Carrington, the right hon. Gentleman thinks this is legal and right. Then we get a fifth stage, and on that advice the Wilts County Council has acted. They go to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I know it is true theoretically that you can float a loan in many other ways, but I should like to point out that it would be very difficult for county councils to raise the money at the short notice at which it has to be raised in these small holdings transactions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it would be very difficult, I think I may say it is impossible, to have a system of raising the money from any other source other than the Public Works Loans Comsioners, because you could not rely on getting it at the time when you want it. The Wiltshire County Council go to the Loans Commissioners and ask for money for a small holdings loan, and they are told that the Commissioners will not lend the money unless they put the charge on the small holder, which the President of the Board of Agriculture has advised you ought not to do. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must admit that you could not have a more unsatisfactory position than that. Whatever solution the right hon. Gentleman adopts on behalf of the various county councils, I ask him to let their position be made a little more clear than it is at the present time. He can do this by an amending Act or by what I believe would be the better plan, to get up a case in the Law Courts in order to have the question settled by a Court of Law.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Public Works Loans Commissioners would not be bound by the decision of a Court of Law,

  465
  because they may refuse to sanction a loan or they may sanction it entirely on their own discretion, no matter what the decision of the Court of Law might be. They need not make a loan for small holdings at all if they do not wish to do so.
  Mr. SANDERS: I think the right lion. Gentleman would acknowledge that a decision in a Court of Law would have considerable weight with the Commissioners. The question has been raised as to what is the proper solution of this difficulty, and after looking at the thing in all its bearings, I agree with the Noble Lord below the Gangway that the best way out of the difficulty is the ownership solution. I say that from practical experience. I have had experience of villages where there are large numbers of small owners, and they are not in a prosperous condition because they had to mortgage the land when it was worth more than it is at the present time. The administration of the Small Holdings Act has shown conclusively what a benefit this small ownership system might become. I believe, in the first place, you would actually be able to charge a man less when he was acquiring the ownership than you charge him now while he is only a tenant, because you would be able to put down your charges, and you would not have a heavy charge for management. It is the practice of some councils to insist on two inspections of the small holders' land every year. The reason is that many people think there is a great danger of the small holder racking the land out, and then the land might come back to the county councils in a few years in a very much worse state. In the second place, you have to spend a considerable amount of money on land agents to inspect the land twice a year to see that it is being properly farmed. As things are now, it is in the interest of the small holder to take all he can get out of the land, and put as little back as he possibly can. That is his interest now, because he has no sort of ownership interest in the land. If you gave him the ownership under the sinking fund in the same way as matters are regulated in Ireland every year, he would be getting nearer and nearer to becoming the absolute owner of the land, and it would be in his own interest not to rack the land out, but to make it more valuable. For that reason the charge for inspection would be less than it is now, and that would come off the charges he would have to pay.
  466
  This would do a great deal in the direction of disarming the opposition to the Small Holdings Act which undoubtedly is felt by many of the big farmers and ratepayers. If you could show them that it was not to a man's interest to rack the land out, and that the small holdings, committee of the county council were not running the risk of getting the land back upon their hands, then, I believe, you would do an enormous amount to wards disarming the opposition to the Act which undoubtedly exists among the big farmers, of the country. The question of repairs, would be very much more easily dealt with under an ownership system. At present the question of repairs has to come before a committee which meets only once every two months, and that is a most cumbrous system. The members of that committee have to go and see what repairs are to be done. You have to apply for estimates, and it takes a long time to get the repairs done, and all this makes the whole thing more expensive than it ought to be. If the occupier was the owner he would do his own repairs, and he would do them directly they became necessary. Probably he would not do them in such an expensive way as they are being done at present, but a stitch in time saves nine, and as soon as it became necessary to do the repairs he would do something to make the holding more convenient. For this reason I believe the expense of repairs will be very much less than it is at the present time. Then there is the point that the man who gets the small holding always wants something better. Way I point out that there is nothing to prevent a man occupying land in the way I suggest from passing it on. If he had improved the land, he would get a considerable sum when he passed on the land. Under the system I have suggested I do not see that in this respect there would be any more disadvantages than under the present system. A man would be able to get a bit of money by passing it in that way, and he would be able to get a bit of money also for having paid a certain amount of the charges on the sinking fund and for having made the time when the sinking fund would be paid off approach a few years nearer. For all those reasons I believe this solution of ownership is the one which, I do not say this Government, but which some Government or other, will inevitably be driven by force of circumstances to adopt.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I think the arguments in favour of the alternative of the occupier of the land becoming the freeholder are almost unanswerable. The chief objection of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was a small demand for ownership as compared with the demand for tenancy. How many existing small holders, if they were offered freeholdings at exactly the same price as they are now paying, would refuse? If they are paying sinking fund charges, it will not cost a fraction more to promise them the ownership and give them a certain share in the land. Do you think any of them would refuse it? I think, if the right hon. Gentleman considers the matter, he will see his argument is a very weak one. Is it not possible to put this question exactly on the same footing as the present tenant-right valuation and give a man so much for the years he has paid off the sinking fund? When he went out of the land, the incoming owners would have to pay him so much for tenant-right value, and, if he had left the land in a better condition, he would get a considerable sum to start him and help him on his tenancy, and he would not be prevented from getting away from the land as he is at the present time. The other alternative which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to favour, that of putting it on the rates, is one to which I strongly object. It is merely a question of the sinking fund on the purchase of the land. It is not a very large amount. He pointed out the small owners themselves pay rates. That is perfectly true, but I want to point out there are a large number of small holders who existed before this Act came into operation. The Liberal party did not invent small holdings; they existed in enormous quantities before. They have got to pay rates, and it is the small holders under a landlord who would feel sore more than the big farmers if they saw they had to pay sinking fund charges in respect of the land of small holders under the county councils. It would be very hard if a small holder under a landlord had an increase in his rates in order to give a somewhat better chance to his competitor under the county council. Why should he bear that burden? Then there is a sort of feeling that the land might be thrown back on the county council and a loss might fall on the rates. The slightest increase in rates is the one thing which makes the
  468
  farmer break out into strong language, and, if you show there is a slight increase for putting this cost upon the rates, it will lead to a still further amount of opposition to the small holdings movement from the big farmer.
  The State is the real person who benefits from the movement, and the State should pay, because the more people you get on the land the better it is for the State. The State is getting the real benefit, and, if you cannot see your way to small ownership, it is better the State should pay this small sum than that the rates should pay it. You do not want to do anything to make the big farmers more antagonistic to small holders than they are naturally by the fact that the small holdings' movement lessens the number of large farms in this country. We had some figures published the other day showing there has been a decrease in the number of large farms as the result of the small holdings' movement. The big farmer naturally does not like that, and any idea of small holdings also increasing his rates will make him more antagonistic. That is what we want to avoid. The less feeling there is against the county council small holder, the better chance he has and the more likely is the movement to go on. I think this very small additional sum which may be put on the rates will provide additional friction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his idea and try to put it on the Treasury, if he cannot see his way to small ownership. If he fails in getting the Public Works Loans Commissioners to allow the county councils to borrow where the rates have to bear this charge, I presume he will have to bring in a small amending Act. If he does so, may I appeal to him to endeavour to get the administration of the Small Holdings Act more into the hands of his own Department and less under dual control than it is at the present control. Many troubles have arisen from the fact that the Local Government Board has a good deal to say in the matter. They have been able to order certain things to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman can only get more control for his own Department, I feel certain he will have the ready support of everybody interested in the movement on this side of the House. I hope he may see his way, if he is going to bring in an amending Bill, which I believe will be necessary, to endeavour to get the administration more into the hands of the Board of Agriculture.
  Captain MURRAY: I wish to discuss a matter which has on several occasions claimed the attention of this House. I refer to the suggested erection of a statue to the late King Edward in Green Park, and, as this is the first occasion upon which the subject has been discussed under the jurisdiction of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), may I take the opportunity of congratulating him upon the new office conferred upon him, and of expressing the hope that his period of office will be marked by many progressive reforms. I myself and at least two other Members on my own side of the House drew attention to this subject during the course of the Estimates last year, and since that time many questions in connection with it have been put, not only from this side of the House, but also from the benches opposite. It may be contended that the erection of a memorial to the late King in Green Park should be a subject for discussion in the King Edward Memorial Committee, and it may be further asked in what way the House of Commons is concerned with the placing of statues within the Royal Parks. The answer is very simple. This House is responsible for voting certain sums of money which are devoted to maintaining the Royal Parks, and I submit the Members of this House should have something to say in the question whether or not statues are to be placed within the confines of the parks. I have, in company with several other hon. Members, endeavoured from time to time to press this matter upon the attention of the hon. Member who for the time being represents the First Commissioner of Works and to restrain the Office of Works from the policy upon which they seem to have entered of placing statues and memorials here, there and everywhere within the boundaries of the parks. We hold, and public opinion outside also holds, as I firmly believe, that in a large city, such as London, every tree, every leaf, and every blade of grass is worth untold gold. People do not go to sit down in the parks in order to feast their eyes upon statues and memorials. If they desire to do that they can go to Trafalgar Square or spend an afternoon in St. Stephen's Hall. On the contrary, what they desire is to have inside this great City large open spaces with gree trees and with no statues, brickwork, masonry, or anything of that description. I was one of many hon. Members of this House who objected, from this very point of view, to the alterations that
  470
  were carried out some time ago to what is now called the Mall. There is inside this House, as I believe, a very strong feeling against placing any further statues in the parks, and it is certainly a sentiment which is shared very largely by the public outside.
  I now come to the King Edward Memorial itself. I do not desire to say anything that reflects in any way upon the good intentions or the sincerity of any of those who have been responsible for the selection of the site proposed. The site which has been chosen is in the Green Park, at the end of what was known as the Broad Walk, and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the First Commissioner of Works upon removing from the Green Park what was, at any rate in my humble opinion, a very unsightly highway. All I can say as to the site is that it is very much better than the one originally selected by the King Edward Memorial Committee. That site, as the House well knows, was given up after public attention in this House and outside had expressed itself adverse to the scheme. This site is certainly a somewhat better one. I think there are very few who will say that it is a good site. As to the memorial itself, I really hesitate to express an opinion about it. I do not think it is artistic; I do not think it is sufficiently well chosen for the particular site. I am one of those who had hoped that, if this site were finally selected, there would be placed upon it a memorial not such as we see now, but a simple equestrian statue. Certain reasons have been given for the sanction of this particular site. At a meeting of the King Edward Memorial Committee a short time ago one of the strongest reasons urged for the selection of this site was that if it were finally selected and the memorial placed upon it it would be possible to enter upon what is commonly known as the Shadwell Market scheme.
  The opening up of the old Shadwell Market would no doubt form a most appropriate memorial to the late King. It would open out a breathing space in East London which does not at present exist, and it would add to the dignity of the waterway on which London now stands. I think that a most appropriate scheme, and I, for one, would be very sorry indeed to be in any way responsible or to take any action whatsoever that might involve any delay in carrying out the Shadwell Market scheme. I have been told, and I believe it to be correct, that if the Green

  471
  Park site is finally chosen and the memorial placed on that particular site, there will be a sufficient amount of money at the disposal of the Memorial Committee to enable them to carry out, without delay, the Shadwell Park scheme. If the hon. Gentleman representing the First Commissioner of Works were to assure me that continued opposition to the Green Park site will involve delay and the possible destruction of the Shadwell Park scheme, it will certainly have considerable weight and influence on any action I may be prepared to take. The hon. Gentleman may not be able to give me precise figures as to the effect of the Green Park scheme on the Shadwell Market site, but if he can assure me that the Shadwell scheme cannot be proceeded with unless the Green Park site is finally selected, and if, further, he will, on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works, take into account the very considerable feeling there is in this House and outside against the policy of placing a memorial and statues in the parks, if, taking that into account, he will further be prepared to give an undertaking to the effect that, in the future, no more statutes or memorials shall be placed within the confines of the Royal park, then, so far as I am concerned, I shall use any little influence I possess to restrain any further opposition to the Green Park site, and shall do everything possible to insure that the two schemes, side by side, shall go through in as short a time as possible.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to submit for the consideration of the House one or two matters in connection with the proposed Royal memorial and certain other points within the province of His Majesty's Office of Works. I should like first to express my own personal indebtedness to the First Commissioner of Works for the manner in which he has always been prepared to receive and consider and, where possible, to act upon suggestions which have been made to him in connection with the Royal parks. And if the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East will allow me to do so, I should also like to thank him for the manner in which, on behalf of the First Commissioner, he receives and considers our suggestions. This matter raises an important principle with regard to the Royal parks. I agree with all that has been said as to what is the function of these great spaces, so necessary to the health of the people of
  472
  London. But those of us who are disposed to criticise the present memorial would, I think, like it to be understood, in the clearest possible manner, that we desire to see instituted a memorial worthy in every way of the late King. In this connection too the wishes of the Crown should receive the most respectful and especial consideration. I think it would be unfortunate if we indefinitely extended this principle of putting large memorials, involving a great amount of building, in our public parks. The last thing we desire is to make the parks museums of monuments. In the present case our attitude towards this memorial is very much affected by the fact that the memorial in Green Park has only one aspect. It is one part of the memorial; at the same time it is proposed to institute a park in the East End of London, on the river side, and, I am sure, every Member of this House will regard that as a most worthy memorial to the late King.
  But I desire to address myself to the proposed memorial on artistic grounds, and I wish to criticise it on those grounds. I would like to remind the House that the Office of Works should be subjected to criticism in connection with all memorials and buildings which are to remain for a great length of time; otherwise those who follow us would suffer for the action which we permit. I am bound to say, in passing, that the artistic level of any Office of Works which regards the buildings in Whitehall as architecturally beautiful and impressive leaves something to be desired. I am reminded that one very eminent art critic—Mr. Ruskin—was referred to in a newspaper as the author of "These Seven Lamps of Architecture," and the learned editor put a footnote to this announcement saying that "Our readers will be very familiar with these buildings in Whitehall." I say the Office of Works must not be free from the restraints imposed upon it by the canons of art. On this occasion we have had the advantage of a miniature model of the proposed memorial being placed in the Tea Room, and I, in common, no doubt, with many other hon. Members, have carefully studied that model. I am bound to say that I have done so with profound disappointment. I think it is of an extremely-conventional character. It involves a great heavy building of masonry, and it is unfitted to the character of the park.
  I wish to criticise the method by which this design has been selected. I have

  473
  nothing to say regarding the eminent sculptor and the eminent architect who have been associated in this matter, but I do think it would have been of very great advantage to the artistic merits of the memorial if the Office of Works had thrown open the design for competition. In saying that one does not reflect upon the eminence of the gentleman who have been chosen to carry out this memorial. My point as illustrated by a question put yesterday by an hon. Member who desired to know whether we could not have, in the Tea Room, the alternative design submitted by the sculptor, who is responsible for the accepted design—a design which shows an open colonnade which would give from Piccadilly a long view of the grass and trees behind. I very much regret that this open competition has not taken place, and that we have not been able to have a wider area of selection. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East will represent to the First Commissioner of Works certain specific points on which we desire to criticise the artistic merits of the proposed memorial. I suggest, for instance, that the height of the memorial is a very serious drawback to its merits. It is fair to state that the height can only be justified on the assumption that the memorial is to be studied from a great distance, but people who desire to see the statue are more likely to be near it, and, if the present design is carried out, they will only be able to have a distinct view by straining their heads in a very painful attitude. What I say as to the height of the statue also applies to the height of the emblem of St. George and the Dragon, which surmounts the whole. I regret that the most conventional type of combat between St. George and the Dragon has been taken. The sculptor has followed very largely the conventions imposed upon this country by our own gold coinage, and he has not departed very far from the designs which hon. Members will find on their sovereigns. He has avoided some of the errors of the gold coinage design, because, in the model, St. George is no longer putting out his foot in order that the dragon may take a bite at it with the least possible trouble to itself. We still have the conventional St. George riding without bridle or stirrups, and I am a little surprised that no sculptor ever arises in this country who is willing to undertake a greater and more artistic design, such as the design as was rendered by the great Carpaccio. I wish his design
  474
  had been chosen in this case, and that the opportunity had been taken to place before the public something really beautiful in art. These criticisms are directed to one thing, that is to impress upon, the Office of Works, and upon the hon. Member who represents the Office of Works, the fact that that Office is not only the guardian of our parks and open spaces, but is also the guardian of our public art, and that it should seek to raise the canons of art in this country. I am a little fearful that what is happening in our other parks might happen in our Royal parks. I pass every day that little open space at Vauxhall which is known as Vauxhall Park, which I suppose is not much more than an acre in extent. Many years ago a statue was erected there to the memory of Rowland Hill. I mention it for the reason that in design, colour, and workmanship it is a most inferior statue—I do not know who is responsible for it—and i also takes up a piece of ground which can be ill spared. What I have to say about that statue can be summed up in one fact. In a statue erected by the admirers of Rowland Hill, to celebrate the benefits of cheap postage, there is a relief picture at the base of the statue showing a poor woman who, after having received a letter containing bad news, falls in a fit up an the ground. In order that this crude symbolism might not be lost there is scrawled underneath the picture, in very bad lettering, the words "Bad News." I plead for the most careful guardianship, not only of the open spaces as open spaces, but of their artistic amenities. I hope we shall hear from the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East an undertaking that the Shadwell site will go forward, and particularly an undertaking that our public parks shall not be regarded as the dumping ground for memorials.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I desire to add my tribute to the point which has been urged by my hon. Friends in regard to the memorial and the proposal to erect it in the Green Park. There are various grounds on which objection might be taken to the scheme. There is the artistic ground, the ground of public convenience, and there is another, which, I think it is our duty to express in this House, the wishes—it may be they are the sentimental wishes of the working-class people who use the parks. I think that this matter should not be viewed too much from what I may call the West End point of view. The committee which has decided to put

  475
  forward this scheme roughly, perhaps, but very accurately, represents a West End view. But there is a very large number of people who use the West End parks, although they live a long way off, whose view is not vocal in polities, and who have no chance of having their wishes put forward unless they are put forward by Members of this House. I have been at some pains to ascertain what is the view of the working people who use the parks, and from such particulars as I have been able to gather I find evidence of a very strong resentment against the encroachments made upon the park, and a great desire—perhaps of a sentimental kind—that the open spaces should be left untouched. There is a sort of resentful feeling that the interests of those who use the parks are only rarely respected, and that their rights are being encroached upon and interfered with by those who have power and influence, against which the voice of the poorer class is powerless. I think we ought to consider that class of people.
  I am sure there is a very strong feeling against such an encroachment as was made in the case of the Queen Victoria. Memorial upon St. James's Park. The arguments that we used against the proposal to place the King Edward Memorial in St. James's Park, or near it, apply almost entirely with equal force to the present proposal. The House will remember with what zest and almost violence the opinions of many weighty persons were expressed at the time that proposal was put forward. Notably there were the opinions of one so widely lamented as Lord Carlisle, who riddled the arguments in favour of the encroaching upon the parks. The arguments Lord Carlisle and others used apply with almost equal force to the Green Park. Perhaps St. James's Park is unique as a piece of rural parkland in a great city. The Green Park is one of the very small number of rural parks in the great cities of the world. Upon the hill, where it is proposed to place the King Edward Memorial, there is just a touch of an open moor, of which many people are very fond, and at the side of which you have a dell which is also an object of great affection to many people. If you place the memorial near the top of the avenue, you turn the Green Park into a mere site for a great piece of masonry, and it ceases to be a rural park in the true sense of the word. It becomes a mere garden setting for the memorial. I
  476
  share my hon. Friend's objection to the artistic nature of the memorial itself. The model which has been placed in the Tea Room must be a source of some embarrassment to my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East, because I do not envy him the task of having to defend its artistic merits. Indeed, in point of the number of artistic principles which it introduces, and its strange, perpendicular character, it constitutes almost an artistic Tower of Babel. If you look at the place where it is proposed to put it, it is even more remarkable a proposal, because the trees near the site are not old trees, and they are not high trees. I suppose they are plane trees, perhaps forty years old, which will be almost dwarfed by the memorial itself. I do not believe that so good an artist as Mr. Lutyens ever gave his approval to such a scheme. That is hardly credible.
  There was another scheme not long ago put forward and considered by the memorial committee for placing the statue at Hyde Park Corner. The wishes of His Majesty have been properly kept from the field of discussion. We do not know them, and they have hardly been alluded to, but we all would like to see a memorial which is adequate. It is the most conspicuous site and the most distinguished that can be given to a memorial of King Edward VII. There is no question that a memorial at Hyde Park Corner would be a very magnificent memorial. I think that scheme is not one to which the objection could be made that it used up so large a part of the fund that none, or not enough, would be left for Shadwell Park. It was one which involved a great improvement in the arrangement of the road, and in which, therefore, the road authorities would have naturally taken a large part. I venture to hope that it is not too late yet to see the proposal withdrawn for a memorial in Green Park, and another brought forward again for a much greater memorial at Hyde Park Corner. We all want to see the Shadwell Park scheme carried out. The universal opinion of this House is that that is the first charge upon the fund. That does not limit the choice to this most unfortunate proposal to place the memorial in Green Park. I think we ought to remember that in the parks of London we have something which is quite unique. There is admittedly nothing like them in Berlin, or Paris, or in any capital of the world. If we sacrifice the Green Park to make it a mere setting for a piece of masonry, by no means remarkable for its

  477
  beauty, we should be throwing away what is the unique and priceless possession of London for the sake of a rather slavish imitation of ideas which are not English, but foreign.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the fact that the hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) both attacked the proposed memorial for artistic as well as other reasons. I share to the full their view that the Green Park is a most undesirable place for a monument of this kind—that is to say, a large architectural and sculptured monument. But I do say this, that when a committee has chosen an architect and a sculptor it is of no use this House crabbing the design. We may quarrel about old masters as much as we like. They do not suffer. But this is not the place for criticism of living artists, and of the work that they have executed. I think that there are a great many merits in the design. The chief fault in connection with it is the place in which it is to be put. I do not think it will look well with the small trees, isolated in the Green Park, and looking down to the Queen Victoria Memorial. The setting will not give it a fair chance. But the actual model, which now appears in the Tea Room, seems to me to have some very striking merits. At any rate, it is simple; it is not overburdened with sculpture, and the main lines of architecture are not weak. It is a good, strong, architectural elevation with columns. The criticism which the hon. Member for Kincardineshire made with regard to St. George and the Dragon, namely, that it would not be seen, I believe to be an absolutely unfounded criticism. The hon. Member criticised this sculptured group. I have examined similar models, and it seems to me that the small group of St. George and the Dragon is by far the best sculpture in the whole design. It follows one of the finest designs that has ever been made, that is the design we have on our coin. I think the design for the coinage by Pistrucci is an exceedingly fine one. Really it is quite impossible to talk about translating a design in paint to stone or metal. I do not know if the hon. Member has seen the original of the St. George and Dragon in the Church of San Giorgio dei Schiavoni in Venice, where the tinting, the colour, and the whole surroundings bring it to the mind of anyone at once
  478
  that it could not be translated into cold stone or metal. The whole point of Carpaccio is delicacy of treatment, and the small details, especially in the background, and things of that kind which give a charm to the picture. That cannot be translated into metal or stone.
  There is one suggestion which I should like to make if it is not too late, and that is that the architectural part of the design should not be executed in white marble. The appearance of the Marble Arch in Hyde Park is a proof of my contention. Anything more unsatisfactory than the appearance of the Marble Arch it would be difficult to find. White marble is effective in London, but gradually, in the process of years, it is affected by the atmosphere and the acids of London, and you may scrub it with spirits of salt and other things, but it seems apparently to have no effect except to drive a sort of smokiness into the surface of the stone. It will be of enormous value that we shall have this monument executed in some good British stone, and you cannot improve on the magnificent Portland stone of which so many of our buildings are built. You cannot have anything finer in colour than Somerset House or the Banqueting House at Whitehall. To put white marble in the Green Park against the background of the Naval and Military Club will cause considerable ugliness and will not add to the merits of the project. I think marble is most unsuitable for London. We do not want an imitation of the Thiergarten at Berlin, where you have white marble statues stuck about in various places.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEARCE: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that Shadwell Park was the first choice of the House of Commons. I think the interest the [House of Commons displayed in Shadwell Park has had a very great effect in inducing the Lord Mayor's Committee to take up this portion of the scheme. But Shadwell Park, unfortunately, is not the first choice of the Lord Mayor's Committee, but the second choice, and the monument in St. James's Park has the first claim on the Lord Mayor's Fund. I, as an East London Member, have always been afraid that the West End monument might take such a very large slice of the fund that there would be very little remaining for the Shadwell Park scheme, and the present scheme has this satisfaction to me, that it certainly limits the expenditure in the West End part of the scheme to £20,C00. I am afraid if the original design of the

  479
  colonnade had been accepted by the committee it would have taken up a larger sum, and the remainder for Shadwell Park would have been much less than the satisfactory sum that at present exists. Then, again, I think there is another danger to the Shadwell Park scheme if there is further delay. The two schemes were before the public a year ago. The longer they are kept back the less chance there is of public enthusiasm being maintained and of getting a satisfactory extra subscription. If there is further delay I am afraid there will be great danger to the fortunes of Shadwell Park, which have been very varied indeed. Those who have had the scheme at heart have had many moments of great anxiety, and I am anxious now, when it really seems to have become a certainty that we shall have this East End park, which we all agree is the best and most sympathetic memorial to King Edward VII., that nothing can happen in the Debate to night to put the whole expenditure of the fund back to a further period. It has already been delayed so long that it is in danger of losing public interest. The present proposal has to me the great satisfaction of leaving a large sum available for Shadwell Park. If it is referred back, further delay is incurred. We in the East End think that Shadwell Park is likely to come into being. It will be an inestimable boon to a very large portion of London. It has touched the imagination of the whole of the country in a way that no other scheme has done, and I think that if this Debate ends in any further delay the fortunes of this scheme, in which we are all so much interested, may be imperilled.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The point which the House has to decide is a very narrow one. The Office of Works is not responsible for the design which appears in the Tea Room. I am not called upon to defend its artistic merits, although were it necessary I am thankful to think I have such an ally as the hon. Member opposite. What the House has to decide is whether or not they will permit the First Commissioner to grant permission for this memorial to be placed in Green Park. The hon. Member (Mr. Noel Buxton) objected to this permission being given on the ground that the memorial was an encroachment on Green Park, but I do not think that an examination of the plan which has been put in the Tea Room will bear out the contention that there is
  480
  any real encroachment on the rural amenities of Green Park. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Murray) asked me to give two undertakings. One was that on the acceptance of this scheme the success of the Shadwell Park scheme depended; and the other was that the First Commissioner would undertake that in future no more statues should be placed in the Royal parks. As to the first point, I propose to give some figures in a moment which I think will convince my hon. Friend of the interdependence of the two parts of the scheme. As to the second point, I believe my hon. Friend has put a question on the Paper, and I had much rather that a considered reply were given in response to an invitation of that kind than any impromptu reply that I can give. There is another point, as to the material for the architectural part. It is not intended to have marble, but Portland stone, which will set the hon. Member's mind at rest.
  Perhaps the most convenient way of dealing with all the criticisms generally would be to rehearse the circumstances connected with this case. In November, 1910, it was decided that a memorial to the late King should take the form, not of a general memorial for the whole nation, but of a London memorial, other memorials being erected in other great cities of the kingdom, and accordingly a large committee was formed, of which Sir Vezey Strong became chairman on assuming the office of Lord Mayor. I think it would not be impertinent to say that certainly the East End of London owes a very great debt to Sir Vezey Strong and the committee for the constant and successful labour which he has put into this task, the consummation of which we hope shortly to see. Sir Vezey Strong formed a committee consisting of 250 members in all, comprising all the Metropolitan Members and the Metropolitan Mayors and representatives of banking and commerce and all the religious bodies in London. This large committee selected an executive committee of fifty members, who, in their turn, selected an advisory committee of nine members. I should like to read the names of these gentlemen to the House. I should feel happier if the responsibility were laid on the shoulders of these gentlemen who are responsible for the design. They are Lord Plymouth, Lord Revel-stoke, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, Sir Edward Poynter (President of the Royal Academy), Mr. Leonard Stokes, Sir Vezey Strong, the First Commissioner, and Sir Schomberg McDonnell. The first thing

  481
  the advisory committee did was to get a general instruction from the larger committee as to what course it was desired they should pursue. It had been proposed, for instance, that the memorial to the King should take the form of a new building for the London University, but the larger committee met and unanimously passed a resolution that whatever was done with the money which they had collected a memorial statue to the King should be one part of the project which they had taken in hand, and consequently all such other projects were ruled out. Guided by that resolution, the advisory committee set to work examining sites land plans with a view to seeing where such a statue might be placed. Their first proposal was that it should be placed in St. James's Park, but in view of the opposition expressed in this House and elsewhere, and in deference to the wishes of this House, the advisory committee withdrew and cancelled their proposal, and it passed out of the region of practical politics. Other schemes were proposed.
  6.0 P.M.
  The Hyde Park scheme was one proposed by Professor Adshead, of Liverpool. It was to divert the roadway at Hyde Park Corner and erect in the middle of the open space a statue to the King, flanked on one side by the present statue of the Duke of Wellington, and on the other side to put up a statue of the Duke of Marlborough. After all the House would have no power, nor would the First Commissioner of Works, to compel this independent committee to erect a statue and memorial to King Edward at Hyde Park Corner. The most the First Commissioner of Works could do would be to express his opinion if he thought well. But the scheme has many drawbacks. It was fully examined. Professor Adshead was asked to come before the committee, and he had a long interview with them, and they were unanimously of opinion that for various reasons the scheme was not suitable. It was felt that it would not be harmonious to put up a structure flanked on each side in that way. There were many other reasons, such as the amount of traffic which would have made such a scheme impracticable. It would have entailed the narrowing of Piccadilly, which has only recently been widened at that point. There was another scheme before the committee, known as the colonnade scheme, in the Broad Walk; but the committee felt that in view of the objections raised to a large architectural scheme in one of the public
  482
  parks they could not like that scheme. So we came to the present scheme, which is approved by the general committee and the executive committee. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing a model of the memorial in the Tea Room. It is proposed that it should be 43 ft. high, 21 ft. broad, and 16 ft. deep. The statue of the late King will be 8 ft. 10 in. in height. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW far will the memorial be from the present railing?"] The plan will show my hon. Friend the position of the memorial. It is, I think, about 50 ft. down the park altogether. Putting in the masonry gets over the very great difficulty of having the statue facing the Queen Victoria Memorial and turning its back to Piccadilly, or facing Piccadilly and turning its back to the Queen Victoria Memorial, which it is obvious would not be a proper position.
  The site for the memorial will be given by the First Commissioner of Works, and consequently will cost the memorial committee nothing at all. But on the question of cost perhaps it would be well to give the House a few figures to bear out the contention I made a little earlier that unless the committee got a free site and were saved the expense of buying a site, there would not be enough left to carry out the Shadwell Park scheme, which has met with so much approval. The amount collected by Sir Vezey Strong's committee is £68,000, including a special grant in connection with the Exhibition at Shepherd's Bush. An anonymous donor has offered £25,000 on condition that the other £25,000 is raised for the Shadwell scheme. The Poulter Trust will give £5,000, and the London County Council, by surrendering a piece of land, of which they are at present in occupation, will make a contribution equal to £14,000 That is to say £112,000 is available for the committee. Sir Vezey Strong and the committee hope to raise that to £130,000. How are they going to spend that sum? They propose to spend on the memorial in the West End £20,000, which will leave £110,000 for the Shadwell Park scheme, when the full sum has been raised. That, I think, should satisfy my hon. Friend that the interests of the East End are being fully considered. More than five-sixths of the total amount of the money is to be spent there. If the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine is to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, I can assure him that many blades of grass will be grown if the scheme is carried out. The

  483
  committee propose to buy the Shadwell Fish Market and convert it into a park. The total area of that land, which it is hoped the Port of London Authority will give, will amount to about eight acres, and the total cost of the park will be £110,000 as estimated. It is proposed to reclaim three-quarters of an acre of the foreshore for the park. It was to save money for this purpose that it has- been necessary to reject the other schemes to which I have referred. I think the House, after what I have said, will agree that the task of the memorial committee has been well carried out, inasmuch as they achieve two things. They have succeeded in putting forward a plan for erecting a worthy memorial in a suitable place near the Victoria Memorial, but not in competition with it, and they have attained another object with which we all feel the late King would have warmly sympathised. They have secured a park to be for ever a source of well being and delight to thousands of his poorest subjects.
  Lord BALCARRES: I assure the hon. Member that we are much indebted to him for the clear statement he has given us, both as to the scheme and the intentions of his Majesty's Government. I do not wish to criticise the scheme in any way, except in one respect to which I will refer in a moment, I wish, in the first place, to say I do not propose to embark upon any criticism of the design which is now exhibited in our Tea Room. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) made a very spirited attack upon this design in particular and upon modern art in general, but I think the House in this connection ought to recollect that the artists concerned have not been given a free hand. It is obvious from the plan in the Tea Room that the design finally accepted is a compromise brought about either by pressure of public opinion or the criticism of the committee. This committee, which apparently began by consisting of 210 gentlemen representing commerce and religion, and was ultimately very greatly reduced, is ex hypothesi a body which must contain divergent views, otherwise it would not be what is called a representative committee. If you have a committee representing various parts of London, various points of view, and various callings in life, inevitably, of course, the result must be reflected in the monument they select. I am not going to criticize
  484
  the outcome of the committee's deliberations, but I would remind hon. Members who are inclined to criticise the scheme that the committee must have been faced with very real difficulties, and I think under the circumstances they ought to be congratulated rather than condemned. It is on this point I desire to criticise the hon. Member. I frankly confess I regret to see parts taken off the Royal parks. I dissent from what the hon. Member said that the Office of Works does not hold itself responsible for the design. That may be so technically, but I do not think the Government Department in charge of the Royal Parks can divest itself of responsibility for anything which is placed within these parks, and it is no excuse or defence for an ugly monument to say that it has been paid for by private sources and arranged by an unofficial committee, and that therefore the responsibility of the Office of Works begins and ends with the granting of a free site. I do not think that free sites should be granted in the central parks for any purpose whatever except the maintenance of trees and plants. I regret that 350 square feet of the park should be sacrificed for this particular purpose. When the hon. Member says that there is no encroachment on the amenity of the park I differ from him, for I think we look at this matter from somewhat divergent points of view. Anything which makes it easier for people to see out of the park when inside, is an encroachment on the amenities of the park, and anything, in my opinion, which makes it easier for people to see into the park from the outside, by destroying the border that surrounds it, is equally to be deprecated.
  There has been too frequent invasion of the central parks during the last few years. The Marble Arch improvement, I believe, from the practical point of view is a great success, but I do not know that from the artistic point of view it is a great success. The Marble Arch stands there isolated amidst a waste of perambulator refuges which are horribly dangerous to the perambulators and to pedestrians, but it is said that the traffic improvement has been very great. In carrying out that improvement a certain portion of Hyde Park has been sacrificed. Then a horrible tea house has been put up, and, so far as I see, almost nobody visits it, but that has caused the enclosure of another acre of Hyde Park. That, I think, is regrettable. This tendency, rapidly increasing in the

  485
  last few years, to place statuary within the parks is in a minor degree, of course, reducing the area of verdure, and with the introducing of that positive loss you get the very negative advantage of statues which may or may not be worth looking at. I confess I am sorry I could not detect throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech a single expression of regret that this further invasion of the park, necessary as I am prepared to admit it to be, should have been recommended. I do hope that the hon. Member will use all the influence at his command to preserve intact what we possess in London, an asset of large and incalculable value, namely, this great sequence of four central London parks, smaller it is true and certainly less beautiful than the great sequence of public parks which you find outside Berlin or outside Paris, but a hundredfold more valuable because of the fact that they are in the very centre of a great population. An acre in Hyde Park is worth ten acres at Hampton Court. An acre, if we could have it, at the Place du Carrousel in Paris is worth fifty acres at Fontainebleu or Versailles. I think that upon the Office of Works rests a tremendous responsibility of guarding this asset which grows in value every year; therefore, while I regret that this tendency to use the park for the purpose of traffic or of decoration is steadily growing, I rejoice to think with the hon. Member for Limehouse who spoke earlier in the evening, that the prospect of securing one other fresh park—and a very beautiful and significant monument it will be—in the East End of London is likely to be brought to fruition.
  Mr. LEACH: I wish to call attention to the blasphemy laws and to make an earnest appeal to this House and to the Attorney-General for their repeal. Whatever was the case when they were first introduced I think that they ought now to be repealed, and that there should never again be any prosecutions under them. If a man is so unwise and wicked as to use language such as that for which some men have been prosecuted recently, I think it is better to leave him to his own wickedness and unwisdom. I fail to discover any good that was ever done by prosecuting men either for their religious or non-religious views. The moment you begin to prosecute a man you begin to make him popular. I think that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) is this evening to introduce a Resolution on Syndicalism. I very much regret that. I
  486
  think that far too much has been said already in this House, and in the newspapers, about Syndicalism. Let it alone and it will die a natural death, but by persecuting men for it you tend to make them very popular. I think that all history will show that you cannot by repression stop a man from using the old right of free speech. I am a Nonconformist, and make no apology for the fact. I know something of Nonconformist history, and I have been obliged to know a great deal of it. For thirty years, as I followed my profession, it has been my pride to know something of its history, and I have discovered that all attempts to repress it by persecution have only helped it forward. So it will be if these prosecutions are pressed that are now being carried on. It seems to me that on every ground it is better to let these unwise men alone. I have always held very dearly that no man should have any civil advantage because of his religious belief, and I also hold that he ought not to suffer any civil disadvantage because of his non-religious belief. I desire to enter a protest against that which is going on. I hope that we shall soon hear the last of these prosecutions under these old Acts, and that the Acts may be repealed, and that we shall allow these men, if they are so foolish to adopt the course of conduct they do, and if you give up prosecuting them these things will die a natural death.
  Mr. KING: I wish to associate myself with the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Leach). I, too, desire to say that perfect freedom of speech in regard to the religious matters is essential to the well-being and for the peaceful and rational and healthy development of the intellect of our country. I do not believe that any attempt to discourage or put down opinions which are seriously held and maintained, and for which men are-willing to make sacrifices, is ever successful in any degree. I look upon this as part of a large issue. It is really part of the great question which must always be before our minds as to the liberty of speech generally. Perhaps one of the greatest men who ever sat and spoke in this assembly used the expression that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and I believe that that is as absolutely true to-day as it ever was. There are at least three directions in which that liberty of speech has been, or is being, threatened

  487
  at the present time. There is this question of the blasphemy laws, which certainly ought to be repealed. There is also the question of the right of public meeting, which I am glad to say has been maintained in Belfast, however, at the cost of several hundreds, probably thousands, of pounds on behalf of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am sure that we all recognise that the Government has done right in that matter. Even those people who were prevented from making a disturbance on that occasion are probably grateful for the action of the Government. Then there is also this question which we were discussing a day or two ago—I mean the prosecution of the Syndicalists. Here, again, we have not only a legal question to face, but we have at the same time to face a great question of public right and justice. I know that it is very difficult to reconcile the letter of the law with the wide principles of justice and public policy, but it has to be attempted and the Government, if it has to make a choice between the two, ought, in my opinion, to throw over the letter of the law and maintain the principles and the great policy of free speech.
  In connection with these prosecutions under the Mutiny Act, I would like to point out that they have produced from public men of widely different points of view vigorous and most earnest protests. I will just take three men who are very typical of society at the present day, men of very different points of view, who all unite in this protest against these prosecutions because they see in them a menace to free speech. The first is Mr. Bernard Shaw. What was the most remarkable thing in his career, at any rate since I have watched him, is that on Monday last there appeared a letter in the paper from him which had not one gibe or one joke, and did not even raise one smile upon anyone who read it, because it was an earnest protest. I ventured to say that no more earnest and convincing words were ever penned than the letter which appeared in the Press on Monday morning on behalf of free speech and in protest against these prosecutions. Then take the protest which has been most courageously put forward by the man who has done as much as anybody else in journalism to maintain Liberal policy during the last few years—I mean Mr. Massingham. He is a man whom we all respect. Hon. Members may choose to laugh at him because he has exposed the
  488
  follies perhaps as much as anyone else living, but that makes no difference. We respect that man as one of the highest types of journalists of the present day, and he, again, has made public his protest against this policy. The third public man is a man who, again, may be laughed at by hon. Members opposite, but who, I venture to think, is the greatest social reformer of the present day—Canon Barnett. He is, to my mind, the man who has created a new social movement of the greatest value to religion and to society, and in the "Times" to-day there is a very earnest protest against these prosecutions from his pen. I venture very earnestly to represent to the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, whom I see in their places, that in continuing these prosecutions they should think at the same time whether they are not endangering our traditions of free speech and raising up political and other difficulties far more serious than those which, by a few prosecutions, they desire to suppress. I submit this aspect of the question to the attention of the Government.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has dealt very fully, and, in my judgment, satisfactorily, with the prosecutions which have taken place with regard to the Syndicalist cases. I do not propose, therefore, to re-enter upon that subject, but my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Leach) has raised the question of the prosecution of two men some four or five months ago for blasphemy. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of clearing up very briefly certain misunderstandings with regard to cases of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) asked for perfect freedom of speech with regard to religious opinion. I can assure him that there is in this country perfect freedom of speech, not only to give our true religious opinions, but with regard to all subjects, including political opinions, however disagreeable they may be to hon. Members. There is only one qualification to that statement, which does not affect the matter of the opinion at all. The opinion must be expressed in a manner which preserves the ordinary decencies of controversy. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley appeals to me to let these unwise men alone. We should be

  489
  only too willing to let them alone. Nobody wants to prosecute them. It is they who will not let other people alone. They use offensive language which is calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It is not the mere fact that a man may express what opinion he likes, but that he is using language which he knows, and which everybody knows, is going to lead to riot and to a breach of the peace that causes prosecutions. That man commits an offence against the ordinary law of this country, and is prosecuted, not for his opinions, but for the peculiar and offensive method he adopts in expressing them. That was the sole ground for the prosecution of the men refered to by my hon. Friend.
  The learned judge who heard the case summed up to the jury, if I may say so, with the most complete fairness. I have his language here, but it is not necessary for me to quote it. But he stated the law was that a man was at liberty to express whatever opinions he pleased, merely with the limitation that he must preserve the decencies of controversy. He explained to the jury that this view of the law had been acted upon by the judges of this country for fifty years. It is really not quite fair in this controversy to speak of the blasphemy laws as old and obsolete laws which ought to be repealed. In a sense the old blasphemy laws are not acted upon in this country at the present day. They have been limited and construed by the learned judges since the time of Lord Coleridge, over fifty years ago, as to mean only, not the matter of opinions, but the manner in which they are expressed, and I think the House will agree that with that limitation of the blasphemy laws a prosecution may be thoroughly justified. In the particular case of the two men to whom I have referred they were undoubtedly, under cover of expressing religious opinions, using language, or dessiminating literature, which was not merely offensive and irritating, but of an immoral character; and in view of those facts I do not think that my hon. Friend has really any solid ground to complain of the convictions within those limitations, which were thoroughly justified.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I wish to call attention to the attitude of the Government in regard to the Committee appointed a short time ago to inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. We were told
  490
  in answer to a question a few weeks ago that the cost of the Committee would come out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions. I hope it will be in order to discuss this matter very shortly, because the Consolidated Fund covers the salary of the Chief Secretary, among other items. I do not want to use any unnecessarily strong language, but I do submit that the attitude of the Government with regard to this Committee is unsatisfactory in the extreme. Hon. Members will recollect that the names of the Committee were announced in the Press in April last after many unavailing efforts to extort them in this House by hon. Members below, names, according to the Government, of the most fitting persons who could be persuaded to sit upon that Committee. The Committee deliberated for months, and examined a cloud of witnesses, official and unofficial; it has reported to the Government, and the Government, presumably, have reviewed its findings. The cost of the Committee, I may say, was defrayed out of the public purse, and all this has happened while the financial future of Ireland was hanging in the balance. So far as the public is concerned, and, so far as this House is concerned, the whole of the proceedings, of that Committee have vanished into thin air, leaving not a wrack behind." Question after question has been asked from this side of the House, and also in another place, in order to try to elicit a little information, but up till now entirely without avail. Not a ray of light has been vouchsafed, not a morsel of information granted.
  The Prime Minister, who answered questions in this House, declines to say what the Report contained or whether it will ever be published. He declines to say whether it has been shown to any members of the Nationalist party, or to any other person outside the Government. He declines to say whether the recommendations of the Committee will be adopted. He declines to give the names of those persons who gave evidence before the Committee, and he even declines to tell us what was the reference to the Committee in the first instance. In fact, the whole matter is enveloped in a blanket of impenetrable mystery, and yet we are now within almost a fortnight of the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. I submit that the finance of the Home Rule Bill will probably form its most critical part. Surely the Prime Minister does not intend to follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who issued the actuary's

  491
  report on the Insurance Bill only twenty-four hours before the Second Reading, and thus deprived the House of any practical opportunity of understanding or discussing the Bill as a whole. Or is it that the Prime Minister is going to guillotine the financial Clauses, and that it is a mere waste of time to give any information? The Government hold out hopes in various directions that their Bill is going to be a final settlement. To my mind, the only chance of its being a final settlement at all is to take the public into their confidence and place all the available information before them. It certainly will not be a final settlement if it is going to be concocted in the dark. I only wish some Members of the Nationalist party were here this evening, and I do wish that hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House would bring pressure to bear upon the Government to make a full and fair disclosure of this matter. I was very much impressed the other day in reading an article by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) in the "Nineteenth Century" in regard to the last Home Rule Bill. I do not want to quote it with any purpose of controversy on the Home Rule question, but I think it is rather applicable to the present circumstances. The hon. and learned Member wrote:—
  "I regretted the policy of withholding information as to the lines of Mr. Gladstone's scheme from the electors before the Dissolution. I deeply deplored the success which attended the efforts made in Ireland to prevent the Irish people discussing during the past two years the circumstances in which they would have to live under Home Rule. We are now paying the penalty of the policy of silence and mystery in the violent and unthinking criticism to which the Government measure is being subjected, and later on we shall have to pay a still heavier penalty when the House of Lords refuses to pass the measure, even the main features of which were disguised from the electors."
  If the hon. and learned Member were here, I should very much like to ask him whether he has changed his mind. I should like to ask him whether he is now reconciled to this policy of secrecy and mystery. I do not know whether he is afraid that the Dublin Convention may not like the Bill if they see the Report of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has always told us that he stands where Parnell stood; in fact he tells us that he still stands where Parnell stood. What did Parnell say on very much the same point that I am trying to place before the House now? Speaking in Liverpool in 1896—as Lord Randolph
  492
  Churchill reminded the House of Commons on a memorable occasion—he said:—
  "The House of Lords would be perfectly justified in throwing out the Home Rule Bill if the electors had not a proper opportunity of studying its details"
  The hon. Member for East Mayo made an equally significant admission in Dublin in 1893. How can the electors even begin to study the details, and especially the financial details, of the Bill with any fair chance of understanding them if the information is withheld on which those details are going to be built up? How can the jury be expected to come to any just decision unless the evidence, the whole of the evidence, is placed before them? Does the hon. and learned Member for Waterford think, does the Irish party think, that this information ought to be withheld from the people of Ireland, and that the Nationalist Convention ought to go through the solemn farce of sitting in Dublin without the remotest idea of what the recommendations of this Committee, affecting the whole financial future of Ireland, really are? I do not think the position of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is so strong that he can disregard public opinion in Ireland. The hon. Member, whom I see sitting opposite, knows perfectly well that he has already had to finance the "Freeman's Journal" out of the Nationalist party funds in order to stem the criticisms of the Irish Independents. It is really not enough that the hon. Member for East Mayo should have seen the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo may control the reins of Irish government, but he is certainly not yet Member for Ireland. The expenses of the Committee have been paid for out of public funds intended for public purposes, and surely the public has a right to see the whole Report before the Bill is introduced.
  I daresay that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, will say that there are plenty of precedents for the course which the Government have adopted. I submit that there are no precedents, and can be no precedents. The whole machinery of government has been altered by the Parliament Act. What may have been excusable in days gone by, when the Second Chamber could not only delay but prevent the passing of the measure into law, is inexcusable and grossly unconstitutional when the Government of the day are all-powerful. There is no precedent which can excuse the withholding of such enormously important information under

  493
  totally different conditions. The fact that the Veto of the Second Chamber no longer exists makes it all the more important that the evidence on which the Government are going to pass this, great constitutional change should be sifted in the light of day, and that we should be given an opportunity of estimating its value and drawing our conclusions. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they are withholding the publication of the Report of this Committee because they are really afraid to publish it? Is that really the secret of all this mystery and concealment? I can hardly believe that they would refrain from making it public if it had been in accord with their own predilections and intentions. I think we should have heard a great deal about the recommendations of the Committee in that event. They would have been thrown upon us ad nauseam. These great financial experts would have been paraded on every platform, and in every speech in this House. But I suggest that a very unfortunate thing may have happened. These experts may have been called in to bless the scheme, and they may have stayed to curse it. The Government got all the credit of publishing the names of the members of the Committee, but when the members of that Committee do not agree with them the matter is to be hushed up, and we are to hear no more about it. I should like to know what hon. Members opposite would have said if a Tariff Reform Government had appointed half a dozen tariff experts to examine a host of witnesses, official and unofficial, had framed a tariff Budget, and then had kept the recommendations secret, having paid the expenses out of public funds. They would have announced it as the most corrupt transaction in political history, and the Gladstone League, backed up by the Cocoa Press, would have held meetings all over the country for the purification of our public life. But the Government are going to ask us to approve the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill without giving us time or opportunity to examine the work of those financial experts. Is that really likely to facilitate our discussion or to introduce harmony into the Debate? Is it in the best interests of the State? There are a great many clever and distinguished lawyers sitting on the Front Bench opposite. They can almost prove that black is white and white is black. They can make the worse appear the better reason, but although they may
  494
  have got the greater courage in this matter, certainly we have got the better case.
  I submit that it is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom that this information should be placed at the immediate disposal of the public in order that they should be able to weigh the pros and cons before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. It is equally important that this House should be in possession of the information before hon. Members opposite can definitely pledge themselves to support it. If the Government are going to follow the recommendations of the Committee it is in their own interests to make them public as their Home Rule Bill would have the inestimable advantage of being buttressed up by this expert opinion. If on the other hand they do not intend to follow the recommendations of the Committee it is all the more necessary tint we should see what they are in order to be enabled to compare the two schemes side by side. I know it is not in order to go into the question of the merits of the scheme, but are we not entitled to know for instance whether the Committee recommend a contribution by Ireland for Imperial purposes. As hon. Members know there are only three ways in which this can be done, either by taking a particular branch of revenue, or by a certain fixed quota of revenue, or by a definite sum. Did the Committee recommend any one of those methods, or did they recommend the contrary process of the payment by Great Britain of a subsidy to Ireland? What again was their decision in regard to the reservation or delegation of the Customs? Is the Home Rule Bill likely to be a final settlement if the Government intend to keep the Irish financial trump card up their own sleeve? The hon. Member for East Mayo once said that it was not consistent with Irish nationality to crouch and cringe before a foreign Queen. Is it likely to be any more consistent with Irish nationality to crouch and cringe before a foreign chancellor of the exchequer? What again was the decision of the Committee as to the alleged over-taxation of Ireland and do they consider that expenditure upon Ireland can be justifiably regarded as a set off? We ought to know these things and to be able to consider them before the Bill is introduced.
  By maintaining this secrecy, and at the same time letting a small section in this House into their confidence for their own party ends, and they have been challenged

  495
  over and over again to deny that they have done so, the Government are placing all other hon. Members at a great disadvantage in the discussions on the Home Rule Bill. Those hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House who have seen the recommendations will be prepared for the weak points in the Home Rule Bill, and be able to steer their course accordingly by prolonged discussion on the less essential and less vulnerable parts. The whole machinery of Parliamentary ingenuity will be applied to those under the guillotine, which, on the other hand, will be mercilessly employed to stifle argument where argument is likely to prove inconvenient. This will be done deliberately, in concert with the Irish party and in callous disregard of all those outside the ring. In view of all those considerations, I submit that the Report of the Committee, the whole Report of the Committee, and not the Government edition of it, with the tit-bits left out, should be made public, and immediately. It has been a packed Committee sitting in secret, commandeering the public Departments, and paid for out of the public purse, all in order that the Government may be able to say that the Committee agreed with them if it did happen to, or in order that it may be smuggled out of the way if its recommendations were adverse to their own. That is a very dangerous principle, in conflict with all our ideas of free and impartial government. It is particularly dangerous taken in conjunction with the gigantic revolution they are going to propose. If they persist in it, they will hardly be able to complain if such a spirit of bitterness is aroused as will make their task more difficult than it otherwise would have been. I do therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision and publish this Report as soon as possible.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend opposite on the great skill, industry, and eloquence which he has displayed, and also on his being the first person on the Consolidation Bill of this year to make an anti-Home Rule speech. We will, I am sure, hear a great many more of them. I am the last person in the world who has any right to complain of being kept here this afternoon, or to complain of the pertinacity which for months past the hon. Member has displayed in asking questions on this subject, which
  496
  have fallen chiefly to the lot of the Prime Minister, because, but for my own incredible folly, he would not have had the opportunity of displaying curiosity upon this subject, and had it not been that I, who should have known better, whilst speaking in the somewhat indiscreet society of the Oxford undergraduates in their Union debates mentioned the fact, which I ought not to have mentioned—namely, that the Cabinet, the Government, were taking the advice of a certain number of persons, not, as my hon. Friend supposes, upon the financial relations between Great Britain, and Ireland, but upon this question, "Assuming that there is going to be a Home Rule Bill, what advice would you give us on certain matters relating to the Financial Clauses of that Bill?" It was in that sense they were asked, and no more than that, and it was what any intelligent body of men, or even semi-intelligent body of men, would do when they are engaged in what is admittedly a difficult task—namely, to seek advice from persons whom they think are financially competent to give it. They did not ask their advice on Home Rule or no Home Rule, but on the assumption that there is going to be Home Rule on certain lines, they sought their advice in a particular direction.
  Does anybody say that that advice so tendered is of a character that no sooner is it tendered than that it must at once be made public? Obviously it could not be made public unless those who sought it had the fullest possible opportunity of considering it and of clothing it, or any portions of it in the language of a Bill. That is the task upon which I and my colleagues have been engaged for a very considerable time. We have been indebted to those gentlemen for the advice they have given us, but my hon. Friend says, "Show it to me, and show it to everybody else." Now, why should it be shown to him before we had the opportunity of giving it expression, so far as we can give it, in the language of our Bill. He says, "You have shown it to other people." My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister claims, and I certainly claim a perfect right to consult whom I choose, and to show anybody anything I choose, assuming always that those are persons who are going to give support to the general principle of my measure, because otherwise I should indeed be a very foolish person if I were to go and show the whole contents of my correspondence and my dispatch boxes to persons who,

  497
  though they may be very worthy, will use every piece of information I give them, not for the purpose of getting those financial Clauses into the Home Rule Bill, but for the purpose of destroying the possibilities of any Home Rule Bill at all. I am sorry to be so suspicious of my hon. Friends, and, though there is nobody in the world to whom I would more willingly open my bosom than to him, I cannot show him domestic documents which I should otherwise be glad to do. I beg him to bear this in mind, that he is mistaken in supposing, and he is not justified by any language that I have used in saying, that this Committee had anything to do with the financial relations between the two countries, or was concerned with or was in any way dealing with the famous Report of the Royal Commission on that subject. It was private advice which we were obtaining from persons in whom we had confidence. Therefore we were only doing what we were absolutely entitled to do, and indeed, as sensible men, bound to do, assuming that we were entitled to take advice at all. I am quite aware that there are those who think we were not entitled to have a committee of inquiry, who perhaps were not entitled to ask persons acquainted with Departmental work in Ireland to give evidence before them. I do not think that that view is one which is justified in a matter of this kind.
  I therefore really think that up to the present time no human being is entitled to find fault with us for acquiring that information, which many people think we stand greatly in need of upon the financial problems of Home Rule. We think we were wise and right to instruct ourselves in that way. Then, my hon. Friend goes on to say, and here there is force in his argument, for the future, although up to date I do not think there is any force in his remarks, "You are paying for this out of your own salaries, you are getting a Vote out of the Treasury Chest to pay small sums, still public sums, and you have got a document in your possession, presumably a State paper of very considerable value, for which I as a taxpayer have paid my share. Do you mean to withhold it for ever from consideration, do you not mean us at any time during the progress of our discussion upon this important measure, to have the benefit of knowing what those gentlemen have said? I know my hon. Friend chuckled with imaginary delight over the party advantage that he saw in anticipation he could derive from this document if he
  498
  could get it—to denounce us if we had departed from the principles laid down in the Report, and to curse us if we had adopted them. However, I do not know that he would feel that amount of intense pleasure that he anticipated, and very often anticipations are much greater than reality. I quite agree, I think, this Report will have to be published. We never had any other intention. There you have got your party advantage. I can assure you it was never our intention to do anything else. It was the course we intended to adopt.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Now?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Why now, while we are considering this measure?
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Baronet's only objection to Home Rule is its financial clauses.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: One of them.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am very glad to hear the hon. Baronet say so. He will have the opportunity of studying this Report. I have no doubt whatsoever I shall be able to obtain for that course the consent of my right hon. Friend, which he has never withheld and has always been ready to give, after the First Reading of this Bill, some time after the First Reading of this Bill, and long before the Financial Clauses.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us have an advance proof?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I will not, and I will tell you the reasons why. This Report was given to us to enable us to frame our Home Rule Bill, the Financial Clauses of the Bill, to assist us by placing before us the thoughts and ideas of individuals, derived from their own experience, to enable us to deal with this measure. When we have framed our measure and have printed it you shall have the opportunity, and I hope very much you will read it in a spirit of candour and in a spirit of anxious desire, and if you agree with it, or the modifications of it or with anything else in it, that you will assist us in carrying it out.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I wish to refer to the constitution and administration of one of

  499
  the numerous Boards in Ireland, namely, the Congested Districts Board. Yesterday the right hon Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), spoke of the good work which Parliament had done by actively interfering in the conditions of Irish land tenure. They suggested that the numerous Irish Land Acts, dating from 1881, had practically abolished land lordism, and I suppose the hon. Member for Merthyr would suggest that similar action might abolish capitalism in the coal mining industry later on. But the Land Acts did not actually abolish landlordism. What they did was to plunge us into the Serbonian bog of dual ownership. The Round Table Conference, at which Irishmen for the first time in our history, and perhaps for the last, sat in peace round a table to discuss matters, was called to get us out of that dual ownership, and was followed by the great Act of 1903 and the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1909. One thing that the Land Acts did was to establish the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board, which is an offshoot of the Land Commission. This important Board has a revenue of over £100,000 a year. In the Estimates this year a sum of £169,750 is taken for it. The Board is administered by fourteen Commissioners, including the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Undersecretary, and the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture. We want, if possible, an absolutely impartial commission. This Board has to deal with one-third of the land of Ireland, and it ought to be absolutely above suspicion. Who are the members other than those to whom I have referred? I do not wish to say a word against any of them. There are two Bishops of the Catholic Church, two parish priests, the hon. Member for South Mayo (Mr. Fitzgibbon), who has been in the limelight already on this subject, Sir Horace Plunkett, Sir David Harrel, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and three other gentlemen. These Commissioners have to supervise a staff, including amongst others, sixteen land inspectors. The work of the Board is divided into four sections, namely, the Estates branch, the Fisheries branch, the Works and Industries branch, and the Collection branch, and there are two sides to the work. On the side of social advancement the work of the Board is most admirable. When it confines its attention to
  500
  building piers, developing harbours, importing Spanish jackasses, well-bred queen bees, up-to-date table poultry, and so on, we give it our warm approbation. But there is another side to its work, and that is the task of transferring the land of Ireland from the landlords to the tenants. There it is something more than a Committee for social advancement. It is a great judicial body, and with the great autocratic powers it possesses it ought surely to be absolutely above suspicion. We have recently had set up in connection with the coal mining industry boards of control, which I understand are to consist of two members representing the employers, and two representing the miners, with an impartial chairman. What we have there ought surely to be set up in connection with the Congested Districts Board. Have we got it? I do not want to say a word against any member of the Board. I am not going to refer to the Member for South Mayo in any way whatever. Have the landlords proper representation on the Board? We have one man, the Earl of Shaftesbury.
  Mr. DILLON: What about Sir Horace Plunkett?
  Mr. NEWMAN: I will refer to him in a moment. I do not say a word against the Earl of Shaftesbury. He is a gallant colonel of Yeomanry, but he is not a prominent Irish landlord. Why have we not got on the Board, as well as Lord Shaftesbury, men like Lord Mayo or Lord Dunraven? Sir Horace Plunkett would make an excellent impartial chairman, and so would Sir David Harrel. We landlords have not got a fair representation, in view of the important duties of the Board in transferring land from the landlords to the tenants. I trust the Chief Secretary will do something to remedy this in the very near future. Then with regard to the sixteen land inspectors. In 1904 I sold my property to my tenants. I did not have inspectors running down to inspect my property before I sold it. I made my bargain with the tenants, the bargain went through, I got my money, the tenants got the land. What happens now with these inspectors? A landlord is willing to sell, the tenants are willing to buy. Down comes one of these inspectors, quite properly, to inspect the property. But the inspectors do not inspect the property in a fair way. They do not simply go over the farm and value it. They ask the tenants what they are willing to give. Of course

  501
  the tenants naturally offer a very small sum, the landlord cannot accept it, and then come in compulsion, disagreement, and ill-feeling. I suggest, therefore, that the composition of the Board should be improved, and that the Board should look more closely after its inspectors to see that they make a fair valuation of the property, instead of asking the tenants what they think ought to be given.
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): I had some difficulty in finding out what the hon. Member was really driving at, or what he thinks is wrong with the composition of the Board. He tells us that the landlords are not fairly represented. My answer to that is that the landlords of Ireland are more anxious and willing to sell to the Congested Districts Board than they are to sell to the Estates Commission or to the Land Commission. That does not bear out the hon. Member's assertion.
  Mr. NEWMAN: They can get their money.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have never heard the constitution of the Congested Districts Board called in question in Ireland at all. As showing the willingness of the landlords to sell to the Congested Distracts Board, I may say that at the present moment we have more than £6,000,000 worth of land waiting to be dealt with. The hon. Member says that the plan of inspection and valuation is different from that of the Estates Commissioners. The Congested Districts Board have not only to purchase land, but to make arrangements for improving the land. If they merely purchased the land, they would do very little. The improvement of the land is the real object of the Congested Districts Board. It is not enough to purchase the land and hand it over to the tenants. They have to purchase the land, to make the most minute inquiries into the whole condition of the tenantry, to create economic holdings, to see that the land is in a fit state, and so on. As to the constitution of the Board, I do not believe that the hon. Member objects to the two executive officers.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I object to none of them at all.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Then I do not see what the hon. Member does object to. Does he require the presence of more landlords?
  Mr. NEWMAN: Yes.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Lord Shaftesbury is said not to be an Irish landlord?
  Mr. NEWMAN: Not a representative Irish landlord.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: How many tenant farmers are there on the Board? Not one.
  Mr. RUSSELL: In my opinion, Lord Shaftesbury is a very representative landlord. He not only owns large properties in Belfast itself, but agricultural property in the neighbourhood of Belfast. He has sold some of his land, but he still owns a large quantity, and is a very good representative Irish landlord. To make good his case, the hon. Member ought to have shown that the Congested Districts Board had been engaged in some work that they ought not to have been engaged in, or had not done their duty in the work they are called upon to do. I have never heard any expression of want of confidence in the Board in Ireland. As the hon. Member knows, economic laws do not work in the West of Ireland. A great deal has to be done for the people there that need not be done for the people elsewhere, and much of the Board's duty consists in doing that work. I do not think that any case has been made out against either this personnel or the administration of the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. DILLON: I think a very few words will suffice in reply to what I think is an exceedingly feeble attack on the personnel of the Congested Districts Board. I will not enter upon the invidious task of canvassing the names of every single member of the Board. A very good proof of the fact that it was fairly constituted was given by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The hon. Member (Mr. Newman) complained that there was not an Irish landlord upon it, or that it wanted a larger number of landlords upon it. Let me point out that the Irish tenants never had one. The hon. Member could only ground his case upon an analysis of the assumed prepossessions which the members of the Board would bear towards one class or another. As a matter of fact, there are two men on that Board who may be said to represent the landlord interest. One is a landlord, and the other is a brother of an Irish landlord. There are no tenants at all on it, and there never have been since the Board was formed. There is another answer to the hon. Member which is so overwhelming in its force that there is no need to analyse the personnel of the Board—that is the answer given by the right hon.

  503
  Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture.
  What is the recent history of the Board? We passed this Act in 1909. It has been frequently denounced as having killed land purchase in Ireland. I think the hon. Member who initiated this discussion has frequently in my hearing so described it. Take the great portion of Ireland covered by the Congested Districts Board, and which has now been handed over entirely to the administration of that Board? What has been the history of that part of Ireland? That is the part of Ireland in which land purchase was most needed, and which for many years was left out in the cold; where land purchase was not working properly, and where it was far more necessary and urgent than in the eastern and more prosperous parts of the country. What has been the history of the progress of land purchase in the province of Connaught, and other portions of Ireland which are now under the administration of the Board, and have been since the Act of 1909? The present problem is this: the desire of the landlords in these western districts to sell to the Board since the re-constitution of the Board is so great that the Board is completely paralysed and blocked with excess of business.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Why do they not get more money from the Government?
  Mr. DILLON: That is not the question at all. The question is: Did the Act of 1909, which reconstituted the Board and created the personnel of the Board, destroy the confidence of the Irish landlords in the Board?
  Mr. NEWMAN: They will not get their money otherwise; that is why they sell to the Board.
  Mr. DILLON: Yes, but if the Irish landlords have lost confidence in the Board they are not going to sell to it. They were not selling in the West of Ireland until the Act of 1909 was passed, and it was after that Act came into operation that the estates in the West of Ireland came tumbling in, until at this present moment the Board has £6,000,000 worth of property offered in the West of Ireland under the Act of 1909. I think it is five hundred estates.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Over five hundred.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not see why the hon. Baronet laughs.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: I did not laugh.
  Mr. DILLON: This is the Act under which we are told there has been a paralysis of land purchase. I say that is a complete and conclusive answer to the attack made by this hon. Member on the personnel of the Board. If the Board is distrusted by the Irish landlords, why are they rushing in to sell to the Board? Why is it that there has been this great rush of estates in the West since the commencement of the Act? Why did it only commence after the Act of 1909 began to operate? I say that the Act which was responsible for the new personnel of the Congested Districts Board has been, at all events, in the West of Ireland, an immense blessing. We hear men constantly stating inside and outside of this House that it has been the death of land purchase.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: It has been in Ulster.
  Mr. DILLON: I am speaking about the West of Ireland.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Quite so.
  Mr. DILLON: And I say that one of the greatest evils in Ireland, admitted on all sides, was that up to the Act of 1909 the West of Ireland, where all this land trouble originated and which was the main cause of the land policy in Ireland, had been to a large extent left out in the cold; that the districts where the people most needed land purchase were not obtaining the benefits of the Land Acts until the Act of 1909 and the reconstitution of the Board. This Act, which the hon. Member now complains of, has had the effect of expediting land purchase to an unparalleled extent in the West of Ireland. Why does the hon. Member raise this complaint against the personnel of the Board? There has not been, so far as I know, a single protest from the landlords in the West of Ireland against it. I never heard of it, and I live in the West.
  Mr. NEWMAN: What about Lord Oranmore?
  Mr. DILLON: Lord Oranmore is at war with his tenants, but I do not understand that he has made any complaint of the Board.
  Mr. NEWMAN: And the Marquis of Sligo?
  Mr. DILLON: Or the Marquis of Sligo either. You may go over the whole gamut. The only man I know is the Marquis of Clanricarde. He stands alone. He, no doubt, is at war with the Board because the Board has tried to expropriate him. I hope they will succeed. But I have heard of no general complaint from the landlords in the West of Ireland as against the Congested Districts Board. On the contrary, I think they have confidence in the Board and in its staff. With regard to the hon. Member for South Mayo (Mr. Fitzgibbon), I do not think even the landlords of the West raise any point about him. I do not think they have any strong feeling about him. I do not think they have expressed any special feeling against him.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: They did protest against him.
  Mr. DILLON. Of course I know they protested. Be that as it may, the Board as now reconstituted has carried out the work of land purchase in the West most successfully and rapidly, and the only difficulty that those of us who represent Western Connaught are aware of, is not that the Board does not enjoy the confidence of the landlords—for, on the contrary, as the working of land purchase proves, it does enjoy that confidence—the only difficulty we know of is that so great has been the success of the Board as reconstituted that the whole machinery is now threatened with paralysis by an over-supply of estates. I do not know how the Board is going to continue its work. I invite hon. Members whose minds are affected by the attack upon the personnel of the Board to go down to the West of Ireland and see the work. The hon. Member (Mr. Newman) himself admitted it.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I spoke of the social side.
  Mr. DILLON: I am not speaking so much of that social side which he refers to, harbours, fisheries, and the like; I am speaking of the work which no language could exaggerate, the work the Board is doing to elevate the standard of living in the West of Ireland. The wretched, deplorable condition of the population of the West was a reproach to this country, and the subject of frequent Debates in this House. I say the work which has been carried out by the Board in elevating the condition of these people, in improving their houses, and in introducing amongst
  506
  them the spirit of improvement and of self-help, is almost past the power of language to describe. I notice that the hon. Member had no word of criticism for the work which has been carried out by the Board. Therefore I am puzzled and amazed to know what motive should have induced him to make this attack. The Board is an institution which I really do think enjoys the confidence of the landlords, and, to a large extent, the confidence of the tenants also. I am bound to say that any criticism I have seen against the Board in the West has been from the tenants, who have frequently complained, I do not say without reason, for the work in which it is engaged is one of stupendous difficulties. Taking over land and redividing it and adjudicating amongst these small tenant farmers is a work which would exercise the patience and wisdom of Job. I do not wonder that quarrels arise, but all the criticism I have heard comes, as I have said, from the tenant farmers, and not from the landlords, with the one solitary exception I have mentioned. I felt bound, as a Member from the West of Ireland, which has enormously benefited by the work of this Board, to stand up and defend it from what appears to me to be a very irrational attack. I think it is manifest that the Act has conferred enormous benefit upon the Western population of Ireland. Those of us who live in the West look with every hope to the Board as an institution which, if it is encouraged and allowed to go on with its work, will ultimately be successful in rescuing this Western population from the state of chronic poverty and periodical famine in which it found it, and turning it into a prosperous, happy, and improving population.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I am glad to see that provision has been made for sylvi-cultural training in Scotland. That policy in Scotland has become a matter of first-class importance; more so than in any other part of the United Kingdom. With this additional provision considerably more progress may be made than has been made for many years, since some of us started to get definite support for this work. Under the financial provisions now before us we should be able to do a great deal. The question I should like to bring to the notice, both of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is as to the control of this expenditure. A Departmental

  507
  Committee on Forestry recently published their report with reference to the control that is required. The Committee suggests that the money ought to be either under the new Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which is a department having a sub-department on forestry, or else under a separate Board of Forestry, to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. For my part I think the second suggestion is the better of the two; but control there must be.
  At the present time I see that controversy is raging as to whether Edinburgh or Aberdeen is the more likely centre for this higher sylvicultural training. The Committee has reported in favour of one centre for the higher training. I think upon examination by the Department concerned that that will be found ample. Whether it is to be Glasgow or Aberdeen is a secondary matter. But there is one important consideration: Edinburgh has lately been put upon the same footing as Cambridge, along with Oxford, in regard to training for the Forest Service of India. No change would be made in Edinburgh which would be likely to lose that advantage. I think that is a great advantage. It came about as one of the results of the committee of inquiry held at the India Office, and which attached the greatest importance to one centre in Scotland being recognised and put on the same level as Oxford and Cambridge. But the control at Edinburgh is deficient. You have there, as in the other university centres—and this centre for the higher training in Scotland must be a university—you have a university and a college, and it is only by having a joint committee of the college and the university that you can secure the control necessary when making the best use of public money voted. At present the control is exercised by the university, the Board of Agriculture, and the Scottish Education Department. None of these are ideal authorities. None of them know very much about sylviculture. It might be possible, however, to contitute a strong joint committee between the university and the agricultural college which would be able to conduct sylvicultural training in Edinburgh. I admit also it can be dealt with at Aberdeen. We have not been able to get that joint committee. The University Court at Edinburgh seems incapable of coming to a decision upon the subject, and the matter has been dragging on these last two years. The agricultural college has
  508
  made an offer to obtain a joint executive committee representing both. Without that I can assure my right hon. Friend no good work can be done, and the public money voted will be wasted. The matter is really urgent, and I invite him, as we are unable to come to an agreement by ourselves, an agreement long sought after and promised, but which never seems to come about, I ask him to exert his authority to bring about that arrangement. If we could have a joint committee appointed we should be able to get along until the new authority promised by the Departmental Committee is established. As I say, I think it would be best to have a board of more or less competent persons, with a paid secretary, under which the training in sylviculture generally should be conducted. The question of having effective control by a university centre, and a university centre there must be, is one which demands special attention, as nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the present control of sylviculture at the different universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh.
  Mr. PIRIE: No one who has read the Report of the Departmental Committee upon Forestry, and who is aware that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was a member of that Committee, can be surprised at the absolutely fair and impartial speech to which we have just listened. As to the question, if it is a question, of Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities, I do not admit there need be any difference of claim between them. I am not here putting forward the different claims, but I am anxious to state what is the best in my view for forestry education in Scotland. In the interesting speech to which we just listened, and in this Report, I recognise that that same spirit of impartiality animated the experts who have drawn up this Report. No one who has studied this Report will doubt for a moment that the matters mentioned by my right hon. Friend, such as degrees and control, must in the end be found wanting in comparison with the geographical supremacy of Aberdeen as a forestry centre; and the inferiority of Edinburgh is still more marked as you read the extract from the Report itself. As a footnote on page 11 of that Report, the Departmental Committee give an extra from the Report of the Scottish University Committee of 1909, which says:—
  "We have some doubt whether the argument of Sir W. Turner for the establishment of a complete forestry

  509
  school under the control of the University of Edinburgh, in spite of some advantages powerfully stated by him, warrants at this moment a claim for support from public funds."
  In the face of that I wish to ask His Majesty's Government to give most careful attention to the question which I have put down upon the Paper for to-morrow asking for an explanation of certain action of the Development Commissioners in face of that Report and as to the action they took two months ago in granting for this important question £9,000 of public money to the Edinburgh University. At the time that Grant was made it remained a mystery and was very much criticised, and it has remained a mystery still, and has aroused certain grave suspicions. All that I claim to ask now is that in justice to Aberdeen University that action of the Development Commissioners should not for one moment be allowed to interfere with the perfectly impartial consideration of a claim for the Grant which Aberdeen University has in the course of the last six weeks put before His Majesty's Treasury. The history of forestry is, in Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities, before them. It is true that in the short period since we have opened the centre we hare a larger forestry class than any other Scotch university, and the Forestry Report is wrong in one of its figures. In the Appendix to the Report it is proved we have in Aberdeen twenty-four students for the higher class as against Edinburgh University's twenty-two.
  In Aberdeen we have twenty-four in the first class and eight in the advanced course. Beside that we have complete unity of action between our North of Scotland Agricultural College and the University Court in Aberdeen. With this great advantage of the Agricultural College acting in complete unison with the University Court, we are justified in asking for the most serious consideration to be given to our claim, not for supremacy, but for consideration of our appeal for a Grant from this fund. The application has been made, the requisite articles have been drafted instituting the degree of Batchelor of Agriculture and of Forestry, so that Aberdeen will start as a perfectly equipped forestry school. I have referred to the two comparisons which my right hon. Friend made between Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but there still remains the great fact that nothing can get over the geographical situation of Aberdeen. That is something which no one can take away. In Kincardineshire and Inverness-shire
  510
  there is the greatest extent of wooded area in Scotland. In Aberdeen county alone there are 90,000 acres under timber in comparatively close proximity to Aberdeen University. We have also the fact that we are close to the great nurseries of the Moray Firth and the North of Scotland—Elgin and Nairn—where the greatest experiments are carried out in the cultivation of forest timber. For these reasons I trust I shall receive, in answer to the question which I have put for to-morrow, an assurance that, whatever occurred in the past or whatever mistakes were made in the past, they shall not be allowed for one instant to interfere with the absolutely fair and generous consideration of the claims of Aberdeen. I recommend that consideration, not only to the Secretary for Scotland, but also to the Secretary for the Treasury.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: If there is to be a Committee of competent persons appointed for the Universities of Edinburgh, and Aberdeen, I do not see why St. Andrews University should not be included, and more particularly the university in the West of Scotland, where there is a very considerable amount of forest area which I believe is almost equal to that on the East Coast, near Edinburgh. I hope, when the Secretary for Scotland comes to reply, he will tell us something about this £9,000 given to the Edinburgh University, and the reason why such a Grant was not given to the other universities. I hope he will tell us the number of people there are studying forestry in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and if there is such a class in Glasgow University, and why the £9,000 given to Edinburgh should not have been divided. It appears to me the House will acknowledge that £9,000 among twenty-four, or even thirty students is a very large amount indeed.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): We have the advantage, in considering this subject, of having received a very excellent Report from the Committee of which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) was a member. His knowledge on this subject is known to the House to be very great indeed, and also that he takes an immense interest in it. The Report of that Committee is at the present moment referred to the new Board of Agriculture which will come into being on the 1st of next month, and in these circumstances I do not think it will be well that I should attempt to deal with any of

  511
  its conclusions. I think it is enough that I should promise the right hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that all the points will be carefully considered before we come to any conclusion as to the future methods of education with regard to forestry in Scotland. With regard to the particular points raised, I can only answer my hon. Friend's question as to the number of students for the years 1910–11. The number of students then in Edinburgh was twenty-four, in Aberdeen sixteen, and in Glasgow eight. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has pointed out that the number has since been increased. With regard to the £9,000 granted by the Development Commissioners, the fact is that at that time there was no other claim before them but that of Edinburgh. That was a couple of years ago, and the claim for Aberdeen has only been sent in in the last six months or so. The reason why the money was granted was because Edinburgh was the only university which granted a degree in forestry, and for forestry in India. Those are the two reasons why this money was granted. That does not, however, interfere with a proper claim Aberdeen may make for another Grant. I am well aware of the importance of this subject, but I do not think it would be advisable until I have had time to consider it, that I should enter into the question as to what the best authority is, or the further questions whether there ought not to be a school of forestry in the administrative area. That would be for a different purpose. One would be for scientific forestry and higher education, and the other would be for practically dealing with the matter. I think I need say no more about this subject except that the considerations which have been put before us will be carefully considered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It will be within the recollection of the House and the Financial Secretary that we have had, some short time ago, a considerable discussion with regard to the purchase of pictures, and a very large sum was spent upon purchasing a certain picture. During that discussion we found that a considerable number of hon. Members were extremely desirous that the Grant in future years should be increased, and that more pictures should be purchased. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary felt in his mind that his economical spirit would prevail over the artistic desires of Members
  512
  on both sides of the House, because I do not think he gave any expression of opinion as to whether or not he proposed to renew the Grant which in the Supplementary Estimates it was stated would not be renewed. I wish to draw attention to a statement made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General with regard to the care and custody of pictures and works of art. Everyone will admit that the nation has a very large sum invested in these particular pictures and works of art and subjects of interest in the different museums in the country. Without expressing any opinion as to the advisability of that expenditure, I think it will be generally agreed that these particular things are objects of great value, and if they should be lost or injured it would inflict a very great injury on the whole country. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reveals a very serious state of things, and I will call the attention of the House to that Report. I have given the Financial Secretary notice that I was going to raise this Question, and I have given the reference paragraphs which I am going to quote, and upon which I desire to ask one or two questions. The Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report of the 15th January this year contains the following passage:—
  "EXHIBITS IN NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.
  "In connection with the general observations on the subject of Store Audit contained in the Treasury Minutes dated 5th November, 1886, and 19th October, 1894. the two questions of (1) Inventory record, and (2) Stock survey of exhibits in the several National Museums and Galleries maintained by State Funds, have for some time been engaging ray attention, and steps have been taken in my department to ascertain what regulations existed with a view to secure efficient control over the receipt and custody of articles required, and whether the regulations laid down were duly carried into effect."
  Here we come to the result of the inquiries made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He says:—
  "As the result of my enquiries, it was found that in most cases attempts were made to keep inventories of all acquisitions."
  The Comptroller and Auditor-General says attempts were made. Of course, it is easy to make an attempt, but it is very difficult to carry out a change when you have agreed that it is advisable. I will continue the quotation:—
  "Attempts were made to keep inventories of all acquisitions, but in no case was there any systematic survey of stock, either by the custodians themselves or by any independent officers I, therefore, referred the matter to the Treasury, and in a letter dated the 9th October, 1911, in which I suggested for their lordships' consideration the advisability of issuing general instructions for the establishment at these museums and galleries of full and permanent records or inventories of all acquisitions, and for the introduction of regular and systematic stock survey.

  513
  "In reply, the Treasury informed me that the Board of Education had proposed to appoint a small committee to consider this question as regards museums under their control, and that their lordships proposed to await the report of this committee before taking any steps with regard to the collections under other authorities."
  From that quotation it does not seem to me that the Treasury has regarded this matter in the light in which it should be regarded. An inventory ought to have been made originally, and if it has not been made before it ought to be made now. Once the inventory is made all that is required is to keep it up to date, and add the new things. That cannot in any way be considered a difficult matter to do. Where there is a large collection probably a considerable amount of labour would be entailed to start an inventory, but that is the fault of the Treasury for not having done so before. It is evident that an inventory alone is not sufficient, and there ought to be a stock survey to see what actually is in the exhibition or the gallery at that particular moment, or else the inventory is practically of no avail. I admit that there is considerable difficulty in taking a stock survey of the different articles in a museum or a picture gallery. I understand that at the British Museum a very careful inventory is kept, but I am not sure that at that institution a stock survey is made or has ever been attempted. I admit there is a difficulty in making a stock survey, but I may point out that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is a man of practical knowledge, thinks a stock survey should be taken, and I think it might be possible to take such a survey once in every five years. I trust the Financial Secretary will take this matter into consideration. I think a stock survey is worth having, in order that we may be quite certain that the nation does possess all these valuable pictures and other articles upon which large sums of money have been spent, and which ought to be in the control of the custodians.
  I wish to draw attention to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon another subject. It appears that with regard to the national schools in Ireland, and especially with regard to the building of the schools there, that the report of the Public Accounts Committee last year was absolutely disregarded. It seems that in Ireland—I am sorry there are no Irish Members present, because I should have liked to have asked them for an explanation as to the method in which they carry out their finances—when
  514
  tenders were required for certain works which had to be undertaken by the school managers, for which they receive a two-thirds Grant out of the Vote, that no steps were taken to obtain from the contractors competitive tenders. That opens rather a serious question. Here you are spending money provided by the tax-payers, and it is spent on school buildings, and all the laws which govern business and commercial undertakings are thrown to the winds and no competitive tenders are taken. We have heard that in Ireland there is a system by which politics come in, and tenders are sometimes given because the tenderer happens to be a Unionist or a Nationalist, and not because he is a good builder prepared to work at the lowest price. It does seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, if the Treasury are to do their duty and control the public purse, that all these matters should be looked into with a view to seeing shat proper business arrangements are made when public money is spent. This is what the Comptroller and Auditor-General said:—
  "I was informed in reply that no such steps were taken as the rules of the Commissioners of National Education Ireland, which govern the payment of Grants, do not require competitive tenders to be obtained."
  8.0 P.M.
  Will the Financial Secretary give me an assurance that he will withhold the Grant until competitive tenders are obtained and unless the money spent on works in Ireland is spent in a proper and business-like manner. I trust the business instincts of the hon. Gentleman will overcome his political instincts, and that he will be able to give me the assurance for which I ask. There is one other question I want to raise, and it also deals with the Beard of Education. It appears that a Grant is made to certain local education authorities to aid necessitous areas, and in some cases the Grant has been larger than ought to have been made. I find in 1908–9 a clause was inserted in the regulations which the Treasury sanctioned to the effect that, if the total Grants payable under the regulations exceeded £200,000, the sum voted by Parliament for the purpose, a pro rata reduction of the Gran to each participating local authority should be made. It appears that was not carried out. That this procedure was not covered by the regulations laid before Parliament, was admitted in a letter addressed to the Treasury in March last, in which the Board proposed (a) the abolition in future of the system of spreading

  515
  capital expenditure over a series of years, and (b) the clearing off of outstanding instalments. The Treasury, however, appear to have confined their sanction of the new procedure to the present year. That is good, and it is also bad. If they have confined their sanction to the present year, that as a step in the right direction, because they have shown some desire to see that the regulations laid down for the protection of the taxpayer are observed, but, on the other hand, if this ought not to have been done, why do they sanction it for one year? Why do they not say boldly: "The method is wrong, and we will not sanction it at all." Then there is a very long letter written to the Secretary of the Board of Education on 28th November last year, laying down certain things which should be observed in cases where after full payment has been made for a given year, the registers are found to be defective and questions arise as to how much is to be reduced in respect of their regular payments or in respect of a penal fine. This is the decision the Treasury have arrived at in the second class of instances:—
  "My Lords are content to leave entirely to the Board's discretion the amount of penalty (over and above the amount of irregular payment to be recovered) which the Board with their knowledge of the local circumstances think it desirable to inflict."
  Why is this left to the Board of Education? It is a Treasury matter, and the Treasury ought not to part with their control and leave it to the discretion of the Board of Education. What is the use of a Treasury if it says to a Department over which they ought to exercise control, "We will not exercise our rights of supervision, but will leave it entirely to your discretion1?" In the next paragraph the Treasury take a different line:—
  "My Lords will only request that the Board will boar in mind the observations which the Public Accounts Committee have made on this subject, and will cause them to be informed from time to time of the amounts of the penalties so inflicted and of the cases in which the Board have refrained from exercising this power This information might, it is suggested, be furnished by means of a yearly schedule."
  I am not quite certain whether the Treasury request the Board of Education to inform the Public Accounts Committee of what they have been doing or the Treasury. My contention is that in both these crises the Treasury ought to be informed. They ought to know what is going on, and they ought to exercise the supervision which it is their duty to exercise. It then goes on to say:—
  "Their Lordships gather it is the policy of the Board to exact repayment to the full in all ordinary circum-
  516
  stances of sums ascertained to hare been overpaid or irregularly paid, and they do not desire that their sanction should be sought for each instance in which the Board adopt this course."
  I do not quite understand what that means, but it appears to me it is again an attempt, I will not say to evade, but to abandon their proper duty. There is one other question which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Why is it that the Treasury attempt to exact Income Tax under Schedule B on gardens? Anyone owing a garden does not make a profit out of occupying that garden. The unfortunate person who owns a garden makes a very large loss on it, and yet he has to pay Income Tax under Schedule A, and then the Treasury come and demand that he should pay Income Tax under Schedule B. I am sure that is quite illegal, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the Treasury exercises a little less control in attempting to exact money which ought hot to be exacted, and a little more control in regard to the other matters of which I have spoken.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. Baronet has asked me several questions of a somewhat intricate character concerning a variety of matters not entirely affecting my own Department, and he will forgive me if in that case I am brief. As to the question of the schools in Ireland, I will certainly look into the Report to which he has drawn my attention, especially as to the desirability of open tenders, in regard to which I thoroughly agree with him in every respect. With regard to the Board of Education, the reason the Treasury sanction in connection with the Grants to necessitous school areas was limited to the year under discussion was that it was only required in connection with the year in question. The Board of Education ceased from that year, and intend to cease in future, distinguishing so-called capital from current expenditure in payment of the necessitous grant. Until that year they provided three-quarters of the money over the 1s. 6d. rate only for current expenses, and as regards items of capital expenses, they spread them over a period of years charged to revenue. They have come to the conclusion that is not a desirable method, and in future it will be abandoned. I think the hon. Baronet will agree it is better it should be abandoned. The hon. Baronet raised a matter of considerable importance as to the question of museum stores, and I have no complaint to make of the

  517
  way in which he dealt with it. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has called the attention of the Treasury to two points. He thinks there ought to be a more complete inventory of these national treasures, and he points to the desirability of a more frequent and systematic stock survey. The hon. Baronet must recognise there was some difficulty in the matter of this periodical stock-taking, and the Board of Education thought the best method was to appoint a Committee to consider the subject, especially in connection with those museums which are directly under a public Department. The British Museum, as the hon. Baronet knows, is under trustees, but the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum are directly under the Board of Education, and the Board of Education suggested that a Committee should investigate as to what would be desirable in connection with the inventory and stock-taking being made more perfect. The Treasury agreed that it was desirable to look into the matter, first of all in connection with museums under Government Departments, with a view afterwards of considering how far that might be applied to other museums. That Committee was appointed last autumn. Sir John Bromley, the late Accountant-General of the Board of Education was in the Chair, and it was a Joint Committee of the Board of Education and of the Treasury. The Report has now been presented. It is being considered by the Board of Education, and I hope on some subsequent occasion in the next few weeks, if the hon. Baronet will either put a question or take some other opportunity of raising the matter, to be able to tell him what action, if any, has been taken in the matter. In addition to that, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has reported on the subject, and the Report of the Public Accounts Committee will also be before the House in due course. I have taken advice from the authorities in the Inland Revenue as to the question the hon. Baronet raised in connection with gardens, and they tell me there is no doubt at all in the matter. Schedule B charges, not merely on money profits, but on amenity profits as well. The Section is quite clear, and it has been in operation for the last eighty years:—
  "That Schedule B shall be charged on the amount of the annual value"
  I think the hon. Baronet will find he is being charged on the annual value of his
  518
  garden, less the house and one acre, which comes under the Inhabited House Duty. The Inland Revenue authorities tell me they are quite willing the hon. Baronet should appeal against his assessment, but they do not hold out much hope of any legal uncertainty about the matter. I can only hope, after this explanation, the hon. Baronet will have more enjoyment cut of his garden in the knowledge that he has been legally and not illegally taxed
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SHOPS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. McKENNA: I have to ask the indulgence of the House in order that I may get, not only the Second Reading of this Bill, but also the other stages. The circumstances are extremely exceptional. The Bill is a mere consolidation Bill; it contains no amendment of the law, but it is urgent. We are getting this Bill because the Act of last Session comes into operation on 1st May, and, as the House will understand, it is most desirable that the local authorities should have the Acts before them in a consolidated form instead of having to consult six separate Acts.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House do immediately resolve itself into Committed on the Bill."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed without Amendment.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL. (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

  519
  I am very sorry to have to detain the House upon this subject, but it is necessary, in order to explain the points which it is desired to make against this particular measure. There is, as it were, an initial objection to the proceedings relating to this Bill. It is well known that Stoke-on-Trent, to which this Bill largely applies, has 69 per cent, of its area and considerably more of its population included within the scope of the measure. Stoke-on-Trent consisted of six separate authorities until quite recently, when, by a decision of Parliament, it was decided to throw the six towns into the melting-pot for the purpose of establishing a large corporation now known as the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent. This borough has only recently been established, and it is thought by many connected with the work of the district and with local affairs that it is rather ultra vires for a wealthy company of this description, without any particular reason or immediate necessity, to have reopened the question of their rights and privileges, with a view to the extension of their powers so soon after the new borough has been brought into existence. The new borough has scarcely had a chance of getting its bearings so to speak, and, seeing what its possibilities and business duties are connected with the administration of this great area, and for this company to use the period of transition between one form of government and another for the purpose of introducing a Bill of this description is thought by a great many people in the district to be unnecessary and uncalled for.
  That is the preliminary objection which they take to this measure, and it is borne out to a very large extent by the terms of the Bill itself. Borrowing powers are sought to be extended. These borrowing powers, I understand, are only required for possible additional works during the next fifteen years, and it is a moral certainty, therefore, the sum being as it is only a relatively small sum, that the Bill is not so much a Bill to seek borrowing powers for the extension of the business of the company as it is for securing a readjustment and reassertion of the company's powers, while the local authority is in a comparative state of transition. One particular reason against the proposal of the Bill is that if these extended powers are to be sought so soon after the establishment of the new county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, at least there should have been
  520
  some provision made, in the Bill itself, that those additional powers should not be used for the purpose of enhancing the value of this property, and making it utterly impossible for the council to assume control of the water supply. There should have been some provision made by the company, or by the promoters of this measure, to deal with that phase of the subject. This is a very wealthy company, and its wealth, I venture to suggest, is largely due to the fact that it was established so many years ago, and no real revision has since taken place of its powers and privileges. It has, in fact, many powers and privileges which Parliament, under ordinary circumstances, would not grant if a new company were being formed, and certainly would not confer on a new body.
  It is seeking for borrowing powers, and as proof again that that is not essential, and that the Bill need not be hurried on in the way it has been, they are seeking these powers while their old borrowing powers under previous Acts are unexhausted and unused; that is a clear indication that they do not require this money only for works during the next fifteen years. There are clearly other reasons prompting the promoters in bringing forward this Bill at the present time. I wish to call attention to one or two other matters that should be considered by this House when dealing with a measure of this description. Everybody knows that Stoke-on-Trent is a very poor neighbourhood. I suppose that of its total population 95 per cent, are poor working people. It has the lowest rateable value of any town of similar size in the whole country. That must be taken into special consideration in connection with the statement and criticisms I am going to make about the proposal contained in this Bill. There is very little reference to any alteration of charges in the new proposal. I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and, excepting in one or two individual cases where the owners of property threatening resistance and threatening carrying it to its logical conclusion have forced a compromise from the company—with those exceptions I do not think there are any suggestions altering, in the slightest degree, the charges for supply in the district. What I particularly object to, and what I am instructed by the Trades and Labour Council in the district, representing some 20,000 to 30,000 organised workmen, to bring before this House is—and I am

  521
  pleased to see the President of the Local Government Board in his place, because this is a matter which more directly affects his Department—that this company at the present time makes charges under its old Act of Parliament for any w.c. on any rateable property or dwelling-house above the value of £6.
  Of course, it is a peculiar subject to bring before the House, but as it is thought proper that such matters should be made Imperial questions, I am bound to deal with it, as I know the locality, and have obtained information upon the subject. There are portions of this district where, owing to the charge made by this company, builders in years gone by have erected half a dozen cottages with only one w.c, with the object of avoiding this charge. One can easily see what the effect of that must be upon the sanitation of the locality. When we consider that in conjunction with another matter I shall have to mention presently, we can quite understand how it is that Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest death rates of the larger towns in the country. Even to-day buildings are being erected without any w.c's at all. That system is a disgrace to a thickly populated district like this borough. I venture to suggest that it is a subject which the Local Government Board ought to investigate. It is almost entirely due to the charges made by this company, which amount practically to a tax on public decency. I could quite understand it if this company were a poor company, and in difficult financial circumstances, and was not able to pay a dividend upon its capital. In those circumstances I could understand it making a resistance to a reduction of the charges, even of this necessary description. But that is not the condition of this company. It is probably one of the wealthiest companies in the whole country. I believe its capital stands very high, and almost as high as any water company in the country. Surely there is no justification for this wealthy corporation seeking new powers from this House without at the same time giving public advantages such as many other companies are obliged to give. I am told there is an agreement, and I have seen a copy of it, between the town council of Stoke-on-Trent and the water company relating to the charge I am dealing with. I understand it is proposed in that agreement to raise the rateable value from £6 to £8. I say that is not sufficient,
  522
  for the simple reason that that only allows the very worst property in the locality to escape. The council itself asked the company to grant free of charge the erection of w.c's in properties under £10, but the company haggled about the business, and have only accepted a maximum of £8 at present. I do not say I will take a Division on the Bill, but I move its rejection in order to hear what those who are to speak for the promoters have to say with regard to the several matters I am bringing before the House. I do not propose, if there is, any kind of reasonable explanation, to take the question to a Division, but I certainly say that unless some reasonable arrangements have been made in the interval, I shall not only do the very best I can to obstruct the Bill through its remaining stages, but I shall take a Division on the Third Reading in the hope of being able to get it.
  Take another phase of the sanitation question. We have driven these six towns into one. The law says the six towns are one. That is a very good thing. But the water company still says they are six, and it refuses to treat the new borough as one consumer. It insists upon treating each of these separte localities as separate consumers, and Parliament is asked to accept an alteration of the law it passed. It is a matter of great importance, for the simple reason that the scale of charges would mean a saving on the scavenging of the streets, and the proper swilling of the sewers, and the necessary work of sanitation, if the borough were treated as one consumer, of about £400 a year to the ratepayers. When one considers these two things together, they will see the meanness, because it is nothing else, of a great wealthy company, whose capital pays a regular 7 per cent.—heaven knows what they do with the the rest of their money—that rather than lower charges they should come before this House and haggle over the question as to whether this new corporation should be treated as one body or whether they should continue to treat it in their Bills as six bodies. Of course, I understand it if the company were poor and found it difficult to pay interest on their capital, but when it is considered that it is one of the wealthiest bodies of a similar character in the country, and that it haggles as to whether an Act of Parliament shall be recognised as law so far as its charges

  523
  are concerned, I say it is certainly meanness. The House will see, from the observations I have already made, that we have a good cause of complaint. I know it will be said presently that the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation have agreed with the company. That is easily explained, when one comes to consider the state of Stoke-on-Trent, owing to the coal strike and other conditions, and the fact that these six bodies have only just become one and have scarcely taken their bearings or been able to compass their financial responsibilities. They are almost forced to accept any arrangement rather than promote opposition to this Bill, which will be a tax upon the ratepayers amounting, perhaps, to many years of the cost saved by the advantages that ought to be secured without promoting opposition petitions at all. As to the question whether these conditions apply to other towns, I find there are no charges for water closets on properties under £10 in value in towns like Oldham, Darlington, Birmingham, Wakefield, Plymouth, Bath, Tynemouth, or Chester, and I do not know how many others there may be. Stoke-upon-Trent is not asking for anything exceptional. It is only asking to be treated in an up-to-date fashion as the sanitary authority of a great new body with an immense population amounting to 250,000 people. The surprising thing is that these are all wealthy towns. Take Oldham, Darlington, Birmingham, Wakefield, and compare the poverty of those localities with our districts. There is no comparison at all. Yet these can escape the extortionate charges of water authorities to the extent that we are asking for, while we, a poor neighbourhood, cannot even get the condition which these wealthy authorities can secure.
  For these and many other reasons it is impossible for us, representing the purely working classes of the district, to obtain the good sanitation on which the health of these people largely depends, apart altogether from the difficulties of the council in being unable to venture on the expense of promoting a petition and appealing against the Bill, because that is an expensive matter. If it does it effectively it soon runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The mere fact that the corporation is in that position, that it cannot assert its rights for fear of the expense, should not prevent the House on the Third Reading disposing absolutely of
  524
  the Bill unless by their own volition the company are prepared to do justice to the district they serve. I am not now concerned with the question of purchase, but it would be wrong for Parliament to give increased powers to this company until the corporation has had a chance to take its bearings relating to its duties to the locality that has been specially created by an Act of this House, and any increased franchise or powers that you give by this Bill should not be made a burden upon the ratepayer of the locality, in case within a few years they decide to become the water authority of the district. Beyond that statement I am not going to press this question to-night. The House has declared that these six authorities are one, but the water company, for the purpose of laying hold of a few hundreds of pounds more per year out of the ratepayers, whom I represent, are insisting even in this Bill that, they shall be considered as six authorities for the future It is a most extraordinary position of affairs.
  There is another matter. This company is not compelled to supply water to fires, or anything of that description, unless they choose to do so of their own sweet will. Of course, there is no such antiquated provision in any Bill that has passed this House for the last quarter of a century, but so considerate am I and the Labour men in the locality that we would not make that a case for obstructing the Bill, because, after all, that is a question for the larger ratepayers and the insurance companies to consider. If they do not choose to take the proper course to protect their own property it is nothing to do with us. We are concerned about the sanitation of the poorer dwelling-houses of the community. Surely the streets and courts are black enough as they are without leaving the mud on them for days and weeks, because you are afraid to use the water to clean them. Settle the problems I have mentioned and treat the authorities as one authority in accordance with the Act already passed by this House, and I should be prepared to allow the Bill to go through without any trouble at all as to purchase or anything of the kind; but these are essentials before I can allow it to proceed beyond the Second Reading. I shall deliver the same address or something like it on the Third Reading, and shall add a great many facts to my case in the interval. While I shall allow the Bill to proceed after an explanation, its passage will be a very stormy one unless at least some consideration is given to

  525
  these claims of the working population to decent treatment from a wealthy corporation.
  Mr. POINTER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have been asked to oppose the Bill by the North Staffordshire Labour party. They have been taking a very keen interest in the negotiations which have led up to the promotion of the present Bill. So far as I have been able to gather they have brought what influence they have been able to bring in favour of getting the Purchase Clause inserted in the Bill in order to safeguard the position of the corporation. I am not quite at one with the hon. Member because, as I understood him, there were a lot of things which he mentioned severally which he was anxious should be put right, but he was not inclined to lay very great emphasis upon the question of the Purchase Clause. I do not want to belittle any of the points that he mentioned. They are all very important, especially those relating to sanitation, but still we ought not, on the other hand, to belittle the question of purchase. That appears to me to be a very important consideration indeed. In fact I am not quite sure if I should not be correct in saying the very agitation for the combination of the six towns was assisted very materially by the statement that it would enable the community to have charge of its own water supply, if only it was established in a bigger way, as would be secured by amalgamation. If that is so, it appears to me that the present Bill amounts to a very grievous betrayal of certain promises which were made by certain persons interested—whether in a pecuniary sense I am not here to say—in getting the amalgamation of the township, and if in order to bring that about, to get over initial opposition from certain quarters, they use as an argument that the water supply could be placed under the control of the community, when they have achieved their object they proceed to betray the promises they have given and the arguments they have used, the House ought to take it into very serious consideration before it passes lightly a Bill of this kind.
  The hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) indicated that there were still borrowing powers left open, or, rather, that there was still capital which had been left open to them to float if they so desired. I have some figures which have been supplied to me by one of the local councillors. I take
  526
  it that he is conversant with the matter, and that, therefore, we can rely upon the figures. I am informed that, taking the loan capital and the stock and share capital together, there is still £43,662 not taken, up. When we consider that the only amount asked for under this Bill, so far as I can see, is £180,000, it will be seen that they can have a quarter of the sum they require in hand as soon as they like to avail themselves of the powers given under various Acts, and especially the last one passed in 1888. So far as their present intention is concerned, that £80,000 extra capital is to be distributed as regards expenditure over a period of fifteen years. I think it will be obvious to anyone that if £180,000 is going to last for fifteen years, the £43,000, which they already have the opportunity of getting at any moment, will last them a few years to come, especially when we take into consideration the rate at which capital expenditure has been indulged in for a period of ten years. For the last ten years they have been indulging in an expenditure of £8,800 a year, so that if there is £43,000 still not taken up it means that they have at their option enough money at the same rate of expenditure to last for the next five years. That does appear to me to emphasise the point I mentioned at the outset, namely, that there has been a betrayal of the interests concerned by this company, especially when we consider that a promise was given. Now, before the corporation has time to turn round, they are seeking to make it more difficult than ever before for the corporation to purchase this undertaking if they desire to do so in the near future; for obviously, when they are taking up fresh capital, that only means that the corporation will have to raise a larger sum of money, and consequently, with the inflation of capital likely to take place, it may mean that the amount of expenditure they have to indulge in will make it very difficult indeed to make both ends meet, and they will be saddling the community with debt which will have to be liquidated by the rates.
  I think these are weighty considerations. Those promoting this Bill ought to have some definite answer to give as to why they are taking the line they are taking at the present time. I quite endorse, so far as my information goes, the remark made by the Mover of the Amendment, namely, that it is not poverty that is driving them to this course. It is not because they want capital to launch in different directions in order to convert

  527
  their concern from a poverty-stricken kind of thing into something out of which they may make a legitimate profit. From 1901 to 1910 there has been an increase in revenue of £1,000 a year. That obviously shows that the company is prosperous, and that there is no need for them to scheme and plot and plan as they appear to have done to leave the corporation in that dilemma. It appears to me that they are reckoning upon a certain eventuality, and I suppose they think that the sooner the eventuality arises the better their purpose will be served. They are reckoning that the people are going to get dissatisfied with the local water supply, and that an agitation will be set on foot in favour of the municipalisation of the water supply in this district. It appears to me that this is a carefully calculated trick in order that when the situation becomes ripe for the community to take action, they will be able to show a larger capital outlay, and to ask a bigger penny, so to speak, than otherwise they would be able to do.
  There have been statements made by the promoters of the Bill to the effect that it would not be possible for the ratepayers to make this scheme pay. I cannot help being struck, amazed almost, at the solicitude these people have for the poor, innocent ratepayers who are going to suffer so much. I always begin to suspect when I hear any man who is interested in these local supply firms or one of his friends expressing anxiety as to the state of the poor community. Then I take him for what he is, a hypocrite, and I do not believe a word he says. I believe that is the position in this case. It seems that they have taken the trouble to get statements from persons who think they are in a position to give them advice. I understand that a Mr. Kean has been consulted on the matter, and that he points out—I believe so far as the majority of the people are concerned he has proved his point—that, taking the capital value upon a certain number of years' purchase, say a sixty years' loan, it would then be quite possible for the corporation in its extended area, and as a joint borough, to conduct its operations in such a way as to make it pay without costing the corporation a penny-piece, and that they would be able to effect savings in certain directions. For instance, at the present moment I understand the directors' fees reach £1,000 a year. I think the greater part of that might be
  528
  saved under a unified scheme in which the corporation would take the place of the present company. My hon. Friend has mentioned the case of the non-necessity under which they are at the present moment to keep up a sufficiently high pressure of water to cope with the requirements of the neighbourhood.
  That, I contend, is a very serious matter indeed. I hardly think that my hon. Friend estimates it at the proper value. He said that that was a thing that the neighbourhood might make itself responsible for. I quite grant that that is so up to a point. Still, if this House is going to give larger powers to a community which is so remiss, and which appears to take advantage of every little loophole in its constitution which allows it to slip out of obligations, then this House must share in the responsibility if bad results ensue. I understand that under Section 46 of the Act of 1853 their charter empowers the company to charge 40 per cent, extra in certain districts. That is a remarkable provision, and altogether there appears to be a maximum of bad points in the powers of this company, and, so far as I can gather, they have a decided genius for using all the bad points and not taking advantage of the good ones. I am also informed that if, in the opinion of a local authority an extension of water mains is necessary in the interests of sanitation the company can refuse to lay down those extra mains unless the locality is prepared to pay 10 per cent. extra cost. In reply to this, it is said that they have never exercised this power. Presumably, they do not deny that that power is theirs, but their excuse is that they never exercise it. I take it that they are a sort of limited white hen that never lays astray and never does anything that is wrong. That may be a very nice excuse to put up, but, unfortunately, it is not true. I understand that there are at least four local authorities—small ones, I gather—in the neighbourhood, all of which are at the present time paying the 10 per cent.—what I suppose would be called the minimum rate—in regard to water. In addition, I understand that the local authorities, small though they be, in the generosity of their hearts undertake the collection of this money and so save the company from anxiety on that point.
  9.0 P.M.
  As to the point which my hon. Friend made regarding the invidious statement of the unified borough, I understand that this is a sort of an arrangement trans-

  529
  mitted from the old days when each separate township, self contained, had a separate contract and bargain between themselves and the particular company. Obviously one would have thought that common sense and a sense of fairness would have dictated when the united borough became united that they should proceed to deal with them as one customer instead of keeping up the old fiction that they were still separate undertakings. I do not know what the saving would be, but my information tallies with that of the Mover of the Amendment that if they were treated as one customer they would save £400 per year. Not only have they gone to the trouble to get expert opinions on the question as to whether it would be possible for the corporation with its larger powers, if given the opportunity, to make the water undertaking under their hands a success, but they have made assurance doubly sure, by going to another expert, and though his figures differ, and the second man gave figures altogether higher than the original estimate, even this Gentleman makes it quite clear that there will be no difficulty even at a purchase price including working capital, and a sum set aside available for capital purposes, amounting up to the sum of £1,950,000. As I understand it, is it at all sure that the sum needed would reach that figure. So far as the ability of the particular corporation that we are speaking of is concerned, I do not think we need have any trouble. I have yet to learn that what private individuals can do a corporation with public spirit and enterprise cannot do equally well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) will go into the facts and take up the municipal year book, or if he distrusts that, get his information from any source he likes, provided he goes to the fountain head, and does not take Tariff Reform or anti-Socialist figures of one kind or another, because obviously I could not trust them as being at all a reliable source of information, but if he will go to the fountain head, and if he will inquire into the respective merits of municipal and private management, in any of the public utilities, I think he will find that in almost every case, certainly in the large majority of cases, the municipality shows up to splendid advantage either in regard to cost, or public service rendered, or the purity of the thing or service supplied, and that in every case they have the best of the
  530
  argument. Not very long ago this House was concerned with rather a large water undertaking, at least slightly larger than the one we are discussing to-night, and if my memory is not altogether at fault the people of London not long ago were threatened with a water famine. Water was very scarce—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I think the hon. Member is rather straying.
  Mr. POINTER: With all respect, the point of the whole business is this, that we are opposing this Bill because of the refusal of the company to insert in the Bill a purchase Clause which will enable the Corporation at a later date to step in and purchase when they declare their intention of doing so. The company have not only refused, but they have given indications to show that they have refused under certain circumstances which are a gross betrayal of the promises which they made, when there was an agitation for the unified borough, at an earlier state of the proceedings, and consequently we urge that as an objection. All the same, I will not pursue the matter further. I only wish, in conclusion, to mention one or two other points. One is that the operations of this company a but upon sanitation. The great danger of the absence, in sanitary arrangements, of water wherewith to carry them out is a matter of grave import to the public health of the neighbourhood. The promoters having refused to put into the Bill a purchase Clause, I think on all the points to which I have referred we ought to have some very definite assurance from them if the House is to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member for Stoke, in moving his Amendment, stated that he did not intend, at this stage at any rate, to press has opposition to this Bill. He made a number of interesting observations which have been added to by my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment. They were speeches, if I may say so without offence, that might well have been delivered in the council chamber of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. If I am not mistaken, they were delivered there, I do not say by the hon. Members themselves, but to all intents and purposes they have repeated them. For when I look at the petition of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, I observe that every single one of these points, to which reference has been made are

  531
  set out seriatim. What we are asked to do is to review the decision, of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. I do not think that the strongest advocate of democratic government should impose upon us such a tyranny as that. Their persuasion is, of course, legitimate, and could be applied in the proper place. In asking the House to send this Bill to be examined by the usual Committee, I need only, I think, put before the House this fact, that this petition has been presented to the House, among several others, by the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, setting out every single one of those points which it has taken fifty-three minutes to hear about to-night. An agreement has been arrived at between the promoters of the Bill and the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. It is quite true that the Stoke Corporation have not got all they wanted, but people do not always get what they want in this world. The corporation, however, have got certain of the largest points which they required. They have got the removal of the extra charge to those districts referred to by my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, and they have also got a reduction in the charges for water closets, which was such a great point of the Member for Stoke. On that point I would say to him that, according to my information, the charges upon houses under £10 rental value, including the charge for water closets, are not higher but lower than are the charges of other water companies and other authorities for that purpose.
  Mr. POINTER: Now or before?
  Mr. WHITLEY: Before this reduction made under the agreement. But surely that is a matter to be looked into by a Committee rather than debated on the floor of the House. I do not know that I need say anything further, except, perhaps, on a point of purchasing by the local authorities. If the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation had come to this House and asked for a purchase Clause to be inserted on consideration that they did without delay themselves apply to Parliament to be the water authority, I do not think the House would have granted that unusual thing. They put the point forward in the petition, but in consideration of the concessions obtained from the company, they have withdrawn that petition. I think I have said enough for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. LLOYD: I would urge the hon. Member for Stoke not to oppose this Bill any further. I would like to correct him in. one matter, namely, in regard to the fire brigade. I understood the hon. Member for Stoke to say that it was only at the sweet will of the Waterworks Company that water was supplied to the fire brigade. That is quite incorrect. My information leads me to believe that under Section 42 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the company has no option; it is under statutory obligation to allow persons at all times to use water for extingushing fires without any payment whatever. Under these circumstances I think the point of the hon. Member falls to the ground.
  Mr. J. WARD: My point was as to the pressure necessary to extinguish fires in the case of buildings of good height.
  Mr. LLOYD: My recollection is that the hon. Member's point was quite different. It is quite true that no definite pressure is stated, but, at all events, the Waterworks Company do the best they can, and the pressure in their mains is as good as the pressure provided by other authorities. From his remarks I certainly thought he gave the House to understand that it was only at the sweet will of the Water Company that the fire brigade could obtain water to extinguish fires, which is certainly incorrect. I urge that this Bill should be allowed to go through for the supply of the district concerned, which is an immense one, with a population of 330,000—an increase of 100,000 since the last Bill in 1888. If only the hon. Member for Stoke paused to consider, he would realise that if this Bill is opposed and its passage frustrated the position of the company in another summer like that of last year would be very serious, and the whole of the Stoke borough would be left without water and without those facilities which are most Urgent. It seems to me that there is no reason whatever why this Bill should not be allowed to go upstairs. The Chairman of Ways and Means has dealt very adequately with the question of purchase and other points raised, and I only trust that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent may see his way to withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to go through.
  Mr. STANIER: The hon. Member for Stoke seems to think there is some difficulty about the pressure of water in pipes. If he refers to Section 42 of the Consolidated Acts, in regard to the supply of

  533
  water for fires, he will see that it is provided that the undertaker shall at all times keep the pressure of water "as aforesaid"; and if you look to what is "aforesaid," you will find that by Section 35 the pressure is to be such as will make the water reach the top storey of the highest house within the limits. I think that in itself is quite sufficient to show that the hon. Member need have no fear that there will not be enough pressure in the mains in case of fire. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment rather led the House to believe that the directors of the company received £1,000 each; he did not say that it was £1,000 amongst them.
  Mr. POINTER: I did not wish to create a wrong impression; I was speaking about the possibility of making ends meet, and I said £l,000 could be saved.
  Mr. STANIER: I do not think that amounts to very much, nor do I think that these directors are at all overpaid. They receive about £80 a year each; they have to meet once a week, and they are paid by attendances. I ask the House to send the Bill to Committee, where, and where alone, the points which have been raised can be argued, and not points that ought to be argued in this House. I suppose I have blocked more water Bills than any other Member of this House, and some forty or fifty in the last four or five years. I blocked this one at the beginning, but I allowed it to go through, and I hope the House will allow it to go through.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It appears to me that we are discussing a measure which is in the nature of assisting a syndicate. The House ought to be very careful before it allows a Bill of this kind to be carried through. I should have thought it would have been wise to have postponed the Bill until after the discussion which, I understand, we are going to take in a few moments. To those Members who are afraid of the dangers of Syndicalism, I would point out that here is a case in point where we are giving control over the supply of water over a very large district to one monopolist company. In London we had experience of what it cost to buy such companies out. We had to pay an exorbitant price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I can speak, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City said the other night, either for a long time or a short time. I have two or three things to
  534
  say and I intend to say them. The difficulty you find yourself in when you come to deal with one of these syndicates is very great indeed. If the people of the Stoke boroughs want to buy the syndicate out, they will probably find themselves saddled with a large debt and that the ratepayers will have to pay very much more than they otherwise would. If the hon. Member does not go to a Division we will not be able to divide, but I do suggest, that those who are so anxious to prevent the growth of Syndicalism in the country ought to oppose the trade root and branch.
  Mr. J. WARD: After the statements which have been made, though holding to my warning to the company, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. KING: I do not think the Amendment ought to be withdrawn in that manner. It is said over and over again that every man has his price, and when I see a man of principle and of such courage and integrity as my hon. Friend withdrawing his proposition in this kind of way, I begin to be a little suspicious. I do not want to make any accusations against him or anybody else, but I really think that this is a matter which might fairly occupy the time of the House a little longer than an hour. I do so, not because I have any very wide experience in the matter, but I observe that there are one or two Gentlemen who have not yet returned from dinner, and whose advent to this Debate we should very heartily welcome. For instance, there is the hon. Baronet—
  Viscount WOLMERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I believe that I am only doing a public service in occupying the House until he comes.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are wholly irrelevant.
  Mr. KING: There are one or two matters of principle. There is the most important question whether a town or a city like Stoke ought to have a Bill passed which does not provide opportunity for the community to obtain as early as possible and with as little expenditure of public money as possible the control of its own

  535
  water supply. We are extremely sorry that we have not the assistance of the Local Government Board in this matter. I do not know where the President of the Local Government Board is, but I really consider he ought to be in his place. I see that he has sent the Under-Secretary, but so far that hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with any observations. I trust we shall hear something from some representatives of the Government.
  Mr. J. WARD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I hope that at this stage my hon. Friends will not insist on a Division, because the object I have in view would not be served by a Division.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SYNDICALISM.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the growth and advocacy by certain labour agitators of an anti-social policy of Syndicalism based upon class warfare and incitement to mutiny constitute a grave danger to the State and the welfare of the community."
  In rising at this unexpectedly late hour one cannot hope to have a very full discussion either of the theory or of the practical value of Syndicalism. Certainly we shall not have much time to discuss any of the Amendments or Amendments to Amendments put down to my Resolution. My Motion is purely academic, and is intended to be so. I view with considerable interest, and not a little amusement, the singularly verbose and rhetorical Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money). The hon. Member describes my Resolution as empty, provocative and minatory. I do not understand how it can be both empty and minatory at the same time. My Motion has given rise to Amendments dealing with woman suffrage, Tariff Reform, free speech, and other matters which bear absolutely no relation to Syndicalism, and have nothing whatever to do with the subject of which I gave notice a fortnight ago. I have no desire to attack any individual, especially any individual in this House. I should
  536
  have been content to have left the answer to the Syndicalist propaganda, as it was put in the singularly able and conclusive article written by the Leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Leicester, in the "Socialist Review" of last October, which article, I think, completely dealt with what I conceive to be the most dangerous form of Socialism that has yet shown itself. I gave notice of this Motion only because to my mind an enormous amount is being taught in the Press and in speeches by people who do not seem to understand the history of Syndicalism, or even the meaning of the word. Syndicalism is a form of Socialism—not the form of Socialism advocated by Members of the Socialist party in this House, but one advocated by certain members outside. What do I define as Socialism in that connection? I define it as the complete subversion of the economic basis of society as we know it to-day. All kinds of Socialism, Syndicalism, Collectivism Communism—have that in common. That is the one definition which combines all the various forms of Socialism. Socialism carries with it for its object the elimination of the principle of competition between capital and labour, and between capitalists and various individuals who give their labour. That is the root basis of these Socialistic proposals.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently said in this House that Socialism was the best policeman for Syndicalism. I beg most respectfully to disagree absolutely. The forces which help along Syndicalism and the forces which help along Socialism of all the forms—the Collectivism preached by the Labour party, or the Communism preached by Karl Marx—are one and the same thing. The destructive policy apart from the constructive policy of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite helps along Syndicalism just as much as it helps along Socialism. The only difference to my mind is a difference in objective. That is the whole point. Syndicalism has a new objective—new to this country, but not at all new as regards the experience of labour people in France—France being the home of Syndicalism. This objective has been very ably and carefully defined in a paper entitled "The Miners' Next Step." This pamphlet, which has been disseminated in very large numbers amongst the strikers in South Wales, is after all a document which must be treated quite seriously. The secretary vouches for the fact that

  537
  members—lie says seven or eight—of the Miners' Executive in South Wales have deliberated, and that two of them have drawn, up this document. It preaches a doctrine and advocates an objective which I am sure would appeal to me in some ways, if I were a Socialist trade unionist, far more strongly than the intellectual theories of Collectivism preached by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb. If we are to have Socialism in any form, I would far rather be governed by Tom Mann than by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb. I would far rather have the clear issue of the fundamental breaking up of the basis of society by means of a general strike than by the gradual and evolutionary, as it is called, although it is by no means evolutionary, process of taxing everybody out of the private ownership of their existing possessions. It seems to me a more practicable and a more attractive ideal to set before a large number of men who are out on strike. The objective is first the elimination of the employer of all forms—the State as well as the individual and private employer.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad there is one hon. Member prepared to stand up for the objective of Syndicalism. That is what I wished to know, whether there was anybody in this House prepared to create a real split in the Labour objective—one party going for the nationalisation of mines and the nationalisation of industry, and the other for the elimination of the employer, whether the State or companies or private individuals. What does this document say in regard to the nationalisation of mines:—
  "The nationalisation of mines does not lead in this direction—"
  —that is to say, the elimination of the employer—
  'but simply makes a national trust, with all the force, of the Government behind it. …. Our only concern is to see to it that those who create the value receive it. And if by the force of a more perfect organisation and more militant policy we reduce profits, we shall at the same time tend to eliminate the shareholders who own the coalfield. As they feel the increasing pressure we shall be bringing on their profits, they will loudly cry for nationalisation. We shall, and must, strongly oppose this in our own interests and in the interests of our objective"
  That is the complete opposite to Collectivism. They have another chapter, "Industrial Democracy the Objective," and they say:—
  "To-day shareholders own and rule the coalfields. They own and rule them mainly through paid officials. The men who work in the mines are surely as competent to elect these as shareholders who may never have seen
  538
  a colliery? Our objective begins to take shape before our eyes. Every industry thoroughly organised, in the first place, to fight, to gain control of, and then to administer that industry. The co-ordination of all industries on a Central Production Board, who, with a statistical department to ascertain the needs of the people, will issue its demand on the different departments of industry, leaving to the men themselves to determine under what conditions and how the work will be done. This would mean real democracy in real life. Any other form of democracy is a delusion and a snare."
  That is the objective; ownership of the mines, not by the State or by the men who have invested their money in sinking them, or who are running them, but ownership of the mines by the Miners' Federation, ownership of the railways by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants; any profit to go, not to the State or the community, or the people who have invested their savings in creating these industries, but to the employés who are employed as wage-earners by the central production bureau of their particular industry. That is to say, there is to be an absolute disregard of the community as a whole, an absolute disregard of all existing contracts, an absolute disregard of all existing interests or rights, and a complete overthrow of society by a much easier method than the Parliamentary method adopted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and by the single stroke of a national general strike.
  Let me examine this thing a little further. Syndicalism and Syndicalists are definitely anti-Parliamentary. They are against Parliamentary action. I have read various of the works of the leading exponents of Syndicalism in France. It appears that Syndicalism originated in conferences which were held in the early 'nineties—that is, 1894–95—at Nantes and Limoges by the advanced section of the trade unionists who were dissatisfied with the action of Parliament and of their Parliamentary representatives, and who wanted to go faster and to use more militant methods. A result of these conferences was the famous Conféderatian General de Travail and the issue of Sovel's "Reflexians aux la Violence." The first was really one of the chief forces organising the international railway strike in France in 1910. It is not composed of intellectuals, nor of recognised leaders, but of advanced men who are dissatisfied with their leaders, who work within the trade unions with a view to bring about by direct action and not by Parliamentary action the industrial revolution which we have been so frequently promised. That industrial revolution has been preached and advocated, and it was suggested that

  539
  it was a long time coming. One of the reasons for the growth of Syndicalism in this or any other country has been the failure of the Parliamentary Labour parties to carry out their lavish promises, the failure of even right hon. Gentlemen to bring to the parched lips that refreshing fruit promised so easily on platforms.
  I think I had better substantiate a few more matters in connection with this "Miners' Next Step." After all, what has been the chief action, the chief motive force of Syndicalism, both in this and other countries? It has been these recent strikes. They have produced Syndicalism, or I believe very largely have assisted its growth, because men are themselves led to believe that they will get more out of a strike than they can by Parliamentary action. This is what led really to the increase of power of Tom Mann after the Liverpool strike. What led to the foundation of the first Syndicalist paper in this country? It was the railway strike. The first number of the "Syndicalist Railway" was published last September immediately after the railway strike. What does the leading article on the first page of this first number says:
  "The new paper will be a free and independent organ, serviceable as a means of expression of the new spirit so strikingly manifested in the recent strike, and also a relentless critic of that official policy which seeks to suppress us and to hold in check the new spirit which has arisen out of modern economic conditions."
  The great railway strike of last year produced this effect. A large number of strikers who were enthused by the strike went beyond their leaders, went beyond the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), and were infused with this new spirit, which made them adopt a new revolutionary policy of direct action. That is the danger. These strikes—the coal strike, the railway strike, the transport workers' strike—bring in their train a large number of political evils. Anyone who has investigated the matter in any way as to what were the original causes of this strike will admit at once that it was not Syndicalism that started it. The demand for a minimum wage is part of the programme under Syndicalism, but the Syndicalist does not consider that that wage is the objective. That is not the aim! Syndicalists merely want the wage as a means to an end. They ask for a minimum wage, ever increasing, in order to extract the whole of the profits of industry, and so as to render capital absolutely valueless to those in whose name it stands. Then, the trade unions
  540
  will take over a valueless property, and will administer it. The "Syndicalist Railway" was the direct result of the railway strike, was directly the result of the new spirit shown in that strike, of the new spirit which came into the men, who saw that by striking on a national scale, and by the sympathetic strike, by striking not for a particular grievance, or for a particular wage, but with a view to holding up the community to ransom, by enforcing their demands by the stoppage of the wheels of civilisation, they might extort, not merely a minimum wage, but practically any demand they liked to put forward. The strike, from that point of view, was a Syndicalist strike—that is the basis of Syndicalism—not a strike for a particular wage, nor to improve conditions, but to hold up the community in order to enforce demands, and to compel the surrender of existing capital.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about Trusts?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I quite agree with the hon. Member in that observation. The Trust that holds up the nation ought to be treated in precisely the same way as those who engineer a general strike. I regard the Trust which holds the community up to ransom as as great an enemy to the body politic and to the State as Syndicalism. A great united combination of capital or a great united combination of labour are both opposed to the fundamental principle of individualism. They are against individualism, and it is on the individualistic basis that we oppose Syndicalism and similar trusts which hold the community up to ransom. I should be prepared to support the most drastic anti-trust legislation—even anti-trust legislation that would break up the Brunner-Mond Trust. Now, as to this pamphlet, which is the last and most interesting phase of Syndicalism. What is the origin of this pamphlet? The secretary gives his name as W. H. Mainwaring, Clydach Vale, Rhondda. He was interviewed by a "Western Mail" representative the other day. I take his word for granted, as I would take the word of any other man. He was asked:—
  "What is the origin of Syndicalism?" and he said it was the Cambrian strike.
  "When that commenced we took steps in the matter, because we were made to realise that the machinery and policy of the Fe ation were responsible for our defeat, and that a change of tactics had to

  541
  be performed. Consequently the progressive section of the men to-day in a large part of South Wales includes members of the executive council as well as members of the rank and file, and the result of our discussions is this pamphlet."
  "How many members of the executive," asked the reporter, "took part in the deliberations?"
  Mr. Mainwaring declared seven or eight.
  "How many took part in preparing the report?"
  "All of them did," answered Mr. Mainwaring.
  He was then asked:—
  "Are there only irresponsible people behind you?"
  And his reply was:—
  "You may take it from me that it would be unjust to describe them as irresponsible. As a matter of fact, it is the work of men who have been years in the Federation and who want to make it more efficient, and many officials on the executive council have taken part."
  That evidence is proof that, as a result of the Cambrian strike and still more as a result of this strike, that there are a considerable body of responsible leaders in South Wales identified with Syndicalism. This pamphlet deserves very careful consideration in view of its origin and in view of the doctrine it proclaims in much more plain language, than either the Syndicalists of France, as to what the object is. Take their policy. They set their policy out under fourteen heads. The first section of it is that—
  "The old policy of identity of interest between employers and ourselves lie abolished, and the policy of open hostility installed."
  That, after all, is the root policy of all Socialism. It is a policy of open hostility between existing employers, or private employers of all sorts and their employés. The idea of non-identity of interest is founded upon the doctrine of Karl Marx's in his great book, "Das Kapital." That is really the basis, and along these lines Syndicalism receives help and encouragement from any other form of Socialism or Collectivism. Their policy is this. Their object is to be carried out by a policy in favour of increasing the minimum wage and shortening the hours of work until they have exacted the whole of the employers' profits. That is interesting when we take into consideration the views of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who the other day took 5 per
  542
  cent. as being not an unreasonable reward for the money he invested in his coal mines. They wish to extract the whole of the employers' profits. Why? For the simple reason they see perfectly clearly that in countries when industries are nationalised the profits go to the State and not to them, and that the State employés are not so much better off after all than the employés of private individuals. They look at the railways of this country, and they compare them with the State railways of Italy, France, and Germany, and they say there is not so much to choose between them.
  I am not producing figures, but if the hon. Member opposite is going to reply, as he is a great advocate of nationalisation, as a cure for all evils, he will very probably produce figures, but taking it broadly the position of the employés in. State mines, and employés in mints a run in many parts of this country to-day, would not be so great as if the Miners 'Federation owned the mines and transferred all the profits for the miners working in them. What are the main other points in connection with Syndicalism? I purposely avoided dealing at length with what is after all the critical point in connection with the methods of Syndicalism, because Tom Mann is now awaiting trial upon this very head, namely that the Syndicalists of this country know they can effect nothing as long as the Army in this country is the servant of the community and can be called out by the Government in the interests of the whole community. The one chance of Syndicalism is to get the Army on their side, and their one aim is direct action. No enforced violence alone can bring this about, for they know that as long at the interests of the community are protected by the Government they have as a last resource the troops and the Army at their back. The Syndicalists believe that if they are to succeed they must undermine the allegiance of the Army to the King and to the State and get the Army on their side. One of the most significant things in the whole of the Syndicalist propaganda is their attempt to subvert the Army. I have here the contents of the open letter to the soldiers, but as that matter is more or less sub judice, I do not intend to deal with it at any length tonight.
  I put down this Resolution, which includes a reference to incitement before these arrests were made. I would certainly have withdrawn that reference if I

  543
  had known in time what has since taken place. We must bear in mind that Syndicalism aims at the most fundamental right of the community being overturned. It is not Socialism in the interests of the community as a whole, but Socialism in the interests of particular groups of workmen federated in larger groups and the whole of society that lies outside labour is not considered as having any interest. I was very much struck by what was said so sensibly and ably by the hon. Member for Swansea the other day. You have only got to put the arguments against Syndicalism before the workers of this country and they will not accept it. I have brought this subject forward in order that it may be ventilated, and I hope the Collectivists, whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer said were the best policemen against Syndicalism, will not be afraid to stand up and condemn this anti-social policy of Syndicalism, which is against the best interests of the community. By getting the leaders of parties to condemn Syndicalism we should prevent its further growth in this country, which threatens so very seriously the industrial stability of France at the present moment. It has not grown very much. It has grown in the railway world, and it has grown in the mining districts as a result of strikes. If we have a strike of the transport workers I hope it will be made perfectly clear that the leaders will have nothing whatever to do with Syndicalism, and that Syndicalism will not be propagated even by the connivance and silence of those who lead the labour movement.
  If this matter is put clearly before the working men of the country they will not entertain it for a moment, because the consequences of their direct action would be lamentable in the extreme. They cannot believe that that direct action could result in anything but the most awful carnage and bloodshed. The only way in which Syndicalism could be carried out would be if all the classes outside the trade union organisations were so absolutely supine that they would not stand up for their rights, and that is inconceivable. Syndicalism cannot be brought about by the socialisation of the workers in each particular industry, with no regard to existing contracts and capital and interests of the community. That cannot be brought about without seducing the Army or the most appalling scenes of carnage in the country and the utter ruin
  544
  of industrial supremacy, based as it is upon credit and identity of interest between employer and employed, which is acknowledged and admitted by all the old trade unionists of this country. All the old school of trade unionist thought is opposed to Syndicalism. The whole basis of trade unionism is to get a fair wage and a fair share of the profits, and not the whole of the profit. It was a system of collective bargaining in order to improve the conditions of the workers. Those who created trade unionism regarded the sanctity of contract, and it was negotiated in a spirit consistent with good feeling between employer and employed, and not the kind of feeling which exists at strike times spread by violent agitators and Syndicalist leaders. We ought to be particularly careful to avoid the growth of this movement, which is the growth of a political theory subversive to the interests of society, and I hope that this House will pass unanimously, or with possibly the single exception of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), my Resolution which condemns the theory of Syndicalism, which I admit is academic and which is not meant in any personal manner to any hon. Member of this House.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. HEWINS: I wish to associate myself entirely with the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend in his desire not to deal with this question in a personal sense. I will further add that I have no wish, in the course of the few observations I shall make, to refer to the present disputes. We have just had under discussion in this House a most important new departure in policy, and it will certainly be my desire that that policy should have the fullest possible trial and co-operation to see whether it will contribute anything to the solution of this difficulty. My hon. Friend has gone so fully into the aims and objects of Syndicalism that I shall confine myself to one or two particular aspects, and, in particular, to what I may call revolutionary Syndicalism. Of course I do not accuse hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway of being Syndicalists. I do not think they are, and in any case I should accept the repudiation of the hon. Member for Leicester. The difficulty about hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is that at the present time they entertain so many incompatible economic views. We have had a number of interesting arguments upon the minimum wage, and they are of an entirely different order.

  545
  The minimum wage is a subject so outside the range of ordinary economic doctrine that I confess I am somewhat puzzled by all the series of arguments which have been used. Hon. Gentlemen opposite take certain views upon a subject of great interest which I do not wish to raise now—I mean our fiscal policy. Another object they constantly keep in view is the right to work. The right to work belongs to what I may call mediæval economics, and as long as it so difficult to estimate precisely where these hon. Gentlemen stand with regard to economic questions I do not see how we can deal with them. I do not accuse them of being Syndicalists, but I think I may say that for the most part these revolutionary doctrines do not originate with working men, but they nearly always originate with members of the middle classes.
  I think hon. Members opposite will bear me out when I say that the British workman is exceedingly Conservative, with really very few points of contact with hon. Gentlemen belonging to the older Liberal school. It is largely by taking their older Conservative views, and giving to those views what I may call a Socialistic twist that hon. Gentlemen opposite have managed to get their support. When I come to my hon. Friends on the benches opposite, I am not so sure that they can be entirely free from censure in the matter of Syndicalism. For one thing, the policy they have consistently maintained during the last few years—I am not speaking of the policy of Free Trade, because they have not maintained that—but the policy of entirely ineffective action with regard to these great questions is, in my opinion, one of the main causes of the great discontent which we have in this country at the present time. I should like to go a little further into the matter than that. I am speaking, not of the kind of Syndicalism which results immediately in outrage and violence of the ordinary sort, but the kind of Syndicalism I have in mind is this revolutionary Syndicalism of the most dangerous type which is perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional, and perfectly peaceful. There is no sense of violating the law, and there is no sense of violating the rights which every man enjoys in a sense; and yet that kind of Syndicalism is the most dangerous type of all.
  I should like to explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite why I think they are as much to blame as anybody in this country
  546
  for the growth of these revolutionary doctrines. I take one of the fundamental assumptions of revolutionary Syndicalism. It is the complete isolation of what we may call economic interests. You take the members of your society, you take the citizens of the country, and you do not consider them as citizens in all the varied relations of our social life, but you regard them merely as economic men intent upon pursuing their economic interests. In the case of the Syndicalist, that extreme individualism takes the form of becoming identical with the interests of a large crowd moving in the same direction but there is no fundamental difference between the isolation of interests Which marks Syndicalism and the isolation of interests which marks every upholder of the ancient order of economics. Another characteristic assumption of Syndicalism is the negation, of patriotism. The working man has no country, says the Syndicalist. Is not that exactly what the economists say? Has it not been their pride and method from the earliest times right up to the more modern works on political economy to make abstraction of patriotism, abstraction of country, and to consider every individual as actuated by economic motives measurable in terms of money. At any rate, we may say that the conception of patriotism which holds its ground amongst the economic writers of that school ands its highest realisation in its complete negation. I do not mean for one moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not full of patriotic sentiment. You can have any amount of patriotic sentiment; but the point is, are you prepared to take your country or to take your Empire as the basis of your policy which you bring in and carry into effect?
  The Syndicalist would have nothing whatever to do with religion. What place has religion in the economic side, which I am contesting at the present moment? It disturbs the exact calculation which the economist wishes to make. You may be religious, but you divide yourself into these several compartments, and, considering economic affairs constitute about nine-tenths of the affairs of ordinary human life, practically these other ideas have very little influence indeed. I take another point. Take the case of property. What is the attitude towards the right of property amongst my orthodox Friends? Of course, on our side the right of property is a real right, resting ultimately upon religious sanction. That is the

  547
  ultimate test of that right. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is why you are religious."] On any other basis private property is a mere matter of expediency, and, therefore, of votes. We have had even the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at any rate not withholding his blessing from fiscal measures specially designed to alter the distribution of property in the country. The Syndicalist takes class war as his basis. Class war has accompanied the development of the passing economist school all the way through, and the Syndicalists of that school pride themselves on their economic orthodoxy. I do not know any Socialists who do not pride themselves on their economic orthodoxy. Therefore it seems to me I have made out my case, that there is a kind of congruity of ideas between my hon. Friends opposite who accept economic Liberalism and those who carry these conceptions much farther than their logical conclusion and become revolutionary Syndicalists. Syndicalism is the child of the French Revolution. Socialists are intensely individualistic and selfish, and your revolutionary stage comes under the modern developments of industry. You have in every great town and in every industrial country these great crowds acting in accordance with these ideas and moving towards what they conceive to be the satisfaction of the economic interests of which they have been talking prospectively. What are the other ends? I leave my hon. Friends either to try and go back to a stage of the development of their ideas which is fast passing away or which has practically gone, or to advance upon the cause of Syndicalism. In any case, I think we can deal with them.
  What does your revolutionary Syndicalist expect to achieve by legal, peaceful, constitutional methods? My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution explained that so fully and clearly that I need not go into it in detail. It is, roughly speaking, the expropriation of existing possessors and the substitution for them of groups of workers engaged in a trade or groups of trades. They rest on the essential antipathy between the employing class and the labouring class, and what they hope to achieve is the expropriation of the former and the substitution of the latter to carry out that object and to deal with that situation which ultimately arises. I am bound to say, as far as I know, the Syndicalists adopt
  548
  excellent educational methods with a view of preparing for that time when their desires will be achieved. Strictly speaking, the Syndicalist proposes no end to himself. He has nothing to do with ideals of any sort. The Syndicalist is satisfied to embark upon a policy of mere destruction of the existing order, and he hopes when the existing order is destroyed that by some sort of revolutionary process acting from within the working people who then get control of the trade and the instruments of production will develop the powers and the capacity of carrying on society according to whatever ideas may occur to them at that time. I am reminded of this that there is a certain friendliness of feeling between some Syndicalists and Professor Bergsen's philosophy. If these are the objects of Syndicalism it is perfectly clear that any other group may employ and use the Syndicalist method so far as it may be held to promote the end that is in view, and there is no reason why Anarchism should not have a temporary alliance with Syndicalists or Socialists, or why it should not be allied at the time to Parliamentary action. I agree with my hon. Friend it is the failure of Parliamentary action which has led to the development of Syndicalism in recent years, and assuming it is intended to achieve this object—the destruction of the existing order, there is no reason why any other revolutionary party should not use it so far as it goes.
  I suppose the most interesting part of the subject is as to how far the English trade unionist is going to be captured by Syndicalism. I doubt whether that will go very far. The English trade unionist is so Conservative, so attached to his ancient methods, that I doubt very much whether he will be attracted in the future by that kind of violence which consists of merely ceasing work on a large scale, of placing obstacles in the path of production, and of other methods which the Syndicalists adopt. My own impression is that during recent years there has been a very great change in trade unionism in this way, which has certainly favoured any design the Syndicalists may have in view. Trade unions during the last twenty or thirty years have been going away from all their democratic forms, and have been tending to concentrate more and more power an the hands of the executives. The fact that trade unionists do not at any moment trust the

  549
  executive has nothing to do with the case. We often do not trust our Government, and I think it is absolutely true that throughout the trade union world there has been a steady decline of what we may call democratic methods, and there has been a steady growth of the power of the executive—giving a comparatively small number of men enormous powers in moving great numbers to carry out any object they may have in view. That growth of power indicated is not confined to the trade union wrold; it characterises our own Parliamentary institutions. Pure democracy is unquestionably very much on the down grade, and, that being so, we are apparently getting back to the stage where authority through the executive is exercised. Considering the facilities of modern production, that is a very great danger in regard to industrial disputes, and may easily lead to outbreaks which are very like pure revolutionary Syndicalism. On the other hand, you have the inveterate traditions of trade unionism and the faithfulness of trade unionists to ancient traditions, and I doubt very much whether they will regard with favour any development in the legislative sphere which must unquestionably follow further growth in the direction I have been criticising.
  Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have called in the power of the State. It is one thing to talk sentimentally about the functions of the State, but it is a very different thing to invoke the power of the State, and bring it to bear, as we are at the present time, upon industrial disputes. It is a very different thing, for this reason: that as soon as you bring in the power of the State to intervene in, direct, guide, and regulate the power of these subordinate societies—trade unions are subordinate societies—then the State and the interests of the State must unquestionably dominate those of the trade unions, and, if the interests of the trade unions conflict with those of the State, it is not the State that will go under. I have never been able to see why trade unions should encourage in any way the movement towards that invocation of the power of the State. I have gone very carefully, at one time or another, into the question of the regulation of the conditions of labour by the State, and I am bound to say this: that the result of my investigations, so far as I have been able to carry them, is that if you have not already obtained the growth of these subordinate associations
  550
  like trade unions, you will not grow such associations when you have such regulation by the State. If you have such associations already in existence, they cannot continue for long side by side with State regulation. You have got to choose, therefore, whether the trade unions shall keep strictly within the sphere of their action, or whether the trade unions shall act, as they have acted for the most part in times past and up to the present time, with due regard to the interests of the community; or whether, going beyond that line and inflicting, through action which we may call Syndicalist action, injury on the great masses of their fellow-countrymen, the State will not then step in and control them.
  I should regard with the greatest uneasiness the development of State action in such a manner as to injure or cripple the trade unions. I think, and I have always thought, that trade unions have been a great element for good in English industry, and I know that is the opinion which is exceedingly widely held by great employers of labour, who would certainly not disapprove of trade unions as we have known them up to the outbreak of the present disputes. I have seen evidence of that on a very large scale. I should be exceedingly sorry to see developments of legislation which would be likely to injure or cripple trade unions. But there is no doubt whatever that we cannot allow the great interests of the State to suffer merely for the sake of retaining, in its present form, the right of association amongst trade unions or any other bodies I hold the State absolutely supreme, and the industrial interests of the nation absolutely supreme. Undoubtedly we have to keep in view, but I look not to the development of direct enactments dealing with specific sides of trade union action to get us out of our present troubles; I look rather to the development of our public policy generally. Frankly, I say that I know no other alternative to revolution in this country except the fearless application of the conservative theory of society to the great problems of the day. I do not use the term "conservative" in a party sense, although it does so happen that, as things are growing and developing, the conservative theory of society is gradually becoming limited in its acceptance to what we know more technically as the Conservative party. I am sorry for that. There is no reason why that strictly conservative theory of

  551
  society should not be held by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and considering that that conservative theory represents, as any rate, principles which have been applied in every possible form of society in every age of the world, and that every revolutionary outbreak has in the long run only vindicated the accuracy and applicability of these principles. I may say that they are unchanging so far as we are concerned. I do not say there may not be some other principles involved in the course of human development, but, so far as we know the history of European communities every great change, every great revolution, every great movement, has simply vindicated the sanity of these great principles. What are they?
  The first principle of all is the absolute and unalienable right of private property, more necessary in a way—certainly as necessary for the working part of the community as for the others. The working man has as much interest in the maintenance and the extension of private property as anyone else. I should say another conservative principle of society was the right to work, not the right to work in the sense that the individual has a right to come to the State and have employment guaranteed or found for him, but the right that the individual has to be properly protected by law in the carrying out of his own avocations, and the obligation which lies upon the State so to direct its policy that the maximum of work should be obtained. Similarly I might go through the others. There is the question of wages, there is the right to a living wage. That may be interpreted in the same way. These three principles are as old as the world. They have inspired our legislation in every age, and there is no possible escape from the conclusions that you have again to apply these principles fearlessly if you are going to make society intact. Another fundamental conservative principle is the solidarity of social interests, the solidarity of classes, and that is over against the principle of class wars which we find advocated at the present time. Another principle is that we are not parts of some great cosmopolitan society, but of an Empire. We are Englishmen, we belong to the British Empire, and I suggest to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that really if they want to reform society, if they really want to take in hand great constructive efforts, is
  552
  not the British Empire big enough for them? Why go to the human race when you have the British Empire?
  I would apply these principles quite fearlessly. I would apply them to your social life of all grades. I would apply them in your trade policy. One of my complaints against hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they have not been able to do anything to carry out great schemes for increasing the well-being of the community by organising our trade and making the best of it upon national and Imperial lines. This country is not a mere geographical area where millionaires are kept rich. It is a great country, with very complex interests, and what we have to secure is such a balance of interests, such a solidarity between the different classes of the community that you get the highest efficiency and the greatest productive capacity and the greatest welfare of the whole. I take the theory away merely from the country in which we live. I take it and make it embrace the Empire. I have not time to go into details, but I do venture to ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway not to dismiss this conservative theory of society as something worthless. At any rate, it is the oldest thing you have. At any rate, it is a tried thing, and there is not one single idea beneficial to the community—I have told my Socialistic friends that they do advocate many beneficial ideas—which they have not taken, consciously or unconsciously, out of the ancient doctrine dictated by the principles I have tried to explain. Do not look merely at the history of our own country. Look at the great traditions we have inherited. Look at the legislation we have had in times past, and let us see whether by maintaining and continuing these principles we cannot make the Empire a place where Syndicalism is impossible.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I hope the House will allow me to say we have had two very interesting speeches from the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. Like them, I shall not attempt to deal in any way with the personal side of the case, but I wish to state in a very few words the view which the Government take of this Resolution. We have had an admirable description of the aims and methods of Syndicalism from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) who opened the discussion and I

  553
  shall not attempt in any way to trespass upon the ground he has covered. But there are two reasons, I think, why any House of Commons, composed in any proportions of different political parties which you like to imagine, could not possibly support the theories of Syndicalism as outlined by the hon. Gentleman. The first reason is that Syndicalism is the negation of Parliamentary action. The root idea of Syndicalism is that Parliamentary action has failed, and that, having failed, you must accept the gospel of Syndicalism instead of the policy of evolution. The second reason is that Syndicalism having for its objects the destruction of all capitalists, you have to remember that the greatest interest in the world for us is Great Britain, and that if you are to destroy individual capitalism you must also destroy other forms of capitalism. This country by individual capitalists has lent thousands and millions of money to many other countries, and the great proportion of the working classes of this country, as well as capitalists, live and have their interest in what other countries pay whether in the shape of food or actual interest in cash or of employment. If you once do away with the individual capitalist you hit at the national capitalist, and no nation stands to lose so much by the abolition of capital as this country. If there is not, and I do not think that there is very much, if any, superficial resemblance between the events of the last year, numerous strikes and labour disturbance's, and the doctrines which underlie Syndicalism. I think it is worth inquiring if there is any real resemblance between them, and whether Syndicalism, as this Motion suggests, has obtained any foothold in this country. In spite of the rather frothy publications which have been quoted in this House, and the notoriety and dissemination of which the more sober Press of this country is very largely responsible—and they have given these doctrines an advertisement which they certainly do not deserve—I do not believe that, the doctrines themselves have any real hold upon the working-class population of this country.
  Syndicalism does not create unrest here. It is due to two reasons. First, looking back over a series of years there has been a much greater rise in the cost of living than in wages, and on the other hand, on the intellectual side, you had an increased mental sense of poverty among the working classes in this country,
  554
  as compared with those more fortunate than they are, which has not been accompanied by any corresponding advancement in their material welfare. These are the two reasons if Syndicalism, or anything approaching it, has obtained a foothold in this country, why it has done so. In asking the House to consider what has brought this about, looking back over a period of some years, you have, first, great labour successes against unorganised capital. As an answer to that you had the organisation of capital and the failure of the smaller trade unions to stand against capital so organised. The answer of these smaller trade unions was to federate themselves in large bodies like the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the railway servants, and to take advantage of their numbers to respond to the increased federating faction of the employers of Great Britain. In addition to that, you have these federated trade unions seeking Parliamentary action. Parliamentary action, as has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, very largely failed from the point of view of the more advanced of the workers of this country. They have not got the full benefits that they thought they were going to get, and perhaps not unnaturally they turned elsewhere to look for more immediate action than Parliamentary action. If I am right in my view of the situation—and I think I am—you have causes at work which have laid a section of the working classes of this country open to influences which are represented by what is called the Syndicalists. You have got to remove those causes before you take away the effects of this propaganda. It is our duty—and we have endeavoured to do it, I think, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Member opposite—to try and remove those causes, and to try to give some opportunity to the working classes of this country to overcome the difficulties which have arisen in the new conditions of employment of labour in this country. We cannot, I think, accept this Motion as it stands on the Paper. There is an Amendment which comes afterwards which very much more nearly expresses the views which we hold, and which, if it is moved, or if it is discussed in this House, we shall be much more willing to accept than the actual Resolution standing on the Paper. I refer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell). Let me say, in conclusion, in regard to the concluding words of the Resolution, that the unrest and disturbance that are found in

  555
  this country are found in nearly every other country all over the world. Knowing that the signs of unrest are universal, I think it almost stands to reason that the causes are universal too. Other countries have already caused inquiry to be made as to the causes and effects of unrest. In the United States they have gone a step further, and they have asked for an international inquiry, or rather the President has sent to Congress a message asking Congress to sanction an international inquiry into the causes of the high price of living and the effects and remedies. I personally welcome any such inquiry, if it be conducted throughout the world on the same lines, because unless it is conducted on the same lines, though not by the same agents, you cannot get the same world-wide response with regard to what is a worldwide evil at the present moment. The Government are prepared—indeed, have already begun—to make some limited inquiries as to the rise in prices and as to the cost of living in this country; but I think it would be much more satisfactory if we could get a far wider inquiry than that which has been carried out in other countries, and we should be prepared to assent to some far wider inquiry than is going on at the present moment. If my hon. Friend moves his Amendment we shall be prepared to accept it.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I shall not attempt to detain the House long in offering a few remarks on behalf of those with whom I am associated. I should be very much inclined, if I were a Syndicalist, to propose a hearty vote of thanks to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Motion down, for it certainly seems to me that action of that sort, combined with the publicity which is being given to this form of agitation in a large section of the Press, is a good thing for Syndicalism, giving it a consideration and attention to which its numerical strength does not entitle it. I am glad also to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government that they are fully alive to the desirability of prosecuting further inquiries into the causes of the unrest that exists not only in this but every civilised country in the world. I think that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded, both in interesting speeches, might very well have enlightened
  556
  the House in better fashion respecting the causes of the unrest, of which Syndicalism is but one evidence. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has remarked, that the unrest which prevails amongst the working classes throughout the world generally is due, in the first degree, to the spread of education, the possession of economic knowledge, and the acquaintance that they are making now with the circumstances of wealth production and distribution. And did I feel at all inclined to blame, I would have to say that it must undoubtedly rest in some measure upon those who have had the control of political power and the ability in the years gone by to inquire into and anticipate this unrest of which we are now complaining. After all, nearly every workman to-day has almost as much facility for education and reflection as was enjoyed by the well-to-do classes half a century ago. It is quite right that the working classes when they possess that intellectual equipment should ask themselves why it is that, after days of hard toil, they are only able to win such a miserable pittance for themselves and those who are dependent on them. I am not a believer in the doctrine of class war. I have no sympathy with Syndicalism. I have often, averred from the platform that I bear no hatred in my heart against any of the wealthy classes in the country, but I am bound to say that their indifference in respect of working-class conditions in the years that are gone by is very largely responsible for the deep dissatisfaction which exists amongst the working classes at the present time. The workman has as deep and perfect a love for his children as is exercised by those of any other class of society. Every one of us on these benches has had experience of what working-class trouble is, and appreciate why it is that some sections of our class, because of the hopelessness of the outlook, may become exasperated and may, perhaps, embark on enterprises which are not altogether defensible. Therefore it is not quite sufficient to draw attention to certain unpleasant incidents in recent agitation, but we have got to root out the causes and apply satisfactory remedies to them in order that we may remove from the lives of every one of our people that carking care and want which is, as I say, the real cause of Syndicalism and any other form of unrest.
  We have recently been discussing the principle of the minimum wage. Every workman believes if he is prepared to

  557
  render honest labour that he is entitled at least to such a sum as will maintain himself and his family decently. You may say that to establish that law arbitrarily runs counter to some economic laws to which you are giving adhesion, but, nevertheless, you cannot expect the working man when he is feeling the effects to pay any regard to your economic propositions which you place before him in this academic fashion. He can see that you divert economic laws whenever it serves a political interest. The mere establishment of a trust is in itself a diversion of economic law. The Mover of the Resolution charged Syndicalism with desiring to destroy competition. But Syndicalism is not the only element in society destroying competition. What happens in the railway world to-day? Fifty years ago, when legislation was promoted in this House dealing with railway conditions, the primary object was always advanced as that of stimulating and promoting competition between companies. But the whole railway case has altered to-day. Competition is no longer defensible or desirable. It is regarded as being wasteful, and as something which ought to be eliminated. I am inclined to agree with that. After all, I think that when we come to contemplate the social as apart from individual interests, the most scientific and economic forces of production and distribution are those that ought to be encouraged. Therefore I say that this charge cannot be alleged against Syndicalism alone. It is an inevitable form of capitalistic development. You find it in respect not only to our railway system, but also to many other forms of productive and distributive enterprise. The worst of it is that a trust, when established, has a greater power than that possessed by a working-class organisation When trusts desire to enhance prices they do not consult the consumer or the community. They simply say that from a certain day prices shall be enhanced, and the community are held up just as it is claimed the miners are holding up the community at the present time. There are some of these trustmongers to-day holding up stocks of coal, not for the benefit of the people—they know there is many a home anxious to have a fire—but for the sake of private profit. When you make charges against the miners you ought equally to have regard to the existence of some of these monopolistic evils which are, in my opinion, largely responsible for the
  558
  unrest that prevails. It is quite true that, particularly in the early part of the last-century, some progress was made in the direction of increased wages and improved position, but during the last ten years wages have tended to become stationary, while the wealth production of the country has increased by leaps and bounds. Side by side with the stationariness of wages, you have the fact that the cost of living has enormously increased. It is often urged that trade unions desire to use their power in an arbitrary fashion. It is the real interest of every trade union official to prevent industrial strife. We have nothing to gain from strikes. We are constantly engaged in honest endeavours to prevent them. Nevertheless, when trade unions by peaceful endeavours have secured advances in wages they have found those increases rendered quite abortive because of some power in the community being able to take back to itself that which the workers have secured as the result of these honest and legitimate endeavours. That is to say, that the real value of wages is constantly diminishing. The workman now takes home a coin of the face value of a sovereign, but really only worth 15s. The trade unionist, knowing that, and now being a man who reads, asks himself: What is this cause, or causes, that are able to deprive me of the advantage that I have hitherto secured as a result of my trade unionist endeavour? He came to the conclusion a few years ago that if he was to protect the value of his wages that it was imperative that he should have some political control over those great factors—the incidence of taxation the tariff system, and other things that have a direct bearing upon wages. Therefore, quite legitimately, he considered he must embark upon political action, and have men in the House of Commons to protect his interests. As soon as he got there he found that he was tied up—that the great powers of the community have, by some method or another, been able to take from him the power which he regarded as offering him some protection in keeping the real value of his wages.
  You are sitting on a safety valve, and there is bound to be that eruption. With intellectually equipped working classes you cannot possibly keep them back. You have gone before them a spectacle of leisured luxury. I say again that I am speaking without malice in my heart, but I know that. I have the experience of my

  559
  own life. Of my poor old mother sitting up night after night in order to make us boys presentable for school. We have seen our father working into the night, in order that he might provide us with a little schooling so that we might get somewhat broader aspects of life. Those who are rendering, and willing to render, honest toil should be able to get a fair and decent livelihood. That is a question that you must ask yourselves, and that you have got to answer if you desire to get rid of this unrest which has manifested itself, as I recognise and regret, in a fashion that I do not sanction, which I strongly regret—the Syndicalism that has been made the subject of our speeches to-night. If we are to rid this nation of the enemy, as you have called it, of Syndicalism, you will have to remove its causes. Those causes are poverty, low wages, and those incidental miseries which affect the working classes at the present time. My colleagues and myself are prepared to associate ourselves with any party or any section of a party who are genuinely desirous of removing the causes that bring these things about, and that curse which does not fall upon the working classes because of inherent evil on their part, but because of conditions over which they have no control—I mean the curse of undeserved poverty.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Had time allowed I should have liked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) or that in my own name, and I would have liked to have it accepted by the Government. But really I have only time to say that the mover and seconder in their most interesting speeches absolutely failed on one point: that was to prove that the Syndicalism which they complained of was any grave danger to the State. In fact, what both of them proved was that it had no hold. The hon. mover said that it did not cause the strikes from which we are suffering. All that the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs tried to prove was that all Free Traders were Syndicalists without knowing it. How little we know of ourselves! He went on to say that it was quite impossible that the working men should really have a belief in it.
  And it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Adjourned at Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Development Commission (Advances).
  Development Commission (Advances).
  British and Foreign Wines.
  British and Foreign Wines.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Vaccination Act Prosecution (Belfast).
  Vaccination Act Prosecution (Belfast).
  Royal Navy (Lieutenants).
  Royal Navy (Lieutenants).
  Territorial Force (Edmonton and Tottenham).
  Territorial Force (Edmonton and Tottenham).
  Trinidad.
  Trinidad.
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Imported Chinese Hair.
  Imported Chinese Hair.
  Preserved Cream.
  Preserved Cream.
  Post Office Clerks.
  Post Office Clerks.
  SS. "Glenton" (Alleged Overloading).
  SS. "Glenton" (Alleged Overloading).
  Foreign Colliers.
  Foreign Colliers.
  King Edward Memorial.
  King Edward Memorial.
BARONY OF FURNIVALL.
Committee for Privileges met: Petition of Etheldreda Mary Baroness Petre, widow and relict of Bernard. Henry Philip, fourteenth Baron Petre of Writtle in the County of Essex, deceased, as mother and next friend of Mary Frances Katherine Petre, commonly called the Honourable Mary Frances Katherine Petre, an infant, and also of the said Etheldreda Mary Baroness Petre, and of Oswald Henry Philip Turville-Petre of Bosworth Hall, in the County of Leicester, Esquire, and of Joseph Francis Lescher, of Boyles Court, in the County of Essex, Esquire, as guardians and Trustees of the said Mary Frances Katherine Petre (prevented on the 19th of October last) considered: Counsel heard thereon: Then the Committee resolved, That the said petitioners may have leave to use the evidence adduced in the case of the Shrewsbury Peerage, Mowbray Peerage and Segrave Peerage cases, subject to all just exceptions and a liberty to all concerned to take objections hereafter: Report thereof to be made to the House: Committee adjourned sine die.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
HERNE BAY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  BIRKBECK SHARE AND DEBENTURE TRUST BILL, [H.L.]

    YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL, [H.L.]
    CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH MIDDLESEX GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON AND HOVE GENERAL GAS COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    M. Bath,

    E. Camperdown (Chairman).

    V. Hood,

    L. Gwydir,

    L. Monk Bretton;

    646
    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 23rd of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

YORK UNITED GAS BILL [H.L.]
  WAKEFIELD GAS BILL, [H.L.]

    WOKING DISTRICT GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL, [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    V. Falkland,

    L. Barnard (Chairman),

    L. Sempill,

    L. Oranmore and Browne,

    L. Brabourne;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday the 25th of April next, at Eleven o'clock: and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

CHRISTCHURCH GAS BILL, [H.L.]
  LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL, [H.L.]

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL, [H.L]
    HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    BLYTH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
    STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    M. Bristol,

    E. Hardwicke,

    E. Plymouth (Chairman),

    L. Lovel and Holland (E. Egmont),

    L. Seaton;

    647
    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 30th of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.
Petition against; of the Scottish Trade Protection Society; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Petition in favour of; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92: and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess at Easter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.— (The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before this Mot ion is agreed to, if it is to be applied to the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, I think we ought to have some justification for what is a very unusual course. I believe the Bill is to be amended and we have not yet seen the Amendments. I do not know whether there is any precedent for in that case passing a Bill through all its stages. I am the last person to object if a real case of urgency can be made out, but I hope the noble Marquess, before he proceeds to act upon this Motion, will pay the House the compliment of making a real case for urgency in the circumstances in which we are placed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords it seemed to me that it would be more convenient if, assuming it to be the desire or the willingness of the House to take the Coal Mines Bill through all its stages in one sitting, your Lordships would agree to do so in consideration of the case put before you in moving the Second Reading, and I think it would be preferable to allow that explanation to be taken on the Second Reading itself. Therefore if the House will be good enough to accept the Motion I am now making, which would make that course possible, it will, of course, do so without prejudice to the action it may please to take later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL, [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I do not intend upon this occasion to detain your Lordships long in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill has already been twice before your Lordships, and is in precisely the same form in which it passed your Lordships' House last year. The class of people to whom it refers are very much outside our social laws and even our education laws, and although considerable powers have been given of dealing with them from an educational point of view, I am sorry to say that the working of those powers is in practice very inefficient. This Bill is of a very limited scope. Clause 1 gives to county councils power to prohibit encampment on certain grounds for sanitary reasons. Clause 2 gives power to the county council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, to provide camps in various parts of the county. The Local Government Board and the county council are to take into consideration the general interests of the public and the ability of occupiers to comply with the regulations which are made, and when this is done they have power to forbid encampment on certain land and on private ground where the owner objects, and the police have power to remove those who, in defiance of the published regulations, persist in camping on the ground. There is a clause for the protection of showmen, whose interests should be taken into consideration. The

649
sanitary authority are asked to assist the county council by giving information and otherwise helping them in carrying out the regulations which are made. There are the usual monetary provisions and provisions saving the rights of the naval and military authorities, and there are the usual definitions. I believe that the Home Office still hold the objection which they urged in your Lordships' House before as to the duty placed on constables to remove persons who have broken the by-laws made by the county council, but all these matters will come up when the Bill is considered in Committee, and therefore I will not weary your Lord ships by referring to them further at this stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, as Lord Clifford has reminded you, this Bill has been before your Lordships' House for three or four years. Last year it was reintroduced in an amended form as recommended by the Select Committee to whom your Lordships referred the Bill in 1910. Lord Clifford has reminded your Lordships of the main provisions of the Bill, and therefore I do not propose going into them. In fact, the Bill has been before your Lordships' House so often that it is unnecessary for me to do so. The Local Government Board and the other Government Departments concerned have endeavoured to amend the Bill and to put it into a workable shape to meet the grievance which exists in regard to gypsies and van dwellers. It is a distinct grievance in certain parts, but only in limited counties and localities. The question seems to be really one for local authorities to deal with; but how far county councils will take advantage of the Bill, especially in view of some considerable expense which may be involved, is another matter. As Lord Clifford mentioned, the Home Office raise an objection to the provision which your Lordships inserted in the Bill last year, imposing on the police, under Clause 2, the new duty of removing from commons and private lands persons who encamp there without authority, and I understand that the Chief Constable of Surrey, the county where I believe this grievance is most acute, says he will not be able to undertake this work with the present force at his disposal. I understand that my noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, who represents the
650
Home Office in your Lordships' House, will move an Amendment to this particular part of the Bill when we get into Committee. At the present stage, however, the Government have no wish whatever to oppose the Bill, but are quite prepared to support it, subject to any Amendments that may be considered necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed, to a Committee of the Whole House.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARRIAGES IN JAPAN (VALIDITY) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this Bill comes before your Lordships' House in special circumstances which make it desirable that I should say a few words on the general subject before proceeding to deal with the actual provisions of the Bill itself. As your Lordships all know, for the last month the country has been passing through a period of profound anxiety, not altogether unaccompanied by actual suffering. The concern which Governments are now expected to take in trade disputes of this kind has become a new feature in the last few years, and it is a feature which throws a special and extra burden upon any Government that may happen to be in power. In this particular case it seemed to be assumed from the first that the Government ought to take some step or another towards a settlement of the dispute; and although this was assumed, at the same time there was, both on one side and on the other, both among the employers and among

651
the men, a distinct feeling of suspicion against what either might term undue Government interference.
I do not think it necessary that I should trace in any detail the occurrences of the last month. Those occurrences in their main outline are quite familiar to your Lordships from the ordinary sources of information; but it has become clear to all, even to those to whom it might not have been clear at first, that a general coal strike, even if it be not entirely unique in its effects on the country, yet stands in an entirely different class from the ordinary trade disputes with which we have been in the past familiar. The loss brought about by most strikes may be exceedingly severe, they may mean the complete paralysis of a particular branch of industry, but there are few strikes—although, as I have said, the coal trade is not absolutely unique in this respect—which could affect the whole life of the nation in the way in which it is affected by a general strike in the coal trade. Consequently at an early stage His Majesty's Government thought it right to do what it could towards composing the difference between the employers and the men, and during the whole of this period the Prime Minister and three of his colleagues have worked early and late, altogether unsparing of their time and trouble, being at the same time deeply and indeed fully concerned with other matters of moment which they set aside, in their attempt to compose this difference; and I think it may be claimed for my right hon. friends that they have held a fair and even balance between the two parties to the dispute throughout the whole of this discussion. That, I believe, has been fully recognised by both sides, by the owners not less than by the men. When the negotiations unhappily came to an end both sides, I am informed, paid an unstinted tribute not only to the hard work which my right hon. friends had undertaken, but also to the spirit of fairness and impartiality which they had displayed.
Now, my Lords, it was never the object of His Majesty's Government to engage in legislation on this subject; altogether the contrary. If we could have avoided the bringing in of a Bill we certainly should have done so. Neither was legislation the object of either party to the dispute. It was not, I am confident, the desire of the coal owners, and noble Lords who have studied the debates in another place will
652
have observed that the miners' representatives in the House of Commons, those who are most entitled to speak for the men have consistently throughout the debates expressed their objection to the settlement of this dispute by legislation rather than by agreement between the two parties | involved. But in view of the fact, the generally agreed fact, that this strike, owing to its national character, could not be permitted, as some strikes might be, to wear itself out by the exhaustion of one side or the other; in view of that fact legislation became necessary, owing to two circumstances. In the first place, there were some owners—a minority—who refused altogether to admit the principle of the minimum wage, the principle for which the men by their ballot had decided to ask. In the second place, the men on their side refused to submit to discussion the particular schedule of minima fixed in certain districts selected by themselves, the minima also being fixed by the men and not the outcome of discussion. In our view those two circumstances made legislation imperative, and in framing this legislation His Majesty's Government have, as I venture to claim, followed the path of moderate opinion, and throughout all the discussions that have taken place during the progress of the Bill they have never swerved: from that path.
I am aware that various complaints have been brought against His Majesty's Government, quite apart from any objections which may be felt to the particular provisions of this measure. One complaint that has been made is that His Majesty's Government did not act soon enough, that they ought to have foreseen the situation before it developed and have introduced, and, I suppose, carried, some kind of legislation—I do not know what—in consideration of what might possibly occur. It seems to me that there are few cases, if any, in which hypothetical legislation offers a desirable path to follow. It was impossible to foresee at any given point during the negotiations what the precise course of those negotiations might be, and if anybody now asserts that all along he knew that such and such would be the precise outcome of the negotiations I should take leave to consider that he is deceiving himself.
Complaint has also been made in some quarters that we did not rush at once into legislation of a drastic and violent kind

653
founded upon various legislation which obtains either in New South Wales, in Victoria, in Western Australia, or in New Zealand. Those complaints have been lightheartedly made, but it is difficult to hear them without asking since when have you taken the industrial conditions of those great Dominions as models for our industrial conditions here? Those States and Dominions are well qualified to manage their own affairs, but I venture to assert without fear of contradiction that, if we are going to adopt here plans and methods which are entirely to revolutionise the relations of Capital and Labour in order to bring those relations into the condition in which they are in the Dominions and States I have mentioned, that ought to be done of set purpose and with the utmost forethought and deliberation, and not undertaken in a moment of panic at a crisis.
Some people, I believe, have asserted that we ought to have taken strong measures. My Lords, I do not know precisely what is the ground or the substance of that complaint; it is common knowledge to us all that you cannot by force drive men to work any more than you can drive employers to offer work; therefore,, when strong measures are spoken of I confess I do not know exactly what is intended. If it is merely intended to suggest that protection ought to be given to those who desire to work, certainty His Majesty's Government have not refused and will not refuse any request for such protection. The circumstances and conditions under which such protection has to be given and the circumstances in which it may properly be asked are quite familiar to all your Lordships. No such request made in the authorised manner has been received.
It may also be asked. Why, if you are going to legislate at all—why make a minimum wage the subject of your legislation? The answer to that is the simple one that in this dispute the minimum wage is the sole subject in question. If you go further and ask why it is that the miners as a body ask for a minimum wage, that opens up a field of inquiry—an interesting field of inquiry—upon which His Majesty's Government as such are not bound to give an opinion. We may be told that the one precedent which exists in our legislation for a minimum
654
wage—namely, that formed by the Trades Boards Act of 1909—does not supply in itself a complete reason why the miners should ask for a minimum wage. In a sense, of course, that is quite true. The particular trades scheduled in the Trades Boards Act are trades of an entirely different character from coal mining. They include such trades as cheap tailoring, the making of chip boxes, the making of machine lace, and the special case of the chain-makers at Cradley Heath—labour which, as many of your Lordships I dare say know, is carried on largely by women. And it is asked, Why does the coal industry, which is different in character from these and is a highly-paid industry, desire a minimum wage? The origin of this request from the miners for a minimum wage was undoubtedly the discussion which arose in some districts, though by no means all, in relation to what are known as abnormal places—that is to say, places at the face of the coal at which a piece worker, though he may put as much labour into his day's work as the man who is earning a large, wage per day, finds, owing to the fact that from the defective formation of the place he is working or to some other kindred cause, that a great deal of what he has got by his work is not coal, and therefore he does not earn the full day's wage for his work. And then there are other cases, also more prevalent in certain districts than in others, in which a man after having got his full allowance of coal for the day and having therefore, as he thinks, earned the full wage of piece work which a man could gain in a day, is unable to fill the proper amount of coal—that is to say, to place it in the tub or on the trolley in which it is taken to the pit bottom—and therefore again fails to earn the full remuneration for his day's work.
These difficulties were first matters of local dispute, but they became the subject of a national conference and consequently the subject of a national demand from the miners generally. It is no doubt true that the miners, having only in comparatively recent times worked on national lines as distinct from local lines in relation to their trade, were not sorry to find a subject such as this which could appropriately become the subject of a national demand. They also, no doubt, thought, although it is a point which some would be inclined to dispute, that the allocation of minimum rates of wages in different

655
districts would have a steadying effect upon wages generally and might prevent some higher wages from falling. It is only, I think, natural that the men, having now federated themselves together into a national body, should have felt sympathy for those in particular districts who were subjected to the hard cases which I have mentioned in relation to abnormal places and want of facilities, and that therefore, even though not personally affected by the establishment of a minimum wage, they were glad to join in the request. When this request for a minimum wage became the subject of a general demand it was accepted, though it was not welcomed or desired, by the owners in the federated area, which comprises, as your Lordships know, a large and important and also a very prosperous portion of the English coal field. If this dispute, therefore, had been localised, as up to a few years ago disputes in the coal trade always were, so far as the federated area is concerned it would have been settled without difficulty between the masters and men without any question of interference by Parliament.
This Bill is in itself of not at all a complicated character. It states that it is to be an implied term in the contract of every man working underground that he is entitled to a minimum wage, and that minimum wage is recoverable civilly by the workman in the ordinary manner. But the House will observe that no penalties are attached either way, either to employers or to men, in any part of this Bill. In order to get at a reasonable figure for the minimum wage the country is divided up into numerous districts which your Lordships will find in the schedule of the Bill, and in each of those districts a joint board is to sit composed of employers and workmen, with a neutral chairman chosen, if possible, by the two parties, or, in default of that, by the Board of Trade, and there is a provision which allows the office of chairman to be divided up among three representatives acting jointly. The duty of these joint boards is to settle the minimum rate for the district. It is also their duty to settle rules which will embody what have been called in the course of these discussions "safeguards" for the owners. Safeguards are required for this reason—that if an employer is to pay a minimum wage it is reasonable that he on his side should be allowed to demand
656
that an amount of work representing that minimum wage should be done by the man who receives it.
It has sometimes been suggested that the establishment of a minimum wage would lead to a great deal of malingering amongst miners. That, in my judgment, is an altogether exaggerated fear. I do not think it is a fear which has been so widely held by the owners themselves as by some who have spoken and written in their supposed interests. There are two reasons, to my mind, which make this an exaggerated fear. In the first place, it has always been the habit of miners when they have not desired to work hard not to work at all, and a habit of that kind becomes ingrained and is not easily eradicated. With one possible exception the miners' trade is the only one so far as I know in which a man goes to work when he likes and when he does not wish to work stays away. Therefore any habit of slacking, or still more of anything that can be described as malingering, is in itself foreign to the habits and ways of miners. But there is a further reason which I think makes the fear an exaggerated one dependent on the character of the work itself. The face of the coal—as many of your Lordships know who have been down a coal mine—is not an appropriate place at which to lounge. When a man is at work of that kind he is practically certain to work hard. He has not got the temptation to slacken in his work which might affect, say, an agricultural labourer working in pleasant surroundings, or the workers at some trades of a more sedentary character. Consequently I venture to think that these fears are greatly exaggerated. But at the same time it is distinctly contemplated that rules will be made which will prevent any black sheep, if such there be, earning the minimum wage without doing a fair proportion of work.
Provision is made in the Bill for possible revision of the minima at a future time, and it is provided that from the passing of the Act these minima shall became payable to the workers. That, as I think your Lordships will see, has this advantage, that it offers a definite inducement to the men to return to work immediately after the passing of the Act rather than to wait until the district boards are formed and have named a minima in the respective districts. We regard this as a distinctly

657
valuable provision in view of our hopes that work will shortly be resumed. It has been argued, I believe, that there are a few cases in which the initial cost of opening a mine after this stoppage might be so considerable if the minima had to be paid from the day of opening that the owners would prefer the course in such an event of not opening at all. If such cases exist they must be exceedingly rare, and if they do exist I cannot imagine that there would be any difficulty, in such a rare case, of the employers and workers coming to an agreement for special terms during the short period necessary for re-opening, because we have to remember—and it is a matter which always ought to be borne in mind in considering this unhappy trade dispute—that throughout it all, at any rate in most districts, the relations between the mine owners and the men have remained uniformly of a friendly character.
In another place various Amendments were moved, in the first place, there were Amendments of great substance and importance moved on behalf of the miners. They desired to import into the Bill the schedule which I have mentioned. They claim that that schedule, although they had fixed it themselves, ought not to be regarded as their schedule, because it did not represent their demands but represents the very least that they thought they ought to get. It may be the case when the boards come to examine the figures that as regards some districts that will prove to be the case, but we do not know that it will be the case everywhere. In any case Parliament has no knowledge which would enable it to assert either "Yes" or "No" to such a question of figures. Then it was demanded that if that could not be done at any rate a minimum rate of 5s. for day workers and 2s. for boys ought to be incorporated in the Bill. Both those Amendments were firmly resisted by His Majesty's Government, not merely on the ground that it was not possible for Parliament to possess the requisite knowledge to fix figures of that kind, but also because there is a most marked and distinct difference between setting up a body, as is proposed by this Bill, to arbitrate after discussion on the figure of the wage and the actual and deliberate fixing of the figure in an Act of Parliament. We all know there, have been cases in the remote past in which not merely the price of labour but the price of many commodities has been fixed by Act
658
of Parliament, but I say again here, what I have said in relation to the introduction of compulsory arbitration and matters of that kind, that if Parliament is going to undertake a task of that kind it must do so after reflection, after the fullest discussion and after the utmost deliberation, and not in order to meet the need of a moment or in hopes of settling particular and critical disputes.
This Bill has come up, it is true, at very short notice. I ventured to ask your Lordships to agree to the suspension of the Standing Order which would permit us, if we so desired, to accelerate its passage and even to take all its stages in one day. If your Lordships would agree to do this it would undoubtedly be because the Bill might pass without substantial amendment. It is clear that if it were to be in any way substantially amended time might be necessary for that purpose; but I trust that your Lordships will not desire to undertake any special responsibility with regard to it by importing any Amendments of substance into the Bill. If your Lordships will agree to proceed this evening with the Committee stage I shall ask for the insertion of three Amendments, none of which is of a substantial character. The only one which can be regarded as having at all a substantial character is inserted in deference to the wishes of the coal owners and in order to remove a fear with regard to a particular phrase in the Bill which has been expressed by them. The Amendments, I believe I am in a position to say, would be accepted by both sides in another place. They have been submitted to both parties and are not objected to, and I do not think they would give rise to any discussion there. But at the same time your Lordships may ask why there should be any particular hurry in proceeding with the Bill to-day, when, after all, it has not reached this House at as early a date as at one time we hoped would be the case. We are anxious that it should become law as soon as possible, now that it has, as I hope we shall be able to say when it leaves this House, reached a point when, though the principle may be objected to by some and particular details may not be liked by others, yet there is a disposition to regard it as the best that Parliament can do to close this disastrous strike.
I am informed that the next step will be when the Bill is passed for a ballot to be taken asking the men whether they are

659
willing to return to work. That being so, it is surely most desirable that the Bill should pass, because it must not be forgotten that the difficulties all through have been added to by a certain atmosphere of suspicion which has prevailed, not only on one side but on both, as to the respective motives of each side and the motives of His Majesty's Government and of Parliament, and therefore any delay might have, if not a disastrous, at any rate an unfortunate effect upon the taking of the men's opinion. Speaking only for myself, I am hopeful that the result of a question of that kind put to the men after the passing of this Bill, which it must be remembered answers their request—namely, for the principle of a minimum wage—and answers it in the affirmative (because the other matters which have been mentioned later did not form part of the request made by the men), will be the bringing of the men back to work, and therefore, if the House is willing to allow the Bill to pass without substantial amendment I trust that your Lordships will do so to-day.
With regard to the Amendments which I shall have to move when we go into Committee, the only one which I may describe as having any substantial effect is one to Clause 2. page 2, line 36. The later words of subsection (1) of that clause as they are printed read—
"In settling any minimum rate of wages the joint district board shall have regard to the average daily rate of wages paid to the workmen of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled."
In the Amendment which I shall move I propose to leave out the words "average daily rate of wages paid to" and to insert "prevailing day wage rate for." The objection which was taken to the first words and which has induced us to alter them was founded on the fact that the average daily rate of wages is not really a term appropriate to coal mining, and it might conceivably be taken to mean something quite different from the intention of the framers of the Bill. It is not intended that you should take all the wages of the district and lump them together and then take a figure halfway up the list. What it does mean is that the prevailing day wage, which is not the same thing by any means as the wage which is paid to a piece worker as his earnings for a day, should be the one to which regard should be had in settling the minimum wage rate. I am told that this change of words satisfies the representatives
660
of the coal owners, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to incorporate it in the Bill.
There is one other point which I should like to mention in relation to the latter part of this subsection. It was desired by the coal owners' representatives that, instead of saying that the joint district board shall have regard to the average rate of wages, they should have regard to that "amongst other matters." In our view that is not a substantial Amendment which it would be at all necessary or even advisable to accept. I do not think myself that it makes very great difference whether the words are in or not, but it is one of those cases in which the representatives of the men entertain a suspicion that something more is meant than the words actually express. On the owners' side the suspicion was also held that "having regard to" these wages meant that the same actual rate must necessarily be paid. It is quite clear that such is not the case, because those who have to administer this Act have only to refer to the express declaration of His Majesty's Government in the matter and also to the fact that His Majesty's Government refused to admit an Amendment which was proposed by the men's side—namely, that the rate payable should be the daily rate of wages in the district. Consequently I should hope that there is no ground whatever for the fears expressed by the coal owners in this matter.
The other two Amendments are of a drafting character. The only one of any length is an Amendment in the definition clause to which I think no exception is taken. Instead of the definition of a "workman" as printed in the Bill, the Amendment which I shall move states that—
"The expression 'workman' means any person employed in a mine below ground, other than —

"(a) A person so employed occasionally or casually only; or

"(b) a person so employed solely in surveying or measuring; or

"(c) a person so employed as mechanic; or

"(d) the manager or any wider-manager of the mine; or

"(e) any other official of the mine whose position in the mine is recognised by the joint district board as being a position different from that of a workman."

The effect of that is to somewhat narrow the definition of a workman, and as I am given to understand that the representatives of the men do not object to it, it is quite evident that it is not likely to be

661
objected to on behalf of the owners. I think that is all I have to say with regard to a possible amendment of the Bill, and in consideration of the fact that the Bill is not to receive, so far as I am aware, from any quarter of the House—I am able to speak on that point on behalf of those who represent the coal owners—any substantial amendment, I hope your Lordships will be willing to proceed with the Committee stage this evening.
I entirely decline to assume the possibility of the failure of this Bill. It may not in some respects entirely carry out the desires of the men as stated by those who represent them in Parliament and who moved certain Amendments which His Majesty's Government and the House generally were unable to accept. So far from assuming any kind of failure as to the fate of this Bill, my one desire is to see it made law as soon as possible, because I regard it as an honest attempt to do all that Parliament can, in our opinion, do; and although the powers of Parliament are in one sense unlimited, yet, in another sense, in a matter of this kind there are limits to what Parliament can do to bring about a settlement of this dispute. Speaking for myself, if I may for a moment, I have this matter very much at heart. I have lived all my life in the neighbourhood of collieries and have had a number of excellent friends among the miners and their representatives. Many years ago for more than a year I was a Parliamentary candidate for one of the principal mining constituencies in England, and certainly nothing will ever alter my feeling of respect and affection for the miners as a class. I believe, too, that the miners are universally held in no small regard as a body. With the possible exception of our sailors, I do not believe that there is any class of workers who have obtained so much public sympathy and popularity throughout the country as the coal miners. That, I think, may make us all the more glad that throughout this lamentable dispute there has been a signal and most happy absence of disagreeable and unpleasant features, either in the discussions which have taken place between the different parties or in the places in the country where the trade is carried on, and I hope most fervently that we may be able to say as much until the resumption of work has taken place and the trade is once more being carried on in a regular way. I sincerely trust,
662
too, that the leaders of the men—a believe they will—will represent to them that this measure, even if it does not contain everything that they have asked for, yet represents the careful and honest attempt of Parliament to meet their wishes so far as they can be met by legislation, and that they will accept the Bill in the form in which it leaves Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is one point which I cannot altogether pass over, and upon which I shall say a very few words at the outset of the remarks which I have to offer to the House. I wish to call attention to the remarkable change in the industrial situation which has taken place since this matter formed the subject of a conversation between the noble Marquess opposite and myself across the Table of the House. Upon that occasion His Majesty's Ministers were certainly under the impression that the passage of this Bill would be an immediate signal for the return of the coal miners to their work. His Majesty's Ministers were so much convinced of this that they asked this House to meet on Saturday last and to pass the Bill through, the whole of its stages on that day upon the plea, and only upon the plea, that such a course was necessary in order to bring about the result which they so much desired. Those hopes were destined to be frustrated. The conference has failed: the Bill, so far as I am aware, is not accepted by either of the parties, and, indeed, no one so far as I can make out, except His Majesty's Government and their immediate supporters, has a good word to say for it. But, my Lords, in spite of that the Bill is presented to us by the noble Marquess as being in the view of himself and his colleagues a measure which is indispensable to avert the disasters with which we are threatened; it is, as I understand it, regarded by the noble Marquess as an indispensable element in the policy by which His Majesty's Government will be guided in dealing with the coal strike—a policy, remember which, as the noble Marquess has toll us to-night, includes measures of precaution for the purpose of affording protection to all those who desire to do their work in spite of the pressure put upon them by the strikers. In such circumstances I certainly desire to avoid

663
anything that might bear the appearance of captious criticism. Nothing, however, can relieve us of the duty of commenting upon this Bill and of telling the House and the country what we think of the merits of so momentous a measure.
Only last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that this Bill was a very remarkable departure in legislation. I think it is; and it, is a very abrupt departure. I may remind your Lordships that a very few weeks ago in the House of Commons an Amendment was moved, the object of which was to press upon the Government the desirability of adopting the principle of the minimum wage. That Amendment was defeated by a majority of something like five to one, and to the best of my belief no Minister was found ready to give it his support. Now, what has happened in the meantime? I may be told that we have become aware that these coal miners have a grievance. I think they have a grievance, and I should be glad to assist in meeting it. But let us be under no illusion. It is not the grievance of the coal miners which has converted His Majesty's Government to the view which they at present hold. That is not the real motive power behind this Bill. What has effected the conversion of His Majesty's Government is the appearance of a colossal conspiracy which has held up the country and which has seized upon the grievance of the miners as a convenient pretext for insisting upon the views which that conspiracy advocates. The noble Marquess was evidently conscious of the fact when he spoke, for he told us a moment ago that he had no doubt that the miners and their leaders were not sorry to find a subject such as this upon which to found their demands. They have founded their demands upon it because they are aware that coal is, as the Prime Minister said the other day, the lifeblood of this country, and that by throttling the coal industry they can strangle the very life, the very existence, of this great industrial community.
I do not know whether even now His Majesty's Government fully realise the extent of the danger which threatens us. We are sometimes told that a strike of this kind produces a condition of things not very different from those which obtain in time of war. But, my Lords, in time of war there is at any rate this con-
664
solation, that the country is solid, that it feels that it is fighting for some great purpose, a purpose for which it is ready to make great sacrifices in the hope that we shall emerge from the struggle stronger and more united than when we entered upon it. This war which is now being I waged upon the country is an internecine I war. Its immediate consequences are the paralysis and the ruin of our trade, together with widespread suffering felt most acutely amongst the humblest classes of the community. It is a struggle from which the nation can only emerge weakened and humiliated. I say nothing of the remoter consequences. They are simply incalculable. Our trade, much of which is carried on on a very narrow margin of profit, may be driven away from these shores never to return, never to find its old channels again. Already, if your Lordships watch what is reported in the public Press, you will see that our foreign competitors are beginning to divide the spoils which we are to lose. When, therefore, His Majesty's Government come to the House and tell us that in this Bill they present us with a remedy for this disease I for one certainly say, Let us do what we can as far as our consciences will permit in endeavouring to help them. But we are bound to count the cost.
The noble Marquess said something of the reluctance with which the Government of which he is a member determined to intervene in this struggle, and he added that both parties, both the miners and the coal owners, looked with suspicion upon Government intervention. That suspicion is on the whole a natural feeling, and one which is shared by most people in this country. There are many reasons which render it desirable to avoid Government intervention. I will mention only two of them. In the first place, there is in this country, and I believe in most countries, a considerable body of public opinion slow to move but profoundly intolerant of the tyranny either of Capital or of Labour. That body of opinion gathers force in the face of events like these, and will, I believe, in the end make itself felt irresistibly, in spite of any combination which can be brought against it. To my mind one of the misfortunes of Government intervention is this, that it tends to discourage that body of public opinion from acting with the vigour and spontaneity which it might otherwise exhibit. When they see

665
you buying off—because that is the only expression which meets the case—when they see you buying off the assailants of the country by means of concession of this kind these people are certainly discouraged from exhibiting the activity which they probably would exhibit in different circumstances.
There is a second reason which leads me to look askance upon the intervention of the Government. Governments are very apt to attempt things which they are not able to accomplish; and in a case of this kind, although it is very easy to interfere with the operation of economic laws, I believe it is impossible for any Government in the long run to suspend the operation of those laws. Every attempt of the kind is apt to produce results very different from those anticipated by the persons who demand interference. I am old fashioned enough to believe that all attempts to fix the price of labour and the price of commodities are apt in the long run to prove disappointing to those who make the attempt. You can in this instance compel the owners of coal mines to pay a minimum wage, but you cannot compel them to keep their mines open. Many of those mines, there is every reason to know, are worked at a very small profit. Many of those which do show apparently a very large margin of profit are worked under conditions, which, if a considerable percentage were to be added to the colossal sums which they pay in the remuneration of labour, would wipe out those profits, large as they are.
And, my Lords, do not let us forget that if labour can strike, capital can strike also, and with not less deadly effect. What happens in a case of that kind? Fewer pits remain open, coal becomes dearer, an inevitable rise in the price of all the necessities of life follows, with the result that suffering and privation extend to the whole community. How will the account stand—if you can make up an account at the end—when you set upon one side of it that vast and universal suffering and upon the other the comparatively small increase in wages obtained by the comparatively small number of miners whose grievances we are considering to-night? While I say this, I admit that it would have required great courage on the part of His Majesty's Government if they had declined altogether to intervene in this dispute, and
666
I certainly would not judge, them hardly for having attempted to mediate between the parties. In their conduct of those most difficult negotiations I find something to admire and some-thing to deplore. I admin;, if I may be permitted to say so, the great patience and equanimity exhibited by the Prime Minister and his colleagues under very trying circumstances during the long days of these discussions. I also admire the steadfastness with which they refused to accept proposals which would have had the effect of inserting into this Bill a fixed money limit for the minimum wage of men and boys. I admire these traits. On the other hand, I regret that it was not announced more distinctly at the outset of these discussions that His Majesty's Government were prepared to extend the fullest measure of protection to all those who had the courage to stand out against the pressure which was put upon them by the trade unions. I also regret that something was not said a little more, definitely in condemnation of the manner in which solemn agreements entered into with the approval and even with the participation of His Majesty's Government, have been torn up by those who have struck in some parts of the country.
I desire, however, to remind the House that His Majesty's Government undertook mediation and something more. They made it plain that in the event of the failure of their efforts they were prepared to resort to coercion. That was intimated in unambiguous terms which I need not trouble the House by quoting. This Bill, then, is the fulfilment of the pledge that coercion would be applied.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: What coercion?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Bill contains the elements of coercion in a most obvious form. The mine owners are to be compelled to accept a minimum wage, and cannot employ a man except upon those terms. Surely that is coercion, and I apply to that policy of coercion the test which I think should be applied to any measure of coercion applied under similar circumstances by any Government. I think three questions should be asked with regard to it. First, is your coercion even-handed? Secondly, is it likely to be effectual? Thirdly, are the

667
consequences, the remoter consequences, likely to be in any sense embarrassing to you? I am constrained to say that in my belief a satisfactory answer cannot be given to any one of those three questions.
In the first place, let me point out that the coercion—I am afraid that I must adhere to the term—which is to be applied is to be applied in a sense very different from that which, as far as we could understand, was originally contemplated by His Majesty's Ministers. I am sure the House carries in its mind the four famous propositions of the Prime Minister. The first of them was to the effect that there were cases where men were unable to earn adequate wages from causes not within their own control, and the second was to the effect that in such cases adequate wages should be secured to the men. That was the substance of the two propositions. When this matter first came under discussion what the Government had in their mind, and what all of us who considered the matter had in our minds, was the question of what the noble Marquess described as "abnormal places." Abnormal places were the loading case, and the arguments were all of them based on the grievance of the miners as to these abnormal places. And remember that so long as you limited your proposals to these abnormal places you had a frontier to defend, because the existence of abnormal places differentiates the coal industry, so far as I am aware, from all other industries with which we are familiar. And remember, too, that upon that point the owners were from the first ready to meet the men in a spirit of reasonable accommodation.
As I understand this Bill, we have drifted far from the question of abnormal places and those kindred cases upon which the noble Marquess touched in his speech— I mean the cases where the men are hardly used owing to a shortage of tubs, and so forth. This Bill, as I read it, gives a minimum wage to men who are already liberally paid, and who do their work under conditions which seem to me indistinguishable from the conditions under which men employed in other industries perform their allotted task. I think His Majesty's Government are aware; that they have drifted away from their old frontier and have entangled themselves in a very much more far-reaching and dangerous policy. Let me read to your
668
Lordships what was said by the Prime Minister on the 5th of this month. It had been suggested that he had given a pledge under which the minimum wage was to be given to all industries. He repudiated with warmth the suggestion that he and his colleagues regarded the grant of the minimum wage in the coal industry as the first step to the attainment; by some form of compulsion of a minimum; wage in all the industries of the country. He repudiated the idea that he had been engaged in what he called a "sly flirtation of this kind with Socialism." He pointed out that the coal industry had peculiar, and, indeed, unique features, and it was those peculiar and unique features which, he said, justified and even necessitated on the part of the Government an intervention which otherwise would have been wholly unwarranted. He ended—
"To suppose, when that was the main drift and gist of the argument I was addressing to the men, that, I put in a plea that this was going to be the first step towards the application to other industries in which those conditions did not obtain of any such method of treatment is entirely to ignore the foundations of the case I addressed to them."
Let me compare with that what was said a fortnight later by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons. Sir Edward Grey used these words—
"It is possible that Parliament will have to meet other demands from other trades. A door has been opened with regard to the minimum wage which cannot be closed. Parliament will have to face the question. It is no use attempting to hide our head in the sand."
Well, my Lords, I think that is a very clear admission that the original position taken up by His Majesty's Government has been abandoned, and that a position much more dangerous and much more compromising has been adopted in its stead.
The noble Marquess said a few words upon the question of safeguards, and I have something to say upon them also. I am speaking now of the safeguards which are intended to protect the coal owners against fraud and abuse, and not of those larger safeguards, about which there is also something to be said, which are necessary to protect society from the kind of pressure to which it is being at present subjected. Throughout the whole of these discussions the question of the minimum wage and the safeguards to be given to the employer have been indissolubly linked together. The safeguards are, so to speak,

669
the complement of the minimum wage. What has happened to those safeguards? They have been relegated to the rules and regulations which are to be set up by the district hoards under the Bill. These boards are left entirely without guidance as to the safeguards which are to be adopted. That, I believe, represents what His Majesty's Government regard as a desirable characteristic of elasticity in this Bill. In other parts of the Bill they are not content with that elasticity. For example, they have put in an Amendment—an Amendment which [understand the noble Marquess intends to amend again this evening—obliging the boards, in fixing the minimum wage, to have regard to certain conditions which are known to prevail in regard to the coal industry. In that case the boards are not Heft without guidance. They are given distinct guidance and distinct information as to the direction in which they are to look. Contrast for a moment the position of the coal owner and the position of the coal miner in regard to these safeguards. The rate is laid down by the board; it thereupon becomes obligatory upon the coal owner. The miner has a right to claim it; if it is refused to him he gets his remedy in the nearest Court of Law. The owner of the pit must pay the wages and go on paying them or close his pit. But when it comes to the master, when the master desires to obtain the security that in return for a fair wage there should be a fair equivalent in labour, he has great difficulties indeed to contend with. The burden of proof rests upon him. How is he to prove that there is a case against the individual miner who in point of regularity or efficiency fails to produce the proper output of coal?
The Prime Minister described the conditions. "The work," he said, "is done in darkness, and the kind of supervision exercised when work is done in the light of day is manifestly and necessarily absent. "Of course it is. I ask, How is it possible for the coal owner to prove his case? Or, at any rate, if he is to prove it, what an immense burden of proof you are throwing upon him. That is not all. Suppose the coal owner decides to reopen his pit—the rate is fixed, and the coal owner becomes liable for it; but is there anything to prevent the whole of his men from laying down their tools and leaving him in the lurch, perhaps without any
670
notice whatever, and in spite of any contracts to the contrary My Lords, I venture to think that on all those points: the dice are heavily loaded against the owners and in favour of the men, and it seems to me all the more creditable to the mine owners that they should have; met His Majesty's Government in the extremely reasonable spirit which they have exhibited throughout these negotiations.
What, then, are we going to get out of i this Bill? The noble Marquess thinks the: men will go back to work, and I think they probably will. A good many of them are going back to work already, not because of the comfort that, they derive from this Bill but because a great many of them are gradually beginning to realise that they have been grievously misled by their leaders and were going to have the courage of their opinions and resume work at the mines. But let us assume that the men will go back to work a little sooner in consequence of this Bill than they might otherwise have done, what kind of a bargain is this for the nation? The Prime Minister talked the other day about finality. Is there any finality in this Bill? It is only to run for three years, and are you very sanguine that during those three years peace and goodwill will reign? I own that the prospect fills me with dismay. It seems to me that one of two things is likely to happen. These boards may fix a high minimum wage with a low standard of efficiency. If that happens immense sums will have to be paid for unperformed work, and a burden will be laid upon the industry greater than the industry can bear. If, on the other hand, you have a low minimum wage and a high standard of efficiency, then there can be no doubt that we shall witness a constant recurrence of these; disputes, followed by all the deplorable consequences which have attended this dispute, and you will have new strikes organised by the same unscrupulous methods which have prevailed upon this occasion. I am afraid that the one emerging fact which comes out of all this is that the Bill leaves it in; the power of the leaders of the men whenever they please, to pass sentence of starvation and ruin upon this country, to humiliate us, and to paralyse us, perhaps at the very moment when the country stands most in need of all the strength that it can put forth.

671
Now, my Lords, what is our duty in reference to this measure? It is recommended to us by His Majesty's Government as the only way out of the difficulty which confronts us, and the Government that recommends it commands a docile majority in the House of Commons. We are, then, in this position: we cannot impose, we are powerless to impose, another policy upon His Majesty's Government; we are equally powerless to impose another Government upon the country. In these circumstances it does seem to me that any effort of ours to alter this Bill can only embarrass the responsible Government of the day and tend to prolong a period of anxiety which we desire should be as short as may be. I venture to think that in these circumstances your Lordships will do well to regard this measure as really an executive act for which His Majesty's Government, and His Majesty's Government alone, are responsible. I listened carefully to the noble Marquess's plea when towards the end of his speech he gave us the reasons for which, in his view, this Bill is one of urgent necessity. I think he told us that the men were likely to take a ballot at a very early time; that in view of that ballot it would be much better that this Bill should become law at once, and that any delay seemed to him dangerous. My Lords, to that plea I for one am ready to bow, and so far as we are concerned—those who sit around me—we shall not move Amendments to the Bill nor shall we attempt to delay its passage. But we must ask permission to place on record our doubts as to the wisdom and the justice of the measure.
I am afraid I must add that I for one am profoundly incredulous of its merits as a real solution of the immense problem which you have to solve. I think even Ministers themselves do not fail to see that the Bill affords no solution of that problem. I trust I shall be forgiven if once again I quote pregnant words used lately by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said—
"The State by this Bill steps; in, and with the State, after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, both interests will have to reckon. We are asking Parliament here to make a legislative declaration of the principle of a statutory minimum wage. After Parliament has taken such action the position is no longer what it was before. As I have said, we hope and believe it will bean effective Bill, and that at any rate is all we ask Parliament to do for the moment, and Parliament will be
672
fortified in taking that action if—which Heaven forbid—we should be compelled to take other and different measures to defend against paralysis and starvation the industries of the people of this country."
Those are solemn and significant words, and they cannot have been lightly used. The Prime Minister says he hopes that Heaven will forbid the necessity and that he will escape the painful necessity of other legislation of a different kind. He may possibly trust to his own lucky star for enabling him to himself escape responsibility for such legislation; but, my Lords, I entirely disbelieve that the country will escape. I believe this Bill carries with it a Nemesis of its own, and that from that Nemesis there is no escape.
Depend upon it the coal strike of 1912 and the passage of this measure will mark an epoch in the industrial history of this country. We are learning, and I think most of us have learnt already this tremendous lesson, that we are no longer concerned with disputes and strikes of the old type, affecting limited areas, special interests, and local questions. Capital and Labour no longer compete as they did, freely in the open market. We have to face a vast organisation covering the whole surface of the country, an organisation which effaces personal liberty and obliterates the independence of the trade unions. Under that organisation the units of the labour army, ruled with an iron discipline, deriving no shelter from the so-called secret ballot under which their decisions are taken, are hustled and hurried into warfare, ruinous to themselves and ruinous to the whole of the people of this country. We are not thinking in these days of the interests of capitalists or of the pockets of shareholders. It is a question of the freedom and independence of the whole community. I hope His Majesty's Ministers will still carry in their minds what was said at the time of the railway strike by one of their own colleagues—I refer to the First Lord of the Admiralty—in regard to the duty of the Government of the day. Mr. Churchill said—
"A stoppage of the railways would produce unemployment followed by absolute starvation. Railways must run, and any Government which exists in this country must be responsible for making them run in the ultimate event."
Surely the coal supply of this country is every whit as indispensable to us as the supply of railway communication. And

673
let me say this, that the obligation of His Majesty's Government is doubled by the fact that they are going to pass this Bill. If you are here to see that the labour of these coal miners is adequately paid, surely you are also here to see, not only that their employers obtain an adequate return, but that the country obtains an adequate performance of the service which is due to it. That is a question which you will have to face, and I trust that you will take advantage of the truce which we hope will now begin in order to examine these questions courageously, and, as the noble Marquess suggested, deliberately, and I hope, in spite of what the noble Marquess said, that you will pay some attention to the manner in which these problems are dealt with, not only by foreign countries, but by our own great Dominions beyond the seas, and I trust that the result of these investigations will be that when the next crisis arises you will not again be taken unawares.
One word more only before I sit down. I earnestly trust that those who hold the kind of views which I have endeavoured to express will not have it imputed to them that they are wanting in sympathy with the wage-earning classes of the country. We look with no jealous eye upon the demands of these men for more leisure, brighter and more attractive surroundings, a healthier life, and all the various things which increased remuneration spells for the working man. We have taught him to look for these things, and it is reasonable that he should look for them. May I go further and say that, although I do not live in a coal-mining region, I share with the noble Marquess the feeling of sympathy which he so well expressed with coal miners as a class. Their work is done under very unattractive conditions, in the midst of darkness, in foul air and in cramped positions. We cannot be surprised that they should look for ampler remuneration and for opportunities of providing themselves with some compensation for the hardness of their lot. And let me add this, that I shall never speak or think of coal miners without calling to mind the manner in which, sometimes in circumstances of almost inconceivable horror when some great calamity overtakes their fellow workmen, they show themselves capable of the highest heroism which an Englishman can exhibit.
674
Nor, my Lords, have we any hostility to, nor do we look with any eye of suspicion upon, trade unions as such. We recognise that such combinations are indispensable in our society; that they form an essential element in our social system; that without their existence there could be no stability of relations between Capital and Labour, and that it is necessary that Labour should be organised and its representatives clothed with adequate authority. And, my Lords, may we not add to that that in our dealings with the trade unions we have been as good as our word, and that we have given them ungrudgingly with both hands almost everything for which they have asked. I go further. I do not think it would be untrue to say that the trade unions are the spoilt children of the Statute-book. I need not recall to your Lordships the series of Acts culminating in the Trades Disputes Act of 1906, under which we gave privileges and immunities of the most extensive character to the unions, under which we protected their funds, under which we protected their actions, and under which we gave them immunity for conduct which, committed by any other members of the community, would bring t hem within the purview of the law.
It is not unreasonable, in face of the circumstances which confront us to-day, that we should ask whether the whole of those immunities are entirely appropriate to the new conditions which have arisen in this country. I have no time to labour the point. I will give only one illustration. I take what is known as "peaceful picketing." What is the essence of peaceful picketing? Of course, that it should be peaceful. How are you going to secure that it is peaceful? Only by the supervision of some one. But who is going to supervise this process of peaceful picketing at a time when, for all you know, every constable and perhaps every soldier in the country may have his hands full in preserving law and order? I give that only as an illustration. I think it is not unreasonable to say that the concession of these great privileges carries with it a twofold obligation—an obligation on the Government to see that these privileges are not abused, and an obligation on the persons who possess them to use them in a moderate and reasonable spirit. There was a time when, I believe, the leaders of the trade unions would have done

675
their utmost to see that a moderate and reasonable spirit was observed. I regret to say that, so far as I can judge, the unions are now passing under the control of men whose opinions are notorious and whose advice is not at all likely to conduce to moderation and reasonableness. They are men who are publicly committed to the doctrine that Capital and Labour have nothing in common, that agreements should be refused and may be repudiated, and that a member of a union owes a duty to his union which comes before the duty which he owes his country as a citizen.
My Lords, those are lamentable doctrines, and, to my mind, the most deplorable of all is that under which the men are enjoined not to respect the sanctity of contracts. I will tell your Lordships why I feel that so strongly. To me it seems that, in the midst of all the gloom which now hangs over this question, there is one ray, and almost only one ray, of hope, and that is the hope which we discern in the movement for what is commonly spoken of as "profit-sharing." I have been told that profit-sharing could not easily be adopted in the case of the coal trade. But, nevertheless, I am sanguine enough to believe that in any industry it should not be beyond our ingenuity to devise some means of establishing an alliance between Capital and Labour, of infusing those who work with their hands with what I might call the spirit of partnership—of giving them some kind of interest in the success of the enterprise in which they are engaged. Those who are teaching the men to have nothing to do with contracts, and to regard them as engagements which may be broked lightheartedly, are doing the greatest disservice to the country, because they are driving into a remoter and receding background the advent of that more hopeful system and of those more hopeful terms which so many of us desire to see introduced as between employers and employed.
I have said all that I desire to say. I earnestly hope that this Bill, as the noble Marquess anticipates, will give us a breathing space. I hope His Majesty's Government will use that breathing space in order to set the industrial house in order. The work is one in which to my mind both parties might
676
well co-operate, and if it were to be done thoroughly and courageously, then it may come to pass that some good will be derived by the country from this lame Bill and from the deplorable events which have led His Majesty's Government to pass it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, if I rise to make a few brief comments on the speech to which we have just listened it is not because I have any complaint to make of the broad conclusion at which the noble Marquess has arrived. He has said truly that the responsibility for this Bill must rest with His Majesty's Government and with the Government alone, and I may say that we are grateful to him for the indication that he will put no difficulty in our way in the discharge of this most serious responsibility. I do not think it is possible to over-estimate the seriousness of the situation in which we stand. One of the great and vital industries of the country, one of the two or three industries on which the national life depends, is threatened internally, and it becomes the duty of the Government of the day to use every means in its power to put matters into order. You cannot compel 850,000 men to go down to work, nor can you put compulsion upon Capital. If you endeavour to interfere capital will not flow into the industry, and if the flow of capital ceases then you are in another difficulty from the other side. What, then, is the policy of this Bill? And here I come to a point at which I do not share the views of the noble Marquess. He spoke with gloom of the Bill and of the future. I noticed—and it is one of the points on which we take some encouragement—that although he made some critical observations, as he was well entitled i to do, upon the adequacy of this measure in so great an emergency, he did not suggest any counter policy, and I do not think any counter policy can easily be suggested in this case. I believe myself, and we submit to the House, that the plan we propose is the most hopeful plan under the circumstances. We have recognised, on the one hand, that there were grievances. Perhaps they arose, as the noble Marquess said, originally out of minor questions of abnormal places which might have been at the time dealt with in such a fashion that the controversy might have been confined within limits,

677
but there has arisen a broad question between the employers and employed in an industry which is vital to the country and which calls for the intervention of the State.
The noble Marquess spoke in very gloomy terms of the future and of the spirit that had arisen. He spoke of a great conspiracy, and said this Bill might be looked upon as little better than an attempt to buy that conspiracy off. That is not my view of the attitude of the miners of this country. The miners are a body of men quite as good as if no better than their neighbours. They take the same broad sane views of things, and one looks to them as being moved by what is the foundation of all government in this country, what is the only basis on which we rest, and that is the common sense and good will which characterises the community as a whole. It is to that that you ultimately come back. It is to-day, as it has always been, the very foundation of democracy—it is the very basis on which we proceed. If it were wanting, or if there came any change, then the whole machinery of Government tumbles to pieces. I ask your Lordships, Is there any indication that people are different to-day from what they have always been? If you look at the quietness and sanity with which this proceeding has been carried on, the miners putting their point of view and the owners putting theirs, and realise that there has been a total absence of turbulence and violence and a determination to argue both sides of the question in a reasonable manner, I think you will agree that the same sanity and good sense which has proved a sufficient foundation for us in the past is there for us to act upon to-day. If that be the case, the policy of this Bill is a very simple one. It is not an attempt to buy off a conspiracy, but an attempt to get at the truth between two contending bodies on the very important point, the principle of the minimum wage.
I agree with the noble Marquess that all efforts to interfere with the natural bargaining of people among themselves are bad. I agree that it would have been infinitely better if we could have avoided this Bill, as also many other Bills. I wish we could have avoided the Factory Act, and the legislation, which both sides have undertaken, interfering with land in
678
Ireland, but interfering because it was necessary so to interfere in the interests of the common weal. I wish we could have interfered less than we have done in other matters which have become common cases in the last few years. But every now and then it has become evident that you must take a step in the direction of interference in the public interest, and to-day we have just such a case after every effort has been made, after the Prime Minister and my colleagues who have been associated with him had, as the noble Marquess very justly said, spared no pains to bring the parties to a common point of view. That turned out to be impossible. Disaster has ensued, there has been a stoppage of a vital industry, and the result has been this Bill. Our policy is to hold the scales equally between the parties.
The noble Marquess spoke of coercion. I do not know that coercion is quite the best phrase that can be used. It is certainly interference with liberty of contract in this matter. It is coercion in that sense, and in that sense only. It is interference to that extent, and the interference takes place, not for the purpose of fixing wages, but for the purpose of establishing the principle that in the coal industry there should be a minimum below which no men should work, because it is held that if they did it will give rise to a worse evil, and you will have a danger of a recurrence of the evil which we are suffering to so great an extent at the present moment. Therefore the Bill establishing that principle endeavours to work it out with as much elasticity as possible. There are these boards to be formed representing the employers and the men, coming together under a chairman appointed by themselves, or, if not, by the Government, and the chairman has the casting voice. I think the noble Marquess did not quite do justice to the very great elasticity which is left in the way of imposing condition. If you look at subsection (2) of Clause I of the Bill you will see that the rules which are to be made by the joint district board make provision for the exclusion from the minimum rate of those who are incapable through age or illness, and also impose conditions as to the regularity and efficiency of the work. I quite agree you cannot define these things precisely in a measure of this kind. All you can do is to get an impartial

679
arbitrator and put into his hands the duty of dealing with the case. That is the utmost that can be done, and that is what has been done. Therefore I think the noble Marquess a little under-estimated the provisions in this Bill which have been framed with great care having regard to that question of elasticity.
The principle of the Bill is what I have stated. It is an attempt to lay down a policy as to the principle of the minimum wage which is fair between the two parties. The Bill when it becomes an Act will be presented to the miners and to the coal owners alike as our offer to them after doing our best to get at the truth of what is right and just. To the extent to which contracts are interfered with there will be for the future compulsion in these matters. We believe that the Bill is a just one. We believed that it was better to take the simple principle of the minimum wage rather than to attempt to interfere by fixing wages in the Bill. We think that there is in the Bill enough to solve the situation which has arisen. And when I am asked. "What guarantee have you that the Bill will achieve its purpose?" my answer is the answer I have already given that we believe that to-day, as in times past, among the miners and among the public there prevails a desire for order, a good sense about these matters, and a desire for freedom from those agitating ideas—of which I think the noble Marquess has made too much—freedom from such ideas as Syndicalism, freedom from such ideas as tend to upset the relations between Capital and Labour, but a desire to have justice done to themselves and to those with whom they are dealing. With the conviction that that spirit is as great and as good in the community as it ever was we believe that when this Bill becomes law public opinion will enforce its acceptance.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter. Living as I do and have done for years in a colliery district I have naturally been brought a great deal into touch with mining matters, and I am sure that everything that has been said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the noble Marquess on this side as to the good qualities of individual miners would be endorsed by everybody living in my neighbourhood acquainted with the
680
miners. But what we have to consider this evening is not the good qualities of individual miners but the effect of that combination or that conspiracy— and I do not think the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House used a word which was a bit too strong when he spoke of a conspiracy—on the part of the leaders of the miners' union to bring about this disastrous strike. The miners themselves are, I am convinced, as law abiding a section of the community as any other class, and they are just as ready to obey the law if they see that those who have to administer the law are willing and able to carry it out. We all know—or if we do not we can very easily ascertain it— that there are thousands of miners in this country who had no wish to go out on strike at all, who had no grievance at all, and who are willing and anxious to go back to work either to-day or to-morrow or at the earliest possible moment if they had the protection of the law. The reason they are prevented from doing so is that, owing to the state of the law as regards the protection given to trade unions, they are afraid to go back to work until the permission of their trade union is given to them. The so-called ballot is of the most inefficacious character possible. The secrecy of the ballot as regards these cases that are voted on by the miners' union is universally acknowledged by all who know anything about the subject to be of no value whatever.
I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time this evening by discussing the causes of this unfortunate national strike, but I cannot refrain from saying, and I think many people will agree with me, that modern trade unionism has much to answer for to the workers of this country. If I had to quote any specific instance in support of that assertion I would quote the instance of the ruin of the great ship building industry on the Thames that has been brought about directly by trade unionism. But what we are anxious to do at this moment on both sides of the House is not to discuss the causes that have brought about the present disastrous state of affairs, but rather to seek as speedily and as peaceably as possible something that will bring the strike to a close. I am certain I am voicing the opinion of every one on these Benches when I say that there is not one of us who wishes to make the least Party capital out of the crisis that has arisen,

681
and I believe that every one, or nearly every one, who sits on these, Benches would gladly concur in the tribute to the Prime Minister that was made by Lord Lansdowne for the patience and perseverance with which he endeavoured to bring the negotiations between the masters and the men to a successful close.
But, my Lords, the question that we have to ask ourselves this evening is, Will; this Bill by itself bring about, or is it likely or calculated to bring about, a cessation of the strike and of the crisis that has arisen? I personally have very little hope that the passage of this Bill—because it is not going to be opposed on our side, I understand—will have that effect. Many of us remember various legislative measures that have been passed by Parliament within the last few years interfering between employers and employed and regulating the relations between masters and men. Many of your Lordships will remember the debates that took place in this House when the Eight Hours Bill came to us from another place, and I think many of us will remember the particularly powerful speech which was made by Lord Durham on that occasion speaking in opposition to the Bill. Every one of the predictions that were made by Lord Durham in regard to that particular measure of legislative interference between the masters and the men has been absolutely and entirely justified.
When I say that, it is not that I venture to put forward my own opinion. I should like to quote a sentence from a speech that was made in another place last night in the discussion on the Bill that is now before us. Mr. Brace, formerly a miner, I think, himself, and one of the representatives of the Labour Party, in the course of his speech in another place last night used these remarkable words, that since the passing of the Eight Hours Act the men had not been able to earn such good wages; and he was followed in the debate by Lord Castlereagh, who, speaking of course from a different point of view, absolutely corroborated what Mr. Brace stated. Lord Castlereagh urged upon the House of Commons that one of the principal causes in his opinion of this strike was the unrest and disquiet that had been caused and the loss of wages to the men by the Eight Hours Act. There is one example before your eyes of Parliament interfering between masters and men and endeavouring
682
to regulate their relations. It is not, I think, one of very happy augury for success attending the measure that is now before us. So much for the Eight Hours Act. Then, of course, we all have good cause to remember the Trades Disputes Act and the introduction of that system of so-called "peaceful picketing"—though the adjective "peaceful" in the opinion of any one acquainted with the system is not a very appropriate one. He would be a sanguine man who considers that any measure like the Trades Disputes Act is one which we should do well to follow. I think many of us on this side of the House and a great many other people in the country have had bitter cause to regret that the Trades Disputes Act ever became law.
Now, my Lords, turn your attention for a moment to the long series of Acts that have been passed in the last few years in respect to land and the relations between landlords and tenants in this country. In nearly every one of those Acts you will find that the principle of freedom of contract is infringed upon or abrogated, and I hardly think that any member of His Majesty's Government could quote any one of those Acts as having given increased content or comfort to any of the classes interested. Those Acts are all Acts, as I say, which abrogated the principle of freedom of contract between employer and employed. And now we have brought before us the latest phase of legislative interference between masters and men. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, in the remarks he offered to the House just now, took an almost apologetic line for the Bill that has been brought in. It appeared to me that he had very little to say in favour of it. In answer to questions that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, addressed to him, asking him where was the protection and where were the safeguards for the employers. Lord Haldane could do nothing but point to subsection (2) of Clause I where district rules which have not been made or framed or discussed are the only safeguards that are offered to the employer in this matter. Of course, we are not going to divide on this side of the House against the Minimum Wage Bill; and I will only remark that in my humble opinion perhaps the only satisfactory feature in this Bill is that contained in Clause 6, where it is stated that if the Bill becomes an

683
Act it is to have a very temporary character and to be in force for three years only. But, my Lords, I should like humbly to urge upon His Majesty's Government that the passage of this Bill, even if it is quite unopposed on this side of the House, will not and cannot bring peace to this country unless it is accompanied by something more. I should like to implore His Majesty's Government to realise that no legislative effort of this kind can be of any real effect in settling the industrial unrest that has been sweeping over this country within the last few years unless it is accompanied by firm and impartial administration of the laws that are at present in force in all three kingdoms. I mean by that, not only that the law shall be enforced, but that the ministers of the law, from the Judges of the High Court down to justices of the peace, ought to be protected and upheld in such decisions as they think fit to give, and that the law in future shall once more become a terror to evildoers, including even trade unionists if they are proved to violate it. I say this in no vindictive spirit whatever. I urge it not on behalf of individuals or of a class, but I contend that it is in the interests of the nation that this shall be carried out. We have seen, I regret to say, in the last few years signs that His Majesty's Government, not only in England, but in Scotland and Ireland too, are not willing to allow the law to be enforced in a proper way. Judges and magistrates have been personally attacked by Ministers, their decisions reversed, and I am perfectly certain that neither this Bill nor any other Bill of a similar character that is passed by Parliament can have any real and lasting effect in putting a stop to the industrial unrest and disturbance that is so unhappy a feature of the present day unless it is accompanied by a a firmer administration of the law than His Majesty's Ministers can be said to? have exercised in the last few years. Speaking on another subject a few evenings ago I remember that my noble friend Lord Dunmore pointed out to the House that His Majesty's Ministers have been unusually active during the last few years in bringing legislative measures before, the Houses of Parliament, but they seem to sometimes forget that there is a far more really important function that ought to be exercised by His Majesty's Ministers and that is the proper administration of the Government of this kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have always noticed that your Lordships give indulgence to any one who speaks with practical knowledge and interest on any topic that is before the House, and it is only because I myself am closely connected, as have been my father and grandfather before me, with the working of coal in the county of Durham that at the present moment I rise to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. I seldom agree with the noble Marquess who leads the House, but to-day I cordially agree with all he said as to the character of the miners engaged in the coal trade; and I was indeed glad to hear the observations of my noble friend behind me, who not only endorsed the statement of Lord Crewe but went even further and spoke of the great gallantry frequently shown by the miners in cases of emergency and danger. My Lords, I can endorse every word my noble friend said. I myself have been unfortunate enough to be the witness of a great colliery explosion. In my county, as in others, there have been cases in which men have been saved by their comrades in individual instances, and I can say with truth that there are many men in the Army who have earned the Victoria Cross, and justly deserved it, who have not shown more gallantry than have those pitmen in rescuing with almost reckless courage their fellow comrades in the hour of danger.
Although I am going to put forward perhaps the case of the owners, I hope I look with impartiality on the whole question. I recognise that these gallant men have a perfect right to look after their interests, and I am sure they would condemn me and think very little of me if I had not the courage to look after my own. I say at once that these men who occupy the position described by my noble friend behind me in a profession in which there is undoubtedly very hard work and great jeopardy have a right to expect and to demand the highest wages that the industry can afford. I do not think that any pitmen in the county of Durham will deny that their wages are fair and that they are not grudged by the owners. The average wage in the county of Durham for hewers is 6s. 10½d. per day, and in addition the men get house accommodation and coal. Of course, when I say that that is the average there

685
are cases in which the sum paid is very much higher, and there are cases which I shall indicate shortly in which naturally the wages are lower. In the great majority of collieries in Durham the hewers work for seven hours on an average or less from hank to bank, and I do not think in those circumstances that it can be said that the owners stint their employés with regard to the question of wages.
But, my Lords, we have to look to the economic side of the question and to consider what the industry can bear in proportion to the amount of wage which it is in a position to pay. There is no better judge of the coal trade than the noble Lord, Lord Joicey. I wish he were here to-day, because he could give a far better view of the question than I can; but the noble Lord in a letter to The Times a short time ago used these words—
"Wages on the average take 60 to 70 per cent. of the amount realised for coal at the pit's mouth—that is, out of every £1 realised wages get from 12,s. to 14 s.; the remaining 6s. to 8s. being left to pay all other charges in the way of machinery, materials, rents, rates, taxes, claims for subsidence, and many other costs, and interest upon capital."
I think your Lordships will allow that that is a very heavy percentage on an industry to pay for wages only, leaving all the other calls to be met out of what remains.
If we take the history of the coal trade for the last twenty or thirty years we find that burdens of an increasing character have frequently been put upon that trade by legislation. I take first of all the Act of 1897, the amending Act of that Act, and the Eight Hours Act which was alluded to by my noble friend behind me and which has done such undoubted damage to the coal trade, and to which I to a great extent attribute the present unfortunate condition of affairs; then I take this Minimum Wage Bill which I presume we are shortly to have forced upon us; and we must look forward. I take it, to the fact that in a few months' time the Insurance Act will come into operation—all of these putting an extra charge upon the coal trade and adding most materially to the cost of production. To what does this lead? Those of us who have studied the question of the coal trade know well that there are many collieries in which there is a very small
686
margin between profit and loss, and if these additions are put on to the already very heavy cost of production, there can only be one result, and that is that these collieries must be closed down. To make a colliery work at a profit there must be a certain output per man. But there is no safeguard in this Bill that I can see that there is to be any regular output for each individual man in that part of the colliery in which he has to do his work. It is therefore extremely difficult to tell what effect this minimum wage will have on output generally.
In regard to the county of Durham, it is not correct to say that the effect of a minimum wage is absolutely unknown. In that county there is a colliery—I would rather not give the name of it—where the minimum wage is in operation, and where the miners' wages are made up to the county average. It should be noted that in this minimum-wage colliery there is a loss in the working, while another colliery working the same seam shows a profit and a larger output although it employs a smaller number of men. From that we are justified, I think, in gathering that the effect of the minimum wage ill this colliery shows a smaller output of coal with more men than in the other colliery to which I allude. If the minimum wage is going to reduce the output, you must also remember that there are other collieries in which the seams are very thin and in which it is impossible for a man perhaps to work more than three tons of coal a day, with the result that the output of that colliery being so small there can be no profit and consequently it would not be worth the while of the owners to keep it in work. The agitation which is the origin of the bringing about of this minimum wage arose from the fact that certain men working in collieries, owing to no fault of their own but to conditions over which they had no control, had not the opportunity of making the same wages by working the same amount of coal as they would have done under more fortunate conditions. I use that expression because I think the word "abnormal" is not altogether a satisfactory word in describing it. But, my Lords, this Bill has gone very far beyond that. It is not a question now of a minimum wage for abnormal places, but a question of a minimum wage for every man who goes down the pit and is in the employment of that pit.

687
If only the question of abnormal places was in dispute, this Bill is really not needed in the county of Durham, for in that county the principle has long been recognised in practice, and the wages of men working in abnormal places have, subject to certain conditions and restrictions, been made up by an allowance usually called "consideration" which increased the wages according to the circumstances of each case, so that machinery closely approximating to that proposed by the Government Bill exists in the county of Durham, and by means of it the men and the owners can submit any grievance to a joint committee composed of owners and miners who are empowered to settle, and, failing agreement, the matter is referred to a mutually elected tribunal which settles with the men without friction and without Government interference. I consider, therefore, that there was no need whatever for the strike in the county of Durham, and I believe if the miners there were free agents they would be very glad to return to their work, because they have not struck for the reason that they do not receive good wages. I think I have shown that their wages are exceptionally high. But, my Lords, this Bill, as far as I gather, gives no guarantee whatever that the men will go back. And let me bring this to your Lordships' notice. Even supposing the men did wish to go back, it is very doubtful whether some employers of labour would be in a position to reopen their pits, although the men wished to go down and work them, because at the present moment, with this minimum wage hanging over their heads, they do not know what their liability will be. It might be that they will find that the district rules will make them liable for a minimum which, in a colliery with hardly any profit whatever, would turn that little profit into a loss; and that, in addition to the insurance cost which will come upon them in a few months, will very likely make it unprofitable to open the colliery at all.
A question was raised in the House of Commons—I do not know that it was discussed at any great length—as to the retrospective character of this Bill, if I can use the expression, by which the men were to commence receiving the minimum wage from the moment they went down the pit. To people who have studied the coal trade and who have had experience
688
of strikes it is well known that when the men first go down the pits after having had a cessation of work for several weeks they are not in such good physical condition to do the work as they were in when they were fully employed. Their muscles are relaxed, their hands are soft, and for the first week or two they probably would not be able to do enough work to bring in the minimum wage. The owner is therefore having a heavy fine inflicted upon him if he is to pay the minimum wage when the men do not produce coal sufficient even to produce the minimum wage. I think that is a matter which ought to have been considered in the House of Commons, because it does put a very heavy penalty on the owner if the minimum wage is to commence from the day the men go down, instead of commencing after they have been down a fortnight.
The condition of the miners has not been, to my mind, sufficient to bring about this strike, and we ought to ask ourselves what is the reason of this general unrest which has culminated in the strike which is bringing such disaster and misery to so many thousands of the people of this country. I do not hesitate to say that I think that this unfortunate condition of affairs is due to a very large extent to the speeches made by members of His Majesty's Government. The speeches of Mr. Lloyd George especially were based on the principle of setting class against class, Labour against Capital, employed against employer; and now those speeches are coming home to roost. The result of those speeches has been to drive capital out of the country, and not only to drive it out of the country but the policy of the Government as such has been to prevent capital being sunk in the country, as it has been for generations past, in order to develop the resources the country enjoys. Without capital what would our country have been? It is private enterprise and private capital that has developed our mines, our shipyards, our mills, our telegraphs, our railways—all that is due to private capital. But will capital be sunk in the future in this country in developing resources if the capitalist knows full well that if his venture turns out a success he will be taxed out of existence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I venture to say it will not. If I may give your Lordships an experience of my own, I can tell you that for ten years

689
I invested annually a very large sum of money in sinking a colliery. That, as your Lordships are aware, is a very expensive and a somewhat hazardous undertaking, but I think now that if I could have foreseen some years ago what would take place I should not have invested that money, but would have invested it abroad in some of those undertakings which it would not have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to rob. And surely that will be the experience of others who have invested their capital. Not only would there have been less coal worked if I had followed that line, not only would all these men who are now working the pits have been unemployed, but also the vast army of men who have been engaged in building the houses, the chapels, the churches, the schools, and all the other buildings which are necessary in connection with the mines. Therefore I say that the driving of capital oat of this country must be most injurious to the industries of the country.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice a speech which I think is very relevant in this debate. It was a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I read that speech in the papers, I immediately answered it by a letter to The Times, and I shall venture, if your Lordships will allow me, to quote a few sentences from my letter, which I think describes the gross inaccuracies—they were nothing else—which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was guilty of in the speech he made. My letter runs—
"I have read with some surprise Mr. Lloyd George's description of a visit to a coal mine. He speaks of 'the earth straining around us and above us as if to crush us in.' His experience, I think, trust be unique, for having lived amongst those fully qualified as to all the details of working coal for the best part of my life, I have never heard of any one experiencing the conditions experienced by Mr. Lloyd George. Such conditions do not prevail in the North. Then he talks of ' the pit props Lout and twisted and sundered until you saw their fibres splitting.' Mr. Lloyd George seems entirely to ignore the fact that every possible precaution is taken to ensure as far as possible the safety of all working in coal mines. Certificated managers are appointed, and the mines are under the supervision of Government inspectors and sub-inspectors. The workmen have also the right to avail themselves of having the colliery inspected by their own inspectors. I venture to think in the interests of the coal-owners, apart from humanity, everything is done to secure the safety of the workmen. This is the case in the County of Durham, and I should have imagined but for Mr. Lloyd George's experience that it is the case in all coal mining districts."
690
To that statement Mr. Lloyd George never offered any answer. What was the purpose of his speech? It was to set employed against employers. It was of a very unfair character and of a most inaccurate description. But do you think that the miners of the present day have forgotten that speech? Do you think the Socialist Party have not remembered it? When you see that the Prime Minister and the leading members of the Government do not repudiate a statement such as that by one of their leading colleagues, do you suppose that the country as a whole does not think that the Government is in favour of Socialism, and that the Socialist Party have the Government at their back? That, I venture to think, is the reason of the present unrest, of the strike on the railways in August last, and of the present disastrous condition of affairs under which we live; and unless His Majesty's Government dissociate themselves from the Socialism propounded by some of their colleagues we are confident that these strikes are only the preliminary to a series of others. This supposition is a very serious one, but I do think that His Majesty's Government are greatly to blame. They are in a position of difficulty, of course, but if they had insisted upon repudiating the statements of their colleagues, and taken a totally different line, I am sure that this disastrous state of affairs would never have grown up.
The six years that this Government have been in power have done great harm to this country. I was only reading the other day a sentence by Lord Beaconsfield which, I think, expresses entirely the policy of the present Government during the past six years. Lord Beaconsfield in 1873 said—
"For nearly five years the present Ministers have harassed every trade, worried every profession, and assailed or menaced every class, institution, and species of property in the country. All this they call a policy, and seem quite proud of it; but the country has, I think, made up its mind to close this career of plundering and blundering."
The words of Lord Beaconsfield then are, I think, applicable now, and I believe that history will repeat itself and that the time is not far distant when the same fate that attended Mr. Gladstone's Government will attend that of Mr. Asquith.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The noble Marquess who leads the House stated that the representatives of the miners had decided to refer the acceptance of this

691
Bill to a ballot. May I ask him whether he can tell the House when he has reason to believe that the result of that ballot might be made known and action taken upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl the information for which he quite reasonably asks. The fact is that it was only just before I came into the House that I heard that the miners' leaders had announced that they would take a ballot on this question. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot give the noble Earl any information which would be of use to him.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes to eight and resumed at nine o'clock.]
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time I feel that I am doing a dangerous thing in speaking on such a momentous question as we have before us to-night. I do so with a knowledge of the kindness that all novices receive at your Lordships' hands, coupled with the fact, which is my only brief for speaking to-night, that I have had a certain amount of personal experience of mining. I do not wish to go into a biography of my life; I simply state the fact that for two years I worked underground as an ordinary miner, as a timber-man, in various capacities in the United States of America. Subsequent to that I worked in various capacities as a mining engineer in most of our Colonies.
Now, my Lords, I must say I am entirely against this Minimum Wage Bill. If the minimum wage applied solely to metalliferous mines, I would say that I believed it was fair, because in dealing with metalliferous mines the product of which is gold or silver you are dealing with a product that commands a standard price. In dealing with coal, however, you are dealing with something quite different, and on that ground I am entirely against the minimum wage. If you grant the minimum wage as applied to coal mines, I consider that it is setting up a very dangerous precedent. If you set up a minimum wage for coal mines the natural corollary would be that owners should fix a minimum sale price, but this is impossible, as foreign competition has to be met not only as regards our exports but as regards our manu-
692
factures. The manufacturers in their turn have to compete against goods of foreign manufacture, and that to my mind is the gist of the whole question of the minimum wage with regard to coal. It is not a standard product, and so I cannot see how you can apply a minimum wage to it.
I should feel that I was not paying a tribute to the memory of old times when I worked shoulder to shoulder with miners if I did not tell you that I have many friends amongst them and have great sympathy for them, and I would also say, as has been said in another place, not only by the Premier but by the Leader of the Opposition, and it has been said again in this place, that Schedule No. 1, I think it is, in the demands made by the miners taken by itself is a fair and just demand. That is to say, I consider that 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys is not an unreasonable demand for any one who goes underground. I am so entirely against this Bill that I think I should be wasting the time of the House if I were to try at this moment to show certain alternatives that might arise. But, my Lords, if I pay, in poor language, a tribute to the men—and I do not wish to make a gallery speech or to indulge in mawkish sentiment—I must also say I cannot pay the same tribute to their leaders. I have met a great many so-called labour leaders, walking delegates at the mine, and while I have found some very good men amongst them I have also found bad ones. I have found that as a rule the bad ones—the hot-heads I might call them—very often sweep away the discretion of those who have more moderate ideas.
When I was in British Columbia I remember once the unions got very tyrannical. I was second in charge of a mine then, and I asked our mine captain to get me the names of the leaders of that section of the Miners' Union, and it did not as a matter of fact come as a surprise to me when I found that in the list of twelve or fourteen men there was not a single miner amongst them. They were the class of men we used to call "tin horns," and "tub thumpers," and it was those men who on Saturday nights were instilling absurd theories into the men. In my time I may say I have been a Socialist, because, as we all know, men's happiness is like the mercury in a thermometer—it rises and falls according to

693
the forces of circumstances. For many years my circumstances were very poor. I came home and found that the only maxim that seemed to count was that there is nothing that succeeds like success. My own friends did not seem to realise that some modicum of success was due to industry. That did not prevail, and, as I have said, I became a Socialist. My form of Socialism was the predatory form, a form which will never maintain. What will maintain is what has made this country great—that is individualism. I quite grant that the scope of individualism in these small islands of ours is not as great as in the Colonies, but still we must maintain it, and we must do so by strong government. There is another thing that we must do, and that is we must go more amongst the men. If these theories of Syndicalism and Socialism are not to maintain, as we do not think they can, it is our duty to go and educate the men. I do not think there is sufficient education among the men.
I was once a prospector in Australia. I pioneered one of the West Australian districts. By the time I had finished I had not a penny piece to bless myself with, and was obliged to go to the capitalist. The capitalist brings in his money; is started; with milling conic those who cater for the wants of the mining community, and a new industry and community is formed. Socialists do not tell the men that. I am a director of a small coal mine in this country, and yet, though it has great possibilities and has been worked for three or four years, no one has ever got a penny piece out of it. We hear talk of free speech, and talk of the tyranny of the Barons. I say that the tyranny of Socialism is far worse. I will give you an instance. When I was standing for the London County Council some one in the body of the hall challenged me to come and debate Socialism. I said that provided I was elected I would. I went to a friend of mine who was at one time a leader of the Socialist party and asked him if he could get me a fair hearing. He said he would try, but that he did not think he could. If that is the truth, which it is, that is more tyrannical than ever the Barons were in their worst days. But I am wandering from the point and taking up your time, and although I had so much to say, this being my premier effort, I feel that I have not said half. But what I will say is that
694
I for one will not vote for the Minimum Wage Bill. One result of this Bill will be that after it has been tried for a year it will lead to compulsory arbitration. That is what you have got to face.
A MINISTERIAL PEER: A very good thing too.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I say, like the noble Lord, that it will be a very good thing. I must apologise for having detained your Lordships. I know I have made a very poor speech, but I had intended to make a very good one.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, this Bill which the noble Marquess invites us to pass this evening through all its stages has been passed in the House of Commons by a very large majority. It therefore appears that on the face of it there is a case for its being passed to-day by the House of Lords, but I must say that after listening to the exceedingly powerful speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition it seems that in ordinary circumstances it would be the duty of any Second Chamber to postpone the consideration of a measure of this large character until people had had time to consider it. But these are not ordinary circumstances. I cannot help thinking, when the good time comes when the Parliament Act is repealed, together with the Trades Disputes Act and other measures of an anti-national, anti-social, and sectional character that have been passed by this Government, that then with a strong Second Chamber it would probably be our duty to stay the hand of the Government even in an emergency like this. At the same time I could not gather from the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House any really substantial reason why there is such a cast-iron hurry to pass this Bill into law without further ado. He told us that it was an honest attempt to deal with this crisis; that it might even fail in its object, but that he hopes—a hope which he shares in common with a great many other people—that work will be immediately resumed. He then told us, and this was Ids strongest appeal, that it was imperative that we should pass this Bill, first of all because a minority of the owners would not come into line with the other owners, and, secondly, because the men insisted on the inclusion of their schedule in the measure.

695
This Bill is in any case an emergency measure. It is either an emergency Act of an executive character, as Lord Lansdowne described it, or it is a legislative Act. If it is an executive Act then it seems to me that the principal excuse for asking Parliament to pass it is that it is going to put a stop to the strike. If it is an executive Act of real value it is not unreasonable to argue that in order for it to be a success the parties most interested should have agreed to it; but it is a little disconcerting to find that, instead of that, the whole of the Labour Party voted against it in the House of Commons last night. It seems exceedingly doubtful, therefore, whether as a remedy to stop the strike it will be successful. At the same time I think it is not unfair to describe this Bill as a legislative Act. There can be no doubt whatever that it is asking Parliament at very short notice to embark upon a legislative project of a very far-reaching and, possibly, of a very dangerous character. I will not weary your Lordships by going at length into the theory or the practice of the minimum wage. I will not argue at length to-night whether it is a good thing or whether it is a had thing. But still, if you are going to ask Parliament in the future to face the idea of a minimum wage, do you not think it will be very much better if we turn our attention in the immediate future to procuring a living wage for the people in sweated industries whose wages really do need regulation by Act of Parliament, and whose condition is so necessitous that there is an absolute crying demand for interference on their behalf on the part of the Legislature? It is no use now entering into academic discussions with regard to the minimum wage. We shall do no good in this country until we recognise the value of the first principles of those elementary rights of citizenship which every successful democratic State has been forced sooner or later to recognise.
It is a little difficult to follow the argument which has been put forward in both Houses and in the newspapers, that the coal trade is different from other trades. It is quite possible to argue that the coal trade supplies the life blood of the nation and to follow out that line, but it is not too much to say that when you look into the principles of justice and freedom the coal trade is just the same as any other trade; and if it were regulated and made
696
susceptible by Parliament to those underlying principles, then I venture to say that we should not have so much difficulty with the coal trade or any other vital trade as a lot of people seem to think we shall. But it will be of no avail to attempt to settle this question on broad national lines now or at any other time unless what the First Lord of the Admiralty calls "the elementary rights of citizenship" are first of all safeguarded by public opinion, and, if necessary, by Act of Parliament. The First Lord of the Admiralty has shown a very great regard for the elementary rights of citizenship—I am grateful to him for having taught us that word. When he wanted to make a speech at Belfast the other day in vindication of what he called the "elementary rights of citizenship" the whole of the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland were summoned to Belfast to enable him to make that speech. We will not say whether he was right or wrong in so zealously guarding himself on that occasion, but if that is to be done in the case of Cabinet Ministers when they wish to make speeches the same right must be open to all citizens, no matter how humble they may be, when they wish to avail themselves of the elementary rights of citizenship.
I have no hesitation in saying that in a very large degree the whole of this trouble is the direct result of six years of Radical Government in this country. The Government cannot avoid their responsibilities in this matter. The state of unrest which we find in the labour world to-clay could only have thriven successfully in the atmosphere of class hatred which the noble Lord opposite and his friends have either countenanced or else deliberately created in order that they might overthrow the House of Lords. Another fruitful hot-bed of the kind of thing that we find to-day is the abuse of representative government which finally culminated in Parliament passing a law to deliberately place, for the first time in the history of this country, a certain set of citizens above the law of the land. We well remember the debates that took place in both Houses when the Trades Disputes Act was under discussion. There was a time before Radical Cabinet Ministers capitulated to pressure on their own side when they were as much against that famous clause in the Trades Disputes Act dealing with tortious acts on the part of trade unions as were the leaders of the Unionist

697
Party, and we shall not easily forget the quotation which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, read in this House on the Trades Disputes Bill taken from a speech of the Radical Attorney-General—I think it was Sir Joseph Walton—in which he implored the House of Commons "not to create a privilege for the proletariat." That sounds like a nasty Tory utterance, but it is not; it is an utterance by one of your own friends in the House of Commons before that clause was placed in the Trades Disputes Act, and it was the creating of that "privilege for the proletariat"—a phrase which had it been used by a Tory speaker we should never have heard the last of in the Radical Press—which is very largely responsible for the state of affairs in which we find ourselves to-day.
There has been a good deal of talk in the House of Commons and elsewhere about "keeping the ring." The noble Marquess who leads the House told us that the Prime Minister had endeavoured to hold a fair and even balance between masters and men in this matter. I leave no doubt whatever that he tried to do so, fighting with the weapons that he had at his command, but it is quite impossible to keep the ring and to hold a fair and even balance between masters and men when one side to the dispute is amenable to the law of the land and the other side has been deliberately placed above the law by Parliament itself. It is impossible to see fair play and justice all round under conditions of that kind. We have been told this afternoon that it might be impossible to end this strike by means of any legislative Act, but it must be apparent to a great many of us that the executive power wielded by any Government, even though they were not under the necessity of meeting Parliament and getting an Act passed, would probably go a very long way towards securing justice in this matter.
The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill said that a certain section of the community had been pressing the Prime Minister to do two or three things. One was to legislate earlier in the dispute. Another, with which I will try to deal in a few words, was that he should have afforded at the beginning of the struggle protection to those working men who desired to continue their work. Although
698
the noble Marquess gave us some good grounds for thinking that in the last resort the Government would not shrink from protecting the willing worker, I must say that I should like to have heard him proclaim that in terms which were a little more decisive. He said that during the whole of this struggle, which has now lasted four weeks or more, the Government had not refused to offer protection to anybody who asked for it. I do not think, and the public will not think, that that is a particularly courageous statement on the part of a Minister who is responsible for wielding the Executive. The noble Marquess further went on to say that the Government will not refuse in the future to give protection to anybody provided it is asked for in the authorised manner. I should very much like to hear from the noble and learned Earl who sits on the Woolsack when he speaks what the authorised manner of asking Parliament for protection is. I should have thought, as a humble citizen, that the facts spoke for themselves, and that the time had arrived several days ago in a manner which must be apparent to anybody who has studied the terrible state of things that is going on in this country, when the Government would have the support, of all right thinking people in this country had they proclaimed openly that they would give protection to any willing worker.
There is another matter in which it is not too much to ask that the Executive might very easily interfere. Throughout the whole of this dispute we have heard quite enough about the miners on the one side and the owners on the other. Do you not think there are a great many miners in this country who would object to being grouped together with the other miners with whom they do not agree? When you talk about the miners it is impossible to express the ideas of the whole of the miners in this country, because they do not all think the same on this matter. A good many of them voted against the strike on the ballot. But what of the ballot? I am not a coal owner or a coal miner myself, but f am informed—I shall be very glad to be corrected by noble Lords opposite who know about coal miners if I am wrong—that when a ballot is taken with regard to any important subject those who take the ballot, the leaders of the men, have some means of ascertaining, by a badge or something, which way the men

699
are voting. So much for the secrecy of the ballot, the one thing necessary if the ballot is going to be any use at all for the protection of the liberty of the subject from intimidation and the basic idea of the ballot if it is going to afford any protection. If I am not wrong, then I say it is the duty of the Government to institute a Board of Trade inquiry forthwith into the way in which these ballots are taken and to make absolutely certain that a man can vote without his fellow workman knowing which way he has voted, and in such a way that he shall be protected from intimidation and duress with regard to the manner in which he has expressed his opinions. Those are two ways in which it might be easily possible for the Executive to do a very great deal.
But there is another matter upon which it is not necessary to dwell at very great length to-night and which I was indeed glad to hear foreshadowed by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—namely, the alteration, or the repeal if necessary, of those portions of the Trades Disputes Act which have placed certain classes in this country out of the reach of the law of the land. That is a matter which has not been given very great prominence to in the debates on either side of the House in another place, and we have not heard very much about it to-night in this House. But everybody must feel, especially after the speeches that were made in the House of Commons by Radical Ministers disapproving of that famous clause in the Trades Disputes Act, that the idea of placing one set of citizens above the law can no longer be supported by public opinion and is no longer consonant with the interests of public safety. I believe that in some respects the country will be rather disappointed with the debates in Parliament on this Bill. It is not extravagant to suppose that those who have been reading these debates have been looking for some stronger statements from Ministers and from those who have been opposed to Ministers with regard to taking stronger measures for the protection of law and order, and that we shall not do any good with regard to the settlement of industrial unrest until we affirm the principle of the mobilisation of all the forces, both moral and material, at our command in support of the principles of free labour, of free voting, and of equality before the law.
700
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in concluding his speech, testified to the respect and affection that he had for the miners. I do not know whether that respect and affection is exactly reciprocated, but I feel sure that the utterance of the noble Marquess was absolutely genuine. We on our side yield to no one in our respect for the miners, particularly for those miners who would like to go back to work but are prevented by the forces of organisation from earning their daily bread. If there is any affection and sympathy and pity to be extended, I say for one that my heart and feelings go out almost entirely in this matter to those who have got no fire and no food, and that entirely through no fault of their own, and it is from the feeling that perhaps by the hanging up of the Bill the starvation of these unfortunate people may be prolonged that, important and vital as the Bill is, and immense as is the responsibility which we are taking, I shall refrain from asking your Lordships to divide against this Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall not interpose with more than a sentence or two between your Lordships and the speeches to which you desire specially to listen, but these sentences I should not like on an occasion such as this to leave unsaid. It has been said, and I think it is a matter of common consent, that after this Bill is passed matters will stand in a different position from that in which they have stood before. The Prime Minister has said so, and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition has said so to-night. The issue has shifted, or rather the question will find itself in a different setting. It seems to me that, considering the extraordinary difficulty of the situation which has prevailed during the last few weeks, our British characteristics about which we care and of which we are proud—earnestness, determination, practical force—have in no sense been wanting. Each side has, perfectly rightly, put its own case forward, frankly, plainly, effectively, and with honesty. The Government has borne valiantly its share of the common burden. All that is as it should be. We may disagree with the mine owners, we may disagree with the men, we may disagree with the policy which His Majesty's Government has recommended, not as an ideal policy, but as the best thing that can be done in circumstances so difficult. But

701
none of these, as it seems to me at least, is in any real sense discredited. I venture to say that we have something to be proud of in the part taken by all the parties who have borne their share in this discussion with the temper, the dignity, and the conciliatoriness in many ways which has been by common consent shown all round.
But now, my Lords, the issue shifts; the facts are now adequately known; they have been discussed to the very full; nothing is to be gained, as it seems to me, by discussing further the details of these facts. The issue now turns, not upon the facts with which we have grown so familiar in these recent weeks, but upon the tone and temper in which the situation and the facts as they now stand are going to be dealt with outside—upon the tone and temper, that is, of the far larger body which has now to deal with the question. At such a moment we in this House are, I think, entitled and even bound to make an appeal to the conscience, I would say to the Christian conscience, of those who are concerned, and to make that appeal on behalf of what I will venture to call the Christian conscience of the nation. We confidently bid them realise that the interests of the community are, after all, supreme, and that that means chiefly at this time the interests of its poorest and weakest members. I do not believe that we shall make that appeal in vain. And of this I am quite sure, that those who respond to that appeal with the considerateness for the interests of others which I believe will mark that response will not find it to be unfruitful of gain or good for themselves in the long run.
Last night the debate in another place was prolonged until an hour which made any public record of what was said extraordinarily difficult, but if I am not wrongly informed there was last night a declaration, repeated not by one or two but more leaders among those who are supposed to have been recalcitrant in this matter, saying, "We are trade unionists—yes, but we are citizens first." It is that thought of a larger citizenship which lies below and behind and around the membership of any corporate body of a similar sort, be they masters or be they men, to which this House makes an appeal to-night. We appeal down to the foundation principles which underlie those tossing waves upon the surface. Those principles are not watery
702
but massive and strong; they are principles which our nation justly claims to have written upon its history large and clear. To quote the words of the most vigorous of our present day poets, what Mr. Rudyard Kipling calls—
"The imperishable plinth of things,
Seen and unseen, which touch our peace."
I believe that we are entitled and that we do right to make an appeal to those larger principles and for considerateness for others, and, above all, the weakest amongst us. This House to-night joins in making such an appeal, and I do not believe that we shall make it in vain.
EARL GREY: My Lords, with the noble and earnest appeal to which we have just listened I feel sure that the whole House will cordially sympathise. I wish that its impressive tone could reach the hearts and consciences of all those who have the power of influencing affairs in this country during the next few days. I listened with much sympathy to the able speech of the noble Lord who addressed the House from the Opposition Bench just now, but I fear I cannot agree with him in his view that the coal industry does not differ, so far as the State is concerned, from the other industries in the land. I do not see how it can be disputed that the railway industry and the coal industry, upon which the life of the country depends, are separated by a wide gulf from the other industries of this country.
I do not think that this is the occasion—certainly not for me at any rate—to frame an indictment against His Majesty's Government, although I think it is quite possible to frame an indictment against them for their responsibility in bringing about the crisis with which we are confronted. I do not condemn His Majesty's Government in any way for having introduced this Bill and for having asked this House to pass it. It is admitted by the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that it is essentially an ad hoc measure. He referred to it as not having any of the characteristics of a well-considered measure of permanent legislation, and there is no reason why we in this House should treat it as such. With a million miners on strike refusing to supply the material upon which the warmth and the food and the life of the country depend, I do not see how His

703
Majesty's Government could avoid taking such action as in their opinion is best calculated to bring to an end this disastrous state of things. The only question, I think, before the House to-night is whether His Majesty's Government have taken the best means. It seems to me obvious that His Majesty's Government must so act as to enable them to secure the over-whelming force of public opinion behind them in any action they may think it desirable to take in defence of law and order. If by any unwise and premature interference they had antagonised the other trade unions of the country, then the present position of affairs might have been very much more serious than it is to-day. The object of the Government has been, by wise manœuvring, to place itself in an unassailable position for resisting the revolutionary forces who may torpedo society in the hope of getting something out of the wreckage.
What appears to me, coming new to this country after an absence of some years, is that there is a battle going on, not between Labour and Capital—because there always has been that battle—but a new battle of a strange character between the old unionism and Radical individualists who have endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation between Labour and Capital by collective bargaining, and a new unionism which appears to repudiate arrangements and contracts and to aim at the abolition of the right of private ownership. The old unionism has done a great deal for the working classes of this country. I know in my own part of England—Northumberland and Durham—that the influence of Mr. Burt. Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. John Wilson, who, I believe, are the leaders of the old unionism and who for the moment appear to have been sidetracked, has helped by means of the collective bargaining to which we have all been accustomed to give our allegiance, to bring the miners into a condition of very great prosperity compared to the conditions under which they suffered some years ago. I think any of your Lordships who may have happened to read the most interesting autobiography of Mr. John Wilson, who was, if he is not now, the nominal leader of the miners in the county of Durham, cannot fail to realise that by the methods of the old unionism the conditions and life of the miners of this country have been improved in a most
704
marked manner, and I believe that if the miners had been content to follow their old leaders, their old leaders would have been able to obtain for them in the future, by the same methods which have been so successful in the past, still further advantages. Whether they will be able to obtain these advantages under the new unionism I very greatly doubt.
I listened with the greatest attention and interest to the speech of the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He informed us that while under the Bill the minimum wage will become operative as soon as the Act is passed, yet it might be possible by a friendly arrangement between owners and workmen to, as far as I could understand him, avert the necessity of giving the minimum wage to men who are working underground until the colliery has been placed in its normal condition. I have been quite unable to find in the Bill any provision which will enable the wishes of the noble Marquess as expressed in his speech in introducing the Second Reading to be carried out, and I wish to give notice that when we arrive at the Committee stage it is my intention to move an Amendment which will enable the noble Marquess's views to become legalised.
To the speech of the noble Lord on the question of the ballot I listened with sympathy. While I abstain from criticising the action of His Majesty's Government since the miners put down their tools and abandoned work in the mines, I have always felt that His Majesty's Government had ample opportunity, for they had full warning that this strike was coming, to take such action as was necessary in order to secure a ballot under secret conditions. It is impossible to say what would have happened, but it is a matter of common talk among people resident in the various coal fields that if there had been a secret ballot of the same character as we have when we elect Members to the House of Commons the vote against the strike would have been so great as possibly would have averted the strike taking place at all. If that is so, I think the Government are open to criticism for not having taken that action. They may have been influenced by feelings of apprehension lest such an action might be regarded as an interference with matters which are exclusively within the

705
jurisdiction of trade unions themselves. If they were influenced by those apprehensions I think that they were a little more timid than was necessary. We insist on a secret ballot for Parliamentary elections. To the average man in the street—I am not talking of anybody in this House—it is not a matter of very great importance whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in office. The average man realises that the force of public opinion causes the Party on the Treasury Bench, whatever may be its political complexion, to act very much in the same way. But, my Lords, a strike in the coal industry is a matter of vital interest to every single person in this country; and if it is thought desirable and necessary in the interests of the freedom of the community that there should be a secret ballot for Parliamentary elections, then I would say a fortiori it is necessary that there should be a secret ballot on a question upon the answer to which depends the well-being of the whole State.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech to-night, drew a very gloomy picture of the state of the country if this strike should continue. But gloomy as the picture was, I almost think that the black paint was not put on thick enough. It seems to me that there is a certain lack of imagination among our people. The people do not realise yet that this thing is only beginning, and that if the miners went back to work to-morrow it would be days before coal could be got in sufficient quantities to feed our great industries; and I do not think people have realised what ruin there would be, as the noble Marquess said, if this strike were to go on for three or four weeks longer.
With a great deal of the first part of the speech of the noble Marquess I found myself very much in sympathy. He cannot believe that by Act of Parliament you can suspend the operation of economic laws. The noble Marquess does not believe that the workmen will really get in the long run higher wages by endeavouring to have them fixed by Act of Parliament. I cannot believe anything of the kind either. But it seems to me, whether we like it or not, that we are very likely "in" for a long course of legislation similar to this whichever side is in power. Is it not clear that the forces of organised labour are
706
running across the lines of both political Parties? When we had that disastrous strike attended with a great deal of rioting last summer I was struck by the fact that the two places where the worst rioting took place were Wales and Liverpool. I have no doubt the noble Lord below the gangway would find a very good explanation with regard to Wales, but in Liverpool the rioting was equally bad, if not worse. Liverpool is a place that can be relied upon to support the policy of noble Lords opposite—I might almost say whatever it is—and yet when it comes to a question of labour—not of Home Rule, or Disestablishment, or Free Trade, or of one of the things people generally vote about—Liverpool is found to be one of the most violently democratic spots in the whole Kingdom. I think that is an object lesson to us as to what the future is going to be.
Labour, whether we like it or not, was put in power in this country with the extension of the franchise twenty-five years ago. Labour generally votes as other people vote, sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, putting one side in office to-day and the other side in office to-morrow. But if we are going to have organised labour going solid on questions of wages—and it looks very much as if we are—then I think this Bill is going to be a precedent, and you ought to face the fact that it is going to be a precedent and that we shall be discussing this sort of question in this House over and over again in years to come. Frankly I am sure the noble Marquess is right, even in spite of holding that view, in believing that it is not the duty of this House to throw itself violently against movements of that kind. I think our part ought to be, if we can, to guide them and direct them, but not to try and oppose forces of that kind of almost incalculable magnitude.
There was one part of the noble Marquess's speech with which I found myself quite in agreement—that was where he pointed out one particular weakness of the Bill. It seems to me that the framers of this Bill must have three objects in view. First and foremost, they have to try and get the men back to work. From information that has reached us to-night from different parts of the country I have very great hope and very considerable confidence that the Bill will succeed in that object, and that work will be resumed. Even in

707
Wales, I understand, there is a considerable feeling in favour of making a trial of the provisions of the Bill. If so, the Bill will have succeeded in what is its first and foremost object. But there is a secondary object. You may get the men back, but in the case of the poorer mines will they be able to work, or, at any rate, will they be able to work continuously under this Bill? I am not interested in mining myself except for the smallest trifle—a few hundred pounds in one mine, I think—and I do not speak from the point of view of a man interested in the ownership of mines. But we must all of us consider what effect this is going to have upon the industries of the country and the employment of labour. There are undoubtedly mines that are not being worked at a profit now. I will tell you what I would have liked the Government to do.
This Bill is of so revolutionary a character—or at any rate of so experimental a character—that it seems to me you might have added another experiment or two on to it without endangering political consistency or anything of that kind, and I should have liked something added to this Bill which would have made it possible for the Government to take and work some of the poorer mines, of course bearing the loss if there was a loss, because you could not impose upon an owner the obligation to work a mine and to make a loss in doing it. I should have liked to see the Government take some powers of that kind in this Bill, and I do not feel at all certain that sooner or later they will not have to take some such powers. I will tell you why. It seems to me as an observer of the relations between Capital and Labour that half the trouble between the owners and the workmen comes from an insufficient knowledge of one another's positions. I was very much struck in connection with this Bill by what a coal owner said to me a short time ago. He called on me and told me that he would have to close his mine if this Bill was carried. I think now that the exceptions in the Bill have probably made him safe, and that he will be able to carry on—I hope so, at any rate—but he was telling me how very bad his position was, and incidentally informed me what his profits had been over a term of years. I know the district where this mine is and the people about it very well. This particular mine is supposed in the locality to be a very rich one. The owner's profits
708
are supposed to be very large indeed, something like eight or ten times larger than they really are, and I believe myself that if the colliers employed in that mine really had a notion of what the position is they would not be clamouring for a minimum wage to-day.
It is ignorance of conditions that we have to deal with. If you had the Government working some of these mines—not for three years or anything like it, but for three or four months—you would have Government auditors called in who would keep the accounts of those mines, and the miners or the trade union secretaries could be invited to come and inspect the accounts themselves, or they could even call in their own accountants to see what was going and what profits were being made. The miners' leaders, even those of them who are supposed to be most extreme, do not want to close mines; they are not so foolish as that. They know if a mine is closed that there will be men thrown out of work, that there will be miners competing in the labour market, and that wages will be going down; but when you have the owners saying, on the one side, that if legislation of this kind is passed 20 or 30 per cent. of the mines may have to close, and when you have the men, on the other side, believing that there is very little truth in that, or that at any rate only a very few mines would have to close, I say what we want in the interests of both parties is to get the facts. I believe the noble Marquess, in calling attention to the absence of any provision of that sort, put his finger on the greatest blot of the Bill, and if the whole scheme is sooner or later a failure, that, I think, is what the Government will have to come to.
One thing I would like to impress upon your Lordships in considering the matter is this. It has been stated very widely, and there have been constant comments on it in the newspapers, that the men's organisations are getting short of money, that they will be starved out, and that they will have to return to work directly whether they like the terms or not. Sooner or later, any body of men may be starved out; but I think it very unlikely indeed that the miners will be starved out before the community at large. It is not a mere question of the employers or of the men. It is a question of all of us, the rest of the inhabitants of this country,

709
and we know what a disaster it will be if this thing goes on for another two or three weeks. But I would not like any member of your Lordships' House to go away with the idea that the miners' plans are likely to break down in anything approaching that time. When there is a strike, when money runs out altogether, these men do not pay for things; they do not pay their rent, they do not buy clothes, and sooner or later they have to give up beer and tobacco. Eventually they come down to the bare necessities of life, but a few shillings a week will keep life in a man and his family. These men are very good customers at the shops in their neighbourhood. They spend almost the whole of their money locally, and a little miners' shop which has been making a great, deal of money out of trading with the miners is not going, if it can avoid it—for the question of competition has to be considered—to refuse these men a few shillings credit for at any rate the first few weeks of the strike. Therefore, my Lords, I think you would he wise to dismiss that idea from your minds in the consideration of this Bill. If a settlement is to come under this Bill or in any other way in time to save the great industries of this country, it has to be reached by agreement, and, after all, trade can only prosper in the long run if people are working willingly. If every man is trying to see how little work he can do, no industry will prosper. What we want is to come to a settlement by agreement if it can possibly be arrived at.
One thing I want also to protest against most strongly is the view put forward by sonic of the extreme leaders of the miners, that they are doing this to show their power. They are stating that they are demonstrating to us that unless we, the rest of their countrymen, fall in with their demands they can ruin the country. That seems to me to be a commonplace statement. Men employed in other great industries besides that of mining can ruin the country if they give their mind to it. After all, the difficult thing is, not to ruin a country, but to save it. I was calling to mind a time many years ago when this country was at war and we had a strike of the sailors in the Navy. The ships could not go to sea because the sailors were on strike. I say there are other classes in this country besides miners who, if they were dissatisfied with their conditions
710
of labour and struck en masse, could undoubtedly ruin the country. Considering the great masses of men who have been about the country with no occupation, some of them because they chose not to work, others because they could not help it, I think w e can all congratulate ourselves on the extraordinary order that on the whole has been maintained and the good fellowship which has reigned among all classes. In the county in which I live there is very little mining. There are only a few hundred miners altogether in some small pits. But I heard the other day that 300 or 400 men who were on strike in the largest of these pits had spent their time without pay in digging out a reservoir in connection with local waterworks in order to save the ratepayers expense. That is the kind of spirit in which one would like to see these affairs conducted.
I do think that we ought every one of us, in all conditions of life, to use every kind of argument and pressure to get the former state of things re-established and work resumed. This is what I would like the miners' leaders to put before their friends. Coal has gone to a fabulous price because of the miners' action. The trouble is not greater than many of us thought it would be, and the reason for that is that the reserve supplies of fuel in the country are undoubtedly much larger than anybody would have guessed was the case. I suppose people have been foreseeing this trouble, and have been stocking coal to a considerable extent. I believe in most parts of the country there are still reserves of fuel. The trouble is likely to be greatest in the towns nearer the mining centres, where the people were in the habit before the strike of getting their coal by the truck load at a time, and it never occurred to them to make any reserves at all. But coal has gone up to an enormous price owing to the miners' action. What is the result? The miners on the Continent of Europe who started to strike have tumbled back to work again. They have gone back in a great hurry, no doubt because they and their employers can make very large profits out of the high price of coal owing to the coal of Great Britain being out of the market.
I would ask the miners to consider this. Do they want the miners on the Continent to prosper by their trouble and their sorrow? Some of them no doubt think, in places

711
where there is ill-feeling—because, although the strike as a whole is remarkable for the good feeling which has obtained, there are individual spots where there is a certain amount of personal feeling—that by continuing the strike they are punishing the owners. I doubt whether they are punishing the owners anything like as much as they are punishing other people. The owners, we know, have considerable stocks of coal and have been selling at fabulous prices, and though they are sorry for the strike I feel sure that they have some pretty substantial consolations in their banking accounts. The working men, if they continue this strike, are punishing themselves and their families, and punishing the men of nearly every other class who depend on their labour. They are punishing their countrymen, but they are benefiting the foreigner. I do hope and believe that they will take advantage of the call for thought which is given them by this Bill, and that even the most determined of them will reconsider their position and go back to work before a still greater disaster is inflicted on the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I agree with the opening words of the noble Lord opposite, Lord St. Davids, that this great trouble is not an isolated one. You may draw distinctions, as did the noble Earl, Lord Grey, between the conditions of the coal industry, the railway industry, and other industries, but I believe Lord St. Davids is right when he says that the example of this strike, the action of the Government in connection therewith and the legislation which Parliament is asked to pass will affect almost all other industries, and that we are "in" for many years for a consideration of these great labour problems. In this epoch of industrial unrest it seems to me to be very necessary that we should distinguish between the legitimate aspirations of the manual worker and the attempts to exploit those aspirations which are made by organisations of Socialists or Syndicalists. When I talk of Socialism in this connection I mean, of course, that extreme form which seeks to appropriate all property and to manage all our concerns through State agency. That form of Socialism, unjust as we think it in its methods, ruinous as we believe it would be in its effects, at any rate is promoted, has been thought out, largely by idealists—men to whom the idea of each man working, not for himself
712
or for his family, but for his country, for the common good, is an inspiration.
But when we come to the Syndicalist theory we pass abruptly to the ancient and primitive desire of one set of men to appropriate for their exclusive advantage property at present enjoyed by another set of men. In our natural indignation at such a scheme, and notwithstanding our resolution to combat it by all the means in our power, do not let us do injustice to the legitimate, the wholesome, and the natural aspirations of the manual labourer, be he a miner or some one else. There is not one of us who, if we were in the position of that manual worker, would not seek to better his lot and to better it by means of organisation. Consider how very difficult it is for the miner or the manual labourer really to understand what is possible for him and what is, under all the circumstances of a given industry, a fair wage for him. What Lord St. Davids said struck me as being wholly true. Ignorance is at the bottom of the whole of the difficulty. When a miner—we take the miner as our illustration to-night—when a miner sees that a colliery owner, with whom he has been bargaining for many years, and from whom, as he thinks, he has extracted small rises in wages with great difficulty, has died, and he sees that he was a very rich man, perhaps a millionaire, the natural conclusion for the miner to come to is that he has not had his fair share in the rewards of the industry. He remembers the millionaire; he forgets the man who failed. And not only does he forget the man who failed, but he never realises how greatly the brains of the management count for the success of the industry; and he cannot know those things unless, as Lord St. Davids said, he is brought closely into contact with the facts. Therefore I do trust that we who are not manual workers will approach this question with a genuine and never failing sympathy, but at the same time I hope we shall never be afraid to tell the manual worker when we think his demand unreasonable or his proposals impracticable or dangerous to the State.
And here, my Lords, I would pass to a criticism on the action of the Government all through their years of office in this connection. Have they always been courageous and said what they think of the proposals of Socialists and Syndicalists? Those theories are just as hostile to Liberals

713
as they are to Unionists. Everything that the Party opposite cares for in the State is at stake, just as much as what we care for. Yet I have never read a single word of condemnation from any Minister even of the most extreme theories or utterances of Socialists and only quite recently a mild rebuke of the Syndicalist theory. On the contrary, their speakers and supporters in the Press and on the platform are always pretending, what is obviously untrue, that Liberalism and Socialism are only two wings of one movement. Again, why did not the Government at the very beginning of this strike take the course that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said they ought to have taken, and which I contend every Government ought to have taken, and that is to say front the very beginning "We intend to keep the, peace. No man who wishes to work shall want protection from us"? That is the primary duty of any Government in such circumstances. It is not enough now at the eleventh hour to come down to this house and say, "We have never been asked for protection and refused it."
And what about these breaches of contract? The noble Marquess who introduced this Bill to-night uttered an eloquent panegyric on the efforts of the Prime Minister. It is true that the Prime Minister has devoted himself with the w hole of his physical and intellectual powers to the solution of this great question, but I contend he has done a great public disservice in glossing over this breach of faith. There has been a gross breach of faith both in Wales and in Scotland, and it is the duty of public men, when such breaches of faith are committed, not to connive at them or pretend that they do not exist, because you cannot found the regeneration of the position of the workingman on broken faith. The very first consideration for the prosperity of this country, for that social regeneration to which we all look forward, is that faith should be respected between man and man. Just as the owner is bound to keep faith to the workman, so the workman should be bound to keep faith to the employer.
I will ask your Lordships to consider what the history of this Government has been in bringing us to our present position. They have not created the great social problem. But what has been their contribution to its solution m the sphere of legislation? We have three Acts of Parlia-
714
ment—the Eight Hours Act, the Trades Disputes Act, and now this Act. Not one single one of those measures would the Government have passed on its own responsibility and on its own judgment. Not one of those Acts but were extorted from the Government by an influence which they felt unable or unwilling to resist. But to what end are they being surely brought? I am quite certain of this, that they never fort saw the path they were treading or the path they were leading the country to tread. As so often happens in this country, I believe that their unconsidered and reluctant action is bringing us surely towards the only solution of these labour troubles. If your Lordships think of it, there really are only two methods of dealing with them. A Government can hold the ring, be absolutely neutral, between the two parties, announce that any man who wishes to strike may strike, that any man who wishes to work may work, that all disorder will be rigorously repressed. That up to now has been the plan.
Speaking only for myself, I believe the time has passed when that policy can any longer hold the field. The ring has become too large; there are too many people, too great a multitude, within the ring who suffer from the fight intense misery and even death, and the interests of the country which are at stake are too vast, too vital, for us any longer to allow this industrial war to go on uncontrolled by the Government any more than private war is now allowed to go on uncontrolled by the Government. The only alternative is some system of industrial courts with compulsory arbitration and a sanction behind the decision of the courts, the power to enforce their decrees and to exact penalties for the evasion of those decisions or for breach of contract. I believe that quite surely the action of the Government has led this country forward towards that as the final solution. I admit it is a colossal revolution. Those were the words used in another place by Mr. Balfour. I admit that it is a colossal revolution, but I believe it is the only path of safety, and that the day is past when a policy of merely holding the ring can be maintained. But we require something else than this code of industrial legislation. The nation requires certain safeguards which it has not yet got. It requires, in the first place, safeguards against the continuation of disputes which threaten the welfare and safety of the

715
nation. In the second place, it requires safeguards against the whole nation being held up by a section of the nation. It requires safeguards that the government of the country shall only be in the hands of the legitimate Government of the country, and not partly in the hands of a rival and illegitimate government. What the Government of our country is we know. They are the representatives of the majority in the House of Commons, and we know how the House of Commons is elected. But there are men and there are organisations in this country who seek to form a rival government. All we know about them is that they represent, not the whole nation, but a small section of the nation. What their credentials are we do not know, or how they were elected we do not know. We have gut to this point now, that we require this safeguard—that the Government of the country should govern and should not admit any rivalry in the field of government. I do not say that that rivalry has yet actually occurred. I do say that there are men who are trying to work forward to a position of power which will enable them to act as rivals. It is quite incompatible with the good government or the prosperity of the country or of its stability that men in this country should wield so vast a power without any responsibility.
There is another irony of fate that is awaiting the Government. They have led us forward in this path to a system of industrial law such as I have described, and part of that law doubtless will be the fixation of minimum wages. I shall have a word to say presently about that word "minimum," but still it sufficiently describes the contention of the miners and the contention of other bodies of working men. If you fix a minimum wage by Courts established by law you will have to follow that by a minimum tariff. How can you protect the labour of the working man by a minimum wage if you do not protect the product of his labour by a minimum tariff? The Government themselves have no idea what the effect of this strike is going to be on, we will say, the iron industry of this country. They know the price of coal is going to rise, but the price of coal may rise so much as to take away the whole of the existing margin of profit in some portions of the iron industry. As a permanent system is it conceivably possible that Par-
716
liament should at the same time legislate so as to raise wages and refuse to protect the industry whose whole existence may be jeopardised by that rise of wages?
I have one word to say, my Lords, on the subject of the word "minimum," because I think it is open to some misunderstanding. It seems to me to be only properly used in connection with piecework. If men are accustomed to work on piece-work it follows that conceivably they might earn almost nothing in a day's work, and therefore to apply a minimum wage to piece-workers is intelligible, because it means that no matter how little work is got through during the day the man will receive not less than a certain sum. But when you pass from the consideration of the case of the piece-workers I submit that the word "minimum" really does not mean anything more than current or standard wage. What these courts are going to do, for instance, in the case of men who are not piece-workers is this. They are going to fix a rate of wages, the lowest rate of wages which men may get doing a particular class of work. That is exactly what is done in every industrial arbitration to-day, only the word "minimum" is not used. Therefore I think a good deal of unnecessary prejudice would have been avoided if it had been borne clearly in mind that apart from the question of piece-workers the word "minimum" is really the same as current or standard rate of wage.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word about the details of the Bill, because I think I owe no apology for discussing those general questions out of which the Bill has arisen. The Bill itself is admittedly a stopgap. The Government have found it very difficult to bring forward any arguments in favour of the Bill, and for a very natural and intelligible reason. When the Bill was first conceived, as anybody who heard the speech of the noble Marquess in this House must have felt sure, the Government really believed that the passage of this Bill would end the coal strike. Now they hope so, but they cannot feel sure. Therefore they have felt considerable difficulty in framing their arguments in support of this Bill. What does this stopgap Bill contain? It contains a good deal that is evil. It contains a condonation of a breach of faith. It contains the suggestion that Parliament can fix wages. I would point out to

717
those who would like to reject this Bill this fact, that if this Bill were rejected to-day in this House that evil would still remain, because it does not depend for its existence only on this Bill—it depends on the line of argument and on the action of the Government and of their supporters during the past four weeks. If we thought that by the rejection of this Bill we should save this country from great evils which would otherwise be avoided we should not hesitate to advise this House to reject it. But I have given my reasons why that is not our view. On the other hand, this Bill does for the first time—I believe it is the first time—establish the principle of a statutory court to deal with this question of industrial disputes, and for the reasons I have already given I believe that that is a step forward—a small step but an irretraceable step—towards the only final possible solution of this question.
Therefore the only question we have to ask ourselves is this. Is it for the good of the country that this Bill should be rejected or that it should pass? I do not deny that out of the dilemma and difficulty of the Government we could pluck a Party advantage. On the other hand, I would prefer to quote the noble words used in the House of Commons last night by one of the Labour leaders, Air. Stephen Walsh. He said he was a Labour leader but he was "a citizen first." and I think that, my Lords, applies to us. Our duty is to regard this Bill first as citizens. The Executive Government of the day tell us that they believe—they hope—that the passage of this Bill will enable them to bring about that peace which is the one thing the country needs. Therefore I do not think we need have any hesitation in acknowledging the patriotism of the advice given to us by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. The responsibility is not with us. The responsibility is with the Government. But, having the views that I have endeavoured to express about the Bill, it would be unpatriotic, in my judgment, if we took any other course than give the Executive Government of the day the weapon for which they ask.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, the noble Earl towards the end of his speech, made some observations about the Bill, but the greater part of his speech was directed to what seems to me if I may say so with
718
respect a quite irrelevant and not altogether worthy effort of slowing that the Government of the day were to blame for the strike, the unrest, the industrial trouble, and for all the future horrors which he depicted in the most gloomy colours. I forget how many lie said the delinquencies of the Government were, but they were numerous. But I desire to speak a few words in regard to the Bill itself and to explain why the Bill is necessary. My Lords, the Bill is an experiment and intended to meet a most grave industrial crisis that has arisen from no sin that I know of on the part of the Government at all. It is a very serious crisis, as all acknowledge. The industry is vast, employing 700,000 or perhaps 1,000,000 men, and millions of capital are embarked in it. Every attempt on our part—and the best intellects in our ranks devoted attention assiduously to those efforts—to arrive at agreement has failed and the consequence is that the work of a million men is discontinued and they and their families are suffering, and the suffering may be extended to vast numbers of others who must be thrown out of employment.
We are discussing a most grave and serious situation in the interest of the whole country. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Government to try if they could in any way to avert the train of calamities to which I have referred. There has been no attempt to constrain the men to resume work; that would have been futile; and there has been no attempt to constrain the owners to open their pits. We have not attempted to do either of those things. We have attempted to induce the parties on both sides and to offer them a bridge over which, if they like, they may retrace their steps and thus avoid all this misery. The men are to have a minimum wage, which the owners are obliged to pay if they employ the men, and that minimum wage is to be fairly settled by the method provided in the Bill. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right in saying that there is some measure of constraint in that. It is that you say to the owners, If you employ men in this industry, and you may not employ them unless you like, but if you do you must employ them on terms which are satisfactory, not to the Government, but to a fair tribunal which is set up under the authority of this Bill. I am told that this is interfering with the individual. Of

719
course it is. If individualism was allowed to go unchecked in this great industrial country we should not last twelve months as a great nation. We are told we have broken contracts. I will assume for the sake of argument that this Bill may involve the breaking of contracts. It seems to be forgotten that contracts were broken in Ireland in 1881 when the Fair Rent Court was set up for one class of tenantry, and that by the extension most properly of that Act in 1887 by a Conservative Administration to leases, all leases were broken. Is it fair, then, to turn round now and to say "because you are breaking contracts that is a conclusive argument against the Bill"?
I have heard the speeches in this House and have read the debates in the House of Commons and I have not heard or read of any practical alternative for the present emergency being suggested. Is it not necessary and right for us to take some steps to bring the parties together? If we are to use force, as has been suggested, ought we not to rally public opinion conclusively to our side? Ought we not to get the public to put the pressure of public, opinion—the greatest influence which this country can bring to bear—upon the two sides? There is not a Member on either side of the House who would deny that it is right that we should make some practical effort of that kind. What is the alternative to what we propose? There is no answer at all. There was no answer in the House of Commons. Pray do not think I am saying this in a challenging spirit. I want to get noble Lords and those whom they influence and those who may read our debates to realise that the crisis is grave. Our proposals may be open to criticism and objection but some action is admittedly necessary, and no alternative has been suggested from any quarter of either House of Parliament.
It has been said by more than one noble Lord that the Government were neglecting their duty to provide protection for people who were liable to intimidation or violence. Where is the person whom we have failed to support? There may, of course, be cases in which riots arise before the police can come on the spot, but I have heard no case suggested in which we have refused to give the necessary amount of protection. A noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that Judges and magistrates were not protected. Can he give me their names?
LORD HYLTON: When I was speaking on that particular point I mentioned that certain members holding high office in His Majesty's present Government had during the last few months or the last year or two used language abusing or certainly holding up to ridicule and contempt Judges of the High Court and magistrates. That is what I mean.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to meet that if the noble Lord thinks fit to bring it forward on a proper occasion; but that is not what the noble Lord said. I understood him to say that Judges and magistrates were not protected by law. Perhaps the noble Lord did not mean to say that but I think he cannot substantiate it if he does advance it. We are also told that the miners are prevented from returning to work by the state of the law. I am not aware of that. I know that where requests for protection have been made protection has always been given. It is said that in some mysterious way the Trades Disputes Act prevents people being protected from picketers. There is not a clause in that Act which interferes with the full operation of the law in regard to violence, intimidation, or pressure of any kind. The present statute and common law of the land is sufficient to protect anybody against any form of intimidation or violence. I say, further, that there is not a lawyer in the country who will contradict me; but, if there is, I should like to know in what way he says that that Act interferes in any way with the full operation of the law in regard to such matters. The noble Earl accuses us of not making a declaration that we would protect people who required protection. I do not know why we should be always expected to rehearse the Decalogue at the request of a noble Lord. As a matter of fact it is one of the elementary duties of a Government and protection is the elementary right of every subject against violence or intimidation or abuse of the law; and if we have knowingly or wilfully refrained from giving protection show us that we have done so.
What will be the outcome of this Bill?—because the Bill itself really is not challenged either in this House or in the other House as being an almost necessary expedient at the present time. It depends on the temper and good sense and moderation of all parties to this dispute. I

721
listened with great interest to what the most rev. Primate the Archbishop said on this subject, and I agree with every word he said. What we have to rely upon is the national character, that the people of the country will act in the way in which they have always acted even in the most trying times—with forbearance, self-restraint, common-sense, and a sense of justice. If we cannot rely on those qualities then as Sir Edward Grey said we shall not last long as a nation. I believe that we shall come through this trial as we have come through others, by the inherent qualities of the race to which we belong.
I will only say a few words upon the general aspect of the industrial situation to which reference was made by the noble Marquess and the noble Earl. The noble Marquess thought that there was a colossal conspiracy at the bottom of this strike. I cannot help thinking he is mistaken. I cannot affirm one way or the other; but supposing there is a conspiracy got up by idealists or theorists or agitators with wicked designs. What is the best way to meet a conspiracy of that kind? The noble Marquess admitted, also, as all must admit, that there are grievances among the workmen in many trades, and he admitted the need of better surroundings for workmen in the poorer classes in this country, and he said it in a way which showed that he not only sympathised with it but deeply felt it to be one of the truths of our modern life. He said, further, what was also true, that we had taught them to look for these better surroundings. This is the third educated generation since we established elementary schools, and there have been constant researches into the social condition of the people with appalling results during the last twenty-five years. There are more facilities for reading and learning of the conditions that obtain, and they have been largely taken advantage of by the poorer classes, who have very properly and naturally had the matter brought to their attention for the purpose of creating that reasonable discontent which ought to exist with the surroundings of many of the poorer people in this country. Working men have more experience in combination than before, and combinations are not necessarily bad things. Some of the best work in the country has been done by combination, conducted in a fair and honourable way. And still more now, people in this country
722
are accustomed to the spectacle of wasteful, vulgar, and I would say disgusting luxury paraded before their eyes, while they themselves find it difficult to live in decent comfort. And I say they are not wicked or dishonest men who say that for the interest of others, as well as themselves—perhaps others more than themselves—we intend to have clean homes; we do not intend to have our children herded in crowded rooms; we will have a degree of comfort and a chance to save something for our later years. I think they are perfectly right, and I am certain that in spirit everyone in this House and in the other House desires to further and assist those causes.
Now, my Lords, the way to meet the agitators to whom reference has been made is just this: to provide those things to which I have been adverting, and not to allow fancied vested interests or prepossessions to prevent us from helping on the great works of social reform that are going forward, such, for example, as the great Insurance Act of Mr. Lloyd George, coming from the spirit of a man who is as anxious to do good to the people from whom he sprang as any man ever was in this country. I am not going to enter upon the Party or controversial aspect of this matter, but I do say that, if all of us were to lay aside Party feeling and Party considerations and help to forward social reform of that kind, agitators would have very little to do in this country. I say this simply because the subject has been raised by different noble Lords, and. I should not like not to say what I feel on the subject. I repeat that this Bill is au expedient in a dangerous crisis, and that is the justification for its being brought forward.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I had hoped that, by the leave of the House, we might have been able to proceed with the next stage of the Bill forthwith, and thence to proceed with all its remaining stages. Your Lordships will remember that, in speaking on the Second Reading, I adverted to a few Amendments which I desired to move, and which I was able to describe as Amendments that had been consented to by both parties—namely, by the representatives of the owners and of the miners. I am sorry to say that I find

723
I was wrong, through a misunderstanding for which I cannot blame myself or anybody else, simply because it was a pure misunderstanding. It relates to the Amendment in Clause 2, subsection (1), line 36. Your Lordships will observe that as the Bill is printed the words are—
"In settling any minimum rate of wages the joint district board shall have regard to the average daily rate of wages paid to the workmen of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled."
And the amendment which it was intended to move was to omit the words "average daily rate of wages paid to" and to insert the words "prevailing day wage rate for."
I am hound to say that in my judgment and I think also in the judgment of a great many other people more competent to judge than myself, this is a matter of exceedingly small importance. What the chairman and his board are told to have regard to in a Bill of this kind represents a mere sign-post, and no real burden of necessity is thrown upon them on account of the absence or presence of such words. But the House will remember that in moving the Second Reading I spoke of the singular atmosphere of suspicion which has surrounded all these discussions in spite of the excellent humour which has prevailed on both sides. There has been a continual and an acute nervousness on each side—I do not know that it applies to one side more than the other—that some advantage would be taken of them, and that words might be inserted in the measure which would prove in the event to be perilous to their interest. In this particular case this nervousness exists, although I do not believe it myself to be well founded on either side. If the words "average daily rate of wages paid to" were left in, it is the fear of the coal owners—not, as I believe, the well founded fear—that the district board would found the minimum rate of wages upon the average earnings or gains of all classes of workers, pieceworkers and others, throughout the whole district, and they are under the impression that something like a direction to that effect would be given to the board. On the other hand, if the words "prevailing day wage rate for" are inserted in their place, the representatives of the men are afraid that the effect will be that the board will be obliged to take as the minimum any low rate of wages which may be paid in the district to any considerable body of
724
workers, and that the board would thereby be prevented from raising the minimum even if they thought it unfair.
As I say, neither of those contentions seems to me, I confess, to have any real substance. One is tempted to say, as my right hon friends must have been often tempted to say all through these negotiations, "a plague on both your houses," because I do not believe the matter is one of real importance or substance, but it is regarded by both sides as of real substance. Therefore I do not feel justified, in view of the fact that many noble Lords who may be interested in this particular Amendment are no longer in the House, either in pressing this Amendment on the House at this hour and of attempting to send it down to another place as an Amendment which has been agreed, or of attempting to send the Bill down without the Amendment supposing your Lordships are willing to take that course. The most that we can do, therefore, is, I think, to postpone the Committee stage till to-morrow, and in the interval an attempt will be made, as to the success of which I am not. I confess, exceedingly sanguine, to find some form of words upon which both parties can definitely agree. I greatly regret that this misunderstanding has taken place, but in the circumstances it seems to me to be futile to attempt to proceed with the Committee stage at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think you will agree with the noble Marquess that the course which he suggests is the only one which this House can adopt with propriety in view of the circumstances. The matter is, perhaps, of greater importance than the noble Marquess supposes. He reviewed the alternative proposals which had been made to him and seemed to think that it did not very much matter which of them found its way into the Bill, but it is quite clear that the parties most interested think otherwise, and think that the matter is one of very considerable moment. The House will recollect that the idea upon which this Bill was founded was that these boards should be given an absolutely free hand to deal, on the one hand with the question of the minimum rate of wage, and, on the other, with the safeguards necessary to protect the mine owners against fraud. When the Bill was in another place an Amendment was inserted

725
—an Amendment connected with the name of Mr. Buxton—which did certainly involve a considerable departure from that original idea, because by it His Majesty's Government went out of their way to give a direction—and a very clear direction—to the boards that in fixing the minimum rate they are to have special regard to certain circumstances. Unquestionably that Amendment created great apprehension in the minds of many of the coal owners, and they were greatly comforted and reassured when the noble Marquess earlier this evening announced to the House that he had, we understood with the consent of all concerned, discovered a formula which deprived the new clause of its objectionable features. Now it turns out that, most unfortunately, those words are objected to by one of the parties interested. I hope that the noble Marquess may be successful in finding a formula which will be not less successful than his original formula in meeting the objections which were felt to the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons, but it is quite clear that we are not in a position this evening to discuss the relative merits of two different forms of drafting dealing with a matter which is, after all, very difficult and very technical, and therefore I am extremely glad that the noble Marquess has given us a little more time in which to consider the question.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has dealt very gently with the Government, but I must say that, so far as I am concerned, I cannot recall any instance in which a more pitiable exhibition has been witnessed than in the utterances of the noble Marquess who leads the House. This afternoon he told us that it was most essential and important that the Bill should be passed through all its stages to-day. He announced to us that some Amendments were about to be moved, and that there was only one of them
726
to which any importance was attached. It so happens that I was approached with regard to this particular Amendment and invited to move it if necessary. I was subsequently informed that the noble Marquess, after consultation with the owners and with the men, had decided to move the Amendment himself. It is perfectly obvious, although the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was too polite to mention it, what has happened. The noble Marquess made a bargain with the owners and with the men that this. Amendment should be moved here, and what has obviously happened is that the representatives of the men have been to him and told him that they are not going to take it, and thereupon he comes here and has, I may say, the audacity to tell us that he finds he is not in a position to carry out his promise, having actually intimated the exact words in which he was going to move the Amendment. All I have to say is that a bargain is a bargain. We have had experience before now that bargains are not kept, but unfortunately from what we have heard to-night it is evident that no reliance can be placed on bargains which are made with the official representatives of the Government.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a (The Earl of Liverpool): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.