Sitting of 21 May 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKEE in the Chair.
NEW WRIT
For the County of Norfolk (North-Western Division), in the room of Sir George White, knight, deceased.—[Master of Elibank.]

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation (Water) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
National Electric Construction Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 4th June.
Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second reading deferred till To-morrow.
West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 4th June, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock,
Allan Glen's School Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Clyde Lighthouses Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Milford Haven, Salford, the Luddendea Foot Joint Sewerage District, and the South-West Gloucestershire United Districts." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Carlisle and Wallasey." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS, supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barnsley and Leeds." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage District." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copies presented of two Orders in Council, dated 14th May, 1912, made under the above-named Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of four Orders in Council, dated 14th May, 1912, made under the above-named Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOEEIGN AND COLONIAL PAECEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 50) Warrant 1912. Dated 1st May, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland under the Acts for 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 14th May, 1912, transferring certain properties in Yorkshire and Lancashire from Trustees to County Associations [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1875.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 14th May, 1912, amending the Order in Council of 5th July, 1911, relative to the Circuits of the Judges [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MAEINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 14th May, 1912, for continuing during the space of three years from 1st April, 1912, the reduced scale of Light Dues levied under the Act of 1898, as provided by the Order in Council of 21st December, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEAELY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
TEADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4870 and 4871 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Perso-Afghan Frontier.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been received from the Persian Government with regard to infringements on the Perso-Afghan frontier; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part His Majesty's Government are in consultation with the Government of India.

  Spitzbergen Conference.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to the proceedings which have taken place in the Spitzbergen Conference; and what result, if any, has been arrived at by that conference?
  Sir E. GREY: As a result of a preliminary conference, at which the Governments, of Norway, Russia, and Sweden were represented, a draft Convention respecting Spitzbergen was prepared and communicated to the Powers interested for their consideration. The several Governments are now engaged in examining the provisions of this draft Convention, and pending that I cannot say what result maybe arrived at.

  Great Britain and Germany.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the forthcoming adjournment of the House and to the recent

  1727
  change at the German Embassy, he could now, or in the near future, make any statement as to improved relations between this country and Germany?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think it is necessary to add to the favourable statement made by the Prime Minister on the 30th ultimo.

  Miss Malecka (Sentence).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the latest information he has received from Warsaw with regard to Miss Malecka?
  Sir E. GREY: The latest information that we had was given yesterday; a full report of the trial has now been received and will be considered as soon as possible.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the report which has been received bears out the very full reports which have appeared in the Press and which I understand were made by an Englishman who was present at the trial?
  Sir E. GREY: I have been informed that a report has been received, but it was only received this morning. I intend to read it as soon as possible, which will probably be this afternoon, and until I have done so, I cannot say anything further.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can hold out any hopes to the House that Miss Malecka may be released from prison within a comparatively short time?
  Sir E. GREY: I must have an opportunity of reading the full report of the trial before I can make any further statement. After reading the full report I may be in a better position to-morrow, and, of course, if I can say anything further I shall be pleased to do so.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: May I ask whether the full force of the Government will be behind Miss Malecka?
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the British Government has acquired by treaty, capitulation, or other instrument any right to interfere in the administration of justice in the Russian Empire?
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask
  1728
  him whether it is not part of the comity of nations that one nation should make representations to another with regard to any of its subjects who may be involved in judicial or administrative processes?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. With regard to the supplementary question that has been asked, of course, where the nationality of the subject is indisputed and it appears that an injustice has occurred in a foreign country, foreign Governments do make representations to one another.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether it is not the case that according to our law the nationality of this lady is indisputably British?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise Out of the question on the Paper.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Imperial Russian Government has intervened in cases in which persons admittedly their subjects have been tried and convicted by British Courts?
  Mr. MORRELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether his attention has been called to a case which has recently occurred in South Australia, in which the Supreme Court of South Australia sentenced a Russian subject, a seaman, to a long term of penal servitude for his alleged participation in a stabbing affray, and in which the Russian Government intervened on the ground that the evidence was inconclusive, and the sentence was remitted and the man released?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say that there may not have been such cases, but I have not got an instance before me. With regard to the supplementary question, I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the instance to which he refers, in which case I will see whether we have any record of it in the Foreign Office.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if it is not quite the usual thing for diplomatic representations to be made, quite apart from legal procedure; whether cases are not constantly arising where prisoners are let out in consequence of diplomatic representations; and whether these little incidents do not tend to cement the friendship of nations?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the representations which have already been made come within the category of friendly representations to the Russian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, of course the communications that have passed come within the category of friendly communications between the two Governments on this subject.

  Rotterdam (Consular Report).
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in the recently issued Consular Report from Rotterdam, the tabular statement contains no record of ships imported; and whether, in view of the fact that a passenger steamer of 32,000 tons and two cargo boats of 10,000 tons have been ordered by the Holland-America line from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, of Belfast, as stated on page 7 of the Report, directions will be given that when these vessels have been delivered they will be entered as imports from Ireland in the next ensuing Consular Report?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Consul at Rotterdam can base the statistical tables given in his Report only on the official statistics of the Netherlands, which do not record purchases of sea-going vessels or include them as imports. All, therefore, that the Consul could do was to note the fact separately.

  Calcutta Journalists' Association (Lord Crowe's Speech).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State's attention has been called to the protest made by the Calcutta Journalists' Association against the speech made by Lord Crewe in the House of Lords on 21st February, 1912; and what are the grounds on which Lord Crewe charged the Anglo-Indian press in Calcutta with conduct rendering them obnoxious to the provisions of the Press Act?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the question I would point out that the hon. Member has apparently altogether misunderstood what my noble Friend said.
  Sir J. D. REES: Was not the Noble Lord's intention misunderstood by the Anglo-Indian Press as it has apparently been by myself?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think I had better send the hon. Member a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords, which contains a copy of my Noble Friend's speech.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will anything be done for the satisfaction of those who feel themselves, rightly or wrongly, aggrieved by this speech?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If there is anybody who believes the same as the hon. Member about my Noble Friend's speech he will see, on reading the report, that he is quite misinformed. He never charged the Anglo-Indian Press in Calcutta with conduct rendering them obnoxious to the provisions of the Press Act.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman that the Press of Calcutta interpreted it in that way, and made a protest which has been adopted by the Press Association of England?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Gentleman will read the protest we received from the Calcutta Journalists' Association, and will also read the report of my Noble Friend's speech in another place, he will see that the two parts of the question have no relation to one another.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the hon. Member opposite to induce him to refrain from stirring up agitation against the Government in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the hon. Member has as much influence with the hon. Gentleman as I have.

  Indian Administration.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Calcutta protest against the Durbar boons has come under the notice of the Secretary of State for India; if so, whether he proposes to reconsider the proposed location of the Department of Commerce and Industry and of the Railway Department of Delhi, the method of financing the creation of a ceremonial capital at Delhi partly from loans and partly from such spare revenues as may annually become available, and the alleged inadequate representation of European commerce in the Bengal Legislative Council; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, what steps he proposes to take upon the said protest?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is aware that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce addressed the Government of India on these points, and received a detailed reply. That reply has his entire concurrence and he has nothing to add to it.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the reduction for the long period of service for the Indian police is still under consideration; and when a decision upon this question may be expected?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The question is still under consideration, but me Secretary of State expects to receive a Report from the Government of India very shortly.
  Sir J. D. REESasked at what cost to Indian revenues has a Board of Revenue been created for the new province of Behar; and whether it is intended to retain this institution in addition to an executive council?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The cost of the Board of Revenue as now established in the new province of Behar-Orissa is approximately the same as that of the Board of Revenue in the former province of Eastern Bengal and Assam—namely, about two lakhs of rupees a year. The matter referred to in the latter part of the question is still under consideration.
  Sir J. D. REESasked what extra cost to the revenues of India will result from the representation of the three administrations of Behar, Bengal, and Assam, as compared with the cost in the case of the two lieutenant-governorships of Bengal and Eastern Bengal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member means the cost of legislative councils, the estimated increase will be £133 a year, if a legislative council is established in Assam. If he means the total cost of legislative and executive councils, the estimated increase will be £14,266 a year.

  Opium Cultivation (China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether official Reports have been received by the Secretary of State or by the Government of India to the effect that the poppy is now once more largely grown in the provinces of Kansu, Yunnan, and Szechuan; and whether the Chinese Republic has formally adopted the obligations of the late Imperial Chinese Government in respect of the discontinuance of the growth of the poppy?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given, yesterday to the hon. Member for Hornsey. That reply was as follows:—"Reports have been received that opium cultivation is proceeding in certain provinces of China, over which in the present circumstances the Chinese Government are unable to exercise any effective control. His Majesty's Government are, however, confident that with the full restoration of order the Chinese Government will take the necessary steps to ensure the enforcement of the suppression of the cultivation of opium throughout China."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May,. 1912, col. 1534.]
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
  Sir E. GREY: We believe the present Chinese Government is as much in earnest on this question as the late Chinese Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will it take over the obligations?
  Sir E. GREY: There is only a provisional Government in China now, but if there is any reluctance shown to take over the obligations for the suppression of opium cultivation the whole question will have to be gone into.

  Weedon Fire Brigade.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Undersecretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the chief ordnance officer at Weedon has issued a regulation that members of the fire brigade who live in provided quarters must only have wives and children living with them; whether he is aware that one of the members of the fire brigade who has his father-in-law, an old man, living with him has been instructed that he must either leave the quarters or get rid of his father-in-law; whether he is aware that the man in question has had a father-in-law living with him for about eleven years without any interference; whether it is competent for a chief ordnance officer commanding a depot to issue such an order without consultation with the War Office; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to the threatened hardship on the man in question being avoided?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The replies to the first two parts of the question are in

  1733
  the affirmative. The father-in-law in question was brought into the quarters about a year ago and not eleven years ago as stated. It is competent for a chief ordnance officer to issue such an order. It is regretted if hardship has resulted, but it is considered that it was rightly decided to confine the occupation of the quarters to the wives and children of employés.

  Military Service Age Regulations.
  Mr. HUNTasked the number of young men over the age of twenty in the year 1910 in Germany, in France, and in the United Kingdom, respectively; and what was the total number enrolled in each country in that year for naval and military training?
  Colonel SEELY: The numbers who arrived at the age of twenty in 1910 and the numbers who were enrolled for naval and military training were approximately as follow:—

  Germany

  540,000

  285,000 (excluding Land-sturm and Ersatz Reserve)

  France

  316,000

  290,000

  United Kingdom

  397,000

  88,000

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    STAFF COLLEGE OFFICERS.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what number of staff officers, trained at the Staff College, are available for each division of the Territorial Force after the Regular Army has been mobilised?
    Colonel SEELY: It is impracticable to say definitely what number of such officers would be available; those that were at the time serving with the Territorial Force and others on the General Reserve would be available.

    South African War (Militia Forces).
    Mr. HUNTasked the number of men supplied by the Militia during the South African War for service in South Africa, for garrison duty in the Mediterranean and Egypt, and for embodied units in the United Kingdom, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: The average strength of the Militia during the war was 96,674; of these 45,566 went to South Africa and 5,922 went to Malta, Egypt and St. Helena, leaving at home an average of 45,186.
    Mr. AMERY: What was the proportion of the Militia Reserve furnished to the forces in South Africa?
    Colonel SEELY: I should like notice of that question. I am not quite certain as to the figures.

    Army Council.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether a lieutenant-general on the Army Council would lose over £1,800 a year if he resigned as a result of not agreeing with the policy of the Council?
    Colonel SEELY: On the assumption that the officer in question went to half-pay, he would lose £1,850 a year.
    Mr. HUNT: Is not this exposing a soldier to the same temptation as a politician—to hold on to his position against his judgment. Is it quite fair to ask such an officer to give an unbiassed judgment under such circumstances?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point the hon. Member must decide for himself.

    Crimean War (Foreign Legions).
    Mr. HUNTasked whether there were any units recruited from foreign sources during the Crimean War; if so, how many units were thus raised; what was the total number of foreigners enlisted; and what was the number of men of each nationality represented in these foreign legions?
    Colonel SEELY: The information available is as follows:—
    Turkish Contingent.—Composed of Turkish subjects principally officered by Englishmen, 22,335.
    German Legion.—Composed principally of natives of the various States of Germany officered by Englishmen and Germans, 9,300.
    Italian Legion.—Raised in Sardinia and composed of natives of the various Italian States—officered by Englishmen and Italians, from 3,000 to 4,000.
    Swiss Legion.—About 3,000.
    Polish Legion.—About 1,500.

    French Colonial Army.
    Mr. HUNTasked the total strength of the French Colonial Army, counting white troops only, but including those serving in France and in all French oversea possessions; and whether the men for the French Colonial Army are raised by voluntary enlistment?
    Colonel SEELY: The total strength is 50,302. The men are recruited by voluntary enlistment, but if enough men are not

    1735
    obtained by voluntary enlistment the deficiency may be made good by allotting to the Colonial Army in France recruits from the annual contingent.

    Imperial and Local Finance (Committee).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to publish the first instalment of the evidence taken by the Committee on the relations between Imperial and local finance, which it was anticipated would be ready by the end of March?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I understand that it was not found possible until the end of last month to complete the taking of the oral evidence proposed to be included in the volume. The volume is in the printer's hands, but the correction of the proof may take some little time.
    Mr. CASSEL: May we understand that the first instalment will be published shortly?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I hope so.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether, in view of statements made on behalf of the Government at the time of the by-election in the South Somerset Division, the Treasury will, under Section 1 (2) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, consent to a special Order bringing all outworkers in Great Britain within the provisions of the Act in accordance with the recommendation of the Outworkers' Committee?
    Mr. PEELasked whether, in view of the Report of the Committee on Outworkers, he is prepared to give Treasury sanction to the inclusion by special Order under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the National InsuranceiAct,1911, to married women outworkers excepted from insurance under Part II. of the First Schedule to the Act; and whether he is prepared to state the grounds on which married women outworkers were specially excluded?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The Outworkers' Committee have reported in favour of the ultimate inclusion of all married women outworkers. With regard to the reasons for the insertion of paragraph (j) in Part II. of the First Schedule excepting certain of these out-
    1736
    workers, I would refer the hon. Member to the discussion which took place in this House on 21st November, 1911. The recommendations contained in the Report of the Outworkers' Committee are still under consideration. No immediate action is proposed and no special order will in any case be made without full opportunities being first given to persons affected to have objections investigated at a public inquiry before such Order comes into force.
    Mr. PEEL: Was there any reason for excluding these women outworkers from the operation of the Act, except the immediate political necessities of the Government?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debate—
    Mr. PEEL: I know it well.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: If the hon. Member will let me complete my answer, and if he will refer to the Debate he will find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in full his reasons for excluding them.
    Mr. PEEL: In view of the fact that these women are scattered and unorganised, will sufficiently long time be allowed for them to become aware of the new Order, seeing that the Government have changed their mind since last November?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I have said that no immediate action is contemplated.
    Mr. CASSEL: Seeing that the House gave its decision, will it have an opportunity of discussing the question again before the decision is reversed?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I cannot give that undertaking, because the House also decided that the Commissioners should have power to make such an Order.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be here to-morrow? If so I will raise the question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: If the hon. Member intimates his desire to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I will convey the intimation to the proper quarters.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether it is proposed that officers of Customs and Excise should undertake certain duties in

    1737
    connection with the administration of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, what is the nature of those duties?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If my hon. and gallant Friend would be good enough to put down a question on the subject after the Whitsuntide recess, I hope to be able to give him more detailed information as to the proposed duties than is possible at present.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will they have any increased remuneration. They are already over-worked?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it is proposed to furnish local authorities, or any other authorities not being persons interested in the land or authorised by them, with particulars of valuations under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; if so, whether there is any authority for disclosing such valuations to such persons or authorities; and from what provision of such Act, or what other source, such authority is derived?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and accordingly the other parts of the question do not arise.

    Lagos (Case of Philip Coker).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Philip Coker, having been sentenced by the Court of Lagos in January, 1910, to a term of nine months' imprisonment, was released on petition, after investigation, on the 14th June, 1910, on the ground of wrongful conviction; and on what grounds the petition, signed by the three assessors who took part in his trial and eighty-four inhabitants of Lagos, praying for a free pardon for Philip Coker and the opportunity of reinstatement in the Government service, was rejected by the Secretary of State?
    Colonel SEELY (for Mr. Harcourt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The power to grant pardon is conferred by Order in Council on the Governor or Acting Governor, and it is the practice not to interfere with his discretion. The petition referred to was considered by the Secretary of State, but
    1738
    as neither the Governor nor the Chief Justice was of opinion that any new facts had been brought to light which would justify the grant of a pardon, he decided that there were no sufficient grounds for intervention. It is not the case that the prisoner was released on the ground of wrongful conviction.

    Canada (Visit of British Traders).
    Mr. HORNERasked whether a London daily financial paper is organising a large party of representative British manufacturers and leading commercial and financial men to visit Canada, with the object of investigating the opportunities there for the erection of branch factories, of furthering the extension of British trade with Canada, and the investment of capital in that country; whether the Canadian Government, recognising the importance of improving the commercial relations between this country and Canada, has expressed its cordial sympathy with the objects in view, and is co-operating with and assisting the organisers of the party; and whether the Government will take any steps to assist British traders to obtain a greater share of the immense volume of Canada's trade which at present is carried, on with the United States?
    Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has seen the reports in the Press referred to. His Majesty's Government, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, maintain a Trade Commissioner in Canada for the purpose of promoting British trade, and an inquiry into the trade of the Empire is about to be held. The Government are always ready to take any practicable steps with a view to assisting British trade.
    Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague consider the desirability of increasing the staff of the Board of Trade Commissioner in Canada, who has already done such very good work, and who has to compete with 260 American agents?
    Colonel SEELY: I will convey the point raised by the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the Canadian Government in this case have found a sum of $15,000 to assist this group of traders?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of detail.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Colonel RAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can see his way to introduce an Amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act permitting boards of guardians to recover the cost of the maintenance of old age pensioners who become chargeable to the common fund of the union by making it obligatory upon pension officers to pay the amount of the pension falling due to such pensioners during the period of their chargeability to the board of guardians, and that old age pensioners who go into the workhouse should have their pensions continued with a view to repaying the board of guardians the cost of maintenance?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division on the 15th November last.
    Mr. GINNELLasked in view of the complaints that some old persons fail to obtain their statutory rights owing to the inability of pension and postal officials to explain the Law and rules and elicit the facts in the Irish language, and of the fact that competent officials for this purpose are in the service where this knowledge is unnecessary, whether, in all future transfers of officials, Irish speakers will be sent to Irish-speaking districts; and whether rules under the Old Age Pensions Acts and under the National Insurance Act, printed in Irish in leaflet form, will be distributed among persons concerned whose knowledge of English is imperfect or nil?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Preference is given as far as possible to Irish-speaking officers in selecting pension officers for Irish-speaking districts. With regard to the latter part of the question I am not sure to what rules under the Old Age Pensions Act the hon. Member refers. Official organisers with a knowledge of Irish have been sent to Irish-speaking districts to explain the provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act and the Commissioners are making arrangements for the translation into Irish of all leaflets which would be of interest to the inhabitants of such districts.

    Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).
    Mr. BIRDasked the President of the Board of Education, whether assistant
    1740
    teachers who have been recognised as un-certificated teachers under Articles 50 and 51 of previous Elementary School Codes will now be allowed to join the teachers' superannuation fund?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I hope shortly to introduce a Bill to amend the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, but any statement of its contents beyond what was foreshadowed in the answer of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week to a deputation from the National Union of Teachers must, I think, be postponed until the introduction of the Bill.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    WELSH COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the names of the Welsh Commissioners to be appointed under the Established Church (Wales) Bill will be given to the House; and whether he can give an assurance that they will, in accordance with the Irish precedent, be all three members of the Church in Wales?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am unable to make any statement at present.
    Mr. W. PEEL: Can we assume, at any rate, that a Welsh Nonconformist will not be appointed?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Shall we have the information before the Committee stage comes on?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I think not. It is a matter that can be properly discussed on the Committee stage.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Can we have the information before the Committee stage comes to an end?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think so, but there may be a certain amount of difficulty in finding suitable persons, therefore I should not like to make any definite promise.

    DEFINITION CLAUSE.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to put into the Established

    1741
    Church (Wales) Bill any definition of a member of the Church in Wales, giving the qualification for voting power in the establishment of the Synod or of the Representative Body?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs on 13th May. It is not the present intention of the Government to insert a definition in the Bill, but I shall be glad to consider any proposals which may be made in Committee.

    Motor Traffic (Metropolis).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (1) he has received representations from Metropolitan borough and other councils upon the subject of the continuous and systematic use of selected thoroughfares by the owners of heavy motor vehicles and the additional and heavy expenditure necessary for the upkeep of such routes, and urging that legislation is urgently needed to enable local road authorities to recover from such owners additional contributions to local expenses; and whether such representations have been considered; if so, with what result; (2) whether he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council and other local authorities, with reference to motor omnibus traffic in London, urging that the proprietors of mechanically-propelled vehicles should be brought under contribution for the repair and upkeep of the roads over which they travel in the Metropolitan boroughs, and that the borough councils should have a veto on the use by such vehicles of roads which, in their opinion, are unsafe or otherwise unsuitable for such traffic; whether consideration has been given to such representations; if so, will he state the result; and (3) whether he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council and from a conference of Metropolitan borough councils, suggesting that the Chief Commissioner of Police or the Home Office should prescribe remedial measures of a compulsory nature to compel the proprietors of motor omnibuses to provide proper and efficient mudguards for the protection of ratepayers' properties on the various lines of route in the Metropolis for reasons stated in such resolutions; whether consideration has been given to those representations; and, if so, can he state the result?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received and considered the various representations referred to. The question of additional taxation of mechanically propelled vehicles for maintenance of the roads is one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider. As regards the proposed power of veto, the Local Government Board already have power, under Section 8 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, to prohibit motor-car traffic or roads which are very narrow, or where such traffic would be specially dangerous; but there are strong reasons against giving local authorities a special veto on the use of particular roads by motor omnibuses. These omnibuses provide facilities for locomotion which are a boon to the great majority of Londoners. I am afraid that I can add nothing to the replies given by my predecessor and myself to numerous questions on the subject of mudguards for motor omnibuses.

    Elementary Schools, Isle of Man.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the voluntary schools in the Isle of Man do not receive financial aid to The extent enjoyed by other public elementary schools in the island, and that as a consequence of such differential treatment the children and teachers in such schools are placed at a disadvantage; and whether he will recommend the Governor to place before the island legislature proposals for placing the voluntary schools on a satisfactory footing and for carrying out such other educational reforms as shall put the island schools in a position equal to that enjoyed by public elementary schools in Great Britain?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no sufficient information on the subject, but I will communicate with the Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know the result of his communication?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.

    Indian Empire (Contracts).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that foreigners can subsidise their manufacturers with the object of assisting them and of giving them an advantage in competition with British and Irish manufacturers for contracts within the Indian Empire as long as fair wages are paid, he

    1743
    can say whether these conditions apply to the other Crown Colonies and to the United Kingdom; and how he finds out whether foreign manufacturers pay fair wages?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have no information with regard to the Crown Colonies, but with regard to the United Kingdom would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester, on 28th July, 1910, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Chinese and Japanese are paid 1s. a day for making similar goods, for which our men are paid 5s., that would be fair wages?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of details.

    North-Eastern Railway Company.
    Mr. WALTER REAasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the North-Eastern Railway Company has withdrawn over 100 trains from its time-table as existing before the coal strike, in addition to curtailing facilities for travelling in other respects; and what steps, if any, he is able to take to minimise the loss and inconvenience to the public thus caused?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I have received no previous complaints in this matter, but I have forwarded a copy of my hon. Friend's question to the railway company for their observations, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply. I may mention that the Board of Trade have already been in communication with the company on this subject, and it was understood that the ordinary passenger service, subject to a few exceptions, was to be resumed as from the 1st May, and that the goods service was gradually being brought back to the normal.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Is it not to the public advantage that railways should be encouraged to economise by withdrawing unnecessary trains?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a question on which I could not very well express an opinion at the moment.

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
    Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received representations from the Great Crosby Urban District Council with regard to the inadequacy of the exits from the carriages, and the lack of non-inflammable materials in the construction of such carriages, on the electric services of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the interest of the safety of passengers travelling on these lines?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The council have written to the Board of Trade on the subject. The question of the means of exit from the carriages to which the hon. Member refers was carefully considered by an inspecting officer of railways, who inquired into an accident at Marsh Lane Junction in 1909, and he expressed the view that the adoption of end doors in the carriages of this railway was not attended with extra risk to passengers in case of fire. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report on the accident, which includes also some recommendations by the electrical adviser of the Board of Trade with regard to the construction of the carriages, and these recommendations have, I understand, been adopted by the railway company.

    South Kensington Spirit Museum.
    Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the building for the extension of the South Kensington Spirit Museum is to be placed in the Natural History Museum Gardens, facing Cromwell Road; and, if so, will he state the reasons why this particular site has been selected, and whether any other sites have been considered?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It has been proposed, and the proposal has been accepted by the Trustees of the British Museum to place the Spirit Museum in the gardens facing Cromwell Road. This site has been selected because it is the most convenient for the purpose. Other sites have been considered, but have been abandoned as they would interfere with the future extension of the Natural History Museum.
    Captain MURRAY: Is the Spirit Museum an extension of the Natural History Museum, and is the site that has been selected not likely to be a public danger to the inhabitants of Cromwell Road?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: In reply to the first question the Spirit Museum is not an extension of the Natural History Museum; and in reply to the second question there is already a Spirit Museum in the neighbourhood of the Natural History Museum.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what a Spirit Museum is; is it connected with psychical research?
    Mr. CROOKS: Are there any spooks there?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: A Spirit Museum is a museum for preserving specimens in spirit.

    School Caretakers (Wages).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that school caretakers employed by local education committees are in many cases paid low wages, out of which they are required to provide paid assistance, and that when this has been done and all other charges have been met, as, for instance, full or part cost of cleaning materials, the balance of net wages is in some cases as low as 2d. per hour, or even less,. for a seventy-two hours' working week; and if he will make it a condition for the receipt of State Grant by a local education committee that these sweating conditions shall be put an end to where they now exist?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am not in any way responsible for the conditions and terms of employment of school caretakers, and I have no knowledge of the facts referred to in the first part of the question. The matter is one for the local education authorities and the ratepayers whom they represent, and I have no power to intervene.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what is the number of national school teachers who have left the service since 1900 without any pension; the number who left with pensions reduced from the scale to which they were entitled; the number of present pensions that are less than £26 a year; and whether there is any prospect of ex-teachers whose records are good being given pensions according to scale?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The number of teachers who have left the service since 1900 without pension is 5,204, of whom 2,286 have been subsequently reappointed. All teachers have received
    1746
    the scale of pension to which they were entitled, but some were not qualified by age for superannuation, and in 909 cases owing to early retirement less than the maximum pension was payable. Nine hundred and fifty-eight teachers now receive pensions of less than £26 a year. Ex-teachers who have retired without being qualified for full pension can qualify by obtaining re-employment.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman give a reference to the scale upon which they are paid these pensions of less than £26 a year?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I have a copy of the scale here and shall be very glad to give it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he is now in a position to state the result of the consideration he has been so long giving to the salaries and pensions of of Irish national school teachers; whether the rule of the Commissioners of National, Education promising increase of salary on promotion from a lower to a higher grade is still in force; from how many teachers has this increase been withheld for some time after promotion; from how many promoted teachers is it now withheld; how much money has been saved in this way; whether a saving is made at the expense of any other class of public servants by breach of a rule under which they are employed; and whether the character of the work and the scale of pay and pension warrant this difference of treatment?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): As regards teachers' pensions, I would refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to a question asked by the hon. Member for West Kerry on the 14th instant. There has been no recent alteration in the Rules with regard to the promotion of teachers. The numbers in each grade are fixed and forty-three teachers are still awaiting vacancies in higher grades before they become entitled to increased salaries. It is not correct to speak of a saving being thus effected. All public servants, so far as I am aware, have to wait for vacancies before obtaining promotion.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the amount of the minimum pension actually being paid to an ex-school teacher in Ireland; the amount of the pension being paid in the case, Roll No. 11,788, Circuit 14; and the scale or method of calculation by which, these pensions have been fixed?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The lowest pension actually paid at the present time is a disablement pension of £2 16s. awarded together with an immediate grant of £18 4s. to a teacher of the third grade who retired from ill-health at the age of thirty-seven after twelve years' service. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member the pension was commuted in 1906, the teacher receiving in all £101. Disablement grants are calculated according to No. 10 of the Rules framed in 1897, under the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, and Table C in the First Part of the First Schedule thereto. They consist of an immediate payment equal to the amount of the teacher's contributions up to date with compound interest, together with a pension based on the amount of such contributions.

    Wireless Telegraphy (International Conference).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the names of the British representatives upon the International Wireless Telegraphy Conference which is to meet in London on 4th June; and whether any such representatives are charged with the duty of specially representing the interests of the Dominions or other Colonies?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The names of the gentlemen appointed as the British representatives at the forthcoming International Radio-telegraphic Conference, are:—

    Sir H. Babington Smith, K.C.B., C.S.I.

    Mr. E. W. Farnall.

    Mr. R. J. Mackay.

    Mr. F. W. Home.

    Commander F. G. Loring, R.N.

    Captain E. F. B. Charlton, Ad. C, R.N.

    Commander W. R. W. Kettlewell, R.N.

    Lieutenant John A. Slee, R.N.

    Lieutenant-Colonel J. M. W. Macdonogh.

    Major R. H. H. Boys, D.S.O.

    Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and South Africa are sending special representatives. The interests of other British possessions will be looked after by the British delegates.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five out
    1748
    of the six French delegates are specially charged with the duty of looking after the interests of French Colonies, and under these circumstances would it not be desirable that British Colonies and Dominions should have special representation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that is necessary. We are more fortunate than the French delegation in having a number of Colonial representatives in addition to the others appointed.
    Mr. AMERY: Is there any delegate with a special knowledge of the wireless needs of the West Indies?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. The Colonial Office consults the Post Office in all these matters, and the expert advisers of the Colonial Office are Post Office men.

    Finance Bill.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked when it is proposed to proceed with the Finance Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not yet able to fix a date, but I hope it will be soon.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it intended to proceed, if not with the Finance Bill, with the Resolutions on which the Finance Bill is to be founded, and is it the intention of the Government that the Finance Bill should pass into law before we adjourn in August?
    Mr. McKENNA: The second question I cannot answer. With regard to the first, certainly.

    Convocations of Canterbury and York.
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether any answer has been received from the Convocations of Canterbury and York to the letters of business issued in 1906; and, if not, whether he has received any intimation as to the probability of the Convocations agreeing in any reply thereto; and whether he has been informed of the reasons for the delay in compliance with the aforesaid letters of business?
    Mr. McKENNA: In view of the intricacy and importance of the matters referred to the two Convocations in 1906, it was not to be expected that any conclusions could be arrived at without lengthy discussion and consideration. I hope, however, that at no distant date the final

    1749
    result of their deliberations may be embodied in a reply from the Convocations.

    Secret Service Expenditure.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the practice in certain countries by which expenditure under the head of Secret Service is communicated in confidence to a Budget Committee, with a view to some similar arrangement in this country?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that the practice referred to by the hon. Member exists in any foreign country.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and inform himself as I have informed myself?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will supply me with a case in point I will certainly inquire into it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not the fact that nearly all foreign Governments have means of obtaining money for Secret Service otherwise than through Votes in Parliament?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not the substance of the question.

    Political Offenders Bill.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, if it be shown that there is a strong volume of opinion amongst Members of the House of Commons in favour of the enactment of the Political Offenders Bill, down for Second Reading on Tuesday, he will endeavour to give the time necessary to enable the Bill to pass this Session?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that at this period of the Session it is impossible for the Government to give facilities for Private Members' Bills.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Government consider the advisability of putting the terms of the Bill into practice without the Bill being passed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not given sufficient study to the subject to answer that.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to say what is a political offender?
    Mr. McKENNA: So far as my researches have gone, there is no case in which in my Department any distinction
    1750
    has been drawn between political and any other offenders.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that Dr. Jameson and his colleagues were treated as political offenders?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I have investigated that case and, although the offenders in question were treated differently, it was not on the ground that they were political offenders.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Was it because of their social status?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one of the terms mutually agreed to six years ago by the vendors and tenant purchasers of the Reid and M'Endoo estate in Westmeath was that the untenanted grass farm called Nolah would be sold for distribution and enlargement of the uneconomic holdings; whether he has seen letters from Messrs. Crookshank, Leech, and Davies, the vendors' solicitors, persistently attempting to defeat that term of sale on the express ground that the Land Act of 1909 renders its performance impossible; whether there is any foundation for that assertion; and, if not, whether the Estates Commissioners will enforce that term of the agreement, distribute the land to which it relates, and remove that cause of turmoil in the district?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: My right hon. Friend has seen the correspondence referred to. The condition as regards the sale of the untenanted lands of Nowlagh was that, with the exception of a small portion which the owners desired to retain as an adjunct to the demesne, the lands were to be sold to the tenants direct in such lots and at such prices as might be agreed on. No purchase agreements were entered into between the parties for the sale of these lands prior to the Act of 1909, and under that Act no advances can now be made under Section 2 of the Act of 1903 for the sale of parcels of untenanted land by landlords direct to the tenants.
    Mr. GINNELL: What do the Irish Government intend to do with reference to this land? Will they allow the Act of 1909 to lock it up or will they free it?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The restriction refers to parcels of land and not to holdings.
    Mr. GINNELL: But will the Irish Government allow the Act of 1909 to lock up the land?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I should like notice of that question.

    Valentia Chain Ferry.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state when the work on the Valentia chain ferry will be commenced?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The Congested Districts Board have instructed two engineers to prepare plans for the proposed work. The plans have not yet been received, and no decision has yet been arrived at.

    Trinity College and Knight of Kerry Estates.
    Mr. BOLANDasked what progress has been made by the Congested Districts Board in valuing the estates of Trinity College and of the Knight of Kerry, in Cahirciveen and Valentia respectively?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The valuation of the properties referred to has been completed, and the Congested Districts Board hope to be in a position to consider the question of making offers for the purchase of these estates at their meeting in June next.

    Lynch Estate, Barna.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNEasked the Chief Secretary whether any steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to acquire the Lynch estate, at Barna, near Galway; whether he is aware of the congestion in this parish, which was till 1909 outside the operations of the Board; and whether he is aware that the landlord, by creating new tenancies, is barring the way to any possible provision of economic holdings for the existing tenants?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The Congested Districts Board have been in communication with the owner of this estate, but up to the present it has not been offered for sale to the Board. They have no information as regards the last paragraph of the question.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether, under the proposed Government of Ireland Bill, the Irish Parliament will be at liberty to
    1752
    maintain an agent-general, commercial agent, or other special representative in any foreign State, or in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs (4) and (7) of Clause 2 of the Bill.
    Mr. AMERY: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the provision preventing legislation with respect to treaties and foreign relations can prevent the executive for appointing agents-general to other countries?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The paragraphs I have referred to have the intention of meeting the point raised by the hon. Member. Whether they do or do not is a matter for argument.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do paragraphs 4 and 7 give liberty to maintain these people or not?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As I read the paragraphs they carry out the intention I have stated. I cannot go beyond that.
    Mr. AMERY: The Clause says they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters. Is not the appointment of agents-general making a law?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I think that is a question for argument in Committee.
    Mr. AMERY: Is it not a question of definite fact?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman can raise the question in Debate in Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement as to the Business of the House when we resume after the holidays?
Mr. McKENNA: When we resume on
Tuesday, 4th June, we shall take Committee of Supply (Office of Works Vote);
Wednesday, Local Government Board Vote;
Thursday, Board of Education Vote; and on
Friday, the remaining stages of the Government of India Bill, and other small Bills on the Paper.
Lord BALCARRES: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give us any idea what business will be taken on the Monday following?
Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I shall not be able to make any further statement beyond what I have now made.
Lord BALCARRES: May I ask whether, on the reassembling of the House, we shall have a statement about the business to be taken on the following Monday?
Mr. McKENNA: I think we shall be able to make a statement on the Tuesday we resume, but I cannot commit myself.
Mr. COURTHOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any indication as to the probable date when the Second Reading of the Mental Deficiency Bill will be taken?
Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot now give the date, but I hope we shall have the Second Reading before the autumn holidays.

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF DENMARK.

  HER MAJESTY QUEEN ALEXANDRA'S ANSWER TO MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE.
  Mr. Burt having been appointed, together with Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Sir John Lonsdale, to wait upon Her Majesty Queen Alexandra with a Message of Condolence from this House, appeared at the Bar and reported Her Majesty's Answer:—
  I thank you very sincerely for the Message of Condolence which you have presented, and or your sympathy with Me in the great loss I have sustained by the death of My beloved Brother, King Frederick of Denmark.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  OFFICES REGULATION BILL.
  "To provide that the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the health and protection of persons employed in factories and workshops shall extend and apply to persons employed as clerks in offices." Presented by Mr. BOWERMAN; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Wardle, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, by making provision for reducing the number of hours in textile factories to forty-eight per week." Presented by Mr. BOWERMAN; supported by Mr. Gill, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Parker, and Mr. William Thorne; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT.
  Mr. LANSBURYhad given notice of a Motion for leave to introduce a "Bill to remove the sex disqualification which debars a woman from being enrolled as an elector or from voting at Parliamentary elections."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to point out to the hon. Member that the House has already, considered, discussed, and disposed of a Bill under the same title as the Bill which he now proposes to introduce. The House, therefore, could not consider a precisely similar Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member proposes in the Bill which he now asks leave to introduce, to raise another question which was not discussed by the House. If he proposes to raise simply the same point as has already been discussed, I would point out to him that we cannot proceed with this Bill. Does this Bill contain any fresh proposal?
  Mr. LANSBURY: The Bill I propose to introduce is one simply to remove the sex disqualification, and is entirely different from the Bill which was defeated a few weeks ago. This Bill sets out with the simple object that where a woman has the same qualification for the vote as a man she may be registered as a voter, which, I think you will find on examination, is rather different from what was known as the Conciliation Bill. The object in bringing it forward is that the House may have one more opportunity of considering the question of the removal of the sex disqualification without all the difficulties which surrounded the last Bill. I would like to remind the House that in 1870, on the Motion of the late Mr. Jacob Bright, a Bill identical to that which I am now asking leave to bring in was read a second time by a large majority, and on various occasions since then similar Bills and this identical Bill have also been

  1755
  carried. In the 1906 Parliament a Bill was brought in by a large number of Members, and it was also given a Second Reading, so that it is a Bill which this House, or rather various parties represented in this House, have considered with a great deal of favour, but for a variety of reasons the Bill has never got beyond its Second Reading. It appears to me that at the present moment in this Assembly there are an overwhelming majority of men who believe in giving votes to women and removing the sex disqualification. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, I at all events think that the vote which was given in 1911 is at least as worthy of representing the opinion of this House as the vote that was given a few weeks ago. There were probably a variety of reasons why hon. Members changed their minds. I believe that in the main they were temporary reasons, and had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the Bill under discussion. I think no one in the House will deny that a considerable number of Members wished to prevent any time being given to any other than a particular subject, and that some Members also wrote to the newspapers and proclaimed the fact that they had changed their minds because of violence outside. I think both of those reasons are rather bad when dealing with a question of principle, and I think they are reasons which do not appeal to hon. Members either from Ireland or Wales.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On a point of Order. As I understand the question is not whether the House in 1911 or at any other date has sanctioned a Women's Enfranchisement Bill, but whether, in view of the fact that the House has already this Session, rightly or wrongly, refused the franchise to women, it is in order to bring in this Bill to confer the franchise on women?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be inviting the House to reverse the decision already come to. As I pointed out in my first observations, we cannot do that. If the Bill contains matter other than was in the Bill which the House rejected on 28th March, then the hon. Member might obtain leave to introduce it; but if the matter is the same and if all he is now asking is that the House should reconsider the decision which was come to two months ago, that we cannot do, and I could not allow the Bill to be brought in.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was trying to argue as to the principle of votes for women. This Bill is entirely different from that known as the Conciliation Bill. This Bill, if passed, would enable a woman who has the same qualification as a man for a vote to be registered as a Parliamentary elector and to vote as a Parliamentary elector. This very Parliament has affirmed the principle of giving women votes. It affirmed the principle about a year ago. A few weeks ago a Bill was rejected by a very narrow majority. I was trying to point out that in these circumstances the House ought not to reject this Bill from the point of view of principle, because it has already decided that. This is not so wide a Bill as the one which was carried last Session in favour of women having votes. The position in regard to this matter is very complicated at present. A large number of women are suffering the indignities of being in prison and others are on their trial. The real thing that they are striving for is the recognition by this House of the principle that women who pay rates and taxes and perform all the ordinary duties of male citizens should be entitled to be put on the Parliamentary register. I ask the House to consider the question not as politicians or as men belonging to various parties. Those of us who believe in this principle are to be found in all corners of the House, and the reason why we have not been able to get it recognised by law is not because of opposition to the principle, but for a variety of other reasons. In this Session, when we have two great measures as regards both of which there was an agitation accompanied by a certain amount of violence, when all sides unite in asking us to let bygones be bygones, and when from every bench there comes eulogy of the men who were a year or two ago denounced as traitors and men unworthy to be trusted—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making no statement whatever with regard to the Bill. He is dealing with the question of principle and with letting bygones be bygones and so on. As I have pointed out, we cannot let bygones be bygones, for it is only two months since we rejected a Bill of exactly the same kind as that which he is introducing. The title of it was the Women's Enfranchisement Bill. The purpose of it was to confer the Parliamentary franchise on women. I have called upon the hon. Member to show how his Bill differs from that. If the hon. Member will show that, and show that

  1757
  there is any difference between the contents of the Bill which he proposes now to introduce and that which was rejected, then, if there is any difference, he can introduce this Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am extremely sorry if I have not made myself plain, but twice over I have tried, and with very great respect I will try again. This is a Bill to remove the sex disqualification which debars women from being enrolled as electors or from voting at Parliamentary elections. It is entirely different from the last Bill. In principle I admit that it is not different, but in its application it is different.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given his case away in admitting that in principle it is not different, and therefore I cannot call upon him.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, "That this House do meet tomorrow at Twelve of the clock."—[Mr. McKenna.]

  PATENT MEDICINES (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Ordered, "That Mr. Marshall Hall be discharged from the Select Committee."
  Ordered, "That Mr. Norman Craig be added thereto."—[Mr. Gulland.]

SUPPLY.— [FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  BOARD OF TRADE—LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £226,862, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."[£135,000 has been voted on account.]
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move "That Sub-head A (Salary of the President of the Board of Trade) be reduced by £100."
  I move this reduction on account of the neglect of the Board of Trade in providing
  1758
  efficient regulations for accommodation in boats on passenger ships. The President of the Board of Trade is responsible to this House and to the country for the efficient conduct of the business of the Board of Trade, and therefore he is responsible that his advisers, whether an Advisory Committee or experts to advise, should give him the advice which is necessary to provide proper regulations. I do not wish to trench on the questions now being considered by a court which has been called by the President of the Board of Trade himself, but I do wish to urge most strongly that that court cannot possibly fill the place of this House in inquiring into the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade himself. This Committee alone can deal with the President of the Board of Trade. In the case of the court, in the first place, it was called by him, and in the second place, it must report to him. Therefore, in spite of all declarations made by the Prime Minister in this House I maintain that that court is not competent to deal with the President of the Board of Trade himself, and that this House alone is competent to inquire into the question whether there has or has not been any neglect in the conduct of that Department. The Board of Trade made certain regulations on the advice of their Advisory Committee in the year 1888, and those regulations were allowed to stand for fourteen years until 1902 when they were revised, and again these regulations have been for the last ten years allowed to stand until at the present moment they are completely out of date. If the regulations made in 1888 and 1902 are read in conjunction with the knowledge that the ships with which they dealt were very much smaller than they are at present, it will be seen clearly that they were formed with the express object of providing boat accommodation for everybody upon a passenger ship. Sub-section (d) of the rules for steamships carrying emigrant passengers in the life-saving regulations of the Board of Trade clearly lays down that if the boats placed in the davits in accordance with the table do not furnish sufficient accommodation for all persons on board then additional metal collapsible or other boat of an approved description or approved light rafts should be carried. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the wording that if there is not sufficient accommodation for all persons on board, and I say that that distinctly shows that the people who framed those

  1759
  regulations did so with the intention of providing boat accommodation for all, or if not boat accommodation then raft accommodation, so as to provide in the event of disaster for the removal of every soul on board the ship.
  The Board of Trade for over ten years has allowed those regulations to stand, and during those years the size of passenger ships has enormously increased. In the year 1902 the largest ship was certainly not 20,000 tons. The "Cedric" and the "Sultan," of the White Star Line, were partly cargo ships and not altogether passenger ships; and the largest passenger carrying ship at that time was the "Oceanic," of 17,000 tons. The regulations at that time did provide that there should be boat accommodation for everybody on board, even in that ship; but as years have gone by the regulations have been becoming more and more obsolete, and, no matter what party was in power, the Board of Trade has been slumbering along and has taken no steps at all to bring the regulations up-to-date. Yet the question of boat accommodation has been raised within the last five years, once when the Merchant Shipping Act was in Committee upstairs, and afterwards by means of questions asked in this House. The Board of Trade themselves apparently awoke to the fact that their regulations were hopelessly antiquated, for on the 4th April, 1911, they wrote to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade and asked them to go into this question of the number of boats to be carried on ships of 10,000 tons and upwards, and to send in their recommendations. The Advisory Committee reported on the 4th July last year, ten months before this tragedy took place in the Atlantic. This Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade did actually report to the President of the Board of Trade, and it did recommend him to very largely increase the boat accommodation on the ships, and to increase the raft accommodation as well. The damning fact which I think convicts the President of the Board of Trade of neglect in this matter is that for ten and a-half months no steps were taken to carry out the recommendations of his own adviser.
  We are becoming quite used to Ministers coming down to this House and telling us that their advisers say this and their advisers say that. But it is the Ministers who are responsible to the House and to the Committee in this case, and I do not think that they have
  1760
  any right at all to shield themselves behind their advisers. In this instance it was their advisers who gave them good advice—who actually nearly a year ago advised the Board of Trade to increase the boat accommodation. Yet during the last ten or eleven months the Department has done nothing whatever to carry out the report of that Committee. The Committee made some very important recommendations. Under the old regulations a ship of 10,000 tons and upwards had to carry sixteen boats under davits, but the Committee recommended that the number of boats carried under davits in ships of 45,000 tons should be twenty-four under davits instead of sixteen. I ask the Committee to remember that only sixteen boats were carried under davits in the case of the "Titanic." The Committee also recommended an increase in the number of rafts and other boats, and the cubic capacity of those also was increased by some 1,000 feet. The total cubic capacity of the boat accommodation under the old rules was 5,500 feet for every ship of 10,000 tons, and that was increased in the case of ships of 45,000 tons to 8,300 cubic feet. The raft accommodation was increased by three-quarters of the total capacity in each case. The total result was that in every large ship of the "Olympic" class the boat and raft accommodation required to be carried was increased from 9,600 cubic feet capacity to 14,300 cubic feet capacity—nearly 50 per cent, increase in boat and raft accommodation. These were the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and, as I have pointed out, nothing whatever has been done since then to carry out these recommendations. It is all very well for the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister to tell the House and the country that we must wait until the "Titanic" Court of Inquiry has reported. That may be so now, as it has turned out, but it does not in the very least detract from their fault in not carrying out the recommendations of that Committee.
  4.0 P.M.
  In addition to the question of boat accommodation there is another matter upon which the Board of Trade has been very dilatory in forming regulations—that is with reference to wireless telegraphy. Wireless telegraphy has been in use on passenger ships—especially those ships crossing the Atlantic—for something like ten years, and during that time nearly all the ships that carry passengers across the Atlantic have equipped themselves with wireless telegraphy. In addition to that,

  1761
  nearly all foreign passenger - carrying ships have equipped themselves with different systems of wireless telegraphy. In face there are more wireless telegraph outfits of the Telefunken system than there are of the Marconi, but, whatever the system, every ship is equipped with wireless telegraphy. If the Board of Trade set out to make regulations, as they did, for the efficient conduct of the passenger-carrying trade under the British flag, I maintain that they should most decidedly have made regulations to deal with this question of wireless telegraphy, making it compulsory that these passenger ships must be equipped with a wireless telegraph outfit, and, in addition, must have a proper complement of wireless operators on board. Everybody who has crossed the Atlantic knows very well that there has been on a great many ships—I believe in all except in the very large ships—only one, at the outside two Marconi operators, though the safety of the ship and salvage of the ship may depend upon his efforts. There is also the question of whether a proper watch is kept on the other ships in the vicinity, and it would seem that here again the Board of Trade have been negligent in their duty and have not made proper regulations. In the tragedy which occurred the other day there seems to have been no doubt—even without going into the question which is being gone into by the Court of Inquiry— that they were helpless within three hours, that it was a perfectly calm night, and that, further, if a proper wireless watch had been insisted upon on other ships in the vicinity it might have been possible to have obtained help quicker than it came. None of those regulations have been made cither as regards boats or as regards wireless telegraphy. The President of the Board of Trade is responsible to this Committee, and, therefore, I see no objection at all in calling upon him to explain the attitude which the Board of Trade have taken up in this matter. It is quite true that he has had a very hard time in other ways, and that he has had very hard work indeed with regard to labour unrest, and so on. But if the Board of Trade has too much to do, and personally I believe it has, with regard to this Marine Department, then another Department should be set up, which should be responsible to this House for the great mercantile marine of this country. But as long as the mercantile marine is under the Board of Trade, then, no matter how much we admire the work
  1762
  of the President in other directions or criticise it, it is to him that we look for the proper conduct of those regulations, and it is upon him that we lay the blame when we say, as we do to-day, that those regulations are antiquated, and that the Board of Trade have not carried out their duties in the way in which they should.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I feel very strongly with the Mover of the Amendment that the Board of Trade is very much to blame in the absolute neglect and unconcern which it has shown in matters relating to shipping. Questions have been raised before the House as to the sufficiency and insufficiency of boat accommodation on the big liners. I venture to speak with some little knowledge on this subject, because I have served myself several years in the mercantile marine in sailing ships and steamships, and I have been more or less afloat all my life in various small crafts in all sorts of waters. Suggestions have been made that boats should be carried capable of accommodating all the passengers and crew. The regulations as they stand at present-are completely out of date. In the old clays, when the regulations were framed, boats were carried at a height of from 20 ft. to 25 ft. from the water, and under ordinary circumstances it was possible to lower those boats into the water. Now in these monster liners boats are carried at a height of from 60 ft. to 70 ft. from the water, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it would be quite impossible to lower boats containing forty or fifty people from that height to the water. If the vessel was rolling, the boats would be dashed against the sides of the ship long before they reached the water and would be smashed to pieces. If the vessel had a list to port you could not lower the starboard boats at all, and if she had a list to starboard you could not lower the port boats at all. Under those conditions only half the boats would be available. If the weather on the occasion of the last two disasters had not been extraordinarily fine I do not believe a single boat could have been launched or a single person saved. From that point of view I venture to think that the Board of Trade are very much to be blamed for their absolute neglect to bring their regulations and conditions up to date. It is all very well drifting along allowing regulations to stand year by year because they have served sufficiently up to a point and until a disaster happens, but you

  1763
  want to consider those regulations from the point of view of the ships as they are built now and as to the probability of being able to use the boats at all. In connection with the suggestion that more boats should be carried, it is only occasionally that the existing boats can be used, and I do not think you are going to get any greater safety by carrying more boats.
  The real way out of the difficulty is to have an expert Committee to consider whether some portion of the superstructure of those liners could be made entirely detachable or not or whether you could not get some method of launching boats and slips over the stern. Those are matters of a technical nature, and which from a competent Board of Trade should receive the consideration they deserve. But in connection with the equipment of ships, surely some little attention should be paid to the crews. The crew of twenty years ago consisted to a large extent of men who served in sailing ships and men who had some experience in handling boats. The crew to-day consists largely, as the President of the Board of Trade stated in answer to a question I put to him, of A.B.'s, that is men who have served three years before the mast in a steamer, or three years of scrubbing decks and scrubbing brass, who probably have never been in small boats and do not know one end of an oar from another. Then there is boat drill, which, as far as I have seen it, is an absolute farce. The covers are taken off and very rarely are the boats swung out, and never under any circumstances are the boats lowered or the men trained in launching the boats. Surely I think that a Board of Trade which did its duty, or attempted to do its duty, would pay some little attention to matters of that kind. I have no doubt it is possible to get crews with some knowledge of boat work. There are plenty of fishermen round the coasts and yachtsmen and men who live in small craft all the year round, and on every liner at least a man of that character should be appointed in charge of the boat. To show how negligent the Board of Trade is the public hardly realise that those monster liners are built without any supervision by Lloyd's or the Board of Trade at all. It will be a matter of astonishment, I have no doubt, to many Members of this House to hear that vessels like the "Titanic" and the "Olympic" were never classed at Lloyd's at all and built under no survey
  1764
  I am not suggesting, and I do not wish to suggest, I am very far from wishing to do so, that they are any the worse on that account. They may be better built and more work and more material may be put into them. On that point I have no information at all, but it is a little astonishing to realise that while you cannot build a house in London without having some sort of supervision and some inspection, that you can build an immense liner, carrying thousands of lives, without any supervision or inspection at all. I think that a Board of Trade that attempted to do its duty would pay some little attention to this matter. It is unfortunate, we know, that we have a President of the Board of Trade who does not understand the sea, as we have a First Lord of the Admiralty who knows nothing about the sea, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows nothing about finance. Those are the conditions under which we live and are governed, but I do think it would be to the advantage of the country if a little more time was spent in attending to the proper duties of the offices than to have those constant measures of so-called social reform which occupy the time and attention of this House.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I hope that in any remarks I am going to make that neither the House nor the President of the Board of Trade will think there is anything of a party or personal character in them. I may make some strong remarks because this is a national question, and I should like to see it an international question, not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the great mercantile shipping of the world. What the previous speakers have said as to the fact that the Board of Trade Regulations are not up to modern requirements is on the face of it true. The last regulation we laid down in 1894, which is eighteen years ago, since which time the mercantile marine has entirely altered in size, and in the number of passengers that are taken, and in many other directions. The Board of Trade Regulations, which were for ships from twelve to seventeen thousand tons, have remained the same for ships when they have gone up to thirty or forty thousand tons. What we find fault with the Board of Trade for is that they should have made their regulations up to modern requirements. That does not apply to the question of the "Titanic," but applies to their regulations before the "Titanic." What we object to is that it was not

  1765
  until the appalling catastrophe of the "Titanic" that the Board of Trade really made any efforts to carry out their own regulations or the recommendations of their Advisory Committee.
  I think the Committee will agree that the question is one which should be handled very delicately. We must not do anything that will affect our commercial interests to the advantage of other countries and the disadvantage of our own. We remember very well the Plimsoll load line and its prejudicial effect on our mercantile marine. I have seen cases myself where Norwegians bought our steamers, which were sold as they could not make a very good profit when the load line was put on. Those steamers carried from three to four hundred tons more than we allow, which was most unfair to our commercial interests and to shipowners, and it was not until the load line was made International that that was altered. We can make any regulation the Board of Trade choose to lay down as to safety and life-saving appliances perfectly applicable to all other nations by making certain rules in our ports as we did with regard to the load line. Therefore we have got to handle this matter very delicately. It is perfectly within the power of the Board of Trade to let other nations know that those are our regulations, and that they do not come to our ports unless they subscribe to them. A great number of things have been brought into this Debate, such as watertight doors, wireless telegraphy, boat accommodation, and so on. I should like to refer to the question of watertight doors, because it is a matter with which I am intimately acquainted. The first thing to remember with regard to your life-saving apparatus is, that whatever you may elect as your life-saving appliances, your first efforts should be to give the ship every capacity for floating. We have tried for many years to do so on our merchant ships, and we make what are called watertight compartments. Take this as the belly of a great ship, and we cut three or four doors in every bulkhead to make the whole ship one compartment. To show how keenly I thought about this in days gone by, I may say that I wrote continually to the Admiralty pointing this out. If you pierce a bulkhead with the idea of making a watertight door you defeat your own object in making a watertight compartment. There is no question about it. May I give the Committee my
  1766
  experience in commanding ships at sea? I personally went on board every one of my ships, and wherever I saw a watertight door that was not necessary I ran a bolt through it and fixed it at the other end so that the door could not be opened. I give the experience of the "Victoria," which would possibly have been saved if she had had less watertight compartments. You cannot close the watertight compartments in a sudden rush. In a big compartment the rush of water is so terrific that you cannot close the door. If you had half a door in a bulkhead where you now have a full door with a sill, it would stop the rush of water to a certain extent, and you could close the door more easily. I quite agree that we must have some passage through, but it ought to be what we call a "scuttle"; that is, a smaller space that a man can get through, but not these great doors which invite a terrible disaster. Again, you must remember that the other scuttles in the ship would not be closed. In the case of the "Titanic" an enormous amount of water must have got in those scuttles. I do not know about the "Titanic," but from what I read the doors were open. The fact of there being doors at all militated against the ship being saved in the sudden and unexpected disaster that she met with. My point is, try and keep the ship afloat as long as ever you can, and then you will be able to use what life-saving appliances you may elect to have.
  As my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Terrell), who evidently knows all about this case, said, you may put as many boats as you like on a ship, but there is not one day in twelve in the course of the year when you could lower the boats at all. If the ship is rolling three degrees, at a height of even half seventy feet, directly a boat with its load had got a swing it would go against the side and be smashed to smithereens at the first blow. Therefore do not overdo the boats. Do not overdo anything. I implore the House to look at the question from this point of view. Try to keep the ship afloat as long as you can, and then your life-saving appliances may be useful. Suppose the "Titanic" had kept afloat for twelve hours, perhaps all the people would have been saved. But suppose there had been a gale of wind. I have seen the suggestion that every ship should be accompanied by a consort, so that the people could be transported from one ship to the other. The people who make that suggestion evidently do not

  1767
  know anything about the matter. You could not transport the people in boats even if you had enough boats for all the ship's company, as we have or are supposed to have on a man-of-war. You cannot make regulations to guard against everything at sea. Your best plan, and it should be international, is to make such arrangements in regard to construction that the ship, after receiving a bad wound, will float for a certain time. The "Titanic," I take it, was wounded in the belly. I imagine, from what I read, that an eye stuck her underneath and cut open three or four watertight bulkheads in the belly of the ship. The two ends, which have no great flotation, would not float the belly. If she had been damaged very severely forward or aft, probably the belly would have floated the damaged end. Whether she had watertight compartments in the engine and boiler rooms, the same as the "Olympic," I do not know. I am in favour of these bulkheads. But again comes the consideration that a wound in the starboard side will give a terrific list to starboard; if the scuttles are open there is the danger of the water falling in, and, as my hon. Friend says, you cannot lower the boats on the other side. Therefore, I say again, do not overdo the question of boats. If you have enough boats, which do not interlock, you can get six or eight into the water fairly quickly. But if they interlock you will not get the same number into the water. You will lower one boat on top of another, which is a most serious thing if you have people in the boats who do not understand how to handle them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put all these things down and thoroughly investigate them, always bearing in mind that the first thing to have in view is to keep the ship afloat as long as possible.
  Then there is the question of crews. The crews are not at all suitable under modern requirements. That you should have enough men to man the boats is an exaggeration. You could not do that having regard to commercial interests. What are the men doing who are not manning boats? Scrubbing decks and cleaning brass work is not very irksome. The old seaman has been eliminated. You should, at any rate, have enough men for there to be two or three to take charge of each boat. To have a man who can take charge of a boat is far more important than having six or eight men who can pull an oar. Wireless telegraphy, I believe, is
  1768
  mainly under the Post Office. There ought to be a sufficient number of wireless operators to keep up constant hearing night and day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put that down. With regard to passenger steamers, I spoke just now of how careful we must be to do nothing against our own interests. We know that passenger steamers that go across to France and Germany take British subjects. Any regulations that are made with regard to our mercantile marine should be applied equally to those steamers on the ground that if they do not agree to our regulations those passengers' lives may be endangered. I understand that there are only sixteen nautical surveyors at the Board of Trade to inspect 7,000 steamers with a tonnage of over 13,000,000. If that is so, the Board of Trade Regulations cannot possibly be carried out, because that number of surveyors cannot inspect all that is laid down as requiring to be inspected. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation on that point. It is a most serious matter, as it is only by surveying and inspection that we can hope to get ships of this mercantile marine going to sea under conditions laid down as safe. Without that inspection you cannot possibly hope that they will go to sea in the condition that they ought to be in.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman carried out any of the recommendations of the Manning Committee of 1896? That was a very strong Committee, and its recommendations were most important, but, as far as I know, they have never been carried out. What we complain of is, that the Board of Trade did not carry out their own regulations in many particulars until they made an effort after the loss of the "Titanic." We want a full explanation on that point. Another point is that all the lifeboats should always hold provisions and water, as is the case with lifeboats on board a man-of-war. The idea of getting up provisions and water after an accident has occurred is all nonsense. It would be very difficult to do it on a man-of-war, but on a merchant ship, with all the excitement and embarrassment brought about by a collision, it is absurd to think that these details, which are very important, would be attended to after the accident has occurred. In every cabin there should be a notice stating the locality of the boat that the passengers are to go in, and the steward who looks after that cabin should be responsible to the Captain for the passengers going where they are supposed to go in the event of an accident. This sort

  1769
  of regulation gives confidence. There is no bother on a man-of-war, whatever happens, because the officers and men know what they are to do in any unforeseen circumstance. Such regulations are more needed in the mercantile marine than in the Navy. I think the life-saving appliances are inadequate, and in some cases inefficient. That is due to the fact that the inspection has not been what it should be, and it cannot be what it should be with the number of nautical surveyors at present at the Board of Trade The composition of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is not satisfactory. I believe that to be the view of the mercantile marine. Further, the deliberations of that Committee are now in secret. Why? On such an important question they ought to be in public. Some time ago the Board of Trade had a Committee for experimenting on the capacity of boats. Has that ever been done in a practical way? Have the boats been lowered with their full load from the davit head? Have the falls been unhooked? Has there been any sea-way on when the boats touched the water? Have the crew pulled round the ship, or taken any practical means of knowing whether the boats are efficient if suddenly called upon?
  As to boat drill and boat exercise I have never seen it done but once on any merchant ship in the world. I once saw it done on a P. & O. boat, at Alexandria. Other than that I have never seen a merchant ship exercise its boats in a practical manner with the boat crew and an officer in charge. I think that ought to be done if you wish to secure safety for those who travel in our mercantile steamers. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Terrell) spoke of rafts. Here again, comes the same difficulty. The suggestion of rafts is beguiling. It is very good. But you must remember that ships have to go to sea; they have to fight very severe weather. To my mind it would be a very difficult thing to secure a raft in a way that would be useful and effective if a large body of people were wrecked, stored and provisioned and fitted with masts, sails and ballast, as she would have to be, at the same time having her fitted to the scantling of the ship so that it would be strong enough to take a tremendous blow of a wave in a gale of wind. Those things are all seamen's questions. They are practical questions, and can only really be answered and looked deeply at by practical men. I am not pressing for rafts or boats, but I am giving you the
  1770
  views of a seaman of a very long experience as to the difficulties you will have to encounter. Proposals are put forward in all good faith by the Press, and a large number of people—proposals such as the Gentleman who writes to me as a great discovery that if a ship had another two with her she would always save all the passengers. Those things are all very well-meaning, but they are not practical. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he takes up this question—because it is a very grave one, and is one that must be looked into now—independent of what happened on the "Titanic"—will see that we have got to rub up our appliances, and our ideas, to that which is necessary for the present day, and not to what occurred eighteen months' ago. In conclusion I would remind the House that we must remember that we should never be able to build anything that will float, and that will not meet with disaster, provided you have an incompetent captain and officers, or an ignorant captain and officers, or a captain who shows error of judgment, or a captain who does not show that strong individuality and that personality which is as a rule bred in those who go to sea, but which must be very predominant and pronounced in an unforeseen emergency involving great danger.
  The whole question wants most careful overhauling. I have endeavoured to show the difficulties that the Board of Trade will have to meet. I am confident that if the right hon. Gentleman puts on the Committee not altogether experts—for I have never believed altogether in experts on any question—but common-sense people, shipowners, and I would have representatives of the lower deck too, it will be well. You gain a good deal from knowing what the man on the lower deck knows. I have often consulted my men. I did not ask their advice; they would not respect me if I had done so. But I wanted to know what their views on certain questions are, and I have always told them that I did not imagine for one moment that it was certain I would agree with them. But it is an important point to know their views.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): There are seamen and firemen on the Advisory Committee.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Oh, well I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but I hope he will have a new Committee altogether. I think he ought to have a new Committee altogether on these questions.

  1771
  I do not believe the Advisory Committee has the confidence of the mercantile marine at all. I should like to see a new Committee. You must have experts on it to take up the questions that only those who go to sea can know. But you must also have other people on it—engineers, constructors, and others—whose opinions will be very valuable. I would not hurry the Committee, but whatever you do, if I may offer my humble advice, do remember you want to keep the ship afloat, and do remember that whatever you design or you dictate as necessary for the safety of life in the British Empire you must insist that it is international and for the whole of the world.
  Mr. HOLT: I would like to intervene briefly in this Debate on a subject of interest to the public from the shipowners' point of view. I need hardly say that I am certain that every shipowner in the country will only be too delighted if we are able to have an impartial investigation into any one of these matters in which the public are interested. I think when that is done most people will come to the conclusion that the shipowners have been pretty right in their views. First of all, with regard to the question of boat accommodation. I agree entirely with what the Noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. George Terrell) have said. I believe that theirs are the opinions that practically everyone holds who has any responsibility for the management of large ships. The idea that in any considerable proportion of cases people are going to save their lives by abandoning the big vessels and taking to rowing boats is entirely illusory. We believe it is simply a trap to make people think they are safe when they are not safe; and that persons who rely on escaping by means of the boats will find at the end that they do not succeed in being in as much safety as they hoped. They would have distracted their attention from what are the real facts and elements of safety to what is a very rotten reed, and one which I believe will fail them in any hour of need. That is the shipowners' view of the subject. The same generally applies to the rafts. The Noble Lord dealt with that point, to my mind, if I may say so, quite conclusively. After all, what would any detachable raft mean? If it is going to be of any use it would be deck cargo of the very worst and most objectionable character.
  Lord C. BERESFORO: Far worse than deck cargo.
  Mr. HOLT: Yes, far worse. The first time you got into a real storm you would have it breaking loose. You might imperil the safety of the ship by all this rubbish on the deck, and if it got adrift on the deck it would stave in skylights and hatches and possibly bring the ship to grief. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that it is a most dangerous thing in a gale of wind to have loose material, lumber of one sort or another, knocking about the deck. It would very considerably add to the dangers. That is why shipowners do not very much believe in this idea. People, too, have to remember that a ship has not only got to sail the seas, but it has to be commercially successful. By having various requirements as to safety, it is quite conceivable that you might make travelling almost prohibitive to poor people, yet at the same time to have done very little towards actually increasing the provisions for the safety of those people.
  I want to say a word or two with regard to what the hon. Member for Chippenham has said with regard to classification at Lloyd's. A great many people do not class their ships at Lloyd's—my own firm among others—and that is done because the ships have such a high character that it is not necessary to obtain a Lloyd's certificate. If the underwriters and the persons who take the financial risk on the cargo were not satisfied as to the steps which the owners were taking they would take action which would make shipowners consider it worth their while to get a Lloyd's certificate. But it must not be supposed that no provision is made in this matter. You have either to get a Lloyd's certificate or a Board of Trade certificate for your load line, but it is not right that shipowners should be compelled to adopt any particular classification when they have got a satisfactory certificate from a proper authority. That is not all. You cannot carry passengers without a Board of Trade passenger certificate, and that involves again a survey by the Board of Trade, so that it is not possible for a vessel to go to sea with any large number of passengers with any sort of supervision in her construction. Of course you may or may not have supervision which is adequate. That is another story.
  Most practical people are absolutely in agreement with what the Noble Lord has said on the subject of bulkheads. That is

  1773
  the real point—to try to keep the ship afloat as long as you possibly can, not for twelve hours only, but for a considerable period longer, so as to get her safely into dock, even if she may have to suffer misfortune. By this I believe you are more likely to attain the safety of the people on board ship if you can only drum it into them that their safety is bound up with the safety of the ship. With regard to doors and holes in bulkheads, I agree absolutely with what the Noble Lord has said. They are a snare and a delusion. You have no absolute guarantee that the door of the bulkhead as at present con structed is going to be shut at the time when it is required. It may be jammed not only by the rush of water, but a blow may put it out of truth and prevent it being moved. Even if you manage to get the door satisfactorily closed there is the further difficulty that the whole structure can hardly be as sound as if there was no door at all in it. If you are going to enforce the regulations, such as has been suggested, on large passenger steamers, no doubt it would mean that the passengers would have the trouble—
  Lord C. BERESFORD: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman for the moment? In the case of the "Prince George" we got 1,500 tons of water in her stern after she was rammed six inches below the water line by the "Hannibal." That water mostly all came in after the watertight doors were supposed to be closed. The doors had buckled, and the whole of the leakage got into this after-part. There was one bulkhead forwards in the after-part of the engine room, which was a solid bulkhead, and the safety of that ship depended entirely upon the loyalty of that bulkhead. We shored it up, and the shores held it. If that bulkhead had had a watertight door, so-called, that ship would have been at the bottom, of the sea now.
  Mr. HOLT: I think the Noble Lord and I are entirely at one on the subject of bulkheads. I think that is a matter really of the greatest importance that the ship should be divided up into compartments with bulkheads that have not got doors at all. There are cases in which it is necessary to have these doors, but they are not nearly as many cases as do exist. Of course, passengers going by these magnificent steamers have to remember that if you have to have watertight bulkheads that these must be carried up to the top of the ship, and not end three-quarters of the way, that will involve inconvenience
  1774
  to the passengers who may have to walk upstairs on one side of the bulkhead and downstairs on the other side when they want to see their friends. First and second-class passengers are often very unreasonable people. They expect to get a good deal for their money. They ask for all sorts of conveniences. And at the first sign of inconvenience, though it may be for the safety of the ship and for their own lives, they are the first to grumble. But the position of the shipowner ought to be made clear here. We must have ships subdivided properly by bulkheads. After all the real point, the essential point, is first and before everything else, to consider the safety of navigation, and that is the real and fundamental point in the management of the ship. The ship should be navigated with real care and prudence, and I think that is the point more than any other single point for those people who are responsible for the conduct of steamers of any sort or description to direct their attention to. No ship, however well constructed, and no ship, however well supplied with all sorts of the latest scientific improvements, is going to survive if you run her at high speed against a hard substance; and if you want speed you have got to concentrate your attention more upon the question of navigation than on anything else; and in doing that the public at large ought to give much more loyal support to navigators trying to improve it than they do. Who are the people mainly responsible for reckless navigation? Why, again, it is the passengers. Everyone knows that if a steamer is kept back for hours or days because of a fog or of unfavourable weather conditions, the passengers will go ashore, grumbling and cursing, because the captain did not push on more rapidly into port.
  The House will probably remember a very serious shipwreck that took place four or five years ago—the case of the Great Eastern Railway steamer at the Hook of Holland. What ought to have been done was that the ship should have been taken back and should never have attempted to make the port under the then existing weather conditions. It was a fifty to one chance in favour of her getting in safely. Who would take such a chance if he realised that that was the case. Supposing the navigator of that ship had made for home, or said, "I will not take the risk; I will stay out for twenty-four hours until the weather improves." I wonder what the 130 passengers he had

  1775
  on board would have said. They would certainly have made it jolly hot for him and for what they would regard as his neglect of their comfort and convenience in not trying to get into port. That is the state of mind of passengers, but it would be far better for them to suffer any inconvenience than to undertake the risk in such a case. If passengers want a greater amount of safety it is for them to cultivate public opinion amongst those who are engaged in navigation, instead of taking risks simply in order to make a voyage in less time. They can bring an enormous amount of pressure to bear, not only upon the navigator, but upon shipowners, and if they are going to exercise their pressure in favour of speed I do not think that it is very reasonable to grumble if afterwards it turns out to be disastrous and not safe.
  I believe one can fairly say that taking things all round over a period of years the conduct of the mercantile marine in this country has been thoroughly satisfactory, and the number of disasters that have taken place have been very small compared with the immense number and magnitude of the actual sailings and voyages undertaken, and nothing shows it better than the way in which insurance premiums have been steadily tumbling down in the last twenty or thirty years. I do not think that there is any reason whatever for feeling that navigation is attended with more risk than it used to be, and I should like to say for myself and my own firm that we, at any rate, have so little terror of the dangers of the sea and so little do we believe that there are going to be great disasters that we have not one of our ships insured. That is probably the best proof of the bona fides of our belief in the safety of our ships. If it is the wish of the public that there should be a general investigation of the Board of Trade Regulations, I cannot help thinking that everybody will be glad to have it as soon as possible, but I do not believe that when we do have such investigation we are going to find out very much amiss.
  Mr. JOYCE: I do not think the President of the Board of Trade ought to have any cause to grumble at the Debate which has taken place this afternoon. I think it about time that such a Debate should take place, and that attention should be called to the position of the mercantile marine of this country. I believe the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles
  1776
  Beresford) was labouring under a mistake when dealing with what is known as the Advisory Committee. I have some knowledge of that Advisory Committee. I have been a member of it for seven years since it was set up in 1906, and I may say that every member of that Committee is a man of practical experience. There are five shipowners I think on that Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eight."] The Merchant Service Guild is represented by two Masters.
  Mr. PETO: One.
  Mr. JOYCE: By two. The hon. Member who contradicts me does not know, but I do.
  Mr. PETO: I was referring to an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. JOYCE: I happen to know all the Gentlemen on the Advisory Committee. I meet them very often, and I am quite right. The engineers are represented by two, the lower deck is represented by two, the Seamen and Firemen's Union have three delegates. Unfortunately, one of these gentlemen is away at present, and the President of the Board of Trade has filled his place. Besides these, there is a member of Lloyd's and there is a representative of the shipbuilders and constructors, and when the Committee require it they can co-opt others for various purposes, gentlemen who have extensive knowledge of shipbuilding or construction and ship work generally. I really think when the Noble Lord comes to see how the Advisory Committee is made up he will realise that he is labouring under a mistake. I do not say that the Committee could not be increased with good results, but I say that it is a good practical Committee, and that it has given a good deal of service gratis to the State. Passing from that, let me deal with the question that has been brought home to all our minds by the terrible catastrophe that occurred some weeks ago. I agree with-every word the Noble Lord has said with regard to ship construction, with regard to the ships themselves, and especially with regard to the kind of ships that are being built nowadays, and that they should be so constructed as to ensure that whatever happens you should get the longest possible flotation for the ship. And I agree with every single word the Noble Lord has said with regard to water-tight compartments. Everybody knows that every door weakens the construction of a

  1777
  watertight compartment, and I would even go so far as the scuttle.
  What everyone would wish to see is these watertight compartments constructed as strongly as possible. But when you have that done you still want boats. I never agreed with anyone who says that boats are not capable of doing good work and doing good work even in bad weather. I owe my life on several occasions to having got off ship-wrecked ships in a small boat, to the stability and goodness of the boat, and to the seamanship of the men who handled her. But you could have too many boats on one of those ships. If you have boats you must have enough men to man them, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, in this connection, whenever the question of boat accommodation on large passenger ships comes up for consideration, not to pass over the question of the better manning of these boats. I daresay if you had a 100 boats on the "Titanic" you would not save many more lives than were saved, and I agree with every nautical man that I have met, and with whom I have discussed this subject, that had the weather been bad the chances were ninety-nine to one that not a soul would have been saved at all. You must have boats and you must have good increase in boat accommodation on those large passenger ships, but there you are up against the ship constructor. You have some Gentlemen in this House who view the piling of boats 75 or 80 feet above the water and putting in these heavy davits—and you must have these heavy davits until you find some other means of swinging your boats out—as tending to make your ship top-heavy. This matter should not be rushed. All these things demand time and critical attention, and you have to make them, as far as you can national questions, because you cannot hamper the mercantile marine of this country by making them do things the foreigner will not do.
  I am a good deal of a protectionist when it comes to dealing with the foreigner, and in saying that I am thinking of the manning of the ships as well as of the commercial side of the transaction. I have for many years held the view that there were too many foreigners allowed into the British Mercantile Marine to the detriment of good men at home. I have heard grumblings and complaints by shipowners, but when the pinch comes give me a British seaman alongside me rather than a coolie or a Lascar or a Chinese. I
  1778
  say nothing about other foreign seamen. I do not want to take anything from the good sailor men of other nationalities whom I have met. The Board of Trade in dealing with these great questions will have to study every point. They will have to see that no damage will be done to the mercantile marine of this country. They must see that extra cost shall not be piled upon the men who build the ships, while at the same time reasonable consideration must be given to life-saving appliances to be carried by our ships.
  5.0 P.M.
  With regard to rafts, I must say I have not very much faith in them outside the British Isles or shorter voyages. I think rafts in the home carrying passenger ships are good things, and that they are good in the rivers and channels close to the coast, where if anything did happen it would be a very good thing to have a number of life-saving rafts which would float easily off the upper deck and would accommodate a good many people, but when you are dealing with long sea travels and with huge passenger steamers rafts, to my mind, in any great proportion are out of the question. You ought to have boat accommodation as far as you can increase it, but do not increase it to such an extent as to make the boats a risk to the stability of the ships. I have great faith in some of the collapsible boats. Something was said about the Berthon collapsible lifeboats last year, and I think there were a few of them on the "Titanic," and I think all that were got out did good service. Those are the principal points for the Board of Trade to take up without unduly hampering the shipbuilder on the one side or the shipowner on the other, because they should not be unduly hampered in dealing with a great commercial transaction. At the same time the lives, not alone of the passengers but also of the men who go down to the sea in ships, ought to be looked after by the Board of Trade. When the Board of Trade makes up its mind to do this, then and not until then will the country ungrudgingly give them that meed of praise they will deserve.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: In rising to support this Amendment, I wish to state at the outset that I do not wish to make any party capital out of a great national disaster, nor do I wish to prejudge any recommendations which may be made as a result of the "Titanic" Inquiry. But, as a member of a great seafaring nation, and

  1779
  as the representative of an island Constituency which has lost considerably by this great disaster, I feel that the trust which we have hitherto reposed in a great Government Department to safeguard the lives of passengers and of our sailors at sea has been grossly misplaced. I regret to say that at present we who have hitherto led the legislation and the regulations of the world in all shipping matters are in the humiliating position of having the finger of scorn pointed at us by every other nation on account of our obsolete rules and regulations for life-saving. There is no doubt that no money has ever been grudged to the Board of Trade with regard to carrying out such regulations. We all know that this Government has raised the expenses of the Civil Service by many millions and the number of officials by many thousands, therefore I do not think it can in any way be said that we have grudged the money to pay salaries to officials for carrying out the duties imposed upon them by the Merchant Shipping Act.
  What are the facts? As we all know, these regulations have not been revised for a matter of eighteen years. They were first passed in 1894, when the largest ship afloat was 12,000 tons, and to-day our largest ship is 48,000 tons. What might have been excellent regulations it does not follow that they are equally suitable for modem requirements. Moreover we are in the humiliating position of having to write an appeal to shipowners to provide more lifeboats instead of the Board of Trade having the foresight to come to Parliament long ago to compel shipowners to carry proper life-saving appliances. The remarks I am going to make are not founded upon mere hearsay and rumour, but upon what has been admitted across the floor of the House by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to questions put to him, and what has happened in minor debates which have taken place since this terrible disaster occurred. I should like to say a word or two about the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. It is all very well to say that it represents all parties, but we have not had a single name given to us to show that it represents the passengers or the public at large. It is composed of eight shipowners, two underwriters, two shipbuilders, two ships masters, two engineer officers and two men representing the Seamen's and Firemen's Unions. When the Government
  1780
  had an opportunity of co-opting two more members they co-opted a shipbuilder and another representing the shipowners. Almost in every case the Committee represents the shipowners' interests or people who are in the business to make money out of the conveyance of passengers and cargo. I do not say that fact makes them any the less careful in regard to the lives of passengers, but that is the fact.
  The deliberations of this Committee are all held in secret, and nobody knows what takes place at their discussions, because they are not reported in the Press. If the meetings had been held in public they would probably have had some very solid advice from the great minds associated with marine affairs in this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why it is necessary to carry on these deliberations in private any more than it is necessary that the Debates in this House should be carried on in private. To show the views of this body of shipowners and shipbuilders known as the Advisory Committee, I wish to point out that in their last Report, on 4th July, 1911, they actually advised a reduction in the minimum cubic contents of the boats required to be placed under davits. That is the effect of a Report which they made last year. That recommendation was not acted upon, but it shows the views of the members of this Committee, and their idea above all seems to be to save the shipowner from all unnecessary expense. I will explain what this means. The "Titanic" carried on board sixteen lifeboats under davits, and four collapsible boats providing life-saving accommodation for 1,178 souls. The Board of Trade Rules only stipulate for 960 souls, that is, there should be cubic capacity for 960, although the "Titanic" was certified to carry no less than 3,547 souls. And yet, although the Board of Trade Regulations stipulated in the case of the "Titanic" for a cubic capacity of 9,625 feet the Advisory Committee in their Report suggested that in the case of ships of this size that should be reduced to 8,300 cubic feet. No doubt boat space is not very remunerative, and it is much more attractive to passengers to have large swimming baths, reserved deck spaces, and large suites of rooms which pay much better than devoting the deck space to boat accommodation. I know an instance of a steamboat which is now plying for hire certified for eighty-three passengers, and it carries twenty-two lifebelts, four buoys, and no

  1781
  boat whatsoever, and yet it complies with the Board of Trade Regulations under the Division D, Class 6. I ask if the Board of Trade call that carrying out the duties entrusted to them of safeguarding the lives of passengers under the Merchant Shipping Act. I wish to refer to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to watertight compartments. On the 18th April the right hon. Gentleman said in this House:—
  "I wish the House, however, to understand that it has never been the intention of the Board of Trade Regulations, and, so far as I know, it has not been suggested by any responsible expert that every vessel, however large or however well-equipped as regards watertight compartments, should necessarily carry lifeboats adequate to accommodate all on board."
  That is a most extraordinary statement. It is a well-known fact that in the case of the Indian transports and men-of-war they do carry a sufficient number of lifeboats to accommodate all on board, or nearly all.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Theoretically.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Yes, theoretically. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be impossible to carry more boats, and that it would be very inadvisable to overload ships by carrying a great number of boats. It is admitted that in the case of the "Olympic" and the "Titanic" instead of carrying only sixteen lifeboats they could have carried thirty-two or even forty-eight under the same davits. I think, therefore, it is absolutely futile to say they had not got the space and the means for carrying more boats if they had wished to do so, and there is no doubt that if these extra boats had been carried there would scarcely have been a passenger on the "Titanic" who would not have been saved in this great disaster. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the boats have proper watertight compartments it is not necessary that they should carry so many lifeboats, and, in fact, it is laid down in Rule 12 of the Regulations for life-saving that when ships of any class are fitted with efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade they shall only be required to carry boats, rafts, and life-saving apparatus to the extent of one-half of the capacity required by these rules. I should like to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman took to see that these watertight compartments were adequate and proper? Are there any specifications as to watertight compartments embodied in the rules? The President of the Board of Trade is entirely
  1782
  responsible for these watertight compartments, because it states in this rule that the Board of Trade must have been satisfied or else he would not have allowed them to carry less boats than they ought to carry. As far as I know there are absolutely no regulations made by the Board of Trade as to proper specifications for the construction and the supervision of watertight compartments. I am not an expert in these matters, and I know there has been a great deal of controversy as regards watertight compartments. I do not believe this matter has ever been thoroughly threshed out by a Board of Trade Committee. The longitudinal watertight compartments have been condemned, and I believe they were the cause of the loss of the "Victoria" in 1893.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: No.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: That was stated to be so by a great naval authority, because the vessel fell on one side.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The "Victoria" was rammed, as the hon. Member knows, and she had all her watertight doors open and all her scuttles open. There were some seven degrees of a list. Directly she began to fill the whole of the scuttles discharged water into her, and the water ran fore and aft and they could not close the doors. It had nothing to do with the fore and aft bulkheads.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: It was stated by an architect that the cause of the disaster was that the longitudinal bulkhead filled with water. What I wish to say on this point is that the question of watertight compartments has not been gone into officially, and yet the Board of Trade allow these ships to carry less boats because they have watertight compartments, which are supposed to have been passed by the Board of Trade as thoroughly satisfactory, when we know this could not have been so, at any rate in the case of the "Titanic." I should like now to pass on to the examination of the boats. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to a question, that the boats were examined at least once a year, and, presumably, seldom oftener. Is that enough examination for boats constantly exposed to the weather and to the sun? They are examined only once a year. That does not seem to me to be proper supervision. Then, are they examined by ship surveyors or engineer surveyors? As a matter of fact, I believe most of the surveyors are

  1783
  engineer surveyors, that is to say surveyors only trained as regards boilers and engines who have nothing to do with ship construction. Surely the Board of Trade ought to employ proper ship surveyors who have a knowledge of the construction of ships and boats. As far as I know, there is no absolute specification for the construction of lifeboats. They are very often constructed of soft wood, clinker built, and do not stand the heat and the strain they get on board ship. Of course, everyone knows that the proper boats to have, properly seamed and rivetted, are expensive; but I think the Board of Trade is very negligent in not having laid down a proper specification for the construction of boats to be carried as lifeboats.
  We also learned from the right hon. Gentleman that it was only last autumn he started to make experiments as regards the carrying capacity of boats to be carried on ships. If it was necessary then to make these experiments as regards their proper carrying capacity, was it not necessary to make them very many years ago. He is responsible for stating what sort of boats ships are to carry, and for laying it down in his regulations, and, surely, if these experiments are necessary now, they were necessary a long time ago There is another point as regards manning and boat drill to which I should like to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman stated it is necessary, and it is in the Merchant Shipping Act, that in the official log it should be laid down whenever boat drill takes place. These logs are compulsorily available for the inspection of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade must have been thoroughly well aware how very infrequent, taking ships all round, these boat drills were, and it is for the right hon. Gentleman to see that this is remedied by getting proper legislative power from Parliament. I think in that way the Board of Trade has been extremely negligent in this matter. Apparently under the Merchant Shipping Act there is no proportion between the number of seamen carried and the tonnage and passenger capacity of the boats, and, if the "Olympic," or even the "Titanic" had gone to sea with half its crew, the Board of Trade would not have cared a rap, and would not have been able to stop her doing so. The same remark applies to officers. There is no proportion between the number of navigating officers and the tonnage capacity of the ship. I believe as a matter of fact, all that would be necessary, as far as the
  1784
  Board of Trade are concerned, for the "Titanic" or the "Olympic" to have carried were the captain and the first and second officers and the first and second engineers. This has led to the great evil which is known as the "two watch system." That means an officer does not get his proper rest, and he cannot do his duty properly, a highly strenuous and hard duty especially in bad and foggy weather and in dangerous seas, such as frequently occur. The Board of Trade takes no notice of this system, although the matter is very important in regard to the safeguarding of the lives of passengers. Under it an officer may be four hours on duty and only two hours off. The Board of Trade, under Section 427, has the duty imposed upon them of framing regulations with regard to the number of persons carried. The rules they have framed are simply rules according to the size of the vessel. I think in that one instance alone they have not carried out the duties laid upon them by Parliament under the Merchant Shipping Act.
  I should also like to draw attention to the very small proportion of white seamen to Lascars or coloured sailors carried by some lines. I think the Board of Trade at any rate ought to have stipulated that at least two white seamen for each boat should be carried. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman or anybody in this House, in case of a disaster, would like to have his wife and children confined to the care of coloured and native crews simply. We all know these natives have not the same view as regards the paramount duty of saving women and children as white sailors. In fact, I believe the Chinese rule is that women and children should drown first, because they are not the bread-winners, and it is more important to save the men. Although these coloured sailors do their work in scrubbing and cleaning and mending the boats very well under splendid discipline, yet in times of emergency, I say they are not the proper people to save women and children in boats, and it ought always to be stipulated that there should be at least one or two white sailors in every boat. We heard a good deal about Chinese slavery a little time ago and about the employment of Asiatics, but I think this is a worse case than any case that could be brought against our party. We have heard nothing as to why the Board of Trade make no stipulation as regards providing night

  1785
  glasses and binoculars for look-out men. They may not always be of use, but they do not cost much, and it came out in the Inquiry that these were not provided for the crew. It seems to me rather negligent that a provision like that should not have been placed in regulations dealing with that sort of subject. There is another point to which I desire to call attention, and that is the control of wireless ship stations. The Government recently passed a Wireless Telegraph Bill, and I do not understand how it is the Board of Trade did not ask Parliament to give them power to have some sort of control over wireless stations on board ships. The Post Office only looks at a wireless station on a ship from the ordinary commercial standpoint, much the same as they would in opening a village telegraph station, but a much more important duty falls to the Board of Trade, and that is to see that if a ship claims to have a wireless telegraph station it should always be open in case of emergency as a life-saving apparatus. It is perfectly different from a commercial instrument for sending messages.
  There is another point to which I do not think any hon. Member has drawn attention, and that is how it is at the present moment, ship-owners are allowed to contract out of their liability to pay damages to passengers in case of negligent navigation or causes like that. No railway company is allowed to contract out of their liability; if anybody is smashed up in a railway accident, their dependents have a right to claim damages. A man has a right to claim damages for injury in a railway accident, but, if he is drowned, his dependents have no claim whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there is no salvage attaching to the saving of human life at sea, and, if a vessel hears of another in distress and goes hundreds of miles out of her way to render her assistance, she would be out of pocket by doing that humane act. It is very hard because supposing an American had taken a ticket from America and had been going back in the "Titanic," he, because the contract was made in America, could have claimed damages from the White Star Company, but nobody else can claim damages, because the Company are allowed to contract out of their liability. I do not think the Board of Trade can claim that they have not had these regulations constantly before their notice. The regulation were made in 1894; they were gone through and added
  1786
  to in 1902, 1909, 1910, and as late as February, 1911. If this Advisory Committee had been worth its salt, it ought to have taken into consideration the possibility of a disaster to a great liner. They knew these great liners were being built. They must have known during the many times they have revised these rules that these big liners were being built. The "Oceanic" was built in 1899, the "Celtic" in 1901, the "Adriatic" in 1906, the "Mauretania" in 1907, and the "Olympic" in 1911. Therefore the Board of Trade must have been fully cognisant of the fact that these big liners were being built. Yet they allowed these obsolete regulations to remain in force, although they only contemplate a vessel of from ten to twelve thousand tons.
  They must have known things were not as they ought to have been. If not, what was the reason of their sending out the notice to mariners to 1908? They must have had reason to think their regulations were not being carried out properly, and we shall be glad to learn what special steps were taken after the notice to mariners was sent out to see that things were in any way better. It is no use sending out a pamphlet to seamen. You want to see their duties are being carried out. It would be very interesting to know how many shipowners and officers have been prosecuted during the last two years for breaking the provisions under the Life-saving Rules, or the general provisions under the Merchant Shipping Act. I think it would be an eye-opener to the nation at large to see how lax the Board of Trade have been in seeing their regulations are carried out. This is a very serious matter. Since January of this year fifteen British ships have gone down with 430 lives, before the loss of the "Titanic." These things have been constantly occurring, and yet the Board of Trade have absolutely shut their eyes to the matter. I believe the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee sent them in a Report last year, and it was only after this terrible accident they thought of recommitting them in a hurry, so as to save their skins. I think it would be much better if the Government looked a little better after their office duties instead of constantly bringing revolutionary proposals before the country, and instead of doing so much shop-window dressing. There have been too many changes in the presidency of the Board of Trade. I believe that since the Liberal administration have been in

  1787
  power there have been at least four or five different Presidents of the Board of Trade, and I suppose, that in each case the gentlemen holding the office thought the duties too hum-drum and ordinary for his superb talents, and therefore migrated to a more courageous scene, undertaking management of the Navy and Army. If they had attended more to business and less to introducing unnecessary and wicked legislation, they would not have brought down upon their heads the righteous indignation of the country in this matter.
  Mr. SANDYS: I do not know exactly what line the President of the Board of Trade will take in reply to the various criticisms which have been directed against his Department, at any rate I hope that the reply will not be in any way an attempt to shelve the responsibility on anyone else. We know there are varied duties attaching to the office the right hon. Gentleman holds. He has to deal with questions of such a different character as bankruptcy proceedings, the management of joint stock companies, railways and tramways, water and gas companies, electric lighting companies, harbours and lighthouses, and, last but not least, with regulations with regard to the mercantile marine. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to exercise effectively supervision over all this admittedly wide sphere of activity, the remedy of course lies in his own hands, but if he has made himself responsible for all these Departments, he must accept that responsibility and must not attempt to shelve it on to the permanent officials. It may be suggested that it is undesirable at the present time to deal with this question, in view of the fact that inquiry is being made into the circumstances which attended the "Titanic" disaster. But I would venture to suggest that we are dealing with facts which will not be in any way affected by the findings of that inquiry, whenever it may come to a conclusion, because the facts with which we are dealing, so far as this particular vessel is concerned, are well known. Here was a ship of about 50,000 tons burden, which had only just recently passed inspection by the right hon. Gentleman's officials. It had sailed from a British port under the British flag, and under regulations which admittedly had not been substantially altered since the year 1894. The result was, so far as the lifeboat carrying capacity of the vessel was concerned, although it carried 3,527
  1788
  persons, there was only lifeboat accommodation—although it was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the right hon. Gentleman and his officials—for 1,178 persons.
  Another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee is that this criticism does not, of course, apply merely to the "Titanic." It applies to every ship of over 10,000 tons sailing under the British flag to any port in the world. The right hon. Gentleman has utterly disregarded the changes that have taken place in the British mercantile marine during the last few years. Let me call attention to a statement made by his predecessor in office, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, showing that he, at any rate, was fully aware of the alterations that were taking place. When that right hon. Gentleman spoke in this House on the introduction of the Merchant Shipping Act in 1906, he said that in ten or twelve years there might be as great changes in our mercantile marine as had taken place during the last twenty years, and he went on to add:—
  "We want to be able to introduce regulations applicable to the changing circumstances of the hour, without having to have constant resort to the House of Commons for every change that may be required."
  That statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, in his office, showed how precisely he appreciated the situation. He admitted that the regulations were out of date, and he stated that it was necessary that they should be brought up to date, so as to be applicable to the changing circumstances of the hour. What has the right hon. Gentleman done? In 1894 these regulations were up-to-date. I have taken the trouble to investigate as to the actual number of ships of over 10,000 tons in the years in question. In 1894 there were only two British vessels of over 10,000 tons, whereas now, in 1912, there are no fewer than 109 such vessels, thus showing that the conditions of the British Mercantile Marine have absolutely and completely changed. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that his attention has not been called to this matter, because the late Member for Hackney drew his notice to it last year in the House of Commons in a question to which attention has been directed since the "Titanic" disaster. The right hon. Gentleman then admitted, in his reply, that the regulations had not been changed since 1894, and he added that the whole matter must be submitted to the Advisory Committee, a body

  1789
  largely consisting of shipowners and shipbuilders which held its meetings in secret. That body appointed a Sub-committee to deal with this question, and that Sub-committee submitted a Report to which allusion was made by one of the speakers who preceded me. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman took no notice whatever of the recommendations of this Committee; but on the 18th April, after the "Titanic" disaster had taken place, he made a statement to this House: These were the words he used:—
  "In the last few days I have referred the matter back to the Committee for further examination."
  I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what he means by the words, "the last few days." Does he mean before or after the "Titanic" disaster took place. If it was after that disaster, did he mean that the Report was sent back in the ordinary course of official routine, or were his words intended to imply that it was in consequence of the disaster that the matter was sent back to be revised. I cannot help thinking if he sent back the Report in consequence of the disaster it would have been more straightforward if he had made it perfectly clear, instead of conveying the impression that it was a mere coincidence, that the Report was sent back at that particular time. This is not merely a question of the provision of boats on ships. It is also a question of the manning of the boats, and it is a question which the right hon. Gentleman must consider. It is necessary that boats should be provided which are capable of being launched when an emergency occurs. I have taken a good many long voyages to different parts of the world, and I do not remember a single occasion on which I have seen boats swung out and the launching gear tested as it ought to be. I have come to the conclusion that in many cases the boats provided are in an absolutely unseaworthy condition. I am inclined to think that the regulations with regard to the provision of boats and for launching them have become practically obsolete. The only Member who spoke in the shipping interest referred to the case of the "Berlin" in 1907, and that case threw a great light on the manner in which these matters are managed by the Board of Trade. In consequence of an accident to the steamship "Berlin," by which a large number of lives were lost many questions were put to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, and the reply was to the effect that pending the formal investigation
  1790
  into the circumstances of that lamentable wreck it would not be expedient to make reference to certain matters bearing on the case. That is typical of the answers we get from time to time in this House in regard to these inquiries.
  Take exactly what happened in the case of the "Berlin," and the result of the investigation which was conducted into that wreck. It was made clear to anyone who read the account of that disaster that the loss of life which occurred on that occasion was entirely attributable to the absence of effective line-throwing apparatus on board. If there had been a proper apparatus on board there' is no question that every person on board that ship would have been saved. An investigation was duly held, and strong recommendations were made that apparatus of this kind should be provided on all British ships in the future. Then the process of shifting responsibility began. The matter was referred by the Board of Trade to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, who' reconsidered the whole matter, and came to no decision at all, except to refer the matter to a special Sub-committee. These appliances were tested all over the Kingdom at considerable cost to the British taxpayer. The Sub-committee, in the course of their investigations, visited the Mersey and the Tyne, then went to Dundee, and they finally wound up their travels in London. It would be interesting to know what was the expense of this investigation, because the Committee appear to have made an almost complete tour of Great Britain, and when they had completed their investigation they came to the decision to send the matter back to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee to reconsider the whole question anew. By this time a considerable amount of time had elapsed. Then the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee issued a Report to the Board of Trade, urging the necessity for the further provision of some form of line-throwing apparatus on board all British ships. Then, of course, the whole thing completely fizzled out. The Board of Trade issued a circular—I have been able to obtain a copy of it—of an extremely anæmic character, in which they commended the recommendations of the Committee to the attention of those concerned, but regretted that they had no powers in the matter whatever. There the whole matter ended, and so far as I know there it stands at the present

  1791
  time, and no provision has been made to carry out the recommendations which were made at the Board of Trade inquiry into the circumstances which attended the wreck of the "Berlin."
  The Board of Trade are continually finding an excuse for their inefficiency by stating that they have no power to act. That was their excuse with reference to this particular case. Have they ever applied here for powers to act in order to protect travellers and for the greater safety of our ships, and have those powers ever been refused to them? Do they ever seek such powers and find themselves unable to obtain them. The only object they have always had in view has been to satisfy public opinion for the time, and then, with their usual incorrigible slackness, to let things drift on as they were before. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman making recommendations to the shipowners? In these days of keen competition to which allusion has been made, how does he expect shipowners to put themselves to heavy additional expense when their rivals who are less conscientious than themselves are able to ignore the recommendations of the Board of Trade altogether. Why should a shipowner who wants to do his duty be handicapped in favour of another shipowner whose only anxiety is to cut his expenses down to the minimum. If you are going to leave it to the shipowners it will be far better not to have any regulations of this kind at all. Then, at any rate, the travelling public would know where they were, and they would discriminate, when deciding to take a journey, probably in favour of the line which was able to state that it had made adequate provision for the safety of their passengers. But the position is that the Board of Trade professes to exercise control in these matters, whereas, in reality, it does not exercise control at all.
  The question of the recommendations of the Manning Committee have already been referred to. I am not going to deal with them, but it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that, so far as I know, none of those recommendations have been followed up. I think the principal recommendation was that when ships were undermanned they were to be regarded as unseaworthy. Consider the manner in which the Board of Trade carried out that recommendation. They passed a Bill in this House stating that ships which were undermanned were
  1792
  unseaworthy, but they laid down no regulations as to what constituted an undermanned ship, consequently the whole thing was nugatory and void. In conclusion, I would say this: that this disaster which has attracted public attention to these matters has inflicted a blow upon the prestige not merely of the right hon. Gentleman and the Department which he controls, but unfortunately has inflicted a blow upon the prestige of the British Mercantile Marine. Here we have a case in which not only hundreds of British citizens, but hundreds of citizens of a foreign Power, connected with us by the closest ties of commerce, relationship, and friendship, have lost their lives. The result of the Inquiry which is taking place can make no difference whatever to the facts I have stated and which other hon. Members have stated in. the course of this Debate. It seems to me absolutely indisputable that there has been on the right hon. Gentleman's part a serious neglect of that duty which he owes, not only to the officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine, but also to the persons and passengers who travel upon the seas in British vessels, of whose interests and whose safety he is supposed to be the guardian.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I wish I had had the pleasure of the company of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just sat down, this morning at Waterloo Station. I should then have pointed out to him the signal over one of the trains—"North German-Lloyd Express." I should have indicated to him, what I gather from his speech has not been quite fully before him, the fact that every week, and on more than one occasion in some weeks, vessels flying foreign flags—German, French, and others—come to British ports and compete with British shipowners for passengers who ship in those British ports. It is quite easy to blame the President of the Board of Trade, and I for one agree with much that has been said by the last speaker, but I think it is necessary to bear in mind also that the right hon. Gentleman has had very considerable international difficulties to encounter. These questions of the preparations against the loss of life at sea and compulsory precautions to be enforced upon shipowners must be international questions. If the matter is not dealt with in that way, the result will be to reduce the employment of British seamen in British ships, and to penalise in competition British shipowners and British capital. I believe that the Board of Trade

  1793
  in framing their regulations have considerably more power than has been supposed by any speaker in this Debate. The Board of Trade have been framing their regulations with due regard to the, combination of safety from bulkheads as well as rescue by boats if the bulkheads fail. Where the bulkheads are, in the opinion of the Board of Trade's officers, such as to prolong the flotation of the vessel after she has been pierced in one or two compartments, then their requirements as regards the number of boats to be carried are less severe than if the bulkheads did not fulfil these conditions.
  I, for one, am very strongly of opinion that in regard to the future the greatest importance should be attached to the provision of bulkheads. Prevention is better than cure, and it is infinitely more advantageous to safeguard the lives of the passengers by insuring the flotation of the ship, as far as one can, than by providing a large number of boats which would take off passengers after the vessel has foundered. The risks and dangers in transhipping passengers into small boats can have no reflex whatever in the circumstances of the "Titanic," because of the absolutely smooth sea and the mild weather which prevailed when that disaster took place. The great bulk of disasters at sea take place under circumstances of weather infinitely worse than those in the case of the "Titanic." Therefore I fear that the public mind has been misled very largely upon the question of boats, and has been withdrawn from the more important, more urgent, and more vital question of bulkheads. I do not think, although the Advisory Committee has been referred to by almost every speaker in this Debate, that any reference whatever has been made to the Bulkhead Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman has appointed within the last few days. That committee consists of something like a dozen of the leading men in the science of ship-construction and marine engineering, and I desire to compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon the selection which he has made, and to say I believe it is the general opinion of this House, and certainly in the shipbuilding trade, that whatever recommendation that Committee arrives at is likely to be a sound, fair, and reasonable recommendation, such as, in all probability he will be safe, in acting upon.
  I should like to see the regulations of the Board of Trade in regard to bulkheads
  1794
  brought more closely into unison with the Admiralty regulations. I do not like to say that there are two large ships afloat which, in circumstances of collision similar to those of the "Titanic" might have survived, but I have heard that opinion expressed. The Admiralty, when they subsidise merchant vessels for war purposes, insist upon an arrangement of bulkheads for the protection of the engine-room in time of battle against shot, an arrangement of bulkheads which would afford the very protection that must be apparently lacking in a vessel which has transverse bulkheads only. In the case of the Admiralty Regulations, it is provided that on each side of the engine-room and the boiler-room there must be longitudinal bulkheads, running fore, and aft, with a very considerable space inside the shell of the ship, thus forming an inner skin, these bulkheads forming a space which is filled with coal, the main object being that the coal should be a protection against shot and shell for the engines and the boilers. In the particular case which the country is mourning at the present time, in which the outer skin of the ship was ripped longitudinally, there is no doubt whatever that several of the transverse bulkheads were injured. It seems from the evidence that in all probability—it is almost a certainty—the shell of the vessel considerably below the water line was ripped along in contact with the iceberg. Where you have bulkheads which are longitudinal in addition to the transverse bulkheads, such an injury as I have described, which probably took place in that unfortunate disaster, would not have the effect of filling so many compartments as to compel the ship to founder in a comparatively short time as in that case. I hope that the Bulkhead Committee and the Board of Trade, acting in unison, will arrive at the conclusion that the construction of longitudinal bulkheads, which the Admiralty desire for war purposes, may also be adopted by the Board of Trade for the purposes of securing the safety of merchant vessels. If that be so, then the risk of going to sea will be enormously minimised, especially in these large vessels.
  6.0 P.M.
  Before I sit down I invite the right hon. Gentleman to recall an answer he was good enough to give to myself about a month ago. I then pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of international relations in this matter. I pressed upon him what he knows and what he has realised, that in the case of the load line

  1795
  difficulty which we had some years ago in this country we found foreign ships coming into British ports and loading deeper and carrying more cargo than vessels under the British flag and the Board of Trade were driven to make a regulation, which they had power to make, placing vessels under foreign flags under the same system of possible detention if they were overladen as in the case of British ships— a system of detention which had been confined previously to British ships, greatly to their disadvantage in competition. The right hon. Gentleman was familiar with that difficulty. I think it will be of interest to the House, I am sure it will be of interest to shipowners, and I believe it will be of interest to the country if in his reply the right hon. Gentleman could state what is the position of that international question having regard to the investigations which are now being made. This Debate must be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman in showing him the tone and temper of the House in regard to this matter. The inquiry which is being held by Lord Mersey will, of course, involve recommendations which the Board of Trade must treat with the utmost respect. The Bulkhead Committee, when it has finished its labours, will make recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will be more or less bound to follow. All these investigations must result in recommendations for some changes in the regulations. They must result in recommendations for the provision of greater safety, recommendations which will cost money, which will hamper working and which will increase the current expenditure of British ships. If these recommendations come after the right hon. Gentleman has paved the way, through the Foreign Office, by negotiations with other countries, it will be possible to carry them out immediately, but if the right hon. Gentleman waits until after these investigations have been completed, possibly some weeks, it may be months hence, and then begins through the Foreign Office to endeavour to arrange with our competitors, precious time will have been lost and the regulations for safety, so essential and so demanded by the country, will have been delayed and the blame will lie on the head of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. So I invite him in his reply not to lose sight of that fact, and to give the House some indication of what the Government has done in bringing forward
  1796
  negotiations in this matter with our foreign competitors.
  Mr. BUXTON: I ask the indulgence of the House. Not only do I speak with a great sense of responsibility as President of the Board of Trade, but hon. Members can understand that at present the various suggestions and inquiries which are going on are all matter of very anxious moment to me and to my Department. I have also to speak for the Marine Department, which has been the subject of severe comment from hon. Members. I have therefore to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and I am fearful lest, through deficiencies of my own, I may not be able to give the House the desired impression which I wish to leave on their mind. I am not, of course, complaining. On the contrary, I welcome this Debate, and I think it is a very good thing that we should have an opportunity of discussing the various matters which we have been considering this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Flannery) that a Debate of this sort is naturally and necessarily of assistance to myself and my Department in considering the various problems with which they are faced. I am quite sure the House will desire in this matter to be just to the Department. Two or three Members, and especially the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), said this was not a party question, and ought to be treated from a national point of view. I should like to endorse that statement, because, after all, the gist of the allegation is that this has covered a long period of time during which the Parliamentary chiefs have been of different political complexions. It so happens—I am not taking credit for it—that the question of the revision of these rules and regulations was first taken in hand during the time I have had the honour of being President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Flannery) and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) dealt with a question of very great moment in this matter—the international aspect of it—and they said if you are to deal with these matters effectively you want to have an international agreement so that there shall be no undue competition on the one hand, and you want to bring the standard up to the highest possible level. The hon. Member (Sir F. Flannery) wanted to know how we stood in this matter because he was afraid of delay. I am glad to inform the House that we are at present in consultation and in negotiation with the

  1797
  German Government in reference to an International Conference on the question of appliances for safety at sea, but we made it quite clear in our communication with the German Government that, so far as we are concerned, however advantageous such an International Conference would be, it cannot delay such rules and regulations as, after consideration, we think ought to be imposed. They will no doubt be subject to revision at the International Conference, but the conference shall not stand in the way of issuing our regulations.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: What about the French and Italian Governments?
  Mr. BUXTON: The International Conference would, of course, include them.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: When would that be?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say. We are in negotiation. My point is that it cannot lead to any delay in issuing regulations for the safety of our own ships.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Have communications been addressed already to the French and Italian Governments, or have communications passed only with Germany?
  Mr. BUXTON: So far with the German Government only.
  Mr. PEEL: Did Germany initiate the communications?
  Mr. BUXTON: The German Government communicated with our Government, but we were at that moment about to communicate with them. I do not think there has been any rivalry or jealousy in regard to the matter. The two main accusations made against the Board of Trade have been in the first place that the regulations and rules do not provide for a sufficiency of boats, and in the second place—a more serious one—that there has been gross and apathetic neglect on the part of the Marine Department in extending this scale to our larger class of vessels of higher tonnage than the original regulations were intended to apply to. I am again in a somewhat difficult position here, because these matters have been referred specifically for the Court of Inquiry to consider. Certainly I have no intention of sheltering myself behind the excuse of its being sub judice, because, after what has been said of the Marine Department, I desire to inform the House how the
  1798
  matter actually stands. The statutory position of the Board is that they have to issue these rules and regulations. I will deal first with the question of how far the existing rules are adequate, or have been thought up to now to be adequate. I am concerned with the position of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. I want to show the House how these regulations arose and how they stand now. Some years ago there was a Departmental Committee to consider the question. At that time it was the very rapid extension of steam over sail which made a revision of the rules necessary. That was in 1886. In 1887 a Committee of the House was appointed, and they recommended specifically the creation of a Statutory Committee composed in a certain way. That was set up by the Act of 1888, and it met on several occasions—a very strong and a very representative Committee. It made certain recommendations in regard to rules and regulations for all classes of vessels, and they were unanimous in their Report. The standard which they set up has been the basis for the existing rules and regulations, and has formed a standard on which they have been based ever since.
  They never in their rules and regulations proposed that, as regards certain classes of passenger ships, there should be sufficient boat accommodation for everyone. They were impressed, like others at that time, and up till the other day, with the advantages of the bulkhead system, and they were also impressed with the disadvantages, which have been referred to by more than one speaker, of a ship having too many boats and one boat hampering another. That was very much in their minds in fixing their regulations. I am not concerned to argue whether they were right or wrong in their contention. After the disaster which occurred lately it is obvious that these rules and regulations must be radically altered. I assert broadly, and this is really my answer to a good many of the speeches which have been made, that if those who made these rules and followed them erred—I am speaking of the question of boat accommodation—they erred in good company. They met with, and were confirmed by, the best opinion at that time and since, and all the regulations, as far as I am aware, have practically gone unchallenged up to the other day. I believe this question of whether there was sufficient boat accommodation for some of these passenger ships has

  1799
  never once been raised on any Board of Trade Estimate up to the present moment. I admit fully that the present position necessitates reconsideration of the matter, and I think that is the answer to the general charge of neglect in regard to this matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There have been questions on the Paper relating to the subject for some time past. I put one nearly nine months ago.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think the hon. Member's question was directed to show that there was insufficiency of boat accommodation; it has never been challenged up to the present moment.
  Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain these regulations, of which I have a copy? It seems to me perfectly evident that the intention is to frame these regulations to which he refers so that there should be sufficient boat accommodation, because I notice the last paragraph says, "Provided no ship of this class shall be required to carry more boats or rafts than will furnish accommodation for all persons on board."
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member really has not appreciated the position. He referred in his speech to the first paragraph, where a ship carrying a certain number of boats under davits did not furnish sufficient accommodation, there were to be additional collapsible or other boats. That is subject to the provision of paragraph 7:—
  "Such additional boats or rafts shall be in the aggregate for vessels of 5,000 tons and upwards, three-fourths more than those under davits."
  That is not in any way at all a provision for complete boat accommodation for all on board. These are the rules and regulations of the Statutory Committee. They were intended by the Committee in that way, and have always been interpreted in that sense. With regard to this matter, what I wish to point out to the Committee is that if there were mistakes, the responsibility does not lie in the matter of boat accommodation entirely on the Board of Trade, but the responsibility must fall, to a certain extent, both on the original Committee and on Parliament itself. At all events, these are rules which require revision and should be most carefully revised. The other and more grave point, from the
  1800
  point of view of the accusation made against the Board of Trade, is the charge of culpable neglect, and the statement that during these years since the rules were first devised and put into operation, and in spite of the increase in the size of vessels, the Board of Trade has not extended the scale at the upper end. I have examined very carefully into this question, and I have been enabled to do so impartially and dispassionately. After very careful inquiry, I am quite convinced that during that period the officers responsible acted with due diligence and intelligence in the light of the experience available, and according to the generally accepted standard of safety of those best competent to give au opinion. I will tell the House why I have come to that conclusion I am quite sure the House in this matter will desire to do justice and will consider the matter without any prejudice.
  The suggestion, as I understand it, is that the life-saving rules were not substantially revised since they were originally drawn up in 1894, that although they have been reviewed in some respects they were not reviewed in the way of extending the scale at the upper end, and that the Department was unaware of the great developments which had taken place in shipbuilding. The facts are the very opposite. In those very years, though the rules were not fundamentally altered, they were always being watched and always being carefully reviewed. The professional advisers of the Board in this matter were watching the operation of the life-saving rules by the light of the records of casualties, by the light of the verdicts of Courts of Inquiry, and by the light of the changes and improvements which had taken place in the construction of passenger ships, in the construction of boats, and other relevant matters. I have already explained to the House how these rules came into operation through a statutory Committee. That Committee had met earlier, but in 1894 they held another meeting and raised the scale to 10,000 tons and upwards. More than one hon. Member seemed to assume that 10,000 tons was at the top of the scale. That is not so. The scale was 10,000 tons and upwards, and the Committee at that time extended the number of boats required from fourteen to sixteen, which, of course, would also cover the 75 per cent, with the other boats and life-saving appliances. The Committee thus anticipated that their rules would apply not merely to ships of 10,000 tons, but to ships of that

  1801
  tonnage and upwards, because they have the official accommodation required. Surely it was their intention and desire that the scale should apply to larger ships than those of 10,000 tons. But in addition to that—and I wish the House to give this very serious attention—before 1894, when this Statutory Committee laid down its rules, there was in existence the "Campania," of no less than 13,000 tons, certified for 1,850 passengers and crew. I think it is quite clear that the Committee had then the "Campania" in mind, and intended that their rules should apply to a ship of 13,000 tons carrying nearly 2,000 passengers and crew. Though I do not for a moment believe that the Committee anticipated ships of the enormous dimensions of the "Lusitania" or the "Olympic" they, being practical men, anticipated that, with a ship of 13,000 tons already launched, ships considerably larger in size would in the near future also come under the scale. They reckoned, like everyone else, at that time, that the increase in the size and strength of ships would largely mitigate the necessity for additional boats.
  In the ten years after 1894 there was no great development in shipbuilding, with the exception of the "Oceanic," which was launched in 1899. It was 17,000 tons, certified for 2,121 passengers, an increase, as compared with the "Campania" of only 264 persons. That clearly was covered by the rules and intentions of the Committee. I have pointed out that at the time the Committee laid down these regulations the Board of Trade adopted and Parliament accepted them. In 1903, the "Cedric," of 21,000 tons, was launched, and her certificate for crew and passengers was only the same as for the "Oceanic." I wish to point out that up to 1903, of forty-seven vessels over 10,000 tons, only six were over 14,000 tons, and of those six only two had a larger number of passengers than the "Campania" had in 1893, when the Committee sat. That means as regards the number of passengers and crew that, though there had been growth in the size of vessels, there had been practically no increase in the carrying of passengers. The great increase in the size of the ships was due to the fact that the new era was beginning of more luxurious ships carrying a larger number of first-class passengers with a larger amount of cubic space for each, and carrying fewer third-class passengers. In 1904–5 a new situation was created. In 1904 the "Baltic,"
  1802
  another White Star liner, was launched. It is a vessel of 23,800 tons with certified accommodation for 2,411 passengers and crew. In 1905 the "Carmenia" and the "Corona," each of 20,000 tons, and certified for about 3,000 passengers and crew were also launched. This raised, of course, the whole question of the sufficiency of the scale. I wish to say that these ships were carefully examined by the professional advisers of the Board of Trade, and as the result they deliberately, after careful inquiry, abstained from advising any alteration of the scale. I understand the conclusion they came to was based on the general grounds that the records of casualties of this class of ships showed extraordinary few risks, and that the findings of courts of inquiry were not any argument in favour of the provision of more boat accommodation.
  In addition to that they were very much impressed—and I think it impressed the original Committee and those who from time to time considered the matter—that in connection with these larger and newer ships the risk of sinking had very much diminished. I am not concerned to show in a matter of opinion whether the conclusions come to by those professional advisers was right or not, but what I am concerned to show is that from time to time, and especially at the crucial period of 1904–5, the matter was carefully gone into and examined, and that the conclusions come to were in harmony with the expert opinion which prevailed at that time.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it the same expert opinion as we have now?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, but I am wishing to show that the gentleman who was then at the head of that branch of the Department and those advising him were not guilty of what has been alleged against them, namely, negligence in these matters. I think I have shown to the House that since 1904–5 no fresh question had arisen since the original regulations and suggestions of the Statutory Committee were made. In those years great attention was given to the matter, and the conclusion come to by the professional advisers was that there was no need of revised regulations. This is also material from the point of view of expert opinion and the question how far the Statutory Advisers were right. In 1906, as the House knows, my predecessor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was dealing with the whole question of

  1803
  maritime matters and shipping in general. I think the House knows very well that my right hon. Friend has never spared himself when he has to consider a question in seeing all sorts and conditions of men, and hearing all interests involved in the matter. There were a very large number of conferences of various sorts, representing all sections of opinion, in reference to maritime matters, and I am assured that during the whole course of the discussions, the particular question as to whether there was sufficient boat accommodation or not was never mentioned.
  Sir G. PARKER: That is not the case. I raised it myself upstairs in Committee.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am assured that in all these conferences the question was not brought before my right hon. Friend.
  Sir G. PARKER: It was in the Committee upstairs.
  Mr. BUXTON: I was thinking of the conferences in which representatives of the maritime interests were concerned, and I am merely using the argument to show that at that time the best opinion of those most interested in the matter was in accord with the rules and regulations.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Was the opinion of the Advisory Committee asked for in regard to boat accommodation in 1905–6?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Advisory Committee was not then in existence. In 1907, two years after the year in which, rightly or wrongly, the professional advisers had given their opinion that there was no case made for changing the rules and regulations, we had the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," each of 31,000 tons. Though they were 50 per cent, larger in tonnage than their two predecessors of two years before, they were actually certified for fewer passengers. That is to say, under the same system to which I have referred to just now there was a provision of larger floating capacity for each passenger, and the professional advisers, rightly or wrongly, came to the conclusion that they were not justified in making any change in consequence of the increased tonnage of these ships. Then came 1911, when we got the "Olympic," up to 40,000 tons, and there was a considerable increase in passengers as compared with the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," though it was not anything like in proportion to the
  1804
  increase in size. Acting on the advice of my professional officers at that time, whose attention had been drawn to this, we thought the time had come to have a revision of these rules and regulations, and we did therefore very carefully consider the whole question. We reopened it, and referred it to the Advisory Committee. That Committee made several recommendations, and the Board of Trade, through its officers, before coming to a final conclusion in regard to these recommendations, were anxious to make further experiments as to the boats, their shape, and capacity, and so on. One hon. Member has said that there was a great delay in carrying out the recommendations of the officers of the Board of Trade and of the Advisory Committee in 1911. I really do not think that that is so. If we had anticipated the loss of the "Titanic" naturally we should have moved more quickly, but that was a thing we could not do. There was no avoidable delay. It was carefully considered before the Advisory Committee, and it was very essential before coming to a final conclusion that we should have greater experience and greater opportunity of knowing what would be the best class and best type of boat to carry on board, because that is very important from the point of view of safety, and it is also very material from the point of view of carrying a larger number of boats to have them of a shape which is more easily accommodated than the existing shape. I can assure the House that there was no delay in reference to the matter, and that the experiments were carried out with the greatest possible speed. One hon. Gentleman insinuated that the communication with the Board of Trade on the Report of the Advisory Committee was due to the loss of the "Titanic," and that we should not have moved in the matter if it had not been for that unhappy event. There is not a word of truth in that suggestion.
  Mr. SANDYS: What I really asked the right hon. Gentleman was whether it referred to a date after or before the disaster had occurred.
  Mr. BUXTON: I hope the hon. Member will take my word for it when I tell him that, though the actual official letter went the day after the loss of the "Titanic," the question had been considered for some little time before, and it was only because we were finishing up certain enquiries that the delay occurred. But I can assure him that the question of the "Titanic" had

  1805
  not come on, because it was all settled before that disaster arose. Of course, as soon as that disaster arose, that particular communication was naturally swept away, and we had further communications with the Committee in order to have inquiries into these other various questions. But the point as to which I wish to claim the indulgence of the House is in reference to the statement that there has been negligence by the Board of Trade in reference to these rules and regulations. I have convinced myself that this is not so. We have to show by giving the actual facts from year to year that, rightly or wrongly, whether a mistake was made in the conclusions at all events there was no negligence in regard to these matters.
  Perhaps the House will allow me to revert from that to other questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate and to matters which really, I think, in a sense are of more moment, namely, what is best to be done at present and what we should do for the future. Naturally, all the regulations in connection with shipping must be reconsidered carefully by the light of what has happened, and they will require prompt and careful attention, and both as regards the Advisory Committee and myself and the Court, the course of the inquiry is receiving careful attention. As regards the Advisory Committee, as the question has been raised, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Joyce) that that Committee has done very good service indeed to the Board of Trade and the country at large. He showed, I think, how well qualified it was to deal with these questions. In addition to that, being people who co-opt certain Members, while recently considering these new life-saving appliances, they have co-opted a certain number of gentlemen who will be of material benefit at their consultations. Then we shall have the further International Conference to which I have referred. Therefore, I hope we shall be in a position before long to suggest to the House various proposals in regard to the rules and regulations.
  But there are, if I may divide the question, certain heads under which I shall put them in order. First is the question of navigation; second, the question of routes, and the third, the question of speed where there is likely to be ice. All these things are obviously questions which will have to be considered very carefully by Lord
  1806
  Mersey's Court. Therefore, I am not prepared to say anything in regard to them. I think they are very essential in regard to what we all desire, the actual safety of the ship crossing the Atlantic. The Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) went in some detail into the question of bulkheads and watertight compartments, and suggested that it was the question which lay at the root of the safety of these big ships. I do no know whether he is aware that a short time ago that was one of the things which occurred to me the most important in reference to which the Board of Trade could take action, and therefore I came to the conclusion that it would be an advantageous thing to appoint a strong Committee to go into the whole question of bulkheads and make recommendations to the Board of Trade in reference to these matters. I am very glad that my hon. Friend, knowing the names of those who are connected with this matter was able to say that it is a strong Committee. With a Committee of that sort it always takes some little time to get your personnel. It requires interview and correspondence. But I am glad to know that they are going to meet at once, and I am quite sure that the result will be satisfactory to the Noble Lord and to those who are interested in this question. I, of course, as a layman, have no views, and it would not be right for me to express them if I had, in regard to the best method of carrying out a bulkhead system. But speaking as a layman and as one without authority, I am bound to say that I agree with the views of the Noble Lord and of my hon. Friend behind me in regard to bulkheads. I have been taking the opportunity of seeing various classes of ships, and it does seem to me that if you want to have a safe bulkhead you must have one with no more than one manhole, if you cannot avoid the manhole altogether. But in this I speak purely as a layman exercising ordinary common sense in looking at these things.
  The second matter which I think important after the bulkheads is wireless telegraphy. Complaint has been made that we have not a wireless telegraphy on certain classes of ships. I take full responsibility for the delay which there has been in having a compulsory Act on this point. This question of wireless is one in which I have taken very great interest. When I was at the Post Office I think I made a very advantageous purchase for the nation of all the wireless stations throughout the

  1807
  country. But we had two years ago a Departmental Committee of the Post Office, the Admiralty, and the Board of Trade, on which we considered the question of enforcing compulsion on ships in regard to wireless, and we came to the conclusion that the matter was premature. I am quite sure that it would have been a mistake in the early days of wireless to have had compulsion. Hon. Members must remember that the matter is of very recent growth, and the system then was still developing, and I think that shipowners would have cause to complain if we had insisted on their adopting a system of wireless without being able to show that they would be able to obtain an efficient and proper system. A point which weighed very much with me at that time and does still though it is now modified, is that an efficient wireless operator is a man who must have had a considerable amount of experience and education before he becomes an efficient operator. If we had suddenly and prematurely enforced compulsory wireless telegraphy on all our ships what would have happened? We should have had on our ships, or very many of them, inefficient operators. In regard to wireless telegraphy those who are scientifically acquainted with the subject have all impressed upon me that the worst thing that could possibly occur would be to have inefficient operators, because they would interfere with everybody else's messages while not able to send messages themselves. I hope I have shown the Committee that premature action in regard to this matter might have done much more harm than good. I find from the figures that out of 850 ocean-going vessels no less than 314 of them have already wireless equipment on board, and there is a large increase in the number of wireless operators.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: How many have continuous service?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say that offhand. I think it is quite clear that the feeling is now that the time is ripe for extending the system of wireless telegraphy, and I am considering at the present moment the best method by which that object can be attained.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: At present, as I understand, the wireless operators are licensed by the Post Office. Will they be transferred from the Post Office to the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Post Office licence these operators, and the licence is one of a stringent character, requiring certain qualifications, and imposing conditions as to character and so on, in order that the work may be carried out efficiently. I cannot say what will be the final arrangement between the two Departments, but I for one should be very glad, m fact, that the Post Office itself should continue to license the operators. I hope, however, that the Noble Lord will not press me further on that point; it is a matter for further consideration. The question of life-saving appliances is the next point. The hon. Member opposite dealt with the question of the provision of boats and rafts on board ship. Without going into the actual merits of the question, I am bound to say my view is that there ought to be on all ocean-going ships enough boats and rafts for everyone on board. The Noble Lord referred to a certain form of raft, and I am very sure that some of the shipbuilders and shipowners whom I have had the honour of consulting believe that, under certain conditions, rafts of a certain form are more efficacious than boats. That, however, is a matter which will have to be gone into very carefully in order to see whether those rafts ought to be admitted under the new regulations. I may point out that since the "Titanic" disaster the Board of Trade have had an opportunity, by invitation, of considering, in consultation with those representing all classes of passenger ships, what the owners themselves propose to do. We have had the representatives of the great liners, the representatives of the shipping industry itself, the representatives of the cross-Channel services, and the representatives of the excursion steamers in consultation, and they all of them in every case came very willingly, and very willingly gave such information as we desired to obtain. Some time ago I told the House that the owners of practically all the ships over 10,000 tons have assured me that in future, as soon as circumstances permit—that is as soon as they can get the boats—they will in every case carry sufficient boat or raft accommodation for every one on board. Since then I have received further communications affecting the whole of the shipping industry of the country, and I have received assurances which I think should be a source of satisfaction to the public and to the House, that out of all ocean-going ships above 1,500 tons up to 40,000 tons, out of 661 vessels of that type, no less

  1809
  than 95 per cent, of the owners of those ships have already assured me that they intend to have on their vessels boat and raft accommodation for all on board. I think I have, already indicated that the whole of the ocean-going ships are covered by that undertaking.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Have they explained how they propose to launch their boats?
  Mr. BUXTON: I was going to deal with that question. It is of no good, of course, having a larger number of boats if they are not going to be readily available in case of necessity; and therefore I have had communication with the shipowners in regard to what I consider a very important point indeed raised by the Noble Lord, namely, the question of what I may call organisation, discipline, and manning. It is quite essential, in addition to drilling and other matters, that the boats should be surveyed from time to time. It is quite obvious, if these additional boats are provided, that unless the organisation is sufficiently satisfactory and kept up to the standard which the Noble Lord desires, a good deal of the advantage of the additional number of boats would be lost in the lack of organisation. I am glad to say that I have had a number of very encouraging letters and suggestions from various shipowners in regard to this matter, and I know that they are giving it their utmost attention. There is the further point on which I have had communications, namely, the third-class passengers. It is quite clear from what occurred on the "Titanic" that they are in a more difficult position to get at, and that they are not easily persuaded to go into the boats; but that is a matter, after the recent calamity, which I hope and trust is not likely to be repeated. I have been dealing with what I call the liners and ocean-going ships, but I am bound to say, on looking into the matter, that I am quite as much impressed with the question of the cross-Channel steamers and with the question of excursion boats. As regards the Channel steamers, I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with those concerned, and I am glad to say that they are all giving it the greatest possible consideration, with a view to seeing how far they can improve the boat accommodation.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Does that include class D—that is the class which carries no boats at all?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think there is only one vessel that carries no boats at all, and that plies only in Portsmouth Harbour. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any other case I shall be glad to inquire into it.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: There is a boat which plies near the Isle of Wight and in Cowes Harbour which has no boat accommodation.
  Mr. BUXTON: I will certainly look into the case, but I thought that the only instance was that of the boat which plies in Portsmouth Harbour and which is specially licensed. I shall be very glad to look into any facts with which the hon. Gentleman can furnish me. In regard to the cross-Channel steamers, I have been assured by the representatives of that class of vessels that they are giving the matter the greatest possible consideration. There are two cases in regard to which certain figures may prove of interest. One is the South-Eastern Company, and the figures show that their steamers last year made 2,697 trips across the Channel, and out of that number there were only 607 trips in which the vessels had not sufficient boat or floating seat accommodation, for all on board. They proposed themselves to endeavour to provide additional boat accommodation practically to cover all occasions, and be sufficient for all on board. All the cases where there were more persons than boat accommodation were in the day time, and not at night. In the other case, the London, Brighton, and South Coast Company, in only 12 per cent, of their passages did the number of passengers exceed the boat and floating seat accommodation provided. I hope the House will see that in these matters we have not been idle, and that, after all, the communications we have had with the various interests concerned, we have already done something towards dealing with this subject. The class of excursion steamers is a very difficult one to deal with. Unfortunately, there are economic and other considerations which make it very hard to know what is the best method to adopt in order to increase the life-saving appliances on board those vessels. It is a question in regard to which we are in communication with the various persons concerned, and it is quite possible I may have to ask for a further inquiry into the matter.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: When I was in command of those waters at Blackpool and

  1811
  the Isle of Man I ordered back two steamers on my own account for being overcrowded.
  Mr. BUXTON: I have been in communication with the owners, and, as I have been endeavouring to point out to the Committee, we have been really doing our best in regard to this question of the regulations. We have been in personal communication with all those who are interested in these matters in order to see, as far as possible, what they will do voluntarily in anticipation of our regulations, to bring the standard up to as high a level as possible. I have endeavoured to deal substantially with the various questions concerned, and I can assure hon. Members, when we frame the rules and regulations, if I find in any way they fall short of what we desire, I shall not hesitate for a moment to ask the House for greater powers in order that all these matters may be adequately dealt with.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir G. PARKER: I think everybody in the Committee this afternoon must have been interested in the air of detachment with which the President of the Board of Trade was able to take this very critical and difficult question. I have here every question that has been asked in this House during the last two months on this subject, and the President of the Board of Trade has emerged, or did emerge at the last moment, from that sea of confusion in which he had been since the "Titanic" disaster. At last he told us that in spite of Advisory Committees, in spite of Statutory Committees, in spite of conferences, he will now, by personal pressure and friendly pressure on the companies, see that higher qualifications and higher regulations are required of the shipping companies, so that there shall be lifeboats and rafts for every person on board.
  Mr. BUXTON: I had already announced my action as regards the larger ships, and what I have now announced is as in regard to the smaller ships over 1,500 tons.
  Sir G. PARKER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's reply is quite satisfactory. I asked the right hon. Gentleman on 23rd April:—
  "Is there any intention on the part of the Government to make any provisional revision of the Regulations of the Board of Trade, pending the result of the Court of Inquiry?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1912, col. 93].]
  1812
  The President of the Board of Trade replied that there was absolutely no such intention. He received applause from many portions of the House. On the following day, the 24th April, which will show that the right hon. Gentleman was really drifting from day to day and making up his mind from hour to hour, not by past experience, not by advice given over long periods by his Department, but, as pressure came about in this House, he was prepared to make his reply. What was his reply? The ex-Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) inquired whether—
  "he proposed to make any fresh regulations as to the number of lifeboats to be carried by passenger vessels.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1912, col. 1088.]
  The right hon. Gentleman's reply was:—
  "I do not think it will be necessary to await the final Report of thin Committee on a]l these questions, or the verdict of the Court of Inquiry before issuing any revised Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1912, col. 1089]
  I leave it to this Committee if the right hon. Gentleman knew his own mind. On one day he replies to me that the Government had no intention whatever of revising, regulations before the finding of the Court, and the next day, to a supporter from his own side, he replies that he intends to make a revision of the regulations before the decision of the Court of Inquiry. I have here all the extracts from the Official Report. I say that that is indicative of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors over a long period of years. In 1894, the last regulations were made. The next time where there occurred a period when the regulations should be revised, whether they had been revised meanwhile or not, was when the Bill of 1906 was brought in. When that Bill was brought in, it is perfectly clear that the sheet was clean, and that whatever the mistakes of the past had been the Government had arrived at that point where they must deal with the situation as it existed in 1906. The right hon. Gentleman may talk about his Statutory Committees, but when you came to the Bill of 1906, Statutory Committees and everything else must necessarily disappear in the light of the new Bill to control our merchant shipping. What happened? In 1906 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the Merchant Shipping Bill. During the discussion of that Bill myself and others raised the question of lifeboat accommodation, boat-drill, about the men in the boats, and as to the training of men to row the boats. When we did that, the Chancellor of the

  1813
  Exchequer said, "It will not be necessary. We are now dealing with the broad question of the load line and of accommodation for seamen on board the ships. We are doubling the accommodation on the ships, and we must leave this question of regulations to a responsible body which we are going to form, called the Advisory Committee," ridding himself of obligation there and then. I do not want to attack the Advisory Committee, and I certainly shall not attack the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman is taking up the position, and in effect said that he must not be attacked, and in effect that at any rate the Board of Trade must be attacked and the Advisory Committee must be attacked. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? I am in the hearing of the Committee. I have the right hon. Gentleman's words taken down at the time, and he said that responsibility must not fall on the Board of Trade alone—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said on Parliament."]—but on the original Statutory Committee that had been appointed.
  Mr. BUXTON: I was dealing with the point that a Statutory Committee had been formed for which Parliament was responsible. In regard to the question of responsibility, what I said was that that Committee and Parliament are in a sense responsible. I was not throwing the responsibility on them; I took the full responsibility and the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was showing now it was that the Board of Trade carried out those regulations and under what statutory conditions.
  Sir G. PARKER: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but my point is this, that he and his predecessor were responsible for relying alone upon the Advisory Committee for those regulations. He says that the regulations were laid on the Table of the House. We know perfectly well what happens when regulations are laid on the Table of the House. Unless there is some person who is very expert and knows thoroughly the whole case, it is very difficult to make proper revisions of those regulations. We naturally supposed that the President of the Board of Trade, fully supplied with information by his expert advisers, would have satisfied himself that those regulations were what they should be. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that he accepts, or his predecessor accepted, the
  1814
  judgment of the Advisory Committee or the Statutory Committee as complete, and so complete that he must not interfere with it, raises to my mind a later illustration of that kind of thing. A Committee on Irish finance reported to the Cabinet upon the financial relations between this country and Ireland. The Committee of the Cabinet refused to accept the recommendations of that Committee. Now, as it seems to me, if we are going to allow Ministers to ride off upon the decisions of their Advisory Committees, we are entering upon a career of responsibility from which the country must necessarily suffer. The right hon. Gentleman says now that there must be boats and rafts for everyone on board. We have had great confusion this afternoon in that respect. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), who, I have no doubt, attended the conference which advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, says that lifeboats are no security, and that if the passengers will only believe in the, safety of the ship and rely on that as their safety, that all will be well. That is exactly what the passengers on the "Titanic" did: they believed in the safety of the ship and trusted to the shipowners and to the regulations, and with what result—with the result which we all know. I believe that the Advisory Committee, and I say this without any disrespect, if the majority of shipowners hold the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite, must necessarily have reported as they did to the President of the Board of Trade. My Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford) holds the same view about that question. He says that he does not think that lifeboats are going to be any efficient guarantee, and that you must have your safety from bulkheads and the unsinkability of the ship. I would like to ask him what about fire. There the question of bulkheads disappears. Suppose there is a fire, what is to take the passengers off?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Under what conditions?
  Sir G. PARKER: Under conditions that have happened before. There have been fires on ships in spite of the modern steel and iron construction. Only a year ago there was a desperate conflagration of that kind. My point is this: that from first to last there has been confusion in regard to these regulations, whether they apply to lifeboats or whether they apply to boat drill, or whether they apply to the

  1815
  manning of the boats. The right hon. Gentleman tells us after all these years that there must be organisation, that there must be boat drill, and that there must be men capable of manning and rowing these boats in times of emergency. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors pooh-poohed this idea when it was first brought forward in this House after the "Titanic" disaster, and when Members of this House like myself, brought it forward in Committee upstairs on the Merchant Shipping Act. I frankly say after listening this evening to the Debate and looking back over what has happened during the last few months, I feel in a position of despair, and I believe when the public in to-morrow's newspapers read this Debate, and the right ton. Gentleman's statement, that they will not know what to think. The right hon. Gentleman has now decided that there must be full provision for every passenger aboard, in lifeboats and rafts. He has decided that there shall be organisation, and that there are to be regulations dealing with boat drill and with the manning of the boats. That very decision, what does it teach us? It teaches us one of two things, either that the Board of Trade and the expert advisers did not know their business, or that the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a position of authority, did not seek when pressed in the past, or when the regulations were before him, to probe the matter to its depth. It is not the "Titanic" alone. There was the "Oceana" disaster. That was another problem. It was not the problem of the lifeboats; it was the problem of lowering the boats from the davits, the problem of seamanship, the problem of the rolling of the boats. What happened? There was loss of life. To what was that loss of life due? It was due absolutely to lack of drill, to the lack of that organisation which the right hon. Gentleman is now going to bring into force without waiting for the decision of the Court of Inquiry.
  My attention was directed to this question thirty years ago, when two accidents occurred in the Indian Ocean on ships on which I was. There were accidents in which lives were lost, in one case four and in the other six, due to the fact that the boat drill was inadequate. Identically the same accident occurred to the boats that occurred upon the "Oceana." The boats dropped owing to the inefficient seamen,
  1816
  stewards or lascars, who held the ropes, with the result that people were precipitated into the water and lives were lost. We have been fastening our minds very much upon one thing, namely, the provision of lifeboats for these great vessels, with only one accident in mind, namely, the accident to the "Titanic." An hon. Friend of mine drew attention to another accident of a very serious kind, that which occurred to the "Berlin." Nothing was done by the Board of Trade after that accident or after that Court of Inquiry. The fact is, as I believe, the Board of Trade were depending upon the advice of those who, on the whole, were most interested in having the fewest lifeboats and the minimum of regulations compelling them to do things which they thought were not necessary. I think the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is quite sincere in what he says, but we can understand how his mind might move in that direction. We can understand that the fewer regulations there are the better he is satisfied. He takes his chance. He says that his ships are not insured, and that that is a good guarantee that his own company believes that there is safety for passengers in their ships, as otherwise they would insure. There is no safety at sea. Nature does her work in spite of all the mechanical and other skill of man. My Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford), who has had very great experience, and who this afternoon made a speech full of point and understanding, rests himself, like many other experts upon that which interests him most, upon the things which are most important to his mind. He believes there will always be enough lifeboats. He goes for bulkheads and the unsinkability of the ship. The President of the Board of Trade now goes for that. He goes for all. He is going to have sufficient lifeboats for all, organisation, manning, seamanship, bulkheads, and everything else. I am not at all sure that six months from now, when this inquiry has ended, when public anxiety has declined through other things of interest coming up, and the excitement has been allayed, unless we in this House insist upon regulations being drafted now in the light of this recent experience—and not of this alone, but the experience of the last twenty years—that we shall be in any better position than we were a month or so ago when the "Titanic" went down.
  I would make this appeal to the Committee. We are only a few of the Members of this House; but I am absolutely certain

  1817
  that the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon has not satisfied us on anything except one thing, and that is that political pressure from his own side—and many of us know how strongly Members on that side have felt regarding this disaster—and pressure from this side has induced the right hon. Gentleman, m spite of his advisers and Advisory and Statutory Committees, at last to take action, because the reputation of the Government and of himself depends upon it. But, in the light of the extracts which I have read this afternoon, I do not attribute the right hon. Gentleman's Motion to a clear understanding of what the position was regarding these regulations and the safety of ships. When I asked him what powers the Board of Trade had regarding regulations, and whether any regulations were framed to deal with the manning of boats, boat drill, the lowering and the rowing of lifeboats, he could make no answer. The next day an hon. Member on his own side asked the same question, and meanwhile the right hon. Gentleman had informed himself in the Board of Trade that the Government had power to make regulations, but that there were no regulations regarding these very essential things. I consider, and I believe my Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford) considers, that the manning of the boats and boat drill are of as much importance as the existence of the lifeboats themselves. Without such preparations you cannot have the advantage even of the safety provided—which my hon. Friend thinks is inadequate in time of rough water, but still the safety provided so far as it can be done by Parliament and by regulations under Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will have the support of this House if his mind is really awakened, and if he really means business concerning these matters. (Several HON. MEMBETS: "Oh."] I say that for this reason. When I remember the extraordinary influence brought to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade at the time the Merchant Shipping Bill was being discussed in Committee, and the influence which the Advisory Committee has had over the right hon. Gentleman and the present President of the Board of Trade, I am not willing, without some better evidence than the mere statement we have had to-day, to accept the belief that all is now going to be well with our merchant shipping and with safety at sea.
  1818
  The shifting of responsibility upon Advisory Committees or otherwise when a Report is made only tends to make a Minister uncertain of himself. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty, if a Report were presented to him by the Committee of Defence, would not speak, as the right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon, simply as a layman. He would speak as the civilian representative in this House of that civilian element in the State that has to be convinced of the policy which the Admiralty is going to pursue. In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak as a layman. He must in his position as a Minister speak as an expert. There is nothing occult in the knowledge which the Board of Trade may possess. The expert tells what is or what may be; he shows the facts, and those facts are to be understood of the ordinary intelligent mind. I know the right hon. Gentleman has far more than the ordinary intelligence. His responsibility does not cease with the Report of a Committee. It begins with the Report of the Advisory Committee or of his own officials in the Board of Trade. When a change of Ministers takes place at the Board of Trade or in any other Department, what happens? A change of policy occurs. It is the Minister who says to the experts, "We have a change of policy," and the experts must adapt their facts and information to that change of policy. It is no discredit to them; they are obliged to do it. It is their duty to obey their masters, who are the final arbiters of policy. I am not and never will be inclined to allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak merely as a layman.
  Mr. BUXTON: The only time I referred to being a layman was in reference to a technical point regarding bulkheads, raised by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford), and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holt). I said that from what I had seen myself, speaking as a layman, I agreed with the Noble Lord. Otherwise, I spoke as the Board of Trade, and I spoke for my experts and my advisers. I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly done me justice.
  Sir G. PARKER: It is quite possible that I have not done the right hon. Gentleman justice, but I am not afraid at all of the opinion of the Committee upon what I have said. I do not believe there is a Member who will not agree that the right hon. Gentleman has only now at this last minute, emerged into a position where he

  1819
  speaks with firmness and determination. I congratulate him upon it. I apologise if his own words led me to think he was speaking throughout his speech as a layman. I will regard him now as the expert, and since he is the expert all his future actions will be considered from that standpoint.
  Mr. HUDSON: This is the only opportunity afforded us of bringing to the notice of the Department a matter of vital importance to our own industry, and one which must necessarily influence other industrial communities throughout the country. We thought, following the agreement of 19th August, 1911, that at least the Board of Trade, one of the parties to that agreement, would have stood their ground. It was never for a single moment doubted until early in the present year. The particular point to which I wish to call attention is one affecting Ireland. I have in my hand a copy of the "Irish Times" for 15th February last in which appears the alarming statement of the chairman of two of the premier Irish railway companies that they are not parties to the decision arrived at by the Royal Commission of 1911. That is the first intimation we received of an authoritative kind. Sir William Goulding, chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway, said:—
  "The Irish railway companies were not parties to the scheme arrived at by the English railway companies in the Report of the Royal Commission, but we are parties to the Conciliation Scheme of 1907, which was entered into for seven years, and we are going to continue this to its termination."
  That is very interesting, and especially— as I shall point out—when that particular railway company had become a party to the scheme of 6th November, 1907, and had adopted it. That scheme was, or ought to have been, in working order for lour years. This was the worst case against any railway company to be found in the whole of the United Kingdom. Even in 1911 no decision had been arrived at by the Conciliation Board. Presumably it had been in operation in the sense that it had been called together. Then we are told by the Chairman that they will continue the scheme in this way—a scheme which had run four years with nothing done and with three years longer to run.
  The next case is of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, that is, the second premier railway company in Ireland. The chairman of that company, as reported in his speech to the shareholders, said:—
  "In England one or two railway companies entered into a conference in which a representative of the
  1820
  Government took part, and came to an agreement, afterwards ratified by most of the British companies, the result of which a Royal Commission was appointed. This Commission made certain recommendations as to a modification in the working of the 1907 scheme. The Irish companies were not invited to the Conference. They were no parties to the agreement. They are in no way bound to the findings of the Commission."
  The company's position is that they are not concerned in any scheme which the English companies may have since adopted, but are still under the Conciliation Scheme of 1907, to which they have become parties. An interesting point about this, so far as the company to which I am referring is concerned, is that they presumably adopted the scheme early in 1908. But great complaint was lodged before the Royal Commission by the representative of the men in Ireland. Presumably the Conciliation Board, sectional and central, had been in existence at an early period of 1908; yet it was only in 1911 that they reached the point to which I have referred. Four years had gone before they really got to a settlement of any important matter. Let me illustrate the speed at which things move. It will show the Committee, I think, that there is no serious intention of allowing the 1907 scheme really to have fair play. On 4th June, 1910, the company's secretary agreed to a meeting of the Board on the 27th of that month. He subsequently wrote that "as no representatives' application had been received from the head porters, the lamp-men, and other grades, the Board could not deal with any application," presumably because their several names and grades were not set out at the head of petitions they sent in.
  This matter of course was naturally one which caused a great deal of irritation. On 20th June a meeting was arranged which was subsequently cancelled for the convenience of the company's officer. I want the Committee to mark this especially. It was rearranged for 30th July, presumably because the company's convenience had been considered in the adjournment, but it was again adjourned till August. This is the evidence produced before the Royal Commission, and upon which grounds of complaint were brought against the Irish Companies. I want further to point out that in addition to the representative of the men, who appeared before the Royal Commission, the representatives of the premier companies in Ireland also gave evidence. I have a transcript of the evidence of Mr. Dent, of the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland, which confirms

  1821
  everything I have said in regard to the delay in this matter. The manager of the Midland Great Western does not contradict a single statement with regard to the delay. Yet, forsooth, we are told from the mouth of the chairman of the Great Northern that they are no parties to this Commission, and ignore the whole of its findings.
  The particular point I want to bring more forcibly before the Board of Trade is this: so soon as we became aware of the attitude taken up by these Irish companies we naturally became seriously alarmed. On 28th March I put a second question to the President of the Board of Trade on the matter, and his answer was that the Irish railway companies were not represented at the conference which resulted in the settlement of 19th August, or In the agreement of 11th December, and they did not undertake to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission. "I should," he said, "have been glad if the Irish companies had seen their way to adopt the new scheme of conciliation, but in all the circumstances I cannot regard them as being under a binding obligation to do so." If that is the position taken up by the Board of Trade it becomes necessary to ask them what about their original position as being one of the three parties to the agreement of 19th August? Refer to the warrant to the Commissioners who were chosen to inquire into the matter. What are the terms of reference? For the life of me I cannot see where the 1907 scheme exists at all. After the Commission has reported, and after the findings have been adopted by the Board of Trade. The terms of reference to the Commission—these are the words embodied in the Report, are—
  "To investigate the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable with a view to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of differences."
  That is signed by the principal railway companies and by the representatives of three trade unions of railway employés at the Board of Trade on 6th November, 1907. There is not a single word in this Report, and in the findings of the Commission that exempts Ireland from the result of the work of the Commission. Moreover, if Ireland is not included, then the whole Report comes to nothing. Wales can say the same thing; so can Scotland; so can any portion of England. Because there is no line drawn; no single sort of exemption is made from one end of the Report to the other. I want the Board of Trade really to
  1822
  reconsider their position, because it becomes a serious matter so far as we are concerned. If an important matter like this is not to be seriously followed up, and a State Department in an industrial community is not to hold the balance fairly and equitably between all the parties concerned; if it is not to use its influence evenly, then, of course, the whole system of conciliation is going to be undermined. For some years I have used my best influence in favour of conciliation at times when I have been subject to most adverse criticism. I consider a scheme, equitably and fairly balanced between the parties, the best piece of modern machinery for regulating the relations of employers and employés. If the attitude taken up recently by the Board of Trade is a correct one, I cannot any longer advocate the same course. It only remains for an employer to say that he objects to anything of the sort for the Board of Trade to say in a weak halting fashion: "Oh, we think you are right." I want to point to another important matter. Quite recently we were told on the part of a small company in London that they were not under the scheme of 1907, and consequently it is a matter of doubt as to whether the findings of the Commission of 1011 were on that account applicable to them. If I were to argue the point I should say it was applicable, but let me take another case. In 1908, after the adoption of the scheme of November, 1907, we had one large and influential railway company, where it is generally pretty warm, and the men were ready to hand in their notices. They did not adopt the scheme of 1907. They received a communication from the Board of Trade that they had no right to strike or to hand in their notices unless they had tried the Conciliation Scheme which the Board of Trade had offered in November previous. That was the reply the men got to their attitude, and, if that was a right attitude for the Board of Trade to take up then, why does not the Board of Trade take up the same attitude now with regard to the Irish companies? The Commission of 1911 had power to go into the whole matter and to recommend, without reservation, what alterations should be made with regard to the application of the conciliation machinery in the future. When that Report came out we stated unhesitatingly that we did not like the scheme. I myself did not hesitate to say that the scheme was weak and halting, but I said under the circumstances I am ready

  1823
  to recommend the men to work it, and to make the best of it, and I did so. But now, apparently, we are not to have a general application of that scheme in an honest and straightforward way by all parties concerned. Apparently the men are not to get much encouragement to work it, and we must cease advocating the application of such machinery as this unless it has a general application and unless we are assured there will be impartial treatment by the Board of Trade of the companies and the men.
  We ask for no preferential treatment whatever, but we say that the scheme of 1907 was entirely changed by the Royal Commission. It was determined that the Commission's Report should apply, and no one has a right to claim that they are outside it. It may be asked what about the interview and its results; what about the conference between the men and the employés in Great Britain last autumn. I readily admit that the Board of Trade was given away in that matter by the Conference itself. The very title of its Report reads "Railway Companies in Great Britain." Consequently that, of course, puts Ireland out. But apart from that the railways of Ireland are as legitimately within the scheme of 1911 as the railways of London or any important railway of this country. Otherwise your scheme goes. There cannot be two sides to the question, and unless the Board of Trade are prepared to stand in loyally as they did at the time then I have to Bay that we cannot further be parties to it at all.
  What is the complaint set out here by one of my successors as secretary to the organisation in Ireland? The West Clare case was quoted. It is quite true that is a light railway, but why should not the Conciliation Scheme have been adapted to that? It would have saved the whole situation, and prevented a disastrous strike. I say that unhesitatingly. I know the whole circumstances of the case, although I was not in charge of it at the time. It was also asked for by the men on the Dundalk, Newry, and Greenore Railway yet owing to the opposition from the other side it was not applied. Two of the other great companies in Ireland—I say it with all respect, and with due deference to the gentlemen who form the managerial board, are the greatest sinners against the smooth working of the 1907 scheme. The Great Southern, one of the largest railways in Ireland, was the worst of all. Then we are
  1824
  told, after the Report of the Royal Commission, and when we expected it to come into operation, that the chairmen of these companies met their shareholders in February of this year, and said, "We are not parties to it. We are going to stick by something that we adopted four years ago," but if they had been honest they would also have said, "something which we did not allow to work." I do not think I can impress too strongly upon the Board of Trade the need for urging on the railway companies the necessity of working honestly, fairly, and equitably their side of these Boards, and of recognising that when a system of this character is in existence it can only be worked by mutual consent and by the coming together of both parties, sitting round a table and forming a scheme mutually agreed upon between the two sides. The workers want this scheme to be operative. The men from Dublin, Cork, and Queenstown want it to be operative. The men on the Great Northern line from Dublin to Belfast want it to be operative, and I do hope the Board of Trade will take a more serious view of this important matter than they have done in the past. I do not know of anything that is more likely to do greater damage at the present time than a weak, halting kind of method which merely acquiesces in objections raised from time to time by these respective companies. If the Board of Trade can come down with such an emphatic expression to the men when they are likely to take matters into their own hands, and tell them that these Boards were instituted for the purpose of safeguarding against industrial strikes, why not at the same time use the same influence with the railway companies in regard to a system which has been in existence and has been created for the exact purpose of preventing industrial difficulty as between the two parties?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: During a recent Debate on industrial unrest, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather deprecated the tendency existing to-day on the part, as he put it, of the industrial workers to view with some misgiving the intervention of the Board of Trade, and he very clearly emphasised the fact that owing to the suspicions with which the workers view the intervention of the Board of Trade it might be very difficult for the Board to intervene successfully between employers and employed, I ventured to interrupt him by saying that the workers were suspicious of the Board of Trade because invariably

  1825
  their experience proved that the Board of Trade took the side of the employer as against the employé. I admit that that is an unfortunate statement to have to make, but it is more unfortunate that the facts prove it to be so. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford shakes his head.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I only hope it is not true.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I shall endeavour to demonstrate that it is true. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has proved by the statements he has made that it is true. As he pointed out in regard to one Irish railway company that was not a party to the Conciliation Scheme of 1907 when the men of that company decided to withhold their labour in order to enforce their demands, the Board of Trade stepped in, and said, "We will compel you to adopt the scheme of conciliation which the Irish railways companies point blank refused to accept. But when it came to the findings of the recent Royal Commission the Board of Trade answered by saying, "We regret we are unable to compel the companies to accept them." I submit to this Committee that if they could enforce the decision when it affects the employés they ought to be in the same strong position to enforce the decision when it affects the employers. But I go further, and I say that either the Prime Minister has broken a pledge or he has failed to recognise his duty to the railway companies. When he met us, and I was one of those present, he solemnly declared that if we accepted the Royal Commission, not only would the findings of the Commission be put into operation, voluntarily if necessary, but if any of the companies refused legislative enactment would follow to compel them to accept them. That statement was made to us before we settled that dispute in August. It is clear that a number of the railway companies gave evidence before the Commission, and, as my hon. Friend has clearly shown, the Royal Commission Report was based, not upon the evidence of England alone, but upon the evidence of Ireland as well. The only quibble and the only point they are now trying to get out of in regard to this obligation is that when the conference took place it amended the scheme. The railway companies in Ireland sent a letter to the chairman of the Royal Commission intimating that they, the Irish companies, would not be bound by any decision at that conference. They did not
  1826
  say they would not be bound by the findings of the Royal Commission, but they simply said they would not be bound by any amendments that were made in the scheme. Therefore, what my hon. Friend has pointed out is that whilst we think they ought to be compelled to accept the amended scheme, certainly there ought to be no excuse for compelling them to accept the findings of the Royal Commission which the Premier promised, if necessary, should be enforced by legislative enactment. I submit that with such evidence as this how can you expect the workers to take kindly to conciliation. Let the Committee remember that we are pleading for conciliation. This is not a case when the employers are saying that the workers are obstinate and will not listen to reason, and will not listen to any conciliation method. This is a case where we, as the representatives of the men, are coining to this House, before a dispute takes place, and we are pleading that conciliation and arbitration shall be the method adopted for settling industrial disputes.
  I submit that it is an unanswerable case that we put forward when we say that if the Board of Trade at this moment feel they have not the power to compel the Irish railway companies to adopt this scheme, then the promise of the Prime Minister ought to be carried out, and they ought to come to this House and get the power which I believe would be given to them, and that would tend to the smooth working of the railways in Ireland. My primary object in taking part in this discussion was to draw the attention of the Committee to the terrible mortality existing on our railways to-day. This afternoon every speaker was moved in asking for Board of Trade intervention because at a given moment the nation was stirred by the awful disaster to the "Titanic." No hon. Member of this House would have pressed the Board of Trade in regard to the provision of life-saving appliances but for the fact that 1,400 people lost their lives at one moment. Does the House remember and realise that taking the last thirteen years there has been no less than 6,286 railway men killed and 214,417 railway men injured in thirteen years. To put it in another way, every week there are nine railway men killed and 500 injured. I submit that whilst it is necessary to consider the terrible accident and all the lessons that may be learned from the disaster I have described, certainly it does come home to us, and ought to appeal to

  1827
  us when we say that a large number of the railway men killed are lives that might have been saved. It is because of the gravity of the situation that I want to try if possible to prove the awful indictment which I make that, in our opinion, at least railway men are unnecessarily killed and injured. I wish to draw particular attention to the condition of platelayers. Of all classes of men they are the most poorly paid of all grades in the service. A most astounding fact, and a most terrible position, is that nearly 50 per cent, of the platelayers injured annually are fatally injured. In the year 1906 there were 101 platelayers killed and 126 injured. In 1907 there were 89 killed and 175 injured. In 1910 there were 90 killed and 116 injured. The House will clearly see from those figures that nearly 50 per cent, of the accidents are fatal. In regard to the accident that happened in Scotland last year a Government inspector was sent to investigate the matter, and this is what he said:—
  "I pointed out to the officers of the Company the absurdity of making rules for the observance of which the foreman ganger or leading man was responsible, and then making no provision for the presence of a leading man to take charge of the squad during the necessary absence of the foreman ganger. I was told on the North British it is not the custom to appoint persons as leading men in the gangs, the reason given being that men were unwilling to accept the responsibility of such a position. It is difficult to regard this explanation as satisfactory, for in every walk in life it is always possible to find men willing to serve in positions of responsibility when it is made worth their while to do so. To leave a squad of eight men working in the four-foot way of a busy line without anyone in authority over them is open to severe criticism. It is pathetic to think of these men carrying out the duties which had been laid upon them, waiting for the word of command to cease work or to seek safety which never comes, because there is no one to give it, or listening to the shout of warning which, owing to the negligence of the look-out man, comes too late. It must be admitted that a considerable number of the accidents appear to be due to the men's own want of caution, but this only proves that the men are so helpless that it is all the more necessary to protect them, and not turn them on to a railway like a flock of sheep without a shepherd to guide them."
  That is not the indictment of a Trade Union official, and it is not the indictment of an interested person, but it is the indictment of Colonel Yorke, the Chief Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade. I submit to this Committee that there is not in the annals of any Board of Trade report a stronger indictment against a railway company than is there made. But we have to say when that report is made and when the Government Inspector points out as he did in this case that these poor platelayers' lives might have been saved, no notice whatever is taken of his
  1828
  complaint. No uniform system of providing a look-out man is in operation to-day. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mayne, another inspector of the Board of Trade, said in his report of an accident that happened at Pendleton on 10th January this year:—
  "This dangerous place where this accident happened was also pointed out by me in 1906."
  Or in other words, somebody was killed in 1906, and the Government Inspector says this is a dangerous spot and some inquiry ought to be made into this matter. In 1911 he is called upon to again investigate another fatal accident, and his comment is—
  "If notice had been taken of what I said in, 1906 this man would have been alive to-day."
  I submit that this is culpable negligence. I say that this matter is too serious to treat indifferently. When nine men are killed every week and 500 injured, whatever we may say of the duties or responsibilities of railway companies, it is the duty of this House to say that human life is too precious to be treated indifferently, and that widows should not be made when railway companies could stop it if they were so minded.
  Let me pass for a moment to another side of this question. I think I showed to the House the other evening the tremendous development that has taken place in our railway system to-day. The speeding-up system, the increased loads and the tendency to economy all go to aggravate the situation and to prove that the increase in accidents is due very largely to the manner in which the men are being harassed. The result is that there is a system of propulsion on our railways to-day which was practically unknown in my experience of the railway service, which was seldom put in operation when I myself was an engine-driver. Notwithstanding these increased loads, the same system of propelling wagons is on the increase to-day, with the result that the accident mortality is increasing. On that point one has only to turn to the Board of Trade to find that they themselves condemn this practice. Major Pringle, in a report that he made, strongly deprecated this situation. In conclusion, I wish to represent to the Board of Trade that it is not sufficient for them to piously say we are making inquiries; it is not sufficient to put off the day, but they ought to realise that they are responsible to this House, and if they have not power to deal with this all important matter, then at least they should come to this House and get the necessary authority.

  1829
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.

  MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HARWOOD: 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."
  I am very sorry to have to intervene in the most important discussion going on, but I tried to persuade the authorities to put this Bill down at a time when it would not interfere with any important business. It was put down for to-night, and I have nothing to do but to take up my duty in regard to it. I should like, in the first place, to say the question involved is a far more important one than the welfare of any particular community. The principle for which I am appealing to the House is that this House is the ultimate protector of the public. When capitalists and well-organised and wealthy people have discussions before Committees it is for this House to see that the public interests are properly guarded. It has been said to-day by some of the local papers, "Why should Members from Southern counties and from Ireland intervene in local matters?" That is a very narrow view of the duties of a Member of Parliament. Every Member of Parliament, no matter from where he comes and no matter what constituency he represents, is bound to take his part in maintaining the supreme duty of the House, which is to guard the welfare of the public. I do not blame the Committee, far from it, but surely Members who know anything about the proceedings in Committee must know how very partial is the presentation of most of the cases. You cannot go before a Committee unless you have a locus standi, and, not only must you have that, but you must have money and organisation, and that is just what the public very
  1830
  often do not possess. The public moves slowly; the public has no money, and the consequence is that the public is in danger of being wrung between the upper and nether millstones of capitalism. We can, therefore, only come to this House to ask it to perform its primary duty of caring for the interests of the public as distinct from the interests of any particular set of people who had gone before the Committee.
  This Committee of the Lords which sat upon this Bill naturally decided upon the evidence before it, and I am not questioning the decision at which they arrived, but I do say, first of all, that the question was not in a position in which it should have been brought before a Committee either of the Lords or the Commons. I say, secondly, that the people most concerned, and that is the public, were never heard at all, and the consequence is we have to come back to this House as the refuge for helpless causes, and all hon. Members are bound to take their part in vindicating that primary duty of the House. It may be said, "You are delaying the community of Manchester by asking this House not to send this Bill to a Committee of the House of Commons." I do not think the business of Manchester is suffering anything material, but I am quite certain it is for the welfare of that business in the long run that the most important matter should be wisely settled. There have been some years of delay, and it will be worth putting up with the inconvenience of a little more delay in order that a wise conclusion may be arrived at. Personally, I have no interest in this matter beyond the fact that I was brought up in Manchester and was a student in its university. I was a citizen there for some years, and, if I shall not be considered to be using extravagant Iangauge in connection with a place like Manchester, I may say I have every reason to love the city, and to serve it to the best of my ability. I am convinced that what little I have ever done for Manchester is nothing in comparison with the service I shall do it to-night if I can persuade the House to take my view of the matter.
  The House, perhaps, does not know altogether the importance of the Exchange to the commercial life not only of the city of Manchester, but of the whole of Lancashire. Manchester is the metropolis of Lancashire. Two days a week, at any rate, and on most other days too, the Exchange of Manchester is frequented by persons engaged in business from all parts of the

  1831
  county. I believe it is the largest gathering of business men in the world, and Members of this House who happen to be in Manchester on a Tuesday or a Friday would do well to go on the Exchange and see one of the most impressive sights of its kind that can be seen in the world. Therefore, one of the most valuable assets the city of Manchester possesses is this fact of it being the metropolis of Lancashire. Trade of all kinds is drawn towards Manchester as to a centre, and the very heart of that trade is the Exchange. The present Exchange has become much too small, and it is necessary that enlarged accommodation should be found somewhere. I maintain, and I am speaking, I know, the conviction of the bulk of the general public of Manchester, that the present Exchange is not in the right place, and that to enlarge it, as has been passed by the Committee, would be exceedingly unwise and inadequate. There is another factor in the problem which the House should bear in mind. The situation of the present Exchange is in the most congested part of the city. It is not, as was stated before the Committee, in the centre of the business portion of Manchester. It is on the very outskirts of it, and such business as comes to the Exchange has been spreading enormously round the Piccadilly site. I wish hon. Members to realise what a peculiar and striking piece of Providence, if I may say so, there is in this matter. The Manchester Infirmary stood on the finest open space in Manchester. The infirmary has been removed out of the town, and the corporation have bought what may fairly be described as one of the finest sites in the world—a site which requires to have upon it an adequate building of the most modern kind.
  The public of Manchester are rapidly coming to the conclusion that it would be a wise thing, instead of patching up the Exchange, as proposed, by a plan which does not give one large hall, but two halls separated by lines of pillars—the public is coming to the conclusion that the best thing for Manchester and for its trade would be to build a new Exchange on the Piccadilly site and to buy out the other Exchange and use that for a public library, at any rate for the time being. Such is the progress of Manchester, and such will be its progress, that I believe, in a few years, it will be necessary to pull down the present Exchange in order to find room for the now overcrowded and congested
  1832
  tram and other traffic. It would, therefore, be an extremely unwise thing to enlarge the present Exchange at a cost of £1,000,000 on a site which will, I am quite certain, in ten years' time be required for other purposes. The Piccadilly site is an open space with broad pavements all round. It is in a central and most accessible part from a business point of view. This is a matter of great importance for the future of Manchester. I can give another reason in support of the arguments I am laying before the House. Five million pounds of the ratepayers' money has been invested in the Ship Canal, and it has been, I think, a most wise venture. Before the construction of the canal Manchester was going down; since then it has prospered and gone forward by leaps and bounds. There is one drawback from which it is suffering, and that is that the canal will never pay back that £5,000,000, and the people will never get the money back unless Manchester can find accommodation for a proper market for cotton. Cotton is the staple industry of Lancashire, and the Manchester Ship Canal must depend on its carriage in order to secure a proper return for the people's money. There is no possibility of finding such a market in the present Exchange, and it is only by building a new Exchange, on an open site, with plenty of light, air and space all round, that it will be possible for Manchester to get such a market as is needed. I repeat that without such a market the millions which have been put into the canal will never be recovered.
  We can therefore see how important this matter is for Manchester in every way. I do not wish to throw any doubt on the Committee. We all know how Committees work. One cannot go before a Committee unless he has a locus standi, or unless he has plenty of money in his pocket in order to fee barristers and to pay costs. The public never heard of what was taking place in this matter; it has been in fact another instance of the dumb and helpless public which is so often crushed by our method of legislating. It is said that the corporation appeared before the Committee and were content with its findings. Let me remind the House that the Manchester Corporation is in a very delicate position in this matter—a position in which its own opinion has not been defined. In the year 1906 the proprietors of the Exchange recommended the very course which I am recommending to-day, but the

  1833
  council could not see its way to take the matter up, because there was no public opinion behind it. But in recent times public opinion has been forming rapidly, and I believe that not one man in ten in Manchester who has given any consideration to the matter, but believes that the position of the Exchange ought to be altered. The corporation called witnesses on this particular point, and those witnesses, including the late Lord Mayor, favoured the removal of the Exchange to the Piccadilly site. I do not want to say anything at all unpleasant on this point. But since the corporation, in 1906, made this proposal, the property owners around the present Exchange have got frightened, because they think their property is going to be deteriorated. They are the people who are now pressing this matter forward, and are urging this House to consent to a settlement in order that they may be saved the impending loss. The people who are behind this Motion are those who are frightened for their own property. They are not advocating it because they believe it is the wiser plan, but they are doing so because they think it will be the best means of attaining their private ends.
  Anyone who descended from another planet upon Manchester, if one could imagine such a thing, could not help seeing at once the advisability of adopting this site for a new Exchange. It has been suggested that it is too far from the railway station. But that is a small matter, and I believe that if the site were adopted new streets would quickly be formed which would bring it within practically the same distance of Victoria station as the present Exchange. That is not the point. The point is the broad general point that the Exchange ought to be on that site which is now empty. To show how the Corporation has been moving in this matter, let me say that when I first took up this question the Corporation had resolved to build a library and art gallery on that site, and they said they could not go back upon their decision. What has happened? They have gone back upon their decision. They have found the rising tide of public opinion so strong that they have rescinded the resolution to build a library and art gallery on the site, and have left the matter open, in order that the community may be consulted, and may declare its mind, which it is rapidly doing. Not only do I say that the Exchange ought to be on the infirmary site, but I say that that Exchange ought to be the property of the
  1834
  public. In these Socialistic days, if I may call them so, we have moved very rapidly in the direction of public proprietorship of enterprises of this kind. All the enterprises of the city of Manchester are practically in the hands of the public. What is the case of the present Exchange? I joined that Exchange as a member shortly after it was built, and I remember even in those days, when people had not got so far in their conceptions of public proprietorship as happily they have now, saying, "Why is not this Exchange built by the community?" Had it been so twenty years ago, that Exchange would have belonged to the people. Now I suppose £750,000 will have to be paid for it by the public.
  Unless Manchester has a really proper Exchange, its trade will be throttled and its progress retarded. If Manchester is to have a proper Exchange, that Exchange must fulfil certain conditions. In the first place, it must be put in the right place. In the second place, it must be the right kind of Exchange. Here I would call the attention of the House to the enormous difference it would make if you built a new Exchange, fitted for the trade requirements it has to fulfil, instead of a botched bit of one ugly lump being appended to the side of another ugly lump. That is what it would amount to. The present Manchester Exchange is an eyesore, and you are going to increase that eyesore by adding to it another piece, I suppose equally ugly, and in order to do that you are going to pull down some of the most valuable property in the city, in the very centre of St. Ann's Square. On the other hand you have the site now vacant, a site which belong to the Corporation, a site for which there is no necessity fo rany other building to be put upon it, and a site which can alone be made worthy of its possibilities by having put upon it a fine building. You can do that, and do it well, for the money that will be required to do this patched job. Financially, the community will be an enormous gainer. According to calculations, which have been gone into very carefully, by municipalising the Exchange and putting it upon this site, you would have an income at once for the ratepayers of from £8,000 to £20,000 a year. In fifty-five years the Exchange would belong to the community, free of cost, as also would be the site, consequently you could then, as is done in some cities, throw the Exchange open at a small charge, or even at no charge at

  1835
  all. What has been done now by this Committee? They have put no restriction on the subscription to the Exchange. For years and years while I was a member the subscription was three guineas a year. It has been raised, and the Chairman of the proprietors said they might manage to make it pay by having a subscription of six guineas. That is very important to the trade of Lancashire. A great many of its members, whom I know very well, are poor men struggling to make a living, and only making a very spare living. To make them pay three guineas more a year will be a very serious impediment to their progress, and consequently a serious drawback to the prosperity of Lancashire.
  I ask the House in this matter to help us to put this Exchange upon modern lines—modern in the arrangement of the Exchange itself, modern in its situation, and above all things, modern in its finance. What has happened with the present Exchange? The proprietors of the present Exchange have always paid 8 per cent, dividend, besides forming some reserve. It is monstrous that the trade of Lancashire should be bled in order to find 8 per cent, stated dividend for a number of private persons who do nothing at all for the community. When the Corporation can borrow money at 3½ per cent, it is bad business to allow a great undertaking of this kind to be carried on under private enterprise which requires an 8 per cent, dividend. I have pointed out that while getting a profit from the beginning, you could also form a sinking fund, so that in the lifetime of people now living the Exchange would belong to the whole community. That will be an advantage of untold value to the whole trade of Lancashire. I speak as a person who knows a good deal of the trade of Lancashire. I have been more or less connected with this present Exchange for forty years, and I claim that I know the feeling of Manchester as well as if I were a Member for it. You may say that the Corporation agreed to this Bill going forward. Did they? The Corporation were in a very awkward position. Before the public had awakened to the idea of a municipal Exchange on the Piccadilly site, the Corporation had been negotiating with the proprietors about an extension of the present Exchange, which was the only thing they then thought of. The proprietors proposed a small extension, but the Corporation asked for a larger extension, and it
  1836
  was only when they came to the Committee that they found that the proprietors had agreed to that larger extension. The consequence was, seeing that that larger extension was what they had always been asking for, they could not in decency in a certain sense absolutely refuse it, because they had not yet got authority from the community. The Corporation appointed some time ago a committee to consider the whole matter, and to enter into negotiations on the lines that I have been suggesting, but that committee has never met because this Bill has been rushed forward without giving them and without giving the community time to consider it in order to prevent this removal of what they think an injury to the property holders of the neighbourhood.
  When the Corporation accepted this Bill Mr. Balfour Browne, who represented the Corporation, said, "Do not give the proprietors of the exchange a free hand to do what they like with it or to let it or not. We ask you to suspend it for six months, till the 1st December, 1912, in order to allow a scheme to be brought before the Corporation. The Corporation will consider it, and I think they will be able to agree to a scheme. If the scheme is agreed to the Bill can go forward; if not it ought not to go forward." That is quite clear; he agrees with this important reservation. The Committee has taken no notice of its complaint; it has taken no notice of anyone's complaint; it simply passed the Bill and handed over the destinies of the trade of Manchester and Lancashire, so far as the Exchange is concerned, to these private proprietors. They can charge what they like, they are under no limitations as to the subscription, and, as far as I understand, no plan of this extension has yet been seen. They sprung it upon the Corporation and the Corporation did not know of it until they went to the Committee. Their representatives all favour the idea of taking the exchange to the Picadilly site. Anyone who knows the problem knows that it is still in solution. It is moving forward rapidly, but it has not yet moved with sufficient rapidity to define exactly the requirements of the time. I find, for example, it has been stated that the subscribers to the Exchange are not in favour of this movement because some of them will have further to walk. Last August these subscribers were asked to vote on the question. There are 5,300 firms, many of whom have two or three representatives, and of them 3,200

  1837
  voted for removing the Exchange to the Picadilly site, and only 400 against it. Even subscribers favour this transfer to the Picadilly site, but when you come to consider the welfare of the community there can be no question. What right has any Committee of either House to deprive the citizens of Manchester of a very large immediate income? [An HON. MEMBER: "They acquiesce."] I say they do not acquiesce. I have read the acquiescence of the Corporation of Manchester, and it was after saying that we have asked the proprietors, before we thought of this other thing, to extend in this way, we cannot now turn round and say we will not have it, but what we say is that we will not have it unless under certain conditions, and one condition is that this thing shall be arrested until they have had time to consult and have agreed upon a scheme. How can hon. Members call that acquiescence when the committee pay not the slightest attention to it? If the Committee had agreed to this reservation, and had shown any care for the welfare and the opinion of the community as a whole that would have been different, but in the most bald manner they have simply passed the Bill. They have put a rope round the neck of the trade of Manchester. They have allowed it to be handled by these proprietors, who have no interest in its welfare. They are mostly trustees of money and bloodless people of that kind. I therefore say that the public comes to us to-night and says, "Until we have had time to make up our mind, do not put it into the power of any committee to anticipate our decision or to take this very vital element in the prosperity of Manchester and do with it that which ought not to be done, if the welfare of Manchester is to be considered." I am quite certain that the public of Manchester will be bitterly disappointed if this House consents to let the Bill go to a committee, because they can only hear the people who come before them. They can only hear the people who have money and who can bear their share, and a large share, of the expense. But the great public of Manchester has no committee and no money and no organisation, and it is for this House to take care that the public of Manchester is not dealt unjustly with and prematurely put in an improper position merely because it has no locus standi before the committee.
  Lord BALCARRES: That is not the case.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I am stating what I believe to be the facts of the case. I say that the course which I recommend would be the best for the proprietors. They will get paid the full value of their property, as now, without running the risk of spending another £1,000,000 with a very doubtful prospect of getting an adequate return. They get 8 per cent, on their ordinary capital, and always have done.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am not asked by the promoters of the Bill to say anything about it, but I happened to read this in the leaflet which has been circulated. The hon. Member says he and others have no locus standi. That is technically true, but the promoters in this paper say they are quite willing and have offered to the hon. Member and those whom he represents permission to appear before the Committee, and though the period at which opposition can be offered under the terms of the Standing Order has expired, they are willing to facilitate in any way an application to the Standing Orders Committee for leave to appear. When an application of that kind is accepted by the promoters, the Chairman of Committees offers no opposition to an alteration in the Standing Order.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I am quite aware of that, but the House must consider my position. In the first place, I have no right to put myself forward as the representative of the public feeling of Manchester. I am speaking to-night as a general Member of Parliament who knows something of this question. I am not speaking as one having any right to intervene in the local affairs of Manchester more than anywhere else, but I do say that this is a case that comes under the general principle that any Member of Parliament is bound to do what he can for the welfare of the public. I quite appreciate the courtesy of being offered the opportunity of going before the Committee, but I am very modest in that matter, not having a commission from anybody to do so. In the second place, I find it would cost me a good deal of money. I would have to pay a considerable sum in fees of one kind and another, and I do not know that I am called upon to do that. I am inclined to do my duty within the sphere open to me as a Member of Parliament, but I neither have the right to put myself forward as a representative nor have I the duty of incurring the expense and anxiety of doing so. Therefore I think I shall be

  1839
  following the true traditions of this House by putting the case where it ought to be put in this House. I prefer to put it here rather than before the Committee, where the issues are narrowed and liberty of speech is not so wide as here.
  I am satisfied on the whole that those who vote for my proposal will earn the gratitude in the long run of everybody concerned. They will earn the gratitude of the proprietors, who will make an excellent bargain and be free from a great responsibility for the future. They will earn the gratitude of Lancashire, because that county will have provided as a centre for its trade a fitting meeting place, and they will earn the gratitude of the community of Manchester, because that community will have got possession of a property which will bring in immediately a large income and which ultimately will fall into its own possession without any charge whatever. I ask the House not to send the Bill upstairs to a Committee at present. I believe if the House decides to defer the matter to next Session, an arrangement will have been come to between the proprietors of the Exchange, the corporation, and the public. I feel quite certain from what I know of the feeling in Manchester, that an amicable arrangement will have been arrived at. I believe that arrangement will be best for everybody—best for the proprietors, the subscribers of the Exchange, the trade of Lancashire, and, above all, best for the community of Manchester.
  Mr. KING: I beg to Second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  I may justify my appearance in the position of Seconder by saying that I am a Lancashire man, that I owe everything, or, at any rate, more than I care to say, to Lancashire, its business and people, and that I have lived a great part of my life in that county. I am sure all those who are acquainted with the circumstances, whether from old experience or from having looked into the question, as I have thoroughly from the papers sent by both sides, will feel that the Manchester Exchange ought not to be in the hands of a company. It ought to be under a public body, and if possible, I should say, under the Corporation of Manachester. Secondly, I oppose the scheme because it is a patching up business, when we want a new concern. It patches up an inadequate building with an inadequate plan, and it
  1840
  neglects a great opportunity for having a grand and beautiful building in the very centre of Manchester. I feel it is with me a decisive point of view that an undertaking like this ought not to be in the hands of a company, however honourable, and however able the men at the head of it, but that it ought to be in the hands of a public authority.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Harwood) has favoured us with an eloquent and rather refreshing speech on so humble a subject as a private Bill. He has appealed to me to perform the most unpleasant duty of asking the House to vote for the rejection of the Bill. By a curious coincidence the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose duty it is to advise the House on matters of this kind, has also been a member of the Royal Exchange in Manchester for a great number of years, not so many as forty, named by the hon. Member, but, at any rate, for more than half of that period, so that apart from official duty I can speak with perhaps equal knowledge. During the last twenty years perhaps I have attended more frequently than the hon. Member for Bolton, and I have had more personal knowledge of the inadequacy of the present Exchange. I have had the advantage also in more recent years of hearing the opinions expressed by members who do business daily and weekly upon that Exchange. However, I do not think it will be necessary for me to combat all the arguments the hon. Member has so eloquently put before the House. I think his whole case is answered in his own words. I have in my hand a series of letters which the hon. Member has written to the leading paper of Manchester over a period of the last four years. They began on 2nd March, 1908, and they go on in June, July, August, September and October, 1910, and September and October. 1911—all of them advocating the very thing that he has been advocating on the floor of the House tonight. In these letters which are full of the picturesque eloquence with which the hon. Member delights the House, on two occasions he appeals to Diana of the Ephesians I notice, and he further gives some point about building a temple for business of which I am sure he would make a very fitting high priest himself. But the point is this. In the middle of this marvellous series of letters which I am sure would have moved, if his cause

  1841
  had appealed to the business men of Manchester, any community much less a community he knows so well as that of Manchester, he himself called a public meeting in Manchester, and in the terms of the report of the meeting which was held on the 13th August, 1910; though the meeting had been advertised and invitations had been issued to various people to come there yet all his eloquence and all his letters and the personal invitation from the hon. Member for Bolton only succeeded in bringing less than 100 of the citizens of Manchester to hear him. And when with an eloquence which I have no doubt was at least equal to that which we have heard in this House, he had put his scheme in full to the citizens of Manchester, out of the bare 100 citizens who came to hear him only forty held up their hands in support of this scheme. Now the hon. Member says that the floor of the House is the place to decide it. I do not deny the right of any single Member to come to the floor of this House, but of course it is my duty to put the facts of the case as I know them before the House in a plea that this Bill should go to a Committee where, in my opinion, it can only properly be examined. The hon. Member has said that, in his opinion, it is only on the floor of this House that questions of this kind can properly be examined. The Noble Lord opposite asked him a question about the question of locus standi before the Committee. When I heard of the hon. Member's opposition to this Bill I made it my business to see the promoters of the Bill and to put to them the question were they willing that the hon. Member, whether he spoke for himself or for a great body of people, should have a locus standi before the Committee, and the promoters immediately said that they would take no objection to his locus standi. Then there came the question that the date for presenting the petition had already expired, and I came to the hon. Member's relief, and offered to use the forms of the House—to move here a Motion, quite apart from the Standing Orders of the Committee—that ha and his petition should have the right to be heard. The hon. Member had said that it would involve great expense and the retaining of counsel. On the matter of expense, I believe that the fee for the deposit of a petition is £2 2s., and I do not think that that would ruin the hon. Member.
  Mr. HARWOOD: There are many other expenses.
  Mr. WHITLEY: I am coming to the others. There is the fee for counsel. I do not think that need alarm the hon. Member for Bolton. If I am not mistaken, he was, trained in the law himself, and I put that point to the promoters, and they agreed that they would hear him in person. Therefore I think that the matter is fairly clear. The hon. Member had his chance. He might have gone upstairs to the Committee with everything done for him, and he would have been able there, with maps on the walls, to have shown the Committee what, he thinks ought to be done in a way in which he cannot possibly do it before Members who come from all parts of the country, and who have not the same knowledge of Manchester as he and I are proud of having. One other question to which I may refer is his plea about the Corporation of Manchester. The Corporation of Manchester petitioned against this Bill in. the other House. They were heard at great length. They have also petitioned in this House, any they will be heard before the Committee of this House which considers the matter. I do not quite know how to put its requisite value on the hon. Member's plea that he knows public opinion in Manchester better than its corporation or better than any association of citizens. There is an association of the subscribers, and they, too, appeared on petition before the Committee of the other House, but I suppose the hon. Member knows that in their petition they did not allege any desire for the transfer of this institution to the site in Piccadilly. Surely that is sufficient for the House of Commons to decide that in spite of the eloquence and the interest in the public welfare shown by the hon. Member it would be far better to follow the usual course of this House in these matters and send a Bill of this kind up to a Committee where it can be investigated, with maps and witnesses who can be examined and cross-examined.
  With reference to what the hon. Member said as to finance, I notice that he proposes to disestablish and disendow the existing institution; but he makes, it seems to me, a little mistake in the matter of business finance. He proposes against the will of the Manchester Corporation, as expressed, to build a municipal exchange on a site that the Corporation have bought for another purpose, and it would be necessary, to carry out his plans, to carry on the new Exchange in competition with the old one. The hon. Member for the City will understand how the finances of a proposal of that kind will work out. You could

  1843
  not possibly have two Exchanges of that kind in a single city. There have been attempts at having two telephone exchanges in a single city, and they have not been a success. You would have compulsorily to buy out the private exchange at a very high rate and to put the whole of the cost plus the cost of the new site and building on the municipality, which I think the evidence shows is not likely to be a very profitable undertaking for the citizens, and you would have to devote a site which has been bought for public purposes for the whole city of Manchester to something which only interests a portion of the citizens, and perhaps is of more interest to traders who live outside Manchester than to those who live in the city itself. I think that the hon. Member, after having disburdened his soul of his scheme on the floor of the House, in addition to his ten or eleven times doing it in the city of Manchester itself may be well content to allow this Bill to go to a Committee which would deal with it, I have no doubt, carefully and promptly.
  Mr. NEEDHHAM: I support the course proposed by the hon. Chairman of Committees. In connection with this question of the extension of the exchange in Manchester, it is common ground among all parties that it is necessary, and I wish to say, of my own personal knowledge of the exchange, that the overcrowding of it has become a very serious matter, and that everyone agrees that the exchange ought to be enlarged. At first there was a certain amount of opposition by the Manchester Corporation to the proposal, but at the present time it is seen that the 9,800 members of the Royal Exchange of Manchester very much need this additional accommodation, and it is very pressing that steps should be taken to accommodate them. The hon. Member for Bolton has referred to the infirmary site, and I should like to submit one or two points to which the hon. Gentleman has not referred. The present Royal Exchange covers 5,500 square yards, and by the proposed extension the new building would cover an area of 11,032 square yards, more than double the present space, for the accommodation of all the members of the exchange, including a cotton market. With regard to the infirmary site, it is perfectly true that the corporation, when they purchased that site, did so under what I believe was a very general understanding that no area should be covered
  1844
  on that site larger than the area covered by the existing Royal Infirmary. I would like to quote what the Lord Mayor of Manchester (Mr. Alderman Royle) said in the year of the negotiations:—
  "When the bargain was completed it was he believed, with a distinct understanding that no greater area than was occupied at the time should be utilised for building purposes in the future, and, with that fact in mind, he for one would not deviate from that honourable understanding."
  Mr. WATT: Is that in the deed?
  Mr. NEEDHAM: No, it is not in the deed, but there was an honourable understanding between the president of the Royal Infirmary and the Manchester Corporation that a larger area than that already covered by the existing infirmary was not to be built upon. A good deal of interest was taken in the point by myself, as a member of the infirmary trustees, and I am entirely at one with what the Lord Mayor said in regard to the honourable understanding which existed. It would be impossible to build an adequate Royal Exchange on the infirmary land. It is common ground that we require double the present area, and if we are not to put a larger building on the infirmary site than the existing infirmary building, you are going to limit the area to 6,588 yards. The promoters of the Bill propose to erect a building on a site of over 11,000 square yards, and it is impossible for the hon. Member for Bolton to say that the infirmary site would be adequate for a Royal Exchange to accommodate 9,800 members, including a large cotton market. It would be utterly impossible, on his own showing, to build a Royal Exchange on the present infirmary site, in view, of course, of the honourable understanding which exists with regard to covering that site. The question of the Royal Infirmary site was fully gone into by the Committee of the House of Lords, and the subject was referred to, in addition, by the Manchester Corporation, who, in the course of their petition in the House of Lords, used the following words:—
  "Suggestions have been made to your petitioners for the transfer of the Exchange to a site now belonging to your petitioners, situate in Piccadilly, in the city of Manchester, and for the erection upon such site of a building which would be adequate to meet the growing requirements of the city."
  Consequently it will be seen that this matter was before the Committee of the House of Lords, and I do not think it is wholly satisfactory to suggest that the House of Lords Committee did not examine into that question. In regard to the present position of the corporation in respect of the Bill, Alderman Holt, of

  1845
  the Corporation of Manchester, was examined by counsel before the Committee in regard to the provisions of the scheme, and these questions were put to him:—
  "From the time the Board of Directors brought forward their scheme in 1908—the smaller scheme—has not your corporation throughout taken up this attitude with them: 'We will not support you unless you bring in a larger scheme'?—We have said nothing about support, but they would not agree to the small scheme. They did not think it a suitable scheme.
  "Did you not indicate clearly that we should have your support, if we brought in the larger scheme?—We indicated that we would support the large scheme. It does not necessarily follow that we should support you in all particulars.
  "Quite so. I do not quarrel with that answer."
  So it would appear that the corporation have practically supported the larger scheme put forward by the promoters. I believe I am absolutely correct in saying that their opposition is limited to the question of proper pavement for streets and matters of that kind—proper compensation for any street, area that is taken over. My last point is that the Bill has passed the House of Lords Committee after a lengthy examination of five days, and I think that the proper course is for this measure to be founght out upstairs. With that expression of opinion I heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill, which I trust will be passed.
  Mr. CLYNES: I shall intervene only for the purpose of stating the point of view which I know is entertained in Manchester by a considerable number of working people. I sympathise very much with the strenuous labours of the hon. Member for Bolton. I believe firmly that his motives are not merely admirable, but that they are in every sense of the term dictated by the very best wishes for the interests with which he has been long associated. I think he inclined to a scheme for establishing in the central part of Manchester a magnificent structure for commercial purposes, but I thought that, in some ten minutes after he had finished his speech, the whole foundation of his argument had been taken away, and that really it was necessary to say little to justify the transference of this Bill to the Committee upstairs. The great citizen view that he has expressed is one that I would like to support, but I feel compelled to take the view that first needs must have first attention, and while I will go as far as he will go, and further in the matter of municipalising a great undertaking, I must have regard to times and circumstances and to more pressing needs. If we are to municipalise a property because of the percentage that
  1846
  it makes, there are many enormous properties which should claim attention before the Manchester Royal Exchange. The only argument that is still left I think from his speech is the argument that the business people, the traders and shop keepers now doing business in the immediate vicinity of the present Exchange, are chiefly influenced by the usual traders and commercial man's idea, namely, to retain the highest degree of value in their business and their present property. That is quite a natural view for them to take, and quite a proper position for them to support. That is answered, I think, by the fact that it is a long, long time since we found any people in this country who were all for the State and never for themselves. Since the days when modern commerce began, I think it has generally been the case with traders and commercial people for themselves first, and the State as a secondary consideration. It is reasonable, I think, to conclude that a good many business people in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly and the suggested new site, are not altogether uninfluenced by the attractions and greater rewards that would follow from the transference of this great Exchange business to the suggested new site. That, indeed, is fully expressed in the circular already referred to in this Debate, and which says:—
  "The disruption of business and the inconvenience and loss which would he involved by the transfer from its present position to a new site some distance away of such a business as the Exchange in Manchester is enormous, and no benefit would accrue to anyone except the owners of property in the immediate neighbourhood of the new site."
  Suppose the immediate duty were imposed on the Manchester Corporation of establishing a great municipal Exchange on the Piccadilly site, that would involve enormous municipal cost, and would mean the sinking of an immense sum of money. I find that there are more pressing needs in Manchester that require to be met. We have undoubtedly thousands of poor people wretchedly housed in the congested parts of that city, and much as the corporation has tried to do in recent years to accommodate the growing population of that industrial centre, the efforts of the corporation have fallen far short of the needs of the case. If I had to choose between erecting a greater and more convenient home in which a comparatively small number do business for a comparatively small number of hours for a few days per week and finding, say, a million or three-quarters of a million of money to provide a few thousand homes for working-class families,

  1847
  I certainly would choose for giving that urgent accommodation to the poorer people of the city. I am very doubtful of the early return of which the hon. Member for Bolton spoke. It would take many years to complete any Exchange worthy of the city on that site in Manchester, and, as has been pointed out, the site was intended or designed, and I hope ultimately may be, for more glorious ends than would be met by the erection of a great business structure of that kind upon it. There is scarcely a case or argument in respect to the matter of the convenience to railway stations. The existing Exchange is within four or five minutes' walk, at even the ordinary business man's pace, of three out of the four principal stations in Manchester, and I know of no spot in the city where you could locate an Exchange more accommodating from that standpoint than the existing Exchange. I have been told that the speculation outlined in the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton is really too much of a speculation, and that a return from it is too remote and too problematical, and from the standpoint of immediate working-class needs. I would urge the spending of both public effort and municipal money upon the more immediate provision of working-class dwellings for the poor.
  Sir HAROLD ELVERSTON: As a member of the Manchester Corporation I was one of the Committee which received the first intimation from the proprietors of the Royal Exchange when they brought forward the suggestion as to the enlargement of the building. I must say I heard with the greatest surprise the statement of the Member for Bolton (Mr. Harwood) that this scheme has been rushed forward at such a tremendous pace. It was in the beginning of 1906 that I, as one of the committee, met the proprietors of the Royal Exchange; they then came before us with what we considered a small scheme, and we said it must be altered. Then we changed the building line of the street, and they modified their scheme, so that it fell in with our requirements in that respect. Later on they came forward with a further scheme, which we said must be enlarged so as to embrace what they are now putting forward. It seems to me they have met the corporation all along the line, and have done all they could to avoid any friction. The hon. Member for Bolton brought forward his opposition to-night on the ground that the public
  1848
  have not been sufficiently heard in this particular matter. He appears to have overlooked the fact that the people of Manchester were invited to attend a towns meeting so recently as November, 1911, and at that towns meeting a resolution was carried, I think almost unanimously, that there should be no municipal Exchange, and certainly not an Exchange on the infirmary site. It seems to me this question is really not a big question, of public importance, but that it is more a little local question, and that the only question of public policy which this Bill involves is the question of the stopping up of two streets in the centre of the city of Manchester. For ten years I have had my own office in one of those two streets which are to be stopped up, and I can say, from a return which has been issued by the city surveyor of Manchester, that the traffic along those two streets is practically insignificant, and that it would be no public inconvenience if they are stopped up. So far as regards foot passengers, the Royal Exchange, when the new building is erected, are prepared to make a footway which will be open during business hours. So that it is merely a question of 600 or 700 vehicles daily going round about 150 yards. In view of these facts I think it cannot be questioned that the House ought to allow this Bill to go forward. The Member for Bolton (Mr. Harwood) said that if the scheme he suggested were adopted Manchester would have a big building for a public library. That would be an adapted building, and Manchester would have to put up with an adapted building for its chief library for forty years. Those of us who take an interest in books and art as well as commerce want to see on the infirmary site a large public library and an art gallery. In order that those buildings may be quite up to date deputations have been sent to America to get the latest ideas for libraries and to the Continent for the latest ideas for art galleries, and at present architects are producing plans for the proposed buildings on the infirmary site. I think, after the House has spent so long a time in dealing with a little local affair like this, most Members will agree that some of its duties ought to be delegated to local assemblies.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bolton. I make no apology for intervening in a Manchester matter, because this is the Imperial Parliament, and no

  1849
  matter what part of the country we represent, we are at present entitled to give our views on any subject that comes before this House. At the same time, I am quite willing to make a bargain with the Manchester Members. If they will promise not to interfere in Scottish matters during the currency of this Parliament, I will gladly pledge myself, and I think I can get five other Members from Scotland to pledge themselves, not to interfere in Manchester local affairs. I oppose this Bill because of the principle involved. It is the affair of a private company, which, formed about 1810, has met with considerable success. The hon. Member for Bolton stated that the company has paid 8 per cent, steadily, and has passed large figures to its reserves. Altogether it has been a most successful commercial affair. This most successful commercial enterprise wants to expand its business, to grow more succesful, and to have a larger return. The principle which I object to is contained in Clause 6, where we find that the expansion of this commercial enterprise is to block up two public streets. I know these two streets, and I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just stated that they are of no importance whatever. They are quite the reverse. They are in the centre of the busy part of Manchester, and the traffic is very large indeed. The inconvenience suffered by the Manchester public by the shutting up of these streets will be very considerable. I object on principle to a private company, when it wants to expand its premises, taking up public streets for such expansion. Such a Bill as this would never have been permitted if it had not been that the shareholders and proprietors of the Royal Exchange Corporation had been able to wirepull the Manchester Corporation, and, by exercising their great influence, to cause the representatives of the people in Manchester to keep quiet while this thing was rushed through the House of Commons. The expansion takes place under the extraordinary circumstances already referred to, namely, that there lies at hand the infirmary site, which everyone who visits Manchester with an unbiassed view and who has not been "wirepulled" by the Manchester Corporation or the Royal Exchange Corporation, will say at once is the proper site for this proposed expansion. Reference has been made to the purchase of the infirmary site by the corporation, and it has been indicated by one of the Manchester Members that there exists
  1850
  between the seller and the buyer an understanding that the site would not be utilised for anything demanding a larger floor space than the infirmary occupied. If that is so, it is only an understanding, and is not in any way in the purchase deed. Therefore, it ought to have no effect on the action taken by the Corporation of Manchester. Further, the passing of this measure will give the Exchange Company power to increase their subscription from three guineas to six guineas. In that respect the traders will be worsened, and by the worsening of the financial condition of the traders the success of the company will be correspondingly increased. The dividends will, no doubt, be increased from 8 per cent, to 16 per cent., and the reserves which have been very substantial in the past will doubtless be increased in the future. I therefore hope the House will reject this measure and not allow it to go upstairs.
  Mr. SUTTON: I rise to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. Having been a member of the Manchester Corporation when the infirmary site was purchased, and having sat in that council for sixteen years, I know something of this matter. With reference to the two streets to which reference has been made, I contend that it would be much better for those two streets to be taken up than for the infirmary site to be utilised. It is perfectly true that there was an honourable understanding between the corporation and the infirmary trustees that only the same area as the old infirmary occupied should be covered whenever any new building was put upon the site. If the new Royal Exchange was put on that site, it would practically cover the whole of the site, and as this is the principal open space in the City of Manchester I certainly object to the Exchange being put there. Manchester have a large population, and Piccadilly is the principal place there where you find a majority of the people congregating. It has always been considered the best site with an open space. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton said, I understood, that the community had decided that the municipal Exchange should be placed on this site. I want to say, in regard to that matter that the community, by their representatives, have decided that an art gallery and library should be put on the Piccadilly site. That resolution has not been rescinded. A special committee has been

  1851
  appointed to make certain inquiries; the committee has put a temporary art gallery or a temporary library on that site, and it is expected in a very short time that a permanent library and art gallery will be erected there. This matter has now been discussed for some years. The hon. Member for Bolton said that the matter has been rushed. I deny that statement, because, year after year, the matter has been discussed by the city council, and what should be done with the site has been settled. Again, at every municipal election, when certain people have decided that they would try to put a municipal Exchange en that site, they have generally been defeated, and the electors have sent people to the city council who were in favour of an art gallery and a library being placed on the site. I object to an Exchange being put there, because it would cover practically the whole area; but, if an art gallery and library is put there, there will still be left some open space. I contend that open spaces are wanted very much in Manchester, and I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton made a very interesting speech at the beginning of this Debate. I frankly admit that he has a greater right than I have to speak upon the subject. He has a more intimate acquaintance with both Manchester Exchange and Manchester community. At the same time I do represent part of the borough of Salford—an even more ancient borough than Manchester, I believe—though it practically forms part of the community of Manchester, and that is my only excuse for intervening on this local subject—for it is that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton laid very great stress on the point, repeating it over and over again, that the people of Manchester were against the proposals of this Bill. He sad that he spoke for the public and the people of Manchester. He said that the public had never been heard at all; that the decision of the City Council had no public behind it, and that the public of Manchester would be bitterly disappointed if the Bill were passed. I have found no support whatever for those views. If I thought they were true I should earnestly and strenuously support the arguments of my hon. Friend. I take my stand upon this that the Bill before us is supported by the Corporation of the City of Manchester. Is it so or not?
  Mr. SUTTON: Yes.
  Sir W. BYLES: If so, I for my part will go no further. What is our system of Local Government for? I mantain that a huge municipality, that a vast enlightened community like Manchester is perfectly capable of managing and controlling its own affairs; and in view of the broad democratic franchise upon which it is elected it must be admitted that it represents the people of Manchester. You cannot say that the bulk of the people of Manchester are against the Bill when they themselves returned to the City Council members who voted in favour of it. That is to me an absolutely convincing and paramount argument. I am always more and more maintaining that the large municipalities should have the power of managing their own affairs; that they ought to have more and more and not less autonomy than they have had in the past. If the citizens of Manchester have decided through their own properly elected representatives to support this measure I really do not think that it would be fair for this House to interfere with their decision.
  They are quite entitled to, and they are quite capable of, spending their own money in their own way, and I protest against the House of Commons interfering with a local matter of this kind. The reference that was made to the Manchester Exchange did not seem to me to enter into the argument. That is a private company. They can raise their subscription from £3 3s. to £6 6s. if they like, but whether they make 8 per cent, or 16 per cent, does not seem to me germane to the argument. There is nothing to prevent my hon. Friend behind from establishing a new exchange. It would be a private company, and if the traders of Manchester consider the subscription of the other is too high they can go to the shop opposite I would not like it to be thought that I differ altogether from the aesthetic views of my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that that Piccadilly site from which the infirmary has been removed is a magnificent site. I am not sure, but I am inclined to think that if I had the honour of being a member of the Manchester Corporation, I should probably have voted in favour of the removal of the Exchange to that site. I might or might not have done so—I have not heard all the arguments. But although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton and myself might have thought that the best place, I still think that the citizens and the ratepayers of Manchester,

  1853
  through their accredited representatives, are the proper people to decide this matter. On that ground I do not feel that I have any alternative whatever, but of supporting the Bill which is now before us, and by so doing to support the Corporation of Manchester.
  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.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum not exceeding £226,862, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments." [£135,000 has been voted on account.]
  Which Question was "That Sub-head A (Salary of the President of the Board of Trade) be reduced by £100."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. J. A. THOMAS: Prior to the adjournment I was dealing with the question of the increase in the number of accidents consequent on the method of propulsion on the railways, and I indicated that there was a tendency to increase the system of propelling the waggons, and in support of that I was quoting what Major Pringle in his Report upon accidents which happened says. He says:—
  "The exception to the general rule 179 which lays down that no engine must push a train upon any running line, but must draw it, were comparatively few in number until quite recently on this company's system and upon other railways The practice of propelling vehicles has been recently considerably extended. Propulsion is not regarded by the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade as desirable or even a safe method of work."
  Every practical railway man agrees with the conclusion of Major Pringle, and every practical railway guard views with apprehension the tendency for increasing these dangers, and, as the inspector further points out, these regulations have been laid down, and have to be made in the case of motor traffic upon railways and in the
  1854
  interests of the staff in the safety of the lives of the servants. It is desirable that similar conditions should obtain if the method of working by propulsion on running lines is to be accepted. Therefore I contend that that is the strongest evidence that the Board of Trade should get a return from the railway companies, where it is clearly shown that there are sidings and cross-over roads whereby this work could be done without running these dangers, and I submit it is the duty of the Board of Trade to inquire into the subject.
  10.0 P.M.
  There is a great tendency to-day in order to economise to run trains that are positively dangerous. The method by which trains are run in sections, with over 100 wagons attached and two engines are positively dangerous. If, on any occasion an axle or anything like that was to go wrong with any one wagon God only knows what would happen. Every railway guard to-day who is compelled to work these trains, and who has to stand in a brake-van with one of our modern engines continually pushing that brake-van, knows that if anything went wrong with the front of the train nothing could save him from being immediately killed. I submit when these dangers are so apparent it is not for us to wait until a Board of Trade Inquiry has been held, and when the inspector condemns the system as I have just read out the Board of Trade-has no business waiting for some person to be killed before making inquiry. It is the business of the inspectors to inquire now into those dangers, and report upon them. I cannot find that any of the inspecting officers ever appointed for this particular work have made inquiry, but immediately that an accident happens, and someone is killed inquiry is held. Therefore we submit that with these facts before the House and the Board of Trade knowing perfectly well the terrible dangers that railwaymen run and the mortality I have described, it is for the Board of Trade, if they have not the power under the Railway Regulations Act to come to this House for the power, and I believe that suggestions could be made by inspection and other means that would considerably reduce the terrible mortality on our railways at the present time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should reply at this stage upon the railway questions

  1855
  raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle has raised the question of the refusal of the Irish railway companies to come into the settlement of last year, and, not satisfied with blaming the Irish companies, he blamed the Board of Trade, which he said has behaved in a weak and halting fashion. He puts this blame upon the Board of Trade because it has not done what it is not able to do, that is, to coerce the Irish railways to come into the agreement or to act under the agreement which they never accepted and never agreed to foe bound by. The hon. Member argued that the Irish railways were not exempted by the Report of the Commission last year. Yes, but the Irish railway companies did not do what the English and Scotch companies did, that is to undertake to abide by that Report. The English and Scotch companies did. The Irish companies did not, and, therefore, it is somewhat idle to say that the Irish companies are as legitimately within this scheme, to use my hon. Friend's words, as the English and Scotch companies are.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That is an important statement. At what stage does my hon. Friend say the English and Scotch companies agreed to abide by this decision and the Irish companies did not. I would like him to clearly understand that the statement I made and the statement of my hon. Friend was not dealing with the Commission's Report, but with something prior to the Commission's Report. We were told that if any single railway company refused to accept the Report legislative enactment would be sought to compel them to accept it.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member repeats an observation that he made before. Will he give us the date on which this assurance was given?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Yes; it was given on 17th August, and it was repeated on the 19th.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Not in the House?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Not in the House, but by the President of the Board of Trade, and it was clearly indicated by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I can only say as to that allegation that at a later date than that, in November last, we were discuss-
  1856
  ing in this House the question of inviting the railway companies to meet the Government. On what ground were we putting that invitation? Because the hon. Member and his friends would not accept the findings of the Commission, and if they stood out against the findings of the Commission how can they make out that on any promise the Government were bound to coerce the companies to come in? In the speech of the Prime Minister on 22nd November we were discussing an invitation of the railway companies to come to this House. The Commission had reported, and the hon. Member's own friends had then refused—I am not in the least criticising their action, I am merely stating the fact—to accept it, and the Prime Minister, then speaking upon the subject, expressly declared this was a free invitation to the companies, and that he could not coerce either the railway directors or the representatives of the men. In any case this is irrelevant to the question of the Irish companies, for they have never agreed, either in August or later, to come under the settlement of last year. It was hoped they would come in, and it was suggested that they might have come in, but for the strike that broke out. As to that I express no opinion. I know that the Irish companies never agreed to accept that settlement; they never came in under it, and they never bound themselves to accept a report of the Commission, and therefore there can be no pretence that the Government was under any liability in regard to any alleged promise of any kind to bring legislative pressure to bear on the Irish railway companies. The Board of Trade is neither their champion nor their censor in this matter, and we have taken a perfectly impartial attitude. I regret that my hon. Friend should have used the expression that the action of the Board of Trade is different towards the men from what it is towards the companies. The hon. Member for Derby said the Board always takes the side of the masters, but he himself, later on in another portion of his speech, quoted from a report of one of the inspectors of the Board of Trade, which he said was the strongest indictment ever brought against a railway company. That does not look as if the Board of Trade always took the side of the masters.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: But that very indictment has never been acted upon by the Board of Trade.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I shall come to that later. It was certainly not a

  1857
  case of taking the part of the masters. In connection with this dispute with the Irish companies, it has been alleged that in connection with the North-Eastern dispute the Board of Trade said to the men, "We will compel you to come in under this scheme," and he makes that a ground for claiming that the Board of Trade should similarly say to the Irish companies "We will compel you to come in within the settlement of last year." My hon. Friend must be aware that the Board of Trade never used such an expression as that. It could not have used such language, and if it had, nobody knows better than my hon. Friend that the Board could not have acted upon it. The Board of Trade could not compel the men to come into any scheme whatever, and similarly it has no power to compel the Irish Government to come into the scheme of 1911, so that whatever conclusion my hon. Friends draw as to a grievance with regard to the Irish companies they have no grievance against the Board of Trade. We have frequently used our influence to induce the Irish companies to come into the scheme, we have put whatever pressure was possible in the way of representations, and we have striven to get them within the scheme. As they have refused to come in there is no power we possess to coerce them. No kind of promise of which we have any knowledge whatever will justify hon. Members in claiming that the Board of Trade should now proceed to legislate because the Irish companies refuse to come in. The Board of Trade has done all it can, and I think my hon. Friends, in heaping the censure they have done on the Board of Trade, have taken a course which is unfair and unjust, and which cannot be borne out by any evidence or by any promise of any kind. The hon. Member for Newcasle said he hoped we should take this important matter more seriously in the future, but at no stage has he suggested that the action of the Board of Trade was marked by levity. The Board of Trade has treated this subject all along with all the importance which attaches to it, and they have fully recognised the desirability of getting the Irish companies to come within this scheme. We have failed in all this, but that does not justify my hon. Friend in imputing that we have shown a lack of seriousness in regard to the situation. The hon. Member for Derby proceeded with another matter in regard to which I may say we are in the strongest sympathy with him. He truly
  1858
  said that the mortality upon our railways was terrible, and that conceivably a good deal of it might be avoided. He has spoken in particular of the precariousness of the lives of platelayers, and he quoted the report of Colonel Yorke upon the accident to platelayers on a Scottish railway, and added—
  "No notice whatever has been taken of that strong expression of opinion by Colonel Yorke."
  I think in this case my hon. Friend is somewhat sweeping in his criticism. I am not saying that decisive action has yet been taken, but it would be a hard thing to suggest after such a marked and impressive remonstrance as that that the company is not impressed by its importance. My hon. Friend has made out a good case in the matter of the use of propulsion, and he has rightly claimed that safeguards should be set up in that connection. There was a very shocking accident on the Midland Railway some time ago in which some platelayers were killed when an engine was going along with a van in front of it. In that particular case the accident would not have happened but for the forgetfulness of a signalman and a flagman. Owing to the fact that a high wind was blowing the men were prevented hearing the engine and the van, but notwithstanding that fact, I think that there should be a check upon this matter of propulsion in every possible way. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board promptly made representations to the company in question. I regret that they declined to take the precautions which the Board suggested, that is to say, that when a van is being propelled in front of an engine, the guard to the van should be able to put on a brake and sound a whistle. These were safeguards which the Board thought necessary, but which the company declined to adopt. In view of that attitude the Board has decided to represent collectively to the railway companies the necessity for the adoption of safeguards in this matter, and I am hoping that the general action taken and the urging of a certain course upon all the railway companies collectively, will be followed by a proper response. If that should not be the case the Board will no doubt enact regulations. In the meantime I trust my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that the Board is taking practical action in the direction he desires, and we hope that at least a limit will be put to that mortality which we agree with him in deploring.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I rise to call attention of the Committee to the exceedingly serious statement which has just fallen from the representative of the Board of Trade. We are told now that whereas the English, Scotch, and Welsh railway companies are united in accepting the findings of the Royal Commission, the Irish railway companies definitely refuse to be bound by those findings, although the Board of Trade has done its utmost to induce the Irish railway companies to modify their decision. I understand now that nothing can be done to bring the directors of the Irish railways to deal with their men upon a footing that is usual in this connection.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Irish companies do profess to go upon the settlement of 1907, which they say they prefer.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: But they will not go upon the findings and the machinery which is accepted by the British companies at the present time. We heard a good deal about the undue readiness of Irish railwaymen to go on strike; but here you have the fact that the men bind themselves to use the means of conciliation, and the directors will not meet them. I think we all know that in Ireland the railway companies are in a peculiarly strong position as regards their men, because there is no alternative industrial employment. The plain English of it is these Irish railway companies are inclined to profit unduly by the advantage—the natural and indefensible advantage—which they have as against the men who have no choice but to work for railways or go upon the land. I do hope the Board of Trade will continue in season and out of season to press upon the Irish railways the advisability and the necessity, in the interests, not only of the railways, but also of the State, of taking every means to avoid strikes. We know perfectly well that in Ireland the railways have different ways of dealing with their men. I have a good many railwaymen in my constituency, but there was no strike on the Midland line because, I imagine, the company deals with its men in a more reasonable manner than the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, with all its efficiency. The Great Southern and Western tends to exploit the natural advantage it has against the men. I have simply risen to thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Hudson) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr.
  1860
  J. H. Thomas) for calling the attention of the Committee to this state of things in Ireland.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the inadequate provision which is made on board steamers for medical officers in connection with any accident or any other case requiring treatment in a medical way. If, for instance, any person gets his leg broken or meets with some accident on a steamer, which, of course, sometimes occurs, particularly during storms, it is impossible to take that person on a stretcher into the medical officer's room. It will surprise the House to know that in many cases no person can be taken from any part of the steamer to the medical officer's room for treatment; and, supposing an operation is necessary, it frequently has to be performed either on the open deck or in the saloon. I think the room of the medical officer should be so constructed that they can take a person on a stretcher to it or to a surgery, so that the operation can be performed in a proper manner. The consulting room is in a part of the ship where they have to have a borrowed light, and they frequently cannot see the patient in a proper manner. Neither is any provision made in this room for a patient to be laid on his back, so that his chest can be examined. If any person has to be examined in that way the medical officer has to take him into his own cabin and use his own private berth. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and I certainly trust that, as the Board of Trade is now making inquiries and will possibly make fresh regulations, they will see this very necessary provision is made. There should be a proper consulting-room, wide and big enough, with every convenience, to which a person can be carried on a stretcher.
  I think steps should be taken to secure better provision for third-class passengers. I have travelled on a fair number of steamers, and I have found that on many of them the accommodation for third-class passengers is simply disgraceful. These passengers are usually very poor emigrants, who have no clothes except those they stand up in; they can make no change during the whole voyage, and the result is that the cabins in which they sleep get into a very insanitary condition, the atmosphere is very vitiated, and at night time especially most unhealthy conditions obtain. I was very much surprised to find

  1861
  that as a result of a good deal of emigration from Spain the Spanish authorities insisted on regulations being made with regard to the accommodation for third-class passengers greatly in advance of those enforced in this country. I hardly think it is creditable to a country like Great Britain, which holds such a preeminent position with regard to shipping, that it should allow Spain to enforce better conditions than itself, and I trust that the Board of Trade will see that in future more cubic space is allowed for this class of passenger.
  There is another body of men for whom better provision should be made. On board many steamers the stewards have to sleep in the quarters in which third-class passengers are accommodated. That is not a fair thing to them. It may be said that those on board steamers get plenty of fresh air, but, as a matter of fact, stewards are often closely confined to the saloons in which they serve. Another objectionable feature is with regard to the provision made for them to take their meals. Oftimes they have to take them standing at a bar. There surely ought to be the same provision in this respect as for the third-class passengers, who have their own dining-room. The present system is most unsatisfactory. We are very dependent on these men for our comfort, and we ought to see that the conditions under which they work and live are of a satisfactory character.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: We all listened with interest to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. We on this side of the House also listened with satisfaction to the very conclusive proof he gave that up to the year 1906 there had not been such changes in the size of steamers generally as to justify or necessitate any alteration in the rules regarding life-saving apparatus, and it was only since that year that the changes had rendered such alterations necessary. I cannot help expressing satisfaction with his own admission that down to 1906 circumstances had not arisen to necessitate changes—
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman has rather mixed up the years. The years in which the great changes took place were 1904–5. At that time, as I explained, the official officers of the Board of Trade went into the matter, and thought that circumstances had not arisen to justify the change. It was not until 1911, with the
  1862
  advent of the "Olympic," that the changes were made. It was last year, not 1906.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: I thought it was the year 1906.
  Mr. BUXTON: It was not—1904–5.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: It is substantially the point I was making, because a change in general ship construction which begins in one year cannot probably affect the general rules as regards ships in general for a year or two afterwards. We have listened this evening to conflicting views as to what various Members of the Committee regard as the most important questions from the point of view of the safety of life at sea. There is one class who regard boats as of all-importance, no doubt partly affected by the disaster which has recently happened. There is another class who regard the question of watertight compartments as of all-importance, and who rather disregard the question of boats. I think that the true view is this: that the main conditions of safety at sea are, first, the seaworthiness of the ship, which includes both the questions of watertight compartments, and stability, and secondly, the question of prudent navigation. While we are prepared to recognise that these are the primary conditions of safety at sea, I venture to submit that is no reason why we should neglect all possible precautions in the way of boat accommodation and other similar life-saving apparatus. There is this further observation to be made, that the question of watertight compartments, and the question of stability are both of them questions which require great expert knowledge in order to express any opinion at all. I have myself been engaged in many cases involving both questions, and I know the conflicting views that the greatest experts hold on these questions. Therefore, I for one tonight, will offer no suggestions on that subject, except that it has become obvious, through this recent disaster, that the question of watertight compartments is one that deserves the consideration which the President of the Board of Trade has arranged should be given to it by a Committee of the best experts in the country. On the aspect of the question that we laymen can deal with to some extent, the adequacy of the Board of Trade Rules in regard to life-saving apparatus, there are certain considerations which seem to me to be worthy of observation. In the first place the science of shipbuilding

  1863
  has been progressing, as the President of the Board of Trade said, with astonishing rapidity during the last eighteen or twenty years. The rules in regard to life-saving apparatus have remained unaltered during the whole of that period. There have been, so far as I know, no alterations since 1809, and practically no alterations since 1894 in any of the rules in relation to boats or life-saving apparatus.
  Another observation is that it is difficult to see what is the guiding principle in regard to boat accommodation on which the framers of the rules have acted. In regard to cargo boats, which carry no passengers at all, it is provided that there shall be enough boats on each side of the ship to carry the whole of the crew, that is to say, that there must be twice the boat, accommodation necessary for the crew. The accommodation is calculated on the basis of 10 cubic feet of boat space to each person on board. If you applied that rule to a great steamer like the "Titanic" you would get a result which is from the practical point of view an impossibility altogether. Taking 3,000 passengers, roughly speaking, that would mean 60,000 cubic feet of space, or 200 boats. Obviously there would not be room even on the "Titanic," on the boat deck, which must be the upper deck, for 200 boats. The whole principle of boat accommodation is that the boats should be either actually in the davits ready for launching or that the inboard boats, of which a certain number are allowed, should be immediately behind the davits, not attached to the tackles, but ready so that they can be put into the davits and attached and lowered at once. But with that number of boats on the boat deck obviously it would be impossible to deal with the boats, a fact which would probably, in the crisis of a disaster, lead to far fewer boats being effectively and safely launched than if you had a smaller number. Take another consideration. Two hundred boats weighing one and a half or two tons each on the boat deck would represent a very large additional weight at a very great height above the centre of gravity of the ship. That would represent a very great decrease in the metacentric height and consequently in the stability of the vessel.
  If you apply the cargo boat rule to a cross-Channel steamer carrying, say, 500 passengers as a minimum—there are sometimes as many as 1,000—you would get many times as many boats as the vessel
  1864
  could possibly hold, though you covered every inch of the deck with boats. It cannot work. Therefore it seems obvious that there must be some limitation in the number of boats which you are to give to steamers which carry a very large number of passengers. What limitation is desirable is, of course, a matter for the experts to consider having regard to the question of the deck room available and stability of the ship, but it is obviously in the changing conditions of maritime commerce in regard to passenger traffic a matter which ought to be reconsidered from time to time, and automatically, without waiting for a disaster to form the impulse for that consideration. We ought to devise some system for doing it. Let me give an illustration. Lloyds Register, which is the British register upon which the great majority of British ships are registered, have a Committee which revises their rules from time to time. I think they are revised practically every year. I suggest to the House and to the President of the Board of Trade that what we want is some automatic arrangement under which the Board of Trade and the Advisory Committee will necessarily reconsider these various rules practically every year.
  I have one or two other suggestions to offer with great tentativeness as a layman in these matters to the President of the Board of Trade. My own experience in these matters, such as it is, has led me to form the conclusion very strongly that the most important thing of all in regard to boat accommodation in the case of disaster is good boat drill. That is one thing which all of us who have been voyages have formed a pretty strong conviction is generally unsatisfactory. We all have seen the merely formal attempt at boat drill which means nothing. I suggest that what the Government ought to do is to make adequate boat drill obligatory; and I suggest further to the President of the Board of Trade that there is only one practical way of making it obligatory, and that is by having a system comparable to that which we have in regard to Factories and Workshops on land. There we have numerous statutory regulations with regard to safety. Do we leave it only to the owners of factories to enforce the regulations? No, we send inspectors from time to time at times they are not expected, and they for themselves form their own opinion. I suggest that there is no possible means of ensuring good boat drill

  1865
  throughout the mercantile marine except by adopting a system of travelling inspectors, employed by the Board of Trade, who from time to time could go voyages and see that boat drill is adequately performed.
  Another suggestion I have to make on behalf of the Mercantile Marine Association, which looks after the interests of officers, is that the Board of Trade might have more nautical inspectors for the purpose of inspecting boats in order to obviate the difficulty which arises at present through many of the inspectors being only engineers without sufficient nautical experience. I suggest also that the boats should be provisioned at the commencement of a voyage with an adequate supply of biscuits. This would not impose any serious expense on the shipowners, but there should be that small requirement. Another question is that of wireless telegraphy. Here we get into a totally different class of consideration. The questions of boat accommodation, stability, and watertight compartments, are matters which concern the safety of the ship, and it is right and necessary that the expense should be imposed in respect of these matters on the shipowners. But when you come to wireless telegraphy you are concerned not with the safety of the ship on which the wireless installation is set up only, but very largely with the safety of other ships. We want wireless telegraphy in order that ships may come to the rescue of ships in difficult. I submit that, in so far as that would impose an extra expense upon individual shipowners, if this House thinks it right to make the installation of wireless apparatus obligatory, to some extent that ought to be a charge upon the public purse, on the same basis as, to some extent lighthouses ought to be. We all know that lighthouses are a charge upon the shipping community in general, but if you are going to impose upon individual shipowners an obligation of incurring expense on wireless telegraphy for the sake of other people and not of themselves, then it is essentially a matter that the public purse ought to deal with. In regard to cargo boats, it may be a matter of considerable expense, and the President of the Board of Trade will find very considerable opposition on the part of cargo owners unless something is done to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. In making regulations it is most important that we should get foreign nations to fall into line with us, as the President of the
  1866
  Board of Trade indicated he hoped would be the case. I am one of two honorary secretaries of an international body, the International Maritime Committee, which has dealt with such matters, and was instrumental in passing the convention with regard to collisions and salvage at sea, which was passed into law by this House last Session, and I heard to-day that that international body had resolved to take up the question of life-saving apparatus at once. So I think that the President will find that he will have co-operation from that unofficial body in any endeavours he may wish to carry through with a view to making the arrangements international, and I trust they will be so.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: After listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) and Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), I could not help feeling some sympathy with the Board of Trade, and realising the enormous number of affairs of difficulty and serious subjects with which they have got to deal. It confirms me, however, in my feeling that the time has come when our great shipping industry ought to have one Government Department which would devote its attention entirely to it. The present Board of Trade, no matter how clever its political heads may be, or how competent and assiduous its permanent officials, has not marched forward with the times, and does not give us regulations for shipping to meet the requirements of the day. Take, for instance, what the President of the Board of Trade said regarding the life-saving apparatus of these steamers. He told us that over a year ago the Board of Trade decided that it was necessary to change the regulations. They applied to the Advisory Committee on 11th April. They received its report on 4th July, 1911, and for over ten months, while experiments with boats were being made, that report was not dealt with. It was sent back to the Advisory Committee on the 15th of last month. Why could not the Board of Trade call the Advisory Committee together and say to them, "What is your advice? Let us do something." A matter like that is one that makes one think how often the Board of Trade, with the best intentions in the world, fails to realise its action and its lack of action. I may give one instance as to the action of the Board of Trade in connection with shipping. Our British steamers to-day loading in the winter for British ports are

  1867
  not allowed to take anything on deck unless it is with a closed place. They are not allowed to take a deck load. But if they go to a foreign port they can carry a deck load. They are not allowed to come into Plymouth to discharge their deck cargo there, but they can go up to Rotterdam, Dordrecht, or Hamburg, discharge their deck cargo in these ports, and come back to an English port and discharge their under deck cargo.
  If it is safe for that British steamer to go up into the North Sea with her deck cargo, it is equally safe for her to come to an English port, and it has no business to prevent her from doing so. Again, the Board of Trade know that we have numbers of British vessels at sea to-day of which the masters and the engineers do not hold British certificates. They may say, "Of course that is true, but they do not come to British ports"; but I would suggest that any steamer or ship carrying the British flag sailing in any part of the ocean ought to have on board British officers—[An HON. MEMBER: "And British seamen"]—and British seamen as far as possible. These are points which I think the Department of the Government which looks after our ships ought to attend to. They ought to introduce such legislation as will give them full power, give them more elasticity in their regulations, and enable them to march forward with the times and look after our shipping industry.
  Mr. MORTON: I look upon the question of the "Titanic" and our merchant service as one of the most important questions with which we can deal. This country, we are told, owns more than half the merchant shipping of the world, and if that is not worth a little more attention I do not know what is. I do not want this to be considered a party question in which only one side is concerned. I listened to the pretty strong speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker), and I agreed practically with all he said, for I do not want to make this a party question. Nor do we necessarily want to make a personal attack upon the President of the Board of Trade, but as his Department is concerned, we cannot help criticising it. This is not a party question, but one which is raised in the interests of the whole country. What I wish to call attention to is the question of the certificates which the Board of Trade gave the "Titanic." I put a question about a fortnight ago to
  1868
  the Prime Minister as to who were protecting and looking after the interests of the British public at this inquiry, seeing that the Board of Trade itself is charged with having given a certificate as to the complete equipment of this vessel the "Titanic," for 3,400 passengers and crew. Fortunately the number on board was 2,204; still, there were only boats for 700; yet they got a certificate from the Board of Trade, which most of us who travel have seen stuck up in the vessel, that she is properly equipped for the full number of passengers. I do not blame the White Star Line so much as I do the Board of Trade in this matter. I noticed, according to the papers, that in America they actually claimed that having the Board of Trade certificate as to their equipment they had done all that was necessary. I am not surprised, but that brings it back to this, that the Board of Trade is responsible for the equipment of that vessel. I am afraid somebody is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the loss of some 1,600 lives. The Prime Minister said that the law Officers were going to look after the interests of the public concerned in the matter. So far as I can see the Attorney-General is representing the Board of Trade. At that time the Attorney-General said that the question of the certificate, and the action or want of action of the Board of Trade was included in the twenty-six points, I think, that were mentioned by the Attorney-General. So far as I can see it is only indirectly included. I have not been able to find out when that question is coming on. I am sorry the Attorney-General is not here, so that he could have given us some information on the matter. It is a curious thing about that question that I put that by some extraordinary means it was not allowed to get into the newspapers, either question or answer. It did appear on the "Globe," a very respectable newspaper, and in the "Scotsman," another very respectable newspaper; but so far as I know, those are the only papers. I complained to the "Times" and some other newspapers for not putting the question in. The information given me was that they were very sorry, and the only way they could account for it was that the reply to the question had not been sent upstairs in the usual way.
  Mr. BUXTON: A copy of every single answer is automatically sent to the Press. There is no discrimination, and there was

  1869
  no desire to suppress my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. MORTON: I did not put the question to which I refer to the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I do not want to bring him into it. He has always sent me a typed copy of answers. This was a question to the Prime Minister. Where he is I do not know, but, at any rate, I do know this, that I was told by those newspapers that the answer was not sent up in the usual way, and it was not sent to me in the usual way.
  Mr. HUNT: I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that, so far as I know, the answers of the Prime Minister are never sent to Members.
  Mr. MORTON: I am very much obliged to my young friend. I never heard before, except on this particular occasion, that the Prime Minister was less courteous than other Members of the Government. I think I have always received copies of his replies before. I am sure that that was a very important question of mine, and I am sorry we have not heard more about it. It appears to me that at the inquiry a great deal of time is being frittered away on subjects which have no great concern to those poor fellows who are dead and gone. What I want to know, and to find out somehow, is how that vessel was allowed to go out. We are told that there has been no alteration in the regulations for a number of years, and that the regulations only applied to vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards, but practically to those of 10,000 tons, and that the boats required were for that size and no other. Every year we have been having bigger ships, such as the "Lusitania," the "Mauretania," the "Olympic," and others of great size, and yet we are told there has been no regulation made at all to meet those cases. I am told that the Board of Trade under present Acts of Parliament can make any regulations it likes, the only condition being that they must lie on the Table of the House for a certain number of days. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the Board should not have made all the necessary alterations to meet the case of the big vessels. I am not attacking shipowners at all. I think they are a credit to the country and they have done good work all over the world. I am talking about the certificate of the Board of Trade. With regard to wireless telegraphy, it has been found that the offices on board ship close about half-past eleven or twelve
  1870
  o'clock at night. The Board of Trade should have known this years ago. We have had no explanation why the Board have not troubled to see that a proper staff was provided so that these offices could be kept open day and night. It is extraordinary that they should be closed about twelve o'clock. As most of the accidents occur during the night, it would not matter so much if the offices were closed during the day, provided they were open at night for the protection of those who require assistance. We have not yet been told whether any regulations are to be made and forced upon the shipowners requiring wireless telegraphy offices in ships to be open day and night. Wireless telegraphy has been of great use to shipping, and, no doubt, can be made of still greater use in the future. We are entitled to a much longer time to consider these matters. Personally I wish we paid more attention than we do to these trade and business interests. We do not want to make shipping matters political or party questions at all. What we do want to see is that we have an efficient Board of Trade and efficient officials. We are quite willing to pay the Board of Trade. We very recently largely increased their salaries, but from a long experience I have found that it rather does harm than good to increase salaries, because the moment you do so those concerned want more holidays to spend the money; consequently the service is not so good as it might be. I heard the President of the Board of Trade say to-day that some Committee was responsible, and he added, "as well as himself." He added, further, that Parliament was responsible.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Perhaps the House will allow me to take this opportunity of asking the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to do anything in connection with the transport workers strike in the Port of London, and is he in a position to-night to make any statement upon the subject?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Government are fully alive to the importance of immediate action in regard to the present industrial unrest on the Thames; they have determined to appoint forthwith a court to inquire and report into the facts and circumstances of the present disputes affecting transport workers in the Port of London and on the Medway.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Would it be possible to say to-morrow how the Court is to be composed?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will endeavour to do so before the Adjournment, but I cannot make any promise.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask before the Court is decided upon will its policy be laid before the representatives of the men concerned in the dispute?
  Mr. BUXTON: This is a matter on which the Government are watching the effect, and acting on their own responsibility. Pending the appointment of the Court, they have not consulted with the other side.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is there any statutory authority for such a proceeding? Has a court on any previous occasion ever been constituted to consider a dispute of this description without at least a request on the part of either one side or the other?
  Mr. BUXTON: This is a matter on which the Government must take the responsibility for appointing the Court itself. As a matter of fact, they have powers under Clause 2, Paragraph (a) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1906, to appoint such an inquiry as this.
  Mr. J. WARD: Will the Court meet while the dispute is still pending, or is it expected that the constitution of the Court will end the dispute?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot make any further statement to-night than that I have read.
  Mr. LAMB: Will the Court consider the whole question of the transport workers grievances—of those on the Medway as well as the Thames?
  Mr. BUXTON: I stated in my answer that the Court is to inquire into and report on the facts and circumstances of the present dispute affecting transport workers in the Port of London and on the Medway.

  CONSCRIPTION.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I want to ask the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state if the War Office consider what Lord Haldane and Sir John French called conscription to be the same system as what is called universal military training; and may I ask him whether the General Staff accept the definition given in Murray's Dictionary of "Conscription," as distinguished from universal military service? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an explanation, because speakers all over the country use the word conscription as a bogey word to frighten people to prevent them looking into the question of universal military training which Lord Roberts has advocated now for some years. The word is used purposely to frighten people, and as the effect of making—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned until Tomorrow (Wednesday) at Twelve o'clock.
  Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Civil Service (Senior Assistant Clerks).
  Civil Service (Senior Assistant Clerks).
  Customs Port Clerks.
  Customs Port Clerks.
  Motor Vehicles (Alcohol as Fuel).
  Motor Vehicles (Alcohol as Fuel).
  Crown Property (Ireland).
  Crown Property (Ireland).
  Land Purchase.
  Land Purchase.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY, BELFAST.
  QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY, BELFAST.
  APPOINTMENT BY STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS.
  APPOINTMENT BY STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS.
  IRISH SERVICES.
  IRISH SERVICES.
  Indian Cotton (Report of Sub committee).
  Indian Cotton (Report of Sub committee).
TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  ESTABLISHMENT STRENGTH.
  ESTABLISHMENT STRENGTH.
  South African Railways (British Soldiers).
  South African Railways (British Soldiers).
  Imperial Trade Commission.
  Imperial Trade Commission.
  South African War (Total Casualties Irish Regiments).
  South African War (Total Casualties Irish Regiments).
  Workmen's Houses (White Abbey, County Antrim).
  Workmen's Houses (White Abbey, County Antrim).
  Jury System (Departmental Committee).
  Jury System (Departmental Committee).
  Columbite and Tantalum (Bengal).
  Columbite and Tantalum (Bengal).
  Coal Strike (Poor Law Relief).
  Coal Strike (Poor Law Relief).
  Diseased Animals (Seizure).
  Diseased Animals (Seizure).
  Dover Workhouse.
  Dover Workhouse.
  Motor Speed Limits (Metropolis).
  Motor Speed Limits (Metropolis).
  Cardiff Foreshore.
  Cardiff Foreshore.
  Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
  Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
  Loss of Steamship "Oceana."
  Loss of Steamship "Oceana."
  "Options and Futures."
  "Options and Futures."
  American Steel Bars.
  American Steel Bars.
  Mercantile Marine Fund.
  Mercantile Marine Fund.
  Post Office Stores (Birmingham and Dublin).
  Post Office Stores (Birmingham and Dublin).
  Post Office Bicycles (Irish Contract).
  Post Office Bicycles (Irish Contract).
  North Atlantic Cable Messages.
  North Atlantic Cable Messages.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Inland Telegrams.
  Inland Telegrams.
  Irish Postal Contracts.
  Irish Postal Contracts.
  Postal Delivery, Hornsey.
  Postal Delivery, Hornsey.
  Postal Facilities, County Antrim.
  Postal Facilities, County Antrim.
  Animals' Contagious Diseases.
  Animals' Contagious Diseases.
  King's Bench Division (Sittings).
  King's Bench Division (Sittings).
  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court (Sentences on Youths).
  Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court (Sentences on Youths).
  School Teachers' Superannuation.
  School Teachers' Superannuation.
  Board of Trade Standards.
  Board of Trade Standards.