Sitting of 30 October 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Falkirk Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners with reference to Initial Expenses of Approved Societies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners as to Payments out of the Scottish National Health Insurance Fund to Approved Societies and Insurance Committees [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of Territorial Associations for the counties of Southampton (Hampshire), Denbigh, and Ayr [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 15th October, 1912, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of The Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Helensburgh [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CLUBS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 353.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 353.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how late the "Audacious" will be in completion, and the reason, if any; whether the "Delhi," "Benbow," and "Tiger," are also late; and, if so, why?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): In the case of the "Ben-bow" no delay is at present anticipated. The "Audacious" will be nine months late, owing to labour troubles. The "Tiger" will be two months late from the same cause. The "Delhi" will be three months late. The Admiralty are not satisfied with the progress made upon this vessel, and have called for a weekly report of the number of men employed upon her. The repeated delays which are occurring in the various private yards are in sharp contrast with the punctuality of the Royal dockyards. The question of assigning a third battleship annually to the dockyards is being considered.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that in future more ships will be laid down in Royal dockyards than in private yards?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The answer which I have given states that the "question of assigning a third battleship annually to the dockyards is being considered.
    Captain FABERasked whether the "Audacious" will be ready in 1913 or 1914; and whether the "Australia" and "New Zealand," which were commenced in 1909, have done their trials and will be ready this year?
    Mr. LAMBERT: According to present expectations, the "Audacious" will be ready in September, 1913. The "Australia" and "New Zealand" have not carried out all their trials. They will be ready in April, 1913, and January, 1913, respectively.

    BLUEJACKETS (PAY).
    Captain FABERasked whether the pay of the bluejackets is to be increased during 1912, as promised?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, owing to the Treasury being unexpectedly called on to provide £1,600,000 extra for medical benefits under

    419
    the National Insurance Act, it will now be impossible to carry out the pledge that in the autumn the First Lord of the Admiralty would be in a position to lay before the House definite proposals relating to the promised increase of pay to seamen employed in the Royal Navy, or that, if the proposals be made, the scale of pay contemplated by the Lords Commissioners will have to undergo a material reduction; and, if not, will he allay the anxiety of the men by making a further statement to the House, if possible, giving the date when the announcement will be made?
    Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informs me that he hopes to make an announcement on this subject shortly.
    Captain FABER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on one of the largest armoured ships in Southern dockyards there is a state of seething discontent on account of this promised pay not being given?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am not aware of that.
    Captain FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I will make a note of it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman replied to my question? The first part of that question is rather important.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I think the hon. Members inference is ingenious, but not accurate.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (ROYAL NAVY AND MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Mr. PETOasked whether, in respect to the Board of Trade notice to masters and owners of British merchant vessels which has been issued at the request of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, directing the attention of masters and owners of British merchant vessels to the necessity for arranging for periodical practices in wireless telegraphy communications between His Majesty's ships of war and ships of the British mercantile marine for the purpose of ensuring efficient and reliable communication when required, the First Lord of the Admiralty is aware of the fact that there are aliens commanding and officering ships of the
    420
    British mercantile marine; and whether he is aware that this being so confidential wireless messages of the greatest importance to the country may, in time of war more especially, become known to those aliens in our ships; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent this by way of ensuring that none but British subjects shall command or officer British ships?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The notice in question has been issued with the object of ensuring that any communications which may be considered desirable between the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine may be efficient and reliable when the occasion arises. No inference is to be drawn from this as to the distribution of confidential information. The question raised by the hon. Member as to the officering of British ships should, I suggest, be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Captain FABER: Were not the "Australia" and "New Zealand" supposed to be ready in February, 1913, instead of April, 1913, and does not that make them three months late?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

    ASSISTANT NAVAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. MILDMAYasked whether any conclusion has been come to as a result of the promised consideration by the Lords of the Admiralty of the position of assistant naval store officers?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Admiralty have been unable up to the present to find any general solution that commends itself to other departments employing officers of similar grades. They have, however, been dealing with the situation administratively by giving officers in the departments affected the opportunity of transfer to vacancies in other Admiralty departments where promotion is likely to be more rapid. Certain expansions of establishment and unforeseen casualties have also affected the rate of promotion. The situation has thus been considerably ameliorated.
    Mr. MILDMAY: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say whether a permanent decision will soon be made in regard to the matter? It is a year ago since I was last assured that it was receiving consideration, and the answer then given was a repetition of a reply made two and a half years before.
    Mr. LAMBERT: As I said, we are dealing with the situation administratively, and a considerable amelioration has been already effected.

    MEDITERRANEAN (BRITISH ARMOURED SHIPS).
    Mr. LLOYDasked whether, at any time during the last four weeks, there have only been two British armoured ships in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir, if Gibraltar is included in the Mediterranean.

  South-East Sudan (Expeditions).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an expedition to the South-East Sudan for the subjugation of the Annaks, Baris, and Nuers is projected?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I understand that the results of the expeditions undertaken early in this year by the Sudan Government are considered satisfactory, and that no further expeditions are now contemplated, unless fresh circumstances arise to make them necessary.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked what is the position in Tibet as regards the practical maintenance of Chinese suzerainty?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The present position appears to be that the ex-Amban Len is on his way from Lhasa to India, and that the Chinese Government have appointed the general officer commanding their troops at Lhasa to be Amban in his place. The general, with a portion of his troops, has accordingly declined to leave Lhasa under the agreement recently concluded with the Tibetan Government whereby all Chinese officials and soldiers were to leave Tibet at once; and the Tibetans, regarding this refusal as a breach of the agreement, are holding him besieged in the Tengyeling Monastery.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Chinese Government has forwarded any reply to the recent British Memorandum regarding Tibet; and, if so, whether he will communicate its nature to the House?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.

  Opium Traffic (China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether an anti-opium law is to be passed at Peking imposing further restrictions upon the opium traffic; and, if so, what instructions have been given to the British Minister in this behalf?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Minister at Peking has reported the introduction of a Bill in the National Council, the object of which is to enforce China's domestic laws for the suppression of the cultivation and consumption of opium in China. The Bill has been referred back to Committee for revision. No instructions on the point appear for the moment to be necessary, but His Majesty's Minister has been requested to watch the matter.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the passing of this law will not further prejudice British merchants engaged in this lawful trade?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Have we not graciously permitted China to absolutely suppress the smoking of opium in that country by treaty on the 8th May last year?
  Mr. ACLAND: In reply to the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I think it will be better to judge of the legislation when we see finally what it is. With regard to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, I think the position between this country and China, as defined by treaty, is well known to the House.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the Foreign Office be able to intervene with any effect if we wait until the measure is passed before making any representations?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Are we not bound by treaty to permit China to absolutely prohibit the smoking of opium, which, of course, would destroy the whole trade?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have said that His Majesty's Minister has been requested to watch the matter. It is well known that opinion has been cultivated to some considerable extent owing to the unsettled state of the country, and, of course, it is only carrying out what it has been always thought the Chinese Government would do, namely, that they would suppress the renewed cultivation as soon as they obtained power to do so.

  China Loan.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the Chinese Government was consulted by the Governments concerned, or their financial representatives, as to the inclusion of the Kussian and Japanese groups in the international consortium; and whether the Chinese Government assented to this extension?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: May I ask whether Japan or Russia obtains any political privileges by coming into the consortium?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of the question.
  Mr. GINNELL: The purpose of the group being to lend money to China, and neither Russia nor Japan having any money to lend, may I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.
  Mr. N. CRAIGasked whether the Chinese Government at any and what time after the Russian and Japanese groups entered the international consortium on 18th June, 1912, confirmed to the six-Power group thus constituted its then existing agreement with the four-Power group?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative. The inclusion of the Russian and Japanese groups in the international consortium was a matter for the groups themselves, and was effected by them alone with the approval of their respective Governments. The new groups became ipso facto bound by the existing agreement, and, as was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 28th inst., its operation became retroactive. The Chinese Government, however, had on 17th May approved the proposed expansion of the old consortium and have never since questioned the validity of an extension of their agreement with it to the two additional groups.
  Mr. CRAIGasked whether the agreement of the 17th May, 1912, between the international group, then the four-Power group, and the Chinese Government was provisional or immediately binding?
  Mr. ACLAND: The advance made on 17th May was a provisional advance, which was intended to be covered by a reorgani-
  424
  sation loan, but the conditions as to supervision of expenditure applied to the money advanced, and became immediately binding.
  Mr. N. CRAIG: May I ask whether the agreement is provisional in its terms in reference to advance?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not understand what is meant by a provisional agreement. There was an agreement made with regard to the conditions of expenditure of the advance. Those conditions became immediately operative; there was nothing provisional about them.
  Mr. N. CRAIG: Was there any reservation contained in the agreement which would enable the position to be considered at a later time?
  Mr. ACLAND: No; it was a perfectly definite agreement, and certain conditions as to the way the advance should be expended were agreed upon at that moment, and they came into operation at once.
  Mr. N. CRAIG: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to laying the agreement on the Table?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will consult the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that after the international group, then the four-Power group, had signed an agreement, on the 17th May, 1912, with the Chinese Government for an advance of £10,000,000, their representatives requested the Chinese Minister of Finance to spend no part of this advance on the defences of Mongolia and Manchuria; and will he say whether such a condition is financial or political?
  Mr. ACLAND: So far as I am aware, no request of the kind indicated was made.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Eastern Bank, Limited, one of the banks in the Russian group of the six-Power group, is a British company; whether in February or March, 1912, that company approached the Foreign Office to ask for its support in regard to a loan to be concluded with the Chinese Government; whether the Foreign Office replied in terms suggesting that such support would be accorded; whether he is aware that the contract was concluded on 14th March, 1912, by the Eastern Bank and the Banque Sino-Belge,

  425
  and that official recognition was then asked for; and whether official recognition was refused on the ground that the Foreign Office was committed to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member will find replies to all parts of his question in the correspondence relating to the Chinese loan negotiations, which has just been published.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the object of the Foreign Office in supervising these loans?
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether those conditions comprised any restriction on China in the administration of its own affairs?
  Mr. ACLAND: They comprised conditions as to the expenditure of the money. If we did not make any conditions as to the expenditure of the money, we consider it might lead to bankruptcy in China, which is not desirable.

  Ceylon (Colonial Secretaryship).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the appointment of Mr. Stubbs, a junior first-class clerk in the Colonial Office, to the Colonial Secretaryship of Ceylon, on a salary of £2,000 a year; whether he is aware that Mr. Stubbs has little more than twelve years' service, and though he became a first-class clerk less than two years ago he is now ousting an officiating Colonial Secretary in Ceylon who has been in the Ceylon Civil Service since Mr. Stubbs was one year old; whether his attention has been called to the allegation that it pays men better now to join the Home Civil Service than either the Indian or Colonial Civil Service; whether, in order to maintain the high reputation hitherto enjoyed by the Colonial Civil Service, and to give confidence to those in it and to those now preparing to enter for it that their careers are not in future to be blasted by being superseded by men far their juniors serving in the Home Civil Service, he will lay down the rule that any transfer from the Home Service to the Colonial Service is to be balanced by a transfer back from the Colonial Service to the Home Service, and that he will thus transfer a man in the present case from the Colonial Service to fill a vacancy caused by Mr. Stubbs' promotion amongst the first-class clerks in the Colonial Office, and also take steps to see
  426
  that the officiating Colonial Secretary of thirty-five years' service in Ceylon is compensated by promotion elsewhere for his supersession; and will he say whether Mr. Stubbs had any special claim to this promotion beyond the fact that he went to Hong Kong to inquire into the revision of Civil Service salaries, and has since helped to edit the Colonial Office List?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): My selection for this very difficult and responsible post was made after a careful review of the merits of officers already in the Colonial Service, and I am unable to admit that the appointment involves injustice or hardship to any one whether within or without the Colony. The Colonial Secretaryship in Ceylon has not been filled by promotion in the Colony for fifty years; and while one of the higher local officials is, of course, generally appointed to act as Colonial Secretary in the absence of that officer, it is well known that such acting service gives no claim to the substantive post. Mr. Stubbs' special qualification for the office, is that for over twelve years he has served with marked ability in the department of the Colonial Office which deals with the affairs of Ceylon. As regards the third and fourth questions of the hon. and gallant Member, if he studies the rules governing admission to the Home Civil Service he will find that his suggestion is impracticable.
  Mr. LEE: Are we to understand that there has been no promotion in the case of Ceylon except for ranks of the Home Civil Service and not for the Colonial Service to posts of that kind?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is not what I said. What I said was that the Colonial Secretaryship of Ceylon has not been filled by promotion in the Colonies for fifty years.
  Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the senior officers of the Colonial Service are in absolute despair at the way they are being superseded?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware that feeling is not one which is held in the Colonial Service.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: May I ask whether the Royal Commission on Civil Service appointments may include the Colonial Service so that the very real apprehension of the Colonial Service on this question of promotion may be investigated, and if possible assuaged?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is a question as to the terms of reference with which I am not familiar at the moment.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Commission to consider the matter under the presidency of the hon. Member for Leicester?
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the interests of the people of Ceylon as the first matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Colony is always the first consideration in appointments of the kind.

  Southern Nigeria (Cook of ss. "Ethiope").
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now been able to consider further the case of W. B. Jackson, late cook on the steamer "Ethiope," who on the 12th day of May last was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction of Southern Nigeria to four years' penal servitude for manslaughter of a Kroo boy; and whether, seeing that Jackson has always borne an exemplary character, he can see his way to review the sentence with a view to a remission of some portion of it?
  Mr. BARNESasked whether he will have inquiries made into the case of W. B. Jackson, who on 12th May last was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction of Southern Nigeria to four years' penal servitude for the manslaughter of a Kroo boy on board the steampship "Ethiope," while lying at Lagos; whether he is aware that the act was unpremeditated, committed under provocation, and largely attributable to trying climatic conditions; and whether, seeing that Jackson has always borne an exemplary character, he will review the case with a view to the remission of some portion of the sentence, which is now being worked out in Maidstone Gaol?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have received a report on the case referred to. The question of a possible remission of a part of the sentence is under consideration by the Governor.
  Mr. BARLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to when he is likely to be in a position to inform the House as to his decision?
  Mr. HARCOURT: As soon as a decision has been arrived at I will communicate it to the House or give the hon. Member an opportunity of asking about it.
  Mr. BARNES: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has seen a testimonial given to this man by his late captain?
  Mr. HARCOURT: All those essential matters are under the consideration of the Governor.

  Gold Coast Medical Service.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether Mr. Easmon, M.B., B.S. London, M.R.C.S. (England), L.R.C.P. (London), and until recently house surgeon to the Huntingdon County Hospital, has recently applied for an appointment in the Gold Coast medical service; and, if so, whether this gentleman's application has been rejected because he is a person of native African descent?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Dr. Easmon recently applied for an appointment in the West African Medical Staff. My hon. Friend is correctly informed as to the reason for his not being selected, as only candidates of European parentage are eligible under the Regulations.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether Great Britain alone amongst the West African colonising Powers refuses to accept fully qualified medical men in Government service on the ground of colour?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware on what grounds my hon. Friend suggests that other West African colonising Powers do not refuse to appoint medical men of African descent; but he is under a misapprehension with regard to the British Colonial Administration in West Africa, two of which do employ medical men who are natives of the Coast.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If that is so, is there any reason why it should be so in the Gold Coast?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think there are special circumstances which apply there.

  Customs Ordinance (Southern Nigeria).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (24) whether he has had under review the action lately brought in Southern Nigeria by the Government of the Colony claiming £39,000 from a firm of traders for an infringement of the Customs Ordinance of 1908; whether he is aware that the Chief Justice of the Colony gave it in his judgment that the action ought never to have been brought, and gave judgment against

  429
  the Government with costs; whether the Government of the Colony has been called on for an explanation of these circumstances; and what action will be taken to prevent such occurrences in future; (25) what were the total legal costs incurred by the Government of Southern Nigeria in connection with their action against John Holt and Company, Limited, in which a claim for over £39,000 was set up, but in which judgment was given against the Government; what official or officials were primarily responsible for this lawsuit being brought; whether they are still in office; whether they have been suitably warned against the dangers of reckless litigation; and (26) whether he has considered the dictum of the Chief Justice of Southern Nigeria in a recent case that the Customs Ordinance of 1908 had been a source of difficulty in the past and is likely to cause more difficulty in the future unless it is amended and made easier of comprehension; and whether any action is contemplated in order to relieve the traders of the Colony of the difficulties admitted to exist?
  Mr. CATHCARTWASONasked if he had given his consideration to the action recently brought by the Attorney-General against Messrs. Holt, merchants of West Africa and Liverpool, and the remarks of the Chief Justice thereon; and, if so, would he bring under the attention of the Governor the necessity of amending the Customs Tariff Ordinance of the Colony, so that such frivolous and vexatious actions will not be brought in the future?
  Mr. HARMOOD - BANNERasked whether his attention had been called to the remarks of the Chief Justice of Southern Nigeria upon the Customs Ordinance of 1908 and the injustice inflicted upon merchants by its provisions; and if there is any intention to amend it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is the fact that the Government of Southern Nigeria caused an action to be brought against Messrs. John Holt and Company, Limited, for infringement of the Customs Law of the Colony with intent to defraud, and that judgment was given by the Chief Justice for the defendants with costs to be taxed. He found that mistakes had been made by the defendants or their servants, but not with fraudulent intent. It is not the fact that the Chief Justice expressed the opinion that the action ought never to have been brought, but he did state that the Customs Ordinance had
  430
  been a source of difficulty in the past, and was likely to cause more difficulty in the future, unless it was amended and made easier of comprehension. I have asked the Governor for a statement of the circumstances in which it was decided to take action in this case, and also of the costs incurred by the Government, and I will give careful consideration to this report when received. I am not prepared to admit that the action taken was frivolous or vexatious. I have also requested the Governor to inform me whether he considers that the Customs Ordinance, which was only passed after very careful consideration, requires amendment, and, if so, in what manner.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when the reply is received from the Governor, consider whether it is within his province to convey some expression of regret to Messrs. Holt?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will consider what action is proper to be taken when I receive the reply.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman open to receive suggestions of traders with regard to any alterations he may think fit to make?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am always open to suggestions.

  Ceylon Excise Bill.
  Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Thurley, late Excise Commissioner of Ceylon, that the Commissioner's Report, Sessional Paper No. 1, of 1911, Ceylon, to which his name was attached, was not the Report he presented to the Ceylon Government; that his Report had never been published; that the Ceylon Excise Bill differed for the worse in several material respects from the Madras Excise Scheme on which it was supposed to be modelled; that the Ceylon Government, in issuing over 1,000 new toddy licences, was acting on imperfect information as to the existing consumption of toddy; and that he was not allowed to explain his views personally to the Governor, although he requested permission to do so, as he had been held publicly responsible for what he did not recommend; and whether, in view of these statements and the opposition in Ceylon from all classes of the community, he will suspend the operation of the Excise

  431
  scheme and appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate the whole circumstances concerning the production and probable effects of this Excise Bill?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen a report in a Ceylon paper of an alleged interview with Mr. Thurley, in which he is said to have made these statements, but in the absence of confirmation from Mr. Thurley I am not prepared to say that the report is accurate. I am not prepared to take the course suggested in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the two Excise Commissioners of Ceylon, Mr. Horsburgh on his return from circuit, August 29th, and Mr. Thurley on the eve of his recent return to Madras, stated that complete information as to the sale and consumption of arrack and toddy is even yet not in the hands of the Ceylon Government, but that they are still instituting inquiries; whether he is aware that Mr. Thurley stated that this necessary information, which took the Government three years to acquire in Madras, would not be available in Ceylon before the end of the year; and, if so, whether he will suspend the use of the new toddy licences until full inquiry has been made?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of the facts stated in the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question. It was, however, always recognised that the actual requirements in regard to the number of toddy licences to be issued could only be finally ascertained by experience. Licences are only issued for a year, and any which experience shows to be unnecessary will, of course, be discontinued. It is impossible to suspend licences which have already been issued. I may add that arrangements are now being made for the establishment of local committees to advise as to the issue of licences in each district.

  Territorial Force (Sunday Rifle Practice).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the War Office authorities have given official sanction for Sunday rifle practice; if he has received any protest against the same from the Free Church Council; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Members of the Territorial Force are permitted to carry out rifle practice on Sundays under certain stringent restrictions which I have already explained to the House. Yesterday I had the advantage of a full discussion of this question with the members of deputations from the Wesleyan Methodist Church and the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Is not the practice of rifle shooting on Sundays condemned by those who prostitute the pulpit by preaching Radicalism?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question the hon. Member can ask himself and give his own answer. It has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper.

  Plague in India.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps the Government is taking to stamp out plague in India which, last year, caused 842,000 deaths, and which has, during the last six teen years, swept away 8,000,000 victims.
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The Plague Investigation Commission is continuing its valuable labours, and in the light of its discoveries and of past experience, preventive and remedial measures are being steadily pursued. They include the destruction of rats, the provision of special hospitals and travelling dispensaries, preventive inoculation, the purification of plague-infected sites, and the general sanitary improvement of urban and rural areas. Plague mortality during the present year is much less than in the corresponding portion of 1911.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is not the mortality from fever ten times that for plague?

  Cotton Growing (India).
  Mr. LEACHasked what number of bales of cotton were grown in India in the last year for which the Government has a record; and what precentage of such cotton was used in India?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The Indian cotton crop of the year 1911–12 is estimated at about four million bales. The Indian consumption of raw cotton in mills and hand-looms, excluding imported cotton, is estimated to amount to rather less than two million bales.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the opinion of the cotton spinners of the world that an increase in the production of cotton is an absolute necessity; and has he any official information showing that India, with its fertile soil, suitable climate, and skilled agriculturists, offers facilities for an increase in the raw material?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: It is generally allowed that India has natural facilities for an increased production of cotton. But as it has equal faciltiies for increased production of other staples, the extent to which the cotton-growing area can be extended is not capable of exact computation. The hon. Member is referred to the answer given to a somewhat similar question asked by him on the 5th August.
  Mr. LEACHasked if, seeing that America is getting within measurable distance of the time when she will need all the cotton she can produce for her own mills and to clothe her own people, and seeing that we cannot expect during the present generation to see any really substantial extra contribution from the new cotton-growing districts of Africa towards meeting the present needs, and the annual increase of over two million spindles, the Government will consider the advisability of fostering the growth of cotton in India, which is capable of vastly increasing the amount of cotton output?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The Government of India are already engaged in fostering and improving cotton cultivation in India, and their efforts in this direction will not be relaxed. The hon. Member is probably aware that the Secretary of State received a deputation of cotton-spinners and manufacturers on this subject in July last. Their views and proposals are now receiving the careful attention of the Government of India.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after the last full supply of American cotton steps were taken to restrict the growth so as to keep up the price?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: That does not arise out of this question, but I have no doubt it has been considered.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Does it not prove that cotton is going?

  Income Tax (Assessments).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
  434
  aware of and has authorised the practice of the Income Tax Commissioners to require people to furnish information of their business transactions which the Commissioners are not authorised by law to demand, and, in the event of neglect to furnish such information, to assess such people at an excessive scale and to leave them to the remedy and expense of an appeal; and whether he will give instructions for its discontinuance?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will give me particulars of an actual case, I shall have inquiry made into the matter. I may state that on an appeal the Commissioners for general purposes of the Income Tax have power to require from the appellant a schedule containing such particulars as they shall demand.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked by what authority, if any, the Income Tax Commissioners now refuse to allow the deduction from the profits of trading concerns of the fees and expenses paid in procuring grants of letters patent; whether, until the present year, such fees and expenses have not been regarded as proper trading expenses; and whether the Income Tax Commissioners have any authority to surcharge in respect of deductions made and allowed in previous years' accounts?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The fees and expenses referred to are not admissible deductions under the Income Tax Acts, and it has been the practice for many years past to refuse to allow them. Where there has been an undercharge in any assessment, there is power to make an additional assessment within the limit of time prescribed in the Income Tax Acts.

  Scottish Services (Expenditure).
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked what is the estimated expenditure on Scottish services for the year 1912–13, corresponding to the estimated expenditure on Irish services for the same year given in Appendix (C) of Cd. 6154?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have had an estimate framed of the anticipated expenditure on Scottish services in the year 1912–13 on the same basis as the estimate of Irish expenditure referred to by my hon. Friend. The total is £9,425,500.

  Land Duties.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his opinion that, under Section 25 (4) (b) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, Government valuers in arriving at the site value of agricultural land are precluded from making allowance for improvements which only enhance the value of the land for agricultural purposes, he will introduce legislation at an early date to deal with this state of affairs?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not my intention to introduce legislation to enable Government valuers to make in the original valuation the allowance referred to by the hon. Member, as the present effect of such allowance would be prejudicially to affect the taxpayer in the matter of Increment Value Duty and to duplicate a deduction already made in calculating Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Mr. ROYDS: Is any Increment Duty payable on this land when it becomes building land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When it becomes building land, of course it is.
  Mr. ROYDS: When it becomes building land, will the owner be entitled to make the deductions then?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We had a lengthy discussion on this subject in the House; the hon. Gentleman spoke for about an hour, and my right hon. Friend replied to him.
  Mr. ROYDS: I have never yet received a reply.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the returns from the two duties, Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty, for the purposes of which a scheme of land valuation was set up by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and in view of the cost to the State and owners of land of such valuation, he will introduce legislation providing for the discontinuance of this system of valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.

  Inebriates Bill.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include in the financial provisions of the Inebriates Bill a Clause to impose upon the Treasury the payment of con-
  436
  tributions for persons detained in reformatories, to meet the cost incurred upon local authorities by the new compulsory provisions to largely increase the number of persons to be sent to the inebriate institutions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): If the hon. Member will look at Clause 32 of the Inebriates Bill, he will see that provision is made for the Treasury to contribute towards the expenses of persons committed to certified inebriate reformatories. The Treasury will make a Grant—as under the existing law—in respect of each person committed by the Courts. I must, however, guard myself from accepting the suggestion that the Bill will largely increase the number in detention. Some of its provisions will have an opposite effect.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: Is it not left entirely to the discretion of the Treasury? It is not compulsory.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the ordinary practice will be followed under this Bill as under similar Bills.

  Inclosnres (Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire).
  Mr. HANCOCKasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the amount of common, waste, and moorland inclosed under Acts of Parliament from 1800 down to the present time in the counties of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire; and would he give the date of the passing of each Act, the acreage, the parish in which the land was situated, the names of the families benefited by such inclosures, and the number of acres allotted in each case?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the general answer which I gave yesterday to three questions on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Louth Division. According to the Return made in 1843 (H.C. 435), eighty-four Acts authorising inclosures in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were passed from 1802 to 1841, but eight of these do not state the acreage dealt with, and in other cases the acreage stated may have been subsequently altered by the awards. Two similar Acts were passed in 1843–5, and under the Inclosure Act, 1845, seventeen Provisional Orders were made. It is possible to obtain the particulars desired

  437
  in respect of inclosures made since 1845, but only at the cost of much laborious research, and I am doubtful whether such an incomplete Return would serve the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view.

  Development Grant (South Wales).
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now state if he will create a separate area for South Wales in reference to the distribution of the development Grant?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The arrangements to be made with regard to the expenditure of the Grant for farm institutes in Wales, which is the Grant to which I assume the hon. Member to refer, are still under consideration.

  Sheep-Scab.
  Mr. STANIERasked which port the thirty-four sheep from Ireland were landed at in England which were found suffering from sheep-scab; is it known from what part of Ireland they came from; where were these sheep slaughtered; has the ship which brought them been disinfected; and had these sheep passed through any examination in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: All the sheep in question were landed at Birkenhead, and were slaughtered there at the wharf. All vessels conveying animals from Ireland are required to be cleansed and disinfected. The enforcement of this requirement rests with the local authority. The Board have communicated to the Irish Department the names and addresses of the consignors of the sheep with a view to inquiry being made as to the parts of Ireland from which they came. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department.
  Mr. STANIER: Was any official notification left with the sheep, seeing they were diseased?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not quite sure as to a formal notification; I should have to have notice of that. We understood that these animals had passed an inspection in Ireland.

  House of Commons (Ventilation).
  Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received com-
  438
  plaints of the ventilation of the Strangers' Smoking Room; and whether the First Commissioner will make an alteration in the present form of ventilation in that room?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): No complaints of the ventilation of the Strangers' Smoking Room have been received in recent years, and the First Commissioner does not contemplate any alteration of the present system.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: Is it a fact that workmen have been engaged during the last few days in that room making some alterations in respect to the current of air now coming from under the seats?
  Mr. BENN: I am not aware that anything has been done.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. BENN: Certainly.

  Assault on Police (John Carless).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Home Secretary whether he will have inquiries made into the case of John Carless, who, on Monday, 30th September, was convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment for an assault on the police while in discharge of their duty; whether he is aware that the alleged assault took place when Carless was acting under great excitement, having been engaged, at considerable danger to himself, in rescuing horses from a fire; and whether he will review the case, with a view to favourably considering the remission of the sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry into the facts of this case and regret that I do not feel justified in recommending any reduction of the sentence passed on the offender.

  Coronation Police Medal.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Home Secretary whether the work discharged by the Manchester Ship Canal police is not as arduous and important as that discharged by members of a borough police force; and whether, assuming there are members of the Manchester Ship Canal police force duly qualified on the ground of long and meritorious service, he will take the claims of such members into consideration with a view to their receiving the Coronation medal or any similar distinctions awarded in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I explained to the hon. Member a week ago, the medal was intended only for the public police forces of the country, namely, the Metropolitan, county, and borough police. I do not doubt that many members of the Manchester Ship Canal police and many other persons in the private employment of railway or canal companies have performed long and meritorious service and discharged duties which are both arduous and important; but they do not come within the class for whom His Majesty instituted the medal.
  Mr. BARLOW: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last few lines of my question: Whether the matter will be taken into consideration in relation to similar distinctions in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, certainly. In any similar distinctions that may be created hereafter those mentioned will certainly be taken into consideration.
  Mr. BARLOW: In the case of a body of police not on the same footing as the Manchester Dock police, would they receive the decoration?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that question.

  Metropolitan Police (Recruiting).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary what has been the cost, including the salaries, of the recruiting staff of the Metropolitan Police during the recent visit to Scotland; and how many recruits were then obtained?
  Mr. McKENNA: Fifty-eight recruits were obtained at a cost of £150, exclusive of the pay of the permanent recruiting staff.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary the number of police who have voluntarily resigned from the Metropolitan Police force during each of the years 1909, 1910, and 1911, and how many have resigned voluntarily during 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers are as follows:—

  1909

  …

  109

  1910

  …

  165

  1911

  …

  199

  1912 (to the 28th October)

  …

  133

  440
  I may add that most voluntary resignations occur in the first year or two of service on the part of men who find police work does not suit them. The increase is due entirely to the increased recruiting for the one day's rest in seven.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he can say what is the reason for the recent police order offering 5s. gratuity or commission to pensioned police officers for each recruit obtained by them and accepted for the Metropolitan police; whether there is a scarcity of suitable recruits; and, if so, can he assign any reason for such scarcity?
  Mr. McKENNA: No difficulty is experienced in keeping the force up to strength; but an abnormal number of recruits are required at present for the augmentation to give the force one day's rest in seven, necessitating a total recruitment of some 1,600 men per annum, and therefore special measures have to be taken.
  Colonel YATE: If there is a scarcity of recruits, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the question of taking on a few extra soldiers?
  Mr. McKENNA: My answer indicates that there is no scarcity of recruits.
  Mr. REMNANT: How near is the right hon. Gentleman to giving this one day's rest in seven to all the men?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should have to look up the figures; perhaps the hon. Member would give notice of the question.

  London County Sessions House.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Local Government Records and Museums Committee of the London County Council recommended that the accommodation which the standing joint committee deter mine to be necessary for London Quarter essions be provided on the site belonging to the council at Newington, subject to his approval, and that this recommenddation was agreed to by the council on 2nd July, 1912; can he say whether the qualification in the recommendation requiring his approval was based on a wrong interpretation of his powers and is unnecessary; has any application been made to him in pursuance of the adoption of the recommendation by the council, and what action, if any, has he taken or does he propose to take in the matter;

  441
  and will he withhold his approval, if not already given, on the ground that his sanction is not required for locating the proposed new Sessions House at Newington?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have been asked if, I will be prepared to approve a scheme for holding Sessions at Clerkenwell while a new Sessions House is being built at Newington, and I have replied in the affirmative. I shall also have to approve a scheme for the holding of the Sessions at Newington when the new Sessions House is complete. In this sense, and in this sense only, the decision of the London County Council with regard to the matter is subject to my approval.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Do I understand that they are going to build before they have obtained the approval of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. If the hon. Member reads my answer he will see that I have given him a complete reply to his question.

  Essex Quarter Sessions (Appeal).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he has received a letter from Mr. F. E. Green, solicitor for George Runnacles, in connection with an appeal case which came before the Essex Michaelmas Quarter Sessions at Grays on Friday, 25th October, 1912, and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The case is under my consideration, and I will communicate with my hon Friend as soon as I have completed my inquiries.

  Suffragist Prisoner (Release).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary where Miss Helen Craggs is imprisoned; whether she has adopted the hunger strike; and whether she is being forcibly fed?
  Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner was in Holloway Prison. She refused to take her food and had to be fed artificially. As her general health is weak, and as serious consequences might ensue, she is being discharged to day.

  Trafalgar Square Meetings.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether he has knowledge of a meeting in Trafalgar Square, on the 13th October, at which allegations were made
  442
  as to abuses and injustices in the administration of the Metropolitan Police; if any action is contemplated in respect of these public allegations, or is it intended to allow them to pass unchallenged; if the meeting at which they were made was held by permission of the Commissioner of Police; if permission has been applied for to hold another similar meeting on the 10th November; and will such permission be given?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a copy of resolutions stated to have been passed at the meeting referred to. In view of the obvious falsehood of the allegations made at the meeting, and of the antecedents of the person by whom they were made, I do not consider any action to be called for in respect of them. The meeting was held after due notice had been given in accordance with the Regulations; and, if due notice is given of the meeting proposed for 10th November, and no prior application for the use of the Square has been received, the meeting will no doubt take place.

  Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the Criminal Law Amendment Rill, he will in form the House why certain European countries, which are well known to be interested in the subject, were not represented at the Congress which signed the International Convention of Paris, 1910; whether they were invited to send representatives; and, if so, did they refuse, and on what grounds?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know to what countries the hon. Member refers. The invitations were issued by the French Government, and if there were any refusals I am not aware of the grounds for refusal.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a list?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be much obliged to the hon. Member.

  Coal Mines Act, 1911.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Home Secretary when the Regulations as to winding engine-men's eight hours' shifts, under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will be issued as finally adjusted?
  Mr. McKENNA: As proposals for modification of the draft Regulations have been received both from the owners

  443
  and from the men, the matter will have to be referred to one of the Referees under the Act, and I am not in a position therefore at present to say when they will be finally settled.

  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Metropolis).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to eight motor omnibus drivers being fined at the Stratford Police Court for excessive speed driving; if he is aware that the bench were of opinion that the company should provide their men with some means of knowing the pace at which they were driving, and that they also suggested the desirability of having speedometers fitted; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention was not drawn specially to these particular cases or to the remarks of the magistrates, but I stated recently that a large number of motor omnibus drivers have been prosecuted this year by the police for exceeding the speed limit and other offences connected with driving. As regards speedometers, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board said, in answer to a question earlier in the Session, that he did not find that a sufficiently reliable instrument had been devised to justify his making the use of it compulsory on motor vehicles generally. In the case of motor omnibuses there are special difficulties in the way of this proposal which prevent its adoption.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he was to forbid the use of hooters on these omnibuses that would materially reduce the speed of driving through London?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, but I am afraid it would have another effect as well —increase of accidents.
  Mr. SOAMES: Could not these omnibuses be so geared that, they could not exceed a certain speed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that also has been considered, but it has not been found practicable so far.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any good is likely to arise by merely prosecuting the drivers? Does he not think that what is really wanted is some drastic step taken against the directors of the company?
  Sir H. CARLILE: Is it not the case that in the opinion of the police the majority of accidents in connection with omnibuses arise when the speed is less than ten miles an hour?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I am not prepared to say that. Certainly it is true that the majority of accidents appear to occur when the omnibuses are not going exceptionally fast, but I should be sorry to limit myself to the exact statement made by the hon. Member opposite. With regard to the hon. Member for Bedford, I understand him to suggest that the directors of the company should be proceeded against for an offence which is not an offence against the law.
  HON. MEMBERS: Make it one.
  Mr. McKENNA: That means legislation.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked in what respects the powers of the police for regulating motor omnibus traffic are deficient; whether he intends to ask for further powers; and, if so, what legislation is required?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would not be convenient to make a statement on this subject within the limits of a reply to a question. If I come to the conclusion that the police ought to be entrusted with greater powers, I shall not hesitate to ask Parliament to grant them as soon as time can be found.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Would the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable to appoint a Select Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I will, of course, consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but I would remind him that a Select Committee usually takes a certain amount of time.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: As the right hon. Gentleman has already consulted with representatives of the omnibus companies, will he now consult with the local authorities, who have to maintain the roads within their districts?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, we are in constant communication with the local authorities.

  Small Holdings Act.
  Mr. LEACHasked what number of acres of land have been acquired under the Small Holdings Act; how many applications for land have been received; how

  445
  many men have been provided with small holdings; in which counties; and how much land in each such county?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Up to the end of last week the Board had received schemes providing for the voluntary acquisition of 141,667 acres, and, in addition, Orders had been made for the compulsory acquisition of another 16,151 acres, making a total of 157,818 acres. The latest available information as to the other matters to which the hon. Member refers is contained in the Board's Annual Report for the year 1911, of which I shall be glad to send him a copy.

  Irish Cattle Exportation (Heysham Harbour).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will keep the special facilities of Heysham Harbour before him when arranging for the opening of further English ports to Irish cattle?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer is in the affirmative. One of the officers of the Board has visited Heysham with a view to ascertain whether accommodation for the reception of Irish cattle could be provided there, and communications are passing between the Board and the Midland Railway Company. I hope that it may be possible for the necessary arrangements to be made very shortly.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the amount at the end of June last of the fund out of which owners of animals in Ireland slaughtered by order of the Agricultural Department are paid; whether the fund is a growing one; by what means an abnormal draw upon it is met; and from what source the fund is subsequently replenished?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The balance on 30th June last to credit of Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account of General Cattle Diseases Fund, which account is supplied by moneys voted by Parliament and from which compensation is payable for animals slaughtered by order of the Department, was £4,428. The amount to credit of the General Account of the General Cattle Diseases Fund, which can also be drawn upon to defray this expenditure if the moneys provided by Parliament are insufficient, was £11,713 on 30th June. The fund is not a growing one. A Supplementary Estimate will be
  446
  presented at the proper time for the purpose of obtaining funds from Parliament to meet the exceptional expenditure on account of foot-and-mouth disease.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon after the slaughter of the beasts their owners receive any payment?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I had no notice of that question, but I know that £16,000 has already been paid.

  Palmists.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis of London has issued an Order to the effect that palmists and other practitioners of psychic arts within the area of his jurisdiction must remove all words such as palmist, clairvoyant, or astrologer from their door-plates, window-signs, and other public advertisements; and whether he will state under what Act such action has been taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: The police notified to palmists, clairvoyants, astrologers, and similar persons that any advertisement by them that they were carrying on their calling would be held to bring them within the purview of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, for the purpose of proceedings.

  Radical Club, Blaenllechan, Rhondda Valley.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked what grounds were given by the stipendiary magistrate at Pontypridd in dismissing the case of the Glamorganshire police against the Radical club at Blaenllechan, Rhondda Valley; and whether he has power to order an inquiry into the whole facts of the case or to reverse the decision of the stipendiary?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the Court over which the stipendiary magistrate presided dismissed the application because they were unanimously of opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish any one of the alleged grounds for striking the club off the register. I have no power to take any steps in the matter.

  Horseshoe Hotel Murders.
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether Mr. Stanhope Bedding, the chemist's assistant who rendered such plucky service in assisting to capture the man Titus, who perpetrated the murders at the Horseshoe Hotel, Tottenham Court Road, received

  447
  injuries which have precluded him following his occupation since, and that in consequence Mr. Bedding is now out of employment; and if, in these circumstances, some compensation will be made to him?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police as to the circumstances of this case, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision can be arrived at.

  Pistols Act (Long-Barrelled Weapons).
  Mr. BURTasked whether long-barrelled pistols, with cartridges of great projectile force, are being manufactured in Birmingham and recommended by public advertisement as evading the legal restrictions of the Pistols Act, because they differ from the legal definition of a pistol contained in that Act; whether he is aware that two children in a Durham village have been shot, at about 140 yards distance, by one of these long-barrelled pistols; whether his attention has been called to the fact that a youth of seventeen years of age is now in custody, charged with manslaughter, by reason of the use of one of these weapons; and what steps can be taken to protect the public against this evasion of the law?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am well aware of this defect in the Pistols Act, and I have received reports of the case referred to. The only remedy is an amendment of the law.
  Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether a Bill to increase the powers of (he Homo Office could not be brought before this House as a non-contentious matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will ask my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Frederick Banbury), and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth)?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; my hon. Friend has mentioned two formidable authorities on the matter.

  Deck Cargoes.
  Mr. PETOasked whether the Board of Trade have received any information as to the putting back of the steamer "Cape Antibes" to Falmouth with her
  448
  deck cargo adrift; whether he will ascertain fully the nature and weight of this deck cargo; in what way it broke adrift; and what structural or other damage has been sustained by the steamer as a result of this deck cargo?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): From a report made by the Board of Trade surveyor at Falmouth it appears that the "Cape Antibes" put into that port to have her deck cargo re-secured. That deck cargo consisted of locomotive frames, cylinders, and boilers, and weighed 121 tons. One of the locomotive frames broke adrift owing to two of the ringbolts to which the frame was lashed tearing away from the angle-iron to which they were riveted. The vessel did not sustain any structural damage, but the handrails on the port side were broken and bent, and the topmast backstay screw was broken.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take early steps to see there are a sufficient number of surveyors with actual knowledge and experience to inspect those vessels before they go to sea?
  Mr. BUXTON: So far as I know, there are adequate surveyors. In this particular case I do not think it was due to any neglect of the surveyors.
  Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the number of cases where ships put back to port owing to deck cargo shifting or going adrift; the number of cases in which structural damage is caused by deck cargo in heavy weather, even when the vessels are not reported as putting back to port; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to regulate the carrying deck cargoes?
  Mr. BUXTON: Ninety-one vessels registered in the United Kingdom were reported to the Board of Trade as having sustained casualties while carrying deck loads of timber during the year ended 30th June, 1912. Of these vessels, seventy-two sustained damage, and nineteen lost part of their deck cargo without damage to the ship. Eleven of the ships put back into port. Any representations that the hon. Member or others may desire to make to me on the subject will receive careful consideration.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the Regulations issued in 1906 are mainly

  449
  applicable to comparatively new vessels and allow vessels of an older type to be loaded to a considerably greater extent than prior to 1906; if he is aware that persons well qualified to judge consider that such extra loading is responsible for shipwreck and loss of life; and if he will consider the desirability of amending the Regulations as applied to vessels of the older type?
  Mr. BUXTON: The revised tables of freeboard issued in 1906 are applicable to all seagoing vessels irrespective of their age, but the reduced freeboards allowed by these tables can only be obtained by vessels which comply with modern conditions and the revised standard of strength and efficiency laid down in these Regulations. As I have stated before in this House, the assertion that the deeper loading allowed under the Regulations of 1906 is responsible for increased wrecks and loss of life is not borne out by the statistics of shipping casualties. I am inquiring into the whole subject in connection with the loss of the "North Briton."

  Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has yet seen the first Report of the liquidator of the Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation; what its date is; and why he took no action on the matters disclosed therein when his attention was directed to them in the autumn of 1910?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I have caused inquiry to be made and I am informed that the liquidator of this company has never made any report upon its affairs, and that, as his appointment only dated from the 8th December, 1910, he can have made no report in the autumn of that year. It is right I should add, that I am informed certain conclusions to which the Official Receiver came with regard to the conduct of some of the directors in the autumn of 1911 have been materially modified in their favour, as the result of certain further facts which have more recently come to his notice.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the Director of Public Prosecutions deny that he received at his office notice of a criminal character in reference to this business in the autumn of 1910?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not aware. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will inquire.

  Lossiemouth Harbour Company (Provisional Order).
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked whether the directors of the Lossiemouth Harbour Company commenced about November, 1911, the promotion of a Provisional Order with a view to necessary extensions of harbour accommodation; whether the Order was unopposed; whether he is aware that the delay is prejudicial to the local interests involved; what has been the cause of the delay at the Board of Trade; and whether he will take steps to hasten the passage of the Bill embodying the Order?
  Mr. BUXTON: The usual notices in connection with the application for this Provisional Order were given in November, 1911. An objection was received, but was afterwards withdrawn. As explained to my hon. Friend in reply to his question on 29th April, there were exceptional difficulties in this case due to the necessity of considering the scheme in its relation to schemes for other fishery harbours in the Moray Firth. Since that date it was found necessary practically to redraft the Order, and it was then embodied in a confirming Bill introduced in the House of Lords on 12th June and passed by that House on 25th July. It is being pressed forward in this House, and will, I understand, go before a Committee next week. I very much regret that it has not been possible to obtain confirmation of this and other harbour Orders at an earlier date.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that twelve months is an extraordinarily long time for a public Department to detain an unopposed Bill?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think it is excessive, but in this particular case there were particular reasons why the delay took place.

  Mercantile Marine (Life-Saving Appliances).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked if the right hon. Gentleman has approached, or has been approached by, any other Powers with a view to securing international agreement as to the provision of life-saving appliances on ocean-going steamers; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: Preliminary communications are taking place with the Governments of a few of the principal countries interested, with a view of endeavouring to find a basis for an international agreement on this important matter. As I have already informed the House, it is not proposed to defer the revision of life-saving rules until the conclusion of such an agreement which may take some time to arrive at.
  Sir H. CARL1LE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the protests now being made?
  Mr. BUXTON: In regard to this question of satisfaction, of course, one likes to improve things in this world whenever there is an opportunity of so doing. The negotiations are proceeding.

  Emigration (Value of Adult Emigrants).
  Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state what is the present value of each adult emigrant who leaves this country; if the estimate of £200 per head which prevailed ten years ago should now be increased owing to the in-creased cost of living and education; and what is the estimated pecuniary loss to this country occasioned by the emigration of the 261,000 persons who left the United Kingdom in 1911?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that the hon. Member must make his own estimates.
  Mr. LYELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the proportion of these emigrants who went to the British Dominions beyond the seas?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot answer that question off-hand.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that the United States Government and Canada estimate the value of these emigrants on arrival at £200 some years ago, and that it has increased since?
  Mr. BUXTON: That may be so, but I do not feel capable at the present moment of estimating the actual value in pounds, shillings and pence of any particular emigrant.

  Loss of ss. "Titanic" (Inquiry Fees).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state to the House the fees paid, respectively, to the Attorney-General, the
  452
  Solicitor-General, and the nautical assessor for professional services in the "Titanic" Inquiry?
  Mr. BUXTON: The fee paid to the Attorney-General was £2,458, and to the Solicitor-General £2,425. As regards the assessors, I understand from the Treasury that the amount of the fees has not yet in all cases been finally settled.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were unable to attend to their duties in this House owing to their being obliged to earn these fees at the "Titanic" Inquiry?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member had better put his question to the Attorney-General.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Did they pay the trade union rates?
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is it not a fact that whilst the fees paid to the Attorney-General were £2,400, the fee paid to the nautical assessor was only £70?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of the payment of the various assessors is still under consideration by the Treasury. It is a Treasury matter and not a Board of Trade matter.
  Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the fees paid to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University were?

  Telephone Service (Downpatrick).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to say that a public telephone call office will be established at Downpatrick, county Down?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The cost of extending the telephone system to Downpatrick would not be justified by the receipts from a call office only. The financial aspect of opening a call office in conjunction with an exchange is, however, being considered, and I hope to be in a position to arrive at a decision shortly.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    His MAJESTY'S FORCES.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers on receiving a commission, such as riding

    453
    masters' and quartermasters' commissions, will be permitted to continue as voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act; if so, what will be the amount of the Government contribution; and, if not, what amount of the contributions they have paid will be refunded?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Contributions cannot be refunded to soldiers who on promotion are not entitled, or do elect, to continue in insurance. The ordinary provisions of the Act as to voluntary contributors apply, however, to persons serving in His Majesty's Forces. It will, therefore, be open to any soldier who has been insured for five years to continue in insurance as a voluntary contributor on his promotion to commissioned rank, in spite of his income from all sources being then over £160 per annum. The Government contribution in these circumstances will be the usual contribution of two-ninths of the amount expended on benefits and administration of benefits.
    Captain FABER: Are we to understand that a man who is promoted can go on if he likes as a voluntary contributor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If he has been insured for five years.

    STEP-CLEANERS.
    Sir H. CARLILEasked whether regularly employed women as cleaners of steps in the poorer districts, who are usually paid at the rate of 1d. for each step cleaned, come under the provisions of the National Insurance Act; and, in that case, is the first employer to pay 5d. for the stamp in addition to the Id. for the cleaning of the step if the daily wage does not exceed 1s. 6d., and if the daily wage exceeds 1s. 6d., does the cleaner do the work of cleaning the first step for nothing, and pay 3d. for the privilege of doing it if her daily wage exceeds 2s.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Women employed regularly as cleaners of steps are employed contributors under the National Insurance Act. The special rates of contribution for low paid labour depend under the Act not upon actual earnings, but upon the rate of remuneration of a working day. If the sum paid is equivalent to a remuneration exceeding 2s. a day, the normal contribution of 3d. each from employer and employed is therefore payable. The various employers can, of course, in such cases enter
    454
    into an arrangement to pay the weekly contribution in rotation, or may agree privately to share the employers' part of the contribution.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon Gentleman take steps to exempt these poor women from the operation of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure that the poor women would want to be exempted.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, in the case of insured persons who have resided during part of the past quarter in England and during another part of the quarter in Wales, to which Commissioners are their cards to be returned by the branch society to which they belong?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The cards should be returned to the Commissioners for that part of the United Kingdom in which the insured persons were resident when the cards were issued.

    BORDER SOCIETIES (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the regulations under Section 83 (3) of the National Insurance Act, which were promised in order to meet the difficulties of border societies, have yet been framed; and, if not, when they can be expected?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The regulations referred to have not yet been issued; they are still under consideration.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not sufficiently borne in upon the Commissioners that the only way is to do away with the separation between the three countries?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think so; the Commissioners are discussing the matter with the members of the societies at the present time.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are they making any regulation?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to refuse to make any more regulations. We are sick and tired of them.

    HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.
    Sir WALTER MENZIESasked whether a hand-loom weaver working his own loom in an apartment of his dwelling

    455
    house, and always weaving for one employer, should have his insurance card stamped by that employer; whether the fact that he had three or four looms in his dwelling-house, and employed three or four men to weave always for that one employer, would make a difference as to which of them stamped the card; and whether, in any case, he will instruct one of the Scottish Commissioners, or their agents, to go to Stonehouse and Strathaven, in Lanarkshire, and explain by public meeting, or otherwise, to the hand-loom weavers there what is their actual position under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A hand-loom weaver working single-handed at home on materials supplied by an employer would be insured as an outworker. In the case of a weaver employing several assistants the weaver himself would be insurable by the employer as an outworker if he took a substantial part in the actual work, and he and not the employer would ordinarily be responsible for the insurance of the assistants. The Scottish Commissioners are arranging to send an inspector to the districts mentioned by my hon. Friend to deal with any difficult cases which may have arisen in connection with the working of the Act.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if in the last case mentioned a weaver who employed others would not be in the position of a contractor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I can add anything to my answer. He would ordinarily be responsible for the insurance of the assistants.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (MEETINGS IN PUBLIC-HOUSE).
    Mr. LEACHasked how many approved societies hold their meetings in public-houses, and how many of such approved societies admit women to membership?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as can be ascertained, 490 approved societies have their registered offices on licensed premises, and of these 268 admit women to membership.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. FELLasked (1) if only one-fifth of the consumptives in this country will be entitled to sanatorium, or any
    456
    other benefits under the National Insurance Act; and (2) if the Secretary to the Treasury can give any estimate of the amount of the charges which will fall on the local authorities in respect of the consumptives who will not be entitled to benefits under the National Insurance Act, but who will have to be placed in sanatoria by the local authorities under another Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Only insured persons or dependants of such persons can be treated at the expense of the National Insurance Fund. The number of these will bear a continually increasing proportion to the total number of consumptives, and it is probable that they will ultimately form a large majority of the consumptive persons in this country. The Insurance Act also contains provisions whereby sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis may be made available for non-insured persons. I am unable, however, at present to give an estimate of the cost of the treatment of the consumptives who are not insured persons or dependants of insured persons.
    Mr. FELL: Did the right hon. Gentleman not state that not more than one-fifth would come under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should not think that more than one-fifth of the people at present suffering from consumption are employed persons.

    OUTWORKERS (LACE TRADE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked (1) whether the average earnings of a middle-woman in the Nottingham lace trade are 10s. a week, out of which, under the National Insurance Act, she has to pay 15 or 20 per cent, to insure her workers, many of whom, being for the most part married women, are better off than herself, so that unless she infringes the Trade Board Act by recouping the compulsory contribution or tax from the worker she cannot continue her trade;, and whether the Government will consider the propriety of allowing such middlewomen to contract out of the Act; and (2) whether the officer conducting the inquiry at Nottingham into the working of the National Insurance Act in respect of outworkers in the lace trade received a petition from 2,577 women, of whom 90 per cent, are married, praying to be excluded from the benefits of the Act, as they were unable to pay the tax exacted from their small earnings; whether the Commissioners are considering a scheme for

    457
    giving workers a chance of participating in lesser benefits; whether this term is properly applicable to what is most appreciated in proportion as it is most sparingly granted; and whether, in consideration of the poverty of these workers and the hardships they have already suffered, the Government will consider the propriety of allowing them to contract out of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. Pope, who is conducting the inquiry referred to, and who, I may point out, is not an officer of the Commission, but an impartial person appointed under the provisions of the Ninth Schedule to the National Insurance Act, is still pursuing his investigations, and until the report is received I am not in a position to make any statement as to any further action the Commissioners may take under the powers granted to them by the Act. Mr. Pope has recently visited Nottingham, and I am informed that he was given an opportunity of inspecting some specimen sheets of a general petition in connection with the Act, but that no special petition from the outworkers of Nottingham was presented to him.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman following Mr. Pope's inquiry, and, if so, has he any doubts as to the great distress which these compulsory collections are occasioning, and when Joes he expect Mr. Pope's report?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I have not been following the details of Mr. Pope's inquiry, but we shall receive a report of the evidence and shall give full weight to the evidence.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is urgent.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. Pope is treating it as urgent, and I am anxious to see the question dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will there be any public business taken after Eleven o'clock to-morrow night?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No public business will be taken after Eleven o'clock tomorrow night, when I understand that there is likely to be a private Bill.

  PUTUMAYO RUBBER DISTRICT (SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT).
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSbrought up mid read the following special Report from the Select Committee:—
  The Select Committee appointed to inquire whether any responsibility rests upon the British directors of the Peruvian Amazon Company in respect of the atrocities in the Putumayo District, and whether any changes in the law are desirable to prevent the machinery of the Companies Acts being used in connection with similar practices in foreign countries: That they have come to the following Resolutions, which they have agreed to report to the House:—

  (i.) That the Committee propose retaining the conduct of the inquiry referred to them entirely in their own hands, but will accept the assistance of counsel (if the leave of the House he obtained) when they think it necessary;

  (ii.) That application be made for an Order of the House that this Committee have leave to hear counsel to such an extent as they shall see fit;

  (iii.) That any persons or body deeming themselves interested who wish to appear by counsel shall make application in writing to the Clerk, stating the grounds upon which they desire to appear;

  (iv.) That the Committee wish it to be known that they are prepared to consider evidence bearing on the subject of the Inquiry, and invite any person in possession of such evidence to communicate with the Clerk.

  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: In pursuance of that Report, I beg to move, "That
  474
  the Select Committee on Putumayo have leave to hear counsel to such extent as they shall sec fit."
  Sir CLEMENT HILL: I beg leave to-second the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend The Public Trustee Act, 1906." Presented by Captain WAKING; supported by Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. King, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Godfrey Baring, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Neilson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th November, and to. be printed.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  [Progress, 29th October.—Tenth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Irish Senate.)
    (1) The Irish Senate shall consist of forty senators nominated as respects the first senators by the Lord Lieutenant, subject to any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of the nomination, and afterwards by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Executive Committee.
    (2) The term of office of every senator shall be eight years, and shall not be affected by a dissolution; one fourth of the-senators shall retire in every second year, and their seats shall be filled by a new nomination.
    (3) If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of office, the Lord Lieutenant shall, unless the place becomes vacant not more than six months before the expiration of that term of office, nominate a senator in the stead of the senator whose place is vacant, but any senator so nominated to fill a vacancy shall hold office only so long as the senator in whose stead he is nominated would have held office.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the earlier Amendments on Clause 8, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicated in what way I think it would be most convenient for them to be taken. I foresee that there may be

    475
    some difficulty in keeping the different questions that arise clearly separated, and I invite the assistance of the Committee so that we may have both a clear discussion and a clear decision. The first Amendment I propose to call is the one standing first on the Paper. I think it should be moved a few words later on after the word "shall." The purport of it is to fix a longer preliminary period than the Bill does for the Imperial nomination. After that I propose to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, who proposes an ex officio Senate. Then we come to the question whether there should be forty or some other number, and I should hope that at a comparatively early hour we might be able to take the Amendment, which I see a number of Members on both sides of the House are anxious to discuss, proposing proportional representation as an alternative to nomination.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask you, Sir, what is your ruling with regard to the Amendments which propose to alter the number of Members in the Senate?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which I propose to take is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare).
    Mr. MALCOLM: Supposing these Amendments should be disposed of to-day or early to-morrow, could you, for the convenience of the House, say what further Amendments would be likely to be taken before 10.30 to-morrow night?
    The CHAIRMAN: Quite provisionally. I do not know what may occur in the earlier Debates, but it seems to me almost all the Amendments that follow on the next two pages are consequential on what will have been decided by the Committee before we reach them, and therefore I think the next Amendment will be one in the name of the hon. Member for the Totnes Division (Mr. Mildmay) dealing with disqualifications for the Senate.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask that you should keep an open mind with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Lewes Division (Mr. Campion), which proposes to leave out the words "as respects the first Senators"?
    The CHAIRMAN: That, of course, must depend a good deal on the earlier Amend-
    476
    ments, but supposing the earlier part of the Clause is not altered, I should certainly take that Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand from your ruling that in the discussion on the first Amendment Members must confine themselves to the question of the length of the initial period, and must not raise the general question of the merits of election by proportional representation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I said I invited the Committee to assist me on these earlier Amendments. I could not say it would be out of order to introduce some other subject, but I think it would be inconvenient to all parties to do so, and I hope hon. Members generally will assist me in deferring any discussion as to the constitution of the Seriate until we come to the question of the word "nominated."
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["The Irish Senate shall"], to insert the words "During the first eight years after the commencement of this Act."
    The Clause, as it at present stands, proposes that the first body of senators shall be nominated for eight years by the Imperial Government. Then a quarter of the senators are to retire every two years, and, as they retire, their places are to be filled by persons nominated by the Irish Ministry. That means the Irish Ministry would have nominated a quarter of the Senate by the end of the first two years, half by the end of the first four years, three-quarters by the end of the first six years, and the whole number by the end of the first eight years. This Amendment proposes that the system of Imperial nomination should be retained for the first eight years, and that the system of nomination by the Irish Ministry should disappear from the Bill. You mentioned. Sir, that there are highly important Amendments later on raising the question of proportional representation. This Amendment does not prejudge that question. All it says is that before we adopt proportional representation, or any other elective system, there should be a preliminary period—my Amendment says eight years, but I am not very particular about the length of the period as long as it is substantial—of Imperial nomination. The Senate is intended to be one of the securities for the minority, and, if it is to fulfil that purpose, I think we ought to secure that, at any rate during the first few years,

    477
    the number of Unionists in the Senate shall be quite of proportion, or shall not bear any necessary proportion, to the number of Unionists in Ireland as a whole.
    Captain CRAIG: You will not get anyone to sit in it.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I should think it quite a good thing if, as a matter of fact, the majority of the Senate consisted of persons who have not up to the present been identified with Nationalist politics. If we wish to secure that, and I presume we do, we must realise that we cannot secure it by proportional representation or any other elective method, or by any other practicable method, except by nomination by the Imperial Government. There is one other point involved in the Amendment. The Clause, as it stands, proposes that the original Imperial nominees should retire in batches of a quarter every two years, and that their places should be taken by nominees of the Irish Ministry. I propose to delete this provision and to simply say the original Imperial nominees shall retain office for the full period for which they are at first appointed. When this Bill was introduced the Prime Minister said he expected there would be non-partisan appointments made to the Senate which would secure a rather special representation for the minority. I think that is quite true with regard to nomination by the Imperial Government, but it seems to me to be the last thing we can expect from nomination by the Irish Ministry. If an election is fought and the Prime Minister is returned victorious, it seems to be asking too much to expect him to put into the Senate a number of men who will thwart and oppose his policy. In Canada there is a system by which the Senate consists of persons nominated in accordance with the advice of the Canadian Ministry. I have looked up the history of the matter. I find that Sir John Macdonald was Conservative Prime Minister of Canada for nineteen years, and during that period In appointed one Liberal to the Senate. He was followed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was Liberal Prime Minister for fifteen years, and during that period Sir Wilfrid was not aridity of even the single weakness of Sir John Macdonald. In New Zealand there is, again, an Upper House or Legislative Council appointed on the advice of New Zealand Ministers, and the New Zealand Government is, at this moment,
    478
    engaged in passing a Bill to bring the system to an end, and, I may say incidentally, to introduce proportional representation. I know it is not desired by the Chairman that I should diverge from the question of pure nomination; therefore I will not dwell any longer on this point. But I should like to point this out: that when Mr. Bell, the Minister for Internal Affairs in New Zealand, introduced this Bill on behalf of the Government, he explained what he took to be the generally accepted view of the proper duty of a Member nominated to the Council by the New Zealand Ministry. I would like to read that explanation to the House:—
    "Hon. Gentlemen are appointed to this House to support the Government and its measures. If the Government which appoints them remains in power, that Government will necessarily reappoint them if they have been loyal; but if they have been disloyal it should discard them."
    The only point I wish to make is that when we say that an Irish Ministry is expected to make non-political appointments we are asking that Irish Ministry to do something which no other Ministry in similar circumstances has ever yet done anywhere else in the Empire. I hope that the Government will give up this idea. My Amendment suggests that the period of Imperial nomination shall run for what was originally suggested for the combined system of Imperial and Irish representation. It also suggests that we should wait to discuss on later Amendments the question as to what system we should establish when this preliminary period of Imperial nomination has come to an end. I beg to move.
    Captain CRAIG: I will try to be as as brief as the hon. Member in pointing out to him why I think there is really very little value in his Amendment. So far as he hopes that the Imperial Executive will nominate for the first eight years a preponderance of Unionists on this fancy Council, I may tell him at the outset that no Unionist, or anyone worthy of the name, would ever dream of accepting such a position. Consequently, it does not matter a straw whether the Imperial Executive nominates the members of the Senate or the Irish Executive, because everybody knows that the Nationalist party would actually nominate them, although it might be the voice of the Chief Secretary which would probably give the names to the country. It does not matter whether they are nominated therefore by one body or by the other for the first eight years. Even if the hon. Member's idea

    479
    were carried out, and the Executive in this House nominated those who they thought would form the strongest and best Senate, it would have to be borne in mind that immediately that Senate ran counter to the wishes of the Lower House there would be passed a Parliament Act, with the result that the position would be very much the same as that which obtains in this House at the present moment, a position which I am sure everybody on every side is beginning to get sick of because of its intolerable nature.
    There is another point which I would like to make with regard to this Amendment, and it is this. If you carry your nominated Senate for eight years, those put on by the Executive at the present moment might have to live very unhappy lives in some parts of Ireland. I presume the right hon. Gentleman would try to nominate the Senate from various counties or provinces. Imagine the hon. and learned Member for Cork being nominated to act on the Senate as representing Louth! He would have to go back to his old Constituency. What a state of terrorism would prevail if he ventured to put his face once more into that constituency! I think it would be far better to allow this to remain in the hands of the Irish Executive than for the right hon. Gentleman to add still further to the burdens of his office by picking and choosing Members to act on this Senate throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. To start with, he would most probably select the very people who we most sincerely distrust in Ireland—people like those who wrote to the "Times" the other day, recommending some sort of conciliation or some sort of rapprochment. He would select those people who have been steadily purchased with knighthoods, baronetcies, peerages, or who have been appointed Knights of St. Patrick for the purpose of getting a body together who, when the Government found themselves in a hole, would be prepared to write, a letter to the public Press expressing a hope that some way would be found for the Government out of the mess into which it had got itself. These are the people who the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt has in his mind to nominate to the Senate.
    We know perfectly well that that staunch Protestant the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell) would be in the very highest position on that body, and I presume that others who have been
    480
    brought into objectionable notoriety within the past fortnight or so would also be selected. But if the idea for a moment should enter the heads of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that these men, if nominated even to the number of 80 or 100, would be a safeguard for the loyalists of Ireland, I may tell them that not a single one of them has the slightest weight in any political circle in Ireland, and not one would be trusted for a moment. Most of them have been Unionists at one time, but, for their material advantage, have ratted, like so many hon. Members opposite. I hope hon. Members will not imagine that that class of men would have in the slightest degree the confidence of the loyalist minority in Ireland. If the Government has anything in the nature of safeguards to bring before the House, I can only say I hope that those safeguards will not be based on such flimsy pretexts as those put forward by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MOORE: I will be perfectly candid with the Committee. I really do not regard this as a safeguard. I judge all safeguards by the test of how they are going to work. I look at them from the point of view of how they affect the minority on whose behalf only the Government profess to insert this particular provision in their Bill. From the point of view of the minority I do not think this will work. The hon. Member's Amendment raises the question whether a nominated Second Chamber would be preferable to an elected Second Chamber, and I take it that is really what we are discussing now; whether it shall continue or not for eight years is not very important. The real point is whether we are to have a nominated Second Chamber or an elected one. I quite agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend said just now with regard to the personnel of the nominees. We have only to look at the Irish administration for the last six years to know exactly the class of gentlemen who will be put in this nominated Senate. The Government would ransack the offices of the "Freeman's Journal," and everybody there down to the printer's devil would become a nominated member of the Irish Senate.
    Then the staff of the Land Commission, the National Insurance Commission, and of every public department will be drawn upon, and as there is a steady supply flowing in to those departments, there would be plenty of material for nominated members. It would be a test for a

    481
    nominated member of the Senate, especially should there be a salary attached, that he should belong to the National Health Association, for that is a favourite stepping stone to promotion. Of course they will do their best to get a few so-called Protestants to take part in the farce and to act as a sort of decoy duck for their co-religionists. All these classes would be drawn upon in order to get a greater proportion of Unionists than that party is really entitled to, but if the desire is to get a Senate which will command the confidence of the Protestant minority, I can only say that a Chamber so constituted will not have the confidence of the Protestants. Nobody set up by the Nationalists below the Gangway could expect to have such confidence. We know their methods too well.
    I come to the alternative, and I will state why I think I would be rather inclined to favour a nominated Chamber. I would be altogether against an elected Senate. Of course in England I should support the latter, so I would in Scotland, for in those countries no man runs any risk in voting for the man he prefers. The Ballot Act is more or less observed, and, at any rate so far as intimidation goes, the Corrupt Practices Act is enforced. But in Ireland a very different slate of affairs prevails. The whole election staff would be drawn from an organisation run and controlled by the party machine in Dublin. Again and again it has been proved in evidence that these gentlemen in Dublin have sent their own special corps of bludgeon men into county constituencies in order to manipulate the elections. I was talking to a Tipperary Unionist not long ago, and he informed me that nearly every Unionist in that constituency had done his best to get off the register, lest he should be called upon by one Nationalist party or another to vote for it, with the result that he would be boycotted by their opponents for the rest of his life. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may think that a joke, but it is only too true a description of the state of affairs. It was brought out at the time we were discussing the findings of the judges in the Louth election petition, and it is absolutely characteristic of the way in which the minority would be treated if they were called upon to vote for one candidate or another. I will take as little time of the Committee as I can in reading this Report, but when we are considering whether there should
    482
    be nomination or election, you ought to consider how elections are worked.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is quite entitled to put that before the Committee, but I hope not at this stage. We shall very shortly arrive at the question of nomination as against election, and I think it would be better if ho were to defer his remarks on that until we arrive at that stage.
    Mr. MOORE: I at once accept your ruling, and I will not at this stage refer to this Report, but I shall do so upon the first opportunity when I am in order, and if I am called upon. It is part of my duty as a Unionist Member here to show the barbarity and cruelty to an unfortunate minority in a division which a contested election entails upon them when it is run under Nationalist orders. We know what goes on in Belfast. When you go to West Belfast you find that there is more corrupt practice and intimidation carried on in that division than in the rest of the Kingdom put together. It is common knowledge that you cannot get a Unionist elector to go before a Revision Sessions or to prosecute inquiries. I will go into that matter again later, but for the reason that a contested election is simply made a tyranny to any independent Protestant or Unionist who lives in the division, I think that if this farce is to be played at all it should be played in a way which will satisfy them. There ought to be nomination instead of election. I do not want to be taken as saying for one moment that either of those courses would satisfy them. How could it? I could not pretend it would, when I know that the Chamber you set up will be a fraud from start to finish, and that it will never possess any independence of any sort, because you provide by the Bill that the moment it differs with the Lower House, which will consist of a majority of Nationalists, it is to sit in Joint Session and submit to be outvoted. That is your Parliament Act in this very Bill. Therefore, whether you create this Senate by nomination, even if, as the senior Member for Dublin University would say, you put angels into it, it is not the least use in view of the provision for a Joint Session, which has been put in for the same reason which actuates the Government in everything, namely, when there is a difference between the two Houses, to prevent it from being said, "You will have to appeal to your masters and to our masters, that is the people."

    483
    There is all this business about the Joint Session. I wonder you did not propose to put it in the Parliament Act for this House. At any rate, it is put in here to make sure that if the Legislative Council, however it is created, has the independence of differing for a moment with the Lower Chamber in which there is a Nationalist majority, they will be outvoted. The hon. Member says there is a safeguard. All this, however, is a matter of the most profound indifference to me, whether you nominate the Senate, or whether it is elected, or made up of ex-officio members.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I think that after we have heard the voice of a particular section of Ireland it may be well to put the views of the majority of Irishmen upon the broad principle that is raised in the Amendment. I am not going to attempt to discuss the precise method of nomination, or whether we are to have nomination for a considerable period of years, eight years or less; I want to put from my experience of Ireland, and of this particular principle in operation, the plea that whatever else is done at all events we should start with a nominated Senate. It is well to remind the Committee, as the hon. and learned Member has just done, that the Leader of the Nationalist party, speaking in this House said that if he had to nominate this Senate he would begin by putting into it a majority of Unionists.
    Mr. MOORE: He said the same thing about the Local Government Act, and then would not allow it to be carried out.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: There is not a word of truth in that.
    Mr. MOORE: There is.
    Mr. S. GWYNN: If I may describe to the Committee what I take to be our object with regard to the purpose this Senate is to serve, I would not put it as being a safeguard. I put it that the Senate would be a means of bringing into Irish public life representatives of a section of Irish opinion which at the present time is outside public life in Ireland.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going again into the question of the virtues of nomination or election. We shall reach that point on definite words in the Bill very shortly. We have now to dispose of the question, not whether the proposal in the Bill shall be nomination,
    484
    but whether nomination should be extended for a definite period of eight years.
    Mr. S. GWYNN: I thought the discussion had gone a good deal wider than that, but I wish to obey your ruling, Sir. It appears to me that the larger issue has been challenged, and that the question of good faith has been raised in the speeches to which we have listened.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the point upon which I pulled up the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), who was going into arguments as to why he preferred nomination to election, and I understood that the hon. Member washed to follow him in those arguments. That will be quite in order shortly. I think we had better not go into it at this point.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I would suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. Lees Smith) that he should withdraw this Amendment, which I think rather unduly restricts the discussion. As I understand your ruling, Sir, the only thing which it would be relevant to discuss at this moment is whether, assuming nomination in the first instance, at any rate, as the basis of the new Senate, its members should retire in rotation year after year, or whether nomination should be for a fixed term of years?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very narrow point, and one which can be easily raised afterwards on a subsequent Subsection. If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment now, I think we may come to the question which is really interesting the Committee and which it really wishes to discuss, namely: first, whether the Senate should either in the first instance, or for all time, be based on the principle of nomination; and next, supposing they agree in the first instance that it should be based on the principle of nomination, whether subsequent creations should not be based on some other principle, such as that of proportional representation. I think the whole Committee desires to discuss those two points. We are embarrassed in doing so by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I hope he will withdraw it.
    Mr. MOORE: The Prime Minister does nothing to facilitate us, and I will do nothing to facilitate him. I object to the withdrawing of the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not yet asked leave to withdraw.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I suggest to my hon. Friends behind me another reason, in addition to that given by the Prime Minister, why it would be to the advantage of the whole Committee that this Amendment should be withdrawn. As I understand it, the only ground upon which the hon. Member presses the Amendment is that he thinks the Senate would be more fairly constituted if nominated by the right hon. Gentleman than if nominated by the heads of the Irish Executive. From our point of view it makes no difference. It is quite certain that in either case it will be hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who will nominate in the one case by giving their instructions to the right hon. Gentleman, and in the other case by acting directly. For that reason I think it would be better to proceed to other Amendments, and I hope my hon. Friends will not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["the Irish Senate shall consist of"], to insert the words "the Lords Lieutenant and custodes rotulorum of the counties and cities of Ireland, the chairmen for the time being of the county councils of Ireland, and the Lord Mayors for the time being of the county boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry."
    I should like to say that this Amendment is not moved with any hostility to any other Amendments dealing with the future of the Irish Senate. It was put upon the Paper long before any alternative Amendment dealing with a substitute for the nominated Senate. The only question for us in reference to this or any other Amendment to this Clause is whether it will satisfy our Protestant countrymen. When I say that, I mean not merely or chiefly politicians, but that the mass of the reasonable Protestants of Ireland should have a substantial power in the government and in the administration of the country. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has already in the course of these Debates stated that we are in favour of any Amendments of this character which will form part of an agree-
    486
    ment among Irishmen of all classes and parties with a view to passing this Bill into law, or any other Bill that may be substituted for it, Amendments which will make certain that the Irish Parliament is the Parliament of a united country, free from any rational dread of oppression or of injustice from any side; and that there is absolutely nothing, short of the partition of Ireland, to which we would not gladly assent in the direction of increasing the power and the representation of the Unionist minority in Ireland, even if the effect in arithmetical strictness was unfair to the Nationalist majority. To my mind the only practical question is whether the Bill as it stands, or the proposal I now make, or any proposal that may be hereafter made, will be most likely, or at all likely to satisfy the mass of Irish Protestants on that subject, or do anything to disarm the opposition, not merely of Ulster, but of the Protestant minorities in other parts of Ireland, for whom, I confess, I am more immediately concerned. In my belief, the Clause, as it stands, will most certainly not do that. Neither, in my opinion, will proportional representation. I am in total discord, both with the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) and the hon. Member (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) in thinking that the Clause, as it stands, will be satisfactory to almost anyone. Whatever other plan may work well or work ill, it is to me quite clear that a nominated Senate would, in the present circumstances of Ireland, combine every possible disadvantage. To me it is scarcely possible to conceive any arrangement which would work more viciously than a Senate, if you are to have a Senate, nominated by Dublin Castle or by the influences which are paramount there at the present moment. To my Constituents it will be an impossible and an intolerable arrangement, and, in my opinion, a gross wrong, not merely to the minority in Ireland, but to the majority of the people as well. I shrink from giving in this House my reasons for thinking so strongly on the subject, but I must say it would be as objectionable to the Nationalists of the South as to the Unionists of the North. If the Government persist in their proposal, the very least we are entitled to insist upon would be that at all events the names of the members of the nominated Senate should be published in the present Bill, although even that would have the obvious objection that it would force us into invidious personal criticisms. We take our

    487
    stand upon the principle that the nomination of a branch of the Irish Legislature, either by this House or by secret influences in Ireland, is in the last degree undemocratic.
    I have no bigoted parental attachment to the particular proposal that I make, but it would, at all events, have the recommendation that, whereas under any other system that I know it is most doubtful how the Unionist minority in Ireland would fare, under this proposal you would have the absolute certainty that the Protestant minority in Ireland would enjoy at least numerical equality if it did not actually hold the balance of power. The Irish Senate, constituted as this Amendment would constitute it, would not, of course, be an entirely elected body, but the majority of that body would be indirectly elected, as in the case of the French Senate, and it would unquestionably be composed of the best representatives in the country. The chairmen of county councils and the Lord Mayors of the boroughs would form a distinct majority of the Irish Senate, and I do not think anyone will deny that the men who are elected to these high offices are the best representative men in Ireland, in brains and solid good sense, and moderate, as well as genuinely, democratic views. The only non-elective element would be that of the Lords Lieutenant of the counties. They are men, of course, the large majority of whom would be at present classed as Unionists. But they are also the very class of men who, in the entirely new combinations of an Irish Parliament, would be almost certain to merge themselves in a national peace party whose business it would be to unite all sorts and conditions of Irishmen for the peaceful progress of the country. In addition to that I think certainly four and probably live chairmen of the county councils would also be Unionists, and two of the four Lord Mayors would be Unionists also, and, as far as I know, there are only two Lords Lieutenant who are Catholics and they are not Nationalists. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough), who is the Lord Lieutenant for the county of Cavan, is undoubtedly a stalwart Home Ruler, but he is also a stalwart Protestant man, as they call them in Ulster. But I do not think anyone will deny that as to the generality of the Lords Lieutenant they are precisely the type of men that the mass of the
    488
    Unionists of Ireland would select as typical Irish Unionists, and they are also men who in my opinion would be entirely unobjectionable to the mass of Irish Nationalists.
    As to what party would be in a majority in the Upper House it is a matter that cannot be prognosticated with any certainty, but the possibilities, and even I think the probabilities, are that moderate men and broadly Nationalist men would find themselves in a majority in the Upper House, and I do not think there is a single Nationalist of good sense who would have the slightest objection if the result were to give confidence to reasonable Protestants of Ireland. Certainly, I know of no friend of my own who would have the slightest objection to men of that stamp even holding the balance of power in the Upper House in Ireland, because I am absolutely certain that they could only have a majority by a community of interests—by an identity of material interests — as between them and the majority of the Irish people under the wholly new conditions which arise, and I have not a shadow of a doubt that not only would the arrangement be an essential element of appeasement, but it would 'work most smoothly as between the two Irish legislative bodies.
    Some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon would lead me to think it would be an additional clement of my proposal that a Senate so constituted would not contain a single existing Irish Member of Parliament with, I think, the exception of the Lord Mayor of Belfast, whose term of office, I am afraid, will have expired long before then. I say most earnestly that, in my opinion, the sort of Parliament that the Irish people would want would be very largely new men, very largely non-politicians, and men who are unspoilt by the quarrels of the last thirty years. In fact, if I were asked to put down an Amendment which, in my view at all events, would work more than all the other mass of Amendments on the Paper with a view to the passing of this Bill, and to make it work happily for Ireland and for England as well, I should be inclined to put down a self-denying ordinance disqualifying, at all events for the first Irish Parliament, every existing Irish Member, whether he comes from the North, the South, the East, or the West. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) will only start a covenant in that direction I should be one of the first cheerfully to sign it. Again I say, to my

    489
    mind, this is entirely a matter for the Unionist minority in Ireland themselves. If they prefer either a nominated Senate or proportional representation I shall not stand in the way. In my view, whatever value proportional representation may have as a safeguard for the minority will depend entirely upon the Schedule attached to the Bill. I should not object to the election of men for wider constituencies, even as wide as an Irish province, but I am afraid even with the wider constituencies it would be impossible to get anything like a certainty of the minority in Ireland obtaining anything even approaching half the entire representation. Even in Munster, though some counties would vote for Protestants, there would he a danger of the vote being neutralised by the vote in other counties in the province, not in the least through any religious bigotry—there is absolutely no religious bigotry in any part of Munster— but simply owing to the extreme smallness of the Protestant electorate and the paucity of Protestant gentlemen in it who are sufficiently well known to have any influence over us.
    I pass from that and I say again that if the representatives of the minority in Ireland prefer proportional representation I certainly shall not stand in the way of their decision. I would respectfully ask the Government, before they come to any conclusion upon the subject, to remember that the representation of the minority, which under any other plan would be at the very least a matter of not more than possibility or probability, would be under the proposal I make an absolute certainty, and you would have a Senate with a strong infusion of the best representative elements of all kinds in the country, and you would., at the same time, in spite of what my hon. Friends above the Gangway may say, inspire the mass of the Protestant minority in Ireland with the confidence, and even with the certainty, that they had substantial power in the Government and the Administration. I have some experience of Ireland, and certainly I venture to say that the proposal I make now to the Committee would be infinitely the best way of getting over the difficulty which was raised by the proposal made in this Bill—a proposal which I say, without hesitation, has created almost universal dislike and distrust among Irishmen of all classes and denominations in the South as well as in the North of Ireland.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I shall, of course, only deal with the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. O'Brien), and not with the various alternative proposals he mentioned in the course of his speech. His suggestion is that there should be substituted for the nominated Senate an ex-officio one. The ex-officio Senate which he proposes would consist of the chairmen of the Irish county councils (some thirty-three in number), the Lord Mayors of four cities, and the Lieutenants of the counties and cities, who are thirty-four in number, thereby constituting a Senate of seventy-one. I think the size of the Senate is too great, having regard to the proportions to be preserved between the nominated Second Chamber and the elective House of Commons which the Bill proposes to constitute, which will consist of 164 Members. The object of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman as he very frankly stated, is to secure an even balance, or something like an even balance, of opinion in the Senate. For my part, I should prefer to see an overwhelming proportion of Unionist opinion in the Senate rather than an even balance. He thinks the even balance is secured by putting on one side the chairmen of county councils, and, at all events, some of the Lord Mayors—they, too, would be Nationalists if these parties and denominations are for ever to continue—while he presumes that the Lieutenants of counties, being nominated by the Crown, and thirty-four in number, would probably be gentlemen of the other way of thinking. I do not know that that necessarily can be relied upon. I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that while he provides that Lieutenants and custodes rotulorum should be members of the Senate, it is no doubt a fact in Ireland, and I dare say in England also, that though these two offices are held by one person, they are perfectly distinct offices, and held by means of separate Letters Patent. The gentleman who holds the office of Lieutenant of a county has duties to perform in relation to the raising of Militia by ballot, and the making of recommendations for commissions in the Militia. The Lieutenancy is a military office and not a civil one. The office of custos rotulorum is a civil one perfectly separate from and not necessarily combined in the same person as the Lieutenancy. The office is a rather difficult one in modern society as

    491
    regards the recommendation of persons for the Commission of the Peace. Assuming that the office of custos rotulorum would be filled by the Irish Executive, and assuming that it was not held by one and the same person as the Lieutenancy, you might get thirty-four additional persons, making a Senate of over 100, and the nicely adjusted balance which the hon. Member desires would be rudely upset.
    For my own part, I see no advantage in having an ex-officio Senate. There may be considerations for and against a nominated or an elected Seriate, or a Senate partially one and partially the other, but this proposal of the lion. Member is for an ex-officio Senate. I do not think ex-officio bodies ever work well. I do not think that persons who hold one post should by virtue of that be entitled to hold other offices. I do not think the knowledge on the part of the chairman of a county council that he was going to be ex-officio a member of the Senate would be at all conducive to the better conduct of local government in Ireland. For these reasons, and also because of the size of the new body, the Government cannot possibly consent to the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: This Amendment, at all events, is, I admit, an attempt on the part of the Mover to try to keep the Second Chamber from being the nominees of a party leader here or a party leader in Ireland. So far my sympathies are entirely with the hon. Member for Cork who moved the Amendment. Indeed, I think the general tenor of his speech breathed the spirit of fairness in this connection, and I think the House may congratulate him upon it in the circumstances, although I feel the hon. Gentleman deserves more commendation than I have in these brief words endeavoured to bestow upon him. I admit, though for reasons different from those advanced by the Chief Secretary, that I also am of opinion that probably it would do little good, and that some harm might be done, if we introduced the Amendment in the Bill. The Chief Secretary objected to an Amendment because the hon. Gentleman who moved it did not fully grant the purport of it, and he pointed out that he might find the whole balance of political power in the Upper Chamber entirely upset by a sudden division of the existing Lieutenants of counties, if one gentleman continued to be, or would be made, Lord Lieutenant, while another gentleman might be made
    492
    custos rotuloruw. I certainly think it is one of the unexpected results of the Home Rule Bill that the Government should now disclose to us what they have never before revealed. May I ask where was the last case in Ireland, or in the United Kingdom, in which the Lieutenancy of a county was separated from the custos rotulorum? How long is it since the civil and military duties were discharged by two individuals instead of one? Has it ever happened?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think it has happened, but very rarely. They are two distinct offices, and the one does not carry the other. They are generally combined in the same person.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I believe they have always been combined in the same person. In the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who is Lieutenant of the county of Cavan, I do not know whether his natural gifts are more on the civil or the military side. As I understand the Chief Secretary, the Lieutenants in Ireland would continue to be appointed by the Crown and on the advice of the British Government, and the custodes rotulorum would be transferred to the Irish Government—that is not mentioned in the Bill— and they would be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the advice of the Irish Administration. It seems very curious that any Lieutenant of an Irish county henceforth who incurs the animosity of the Irish Administration will suddenly find that if he remains Lieutenant for military purposes, he will cease to have the civil functions associated with the office of custos rotulorum. I do not know that it will be very important to the Senate or to anybody else. It is a curious thing in our Debates that this singular change should be disclosed when we are dealing with an Amendment with respect to the constitution of the Second Chamber in the Irish Parliament. Very shortly, my objection to the Amendment is this: I think it would drag at once local government in Ireland even more deeply into the mire of general party polities than' it is at present. I am afraid that even now politics come in far too much, perhaps in both countries, but certainly in Ireland, in connection with all those questions of county and other administration.
    I think that to put before the electors in the counties and large boroughs in Ireland not merely the proposition that they have to choose the best man for carrying out his local duties as chairman of a county council

    493
    or as Lord Mayor, but that they have also to choose by the same act the man who is going to take part in the work of safeguarding the interests of the minority in Ireland, would be to put before them A choice which would do very little towards making a good Second Chamber, and which would do a great deal towards rendering the path of local government, which is difficult everywhere, more difficult in the future than it is at present. That is the real reason why I cannot support this Amendment. I think it is a reason which perhaps will appeal to the hon. Gentleman himself. He may think that this is an added dignity to the chairmen of county councils and to Lord Mayors which will raise their status, and raise the character of the men appointed to these offices, and improve rather than deteriorate the general administration of local government. Nothing, of course, but experience will show whether he is right or I am right, but certainly with such observation as I have been able to make as to the course which local government has taken in recent years, I should be greatly afraid that, instead of raising local government by this act to a higher level than it holds at present, you would abandon the last possible hope of making the Second Chamber in the Irish Parliament a body which would gain the respect of the Irish people as a whole, and the regard in particular of the minority, and which would carry weight at the bar of public opinion in the United Kingdom.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not suppose that the Chief Secretary when considering this question realised that there was a serious and vital question at stake for the future happiness and good government of Ireland. I do not think that I ever heard a more perfunctory statement or one less worthy of the right hon. Gentleman, for he went into a disquisition which, as far as I could make it out, had nothing whatever to say to the case, namely, as to the difference between a custos rotularum and a Lord Lieutenant of a county; and he informed us, which seemed very surprising to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Balfour), that the Lord Lieutenant is going to be excluded and continue to be nominated by the Crown. If he would remember the incidents of 1893, he would remember that Mr. Hanbury moved an Amendment which was accepted by Mr. Gladstone, and which, I he will find, excluded Lord Lieu-
    494
    tenants of counties from the Bill of 1893, so that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman docs not take me at least by surprise. But what has that to say to the case? Suppose they be different persons—suppose the letters patent to be different, how does that affect the question? What is the object of my right hon. Friend, and what is the object with which we are discussing this question of the Senate? Our object is to make things comfortable for the Protestants in Ireland. Our object is to allay unreasonable suspicions. We do not take heed, in a full measure at least, of all the declarations made in this House by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Perhaps in this House we all speak a little over concert pitch, and if we do not run to the high level of the boiling point of the lion. Member for North Armagh, I am quite sure that he thinks he is representing the people; but we know that he is not, just as in the same way I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cork may not now be exactly representing the current wave of Nationalist opinion in striving, as we are doing, to secure for Protestant Ireland rather more than their fair share of representation in the Senate. But we do so, not that we expect recognition, not that we expect acceptation from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, because we know very well that their opposition will continue just as well as before.
    Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is in the minds of the masses of the people of Ireland, be they Protestants or Catholics, a desire to see a businesslike body which will attract the confidence of the public, not merely by the ability of those whom it encloses, but also by the fact that they are men of solid worth and stake in the country. That is our object in proposing this Amendment. Therefore I think our object must be contrasted with the object of those who wish differently. I do not say for a moment, and my hon. Friend has not contended, that this Amendment represents the acme of political wisdom. Far from it. All I say is that in competition with the proposal of the Government it stands head and shoulders over it. I challenge any man on these benches to go down to the constituencies and say, "I am in favour of a Second Chamber nominated by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," and to contrast that proposal with a proposal which involves that every chairman of a county council shall at least have a

    495
    voice in it, and compare the two and say which his constituents will prefer. The suggestion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City that the chairmen of county councils will in some way lessen their position locally if they are included in a national Senate. I do not think that that is the feeling of the people. I believe that they would show more care in their selection of these gentlemen if they knew that they had to exercise a dual function, namely, a function in the localities, a position perhaps of moderator of local passion in the locality, and that of a senator, knowing very well that every local act of alleged injustice or maladministration would be challenged, as if; would be, when they took their seats in the Senate House in Dublin. Therefore, knowing from our long experience the kindly action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London which he has taken upon Irish affairs, I must respectfully say that I do not at all agree with him in the opinion which he has expressed.
    What is going to be done? Are not we. entitled to know, before you put the Question—it may be perhaps put under the Closure— "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," if this Clause represents and exhausts the intelligence and scope and possibilities of the Government's intentions in this matter? If it does, I care very little myself upon the matter so far as Nationalists are concerned, but I say you are missing an opportunity for providing a sedative and an anodyne for the fears and alarms which many Protestants do entertain throughout the country from one end to the other. It is only in that spirit that we have proposed this, and these proposals are the real safeguards in the Bill. We want to run our country as a going concern. We do not want to take it over baptised in blood. We want those who have these alarms to be told that as far as these Nationalists are concerned they have stepped out of their ranks—they have gone out of their way to meet them. For my part, I would not hestiate to support a proposal which would have in this Senate a majority of Protestants, or have it even a totally Protestant body. I recall the hon. Member for Waterford having repeated the saying of Daniel O'Connor that he would rather go back to the old Protestant, Senate of Ireland than be governed by this House. I have the same
    496
    feeling. I would rather be governed by Orangemen in Dublin than by archangels in Westminster. It is in that spirit that my hon. Friend has proposed this Amendment, and I do believe that, though it is rejected now by the Government, its wisdom will later on be perceived, and, at all events, let it be rejected or not as it may, honest, reasonable Protestant feeling in Ireland will discover that we desire to make no attack upon their religion, their liberty, or their property, and that we, at all events, are willing to give them safeguards which would protect them in the free exercise of every reasonable liberty that they wish to enjoy.
    Mr. MOORE: I think that after the speech which we have heard it would be somewhat ungracious for one of the people who have been criticised with both blessings and curses if we did not at once say that we are all very grateful to the two hon. Members for Cork who have brought forward this Amendment. It is not that I like the Amendment, or think that there is very much in it; but, at the same time, it affords a very useful test as to which of the two Nationalist parties are in earnest when they are both bleating conciliations to us Protestants for the first time in their history. Since the last Home Rule Bill there never has been a time when we have been met with such protestations of love and mutual confidence and everything else from the Nationalist Benches until this Home Rule Bill was introduced, and from my knowledge of the country for the last fifteen years there has never been a time when everything was so calm. Cattle-driving has ceased or is hung up, outrage does not occur so often in the papers, and it is all part of the same programme. Nothing untoward is to occur which would make the English people, after all, realise what the sentiments are towards Irish Unionists, but when we take the test the hon. Member for Water-ford stops with the honeyed words and the persuasive manner, while the hon. Member for Cork is willing to put into the Bill what he considers a possible safeguard, and, having ascertained it, ho proposes to translate his feelings into legislative action. Then the Government and the hon. Member for Waterford say, "We will have none of it." I think that for us Ulster Unionists it is a very tangible mark of which party of the Nationalists are more sincere in their protestations. I may be allowed to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we entirely a

    497
    the sincerity of the hon. Member for Cork in this matter. I do not think it will work, and I am not going to vote for it, because I think it would really add to the farce.
    I am entitled, I suppose, to look at it from the point of view of the Chief Secretary. We are supposed at present to be considering safeguards. That, I take it, is what this Government say this Clause is for. One would have imagined that when a responsible Minister of the Government gets up to consider this proposition he would have considered it from the point of view, "Will it or will it not be an adequate safeguard for the minority?" The Chief Secretary's speech was not concerned with that aspect of it at all. He had his orders not to accept it, and there was no use in arguing it. He put himself in the position of pointing out, and I am not at all sure that he was right, that the appointment of the custos rotulorum would rest with the Irish Parliament. I would imagine that it was a dignity which was exempted from the control of the Irish Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman would catch at any straw at any moment to put a spoke in the wheel of the hon. Member for Cork. The real point is: Here is a tangible proposition put forward in all sincerity of which we have this to say, that it would give the Unionist minority for certain under the Act one-third of the representation in the Upper Chamber. I do not attach importance to it as a working safeguard, but I attach every importance to it as evidence of a disposition towards conciliation on the part of the hon. Members for Cork, and I am only sorry that, while I feel bound to say that I am sure that they will acquit me of any de-side to do them any harm, I know that in the Nationalist papers through Ireland to-morrow I shall be the unfortunate means of getting them ostracised and criticised, and because I ventured to express my thanks to them for which they will be described as in league with the Orangemen. They are very often called Orange bastards. It has happened again and again. They have been described as Orangemen, because I got up in my place to thank them. I am sorry to expose them to such a fate, but it is only right that they should be thanked for their sincerity.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not rise to take at in the discussion on this Amendment, think having risen for another purpose,
    498
    I cannot avoid saying the same thing as has been said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) and my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moore) behind me. The speeches to which we have listened from the two hon. Members for Cork do at least show that when they talk of their desire to live in friendliness with their Protestant fellow countrymen they are willing to put that desire into force, and that is a thing which so far has not been displayed by the Government or by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I also say, in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork, who spoke last, that I was struck by his statement that he would rather be governed by Orangemen in Belfast than by archangels in Westminster. I remember that at a time of Grattan's Parliament a Catholic Bishop said that he would rather be governed by the Beys and Mamelukes of Egypt than by the Mamelukes of Dublin Castle. I would like, however to say with regard to this matter that the only point of view, in granting Home Rule on any terms to Ireland, is that it satisfies their fellow countrymen, that the proposal will not be to their disadvanage. I say let him go to Ireland to convince the people of Ulster that civil and religious liberty are not endangered? Then I think the Government would come to this House on a very different footing than they do now. The hon. and learned Member said to the right hon. Gentleman, "We have made our proposals, what are yours?" I think that is a reasonable request to make.
    The right hon. Gentleman says, "Our proposals are in the Bill, and so far as we can judge now we mean to make no change." But we have had rumours of the ordinary kind, to which I do not attach undue importance, that the Government, intend to make a change in the Bill, and if that be so, I say they ought to make some statement. If that is their intention they ought to have made a statement at the earliest possible moment. We have a limited time in which to discuss the whole Pill, and are absolutely in the dark about the Government proposal, and we do not know what it is. Of course if the Government stick to the Bill and make no change, my argument falls to the ground, but if they do make a radical change it is simply inconceivable that they should come down to the House and asked us to discuss the Bill at the beginning of the sitting, while they have an entirely new proposal. In

    499
    the ordinary course of things under the Closure Resolution those matters have to be postponed. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will say whether, as at present advised, he means to stick to the Bill, or, if he does not, he ought to tell us what he means to do.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that it would really be better if we could deal with this as early as possible, and then get on to the question of policy.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I suggest, with all respect, that I do not think it matters on what particular Amendment we get a declaration of the Government intention. The discussion of any Amendment is really entirely absurd if we do not know what is in the minds of the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, I do not mean to say that it would be out of order. At the outset to-day I said that there were many things which were in order that it was not perhaps convenient to take for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Government have a statement to make they could do so on this Amendment and that then we should know what it is. As a matter of order I cannot say that the alternative is out of order, but I hope that the discussion on the merits will be taken as suggested, instead of taking the opinion of the House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It seems to me that we are really wasting our time. If the Government have any change to make, then we ought to know what the change is, and I think it is expedient that they should tell us in general outline what they intend.
    Mr. BIRRELL: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister came down to the House to-day quite expecting that on the first Amendment he would have an opportunity of submitting certain proposals that he wished to put before the Committee. We were tied down by a perfectly legitimate restriction to the Amendment before the Committee, and therefore the opportunity passed by.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why was it not put on the Table? The Attorney-General promised it would be done.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Attorney-General made no such promise at all—he never made any promise of that sort with regard to the Senate. All I can say is that after
    500
    we have got rid of this Amendment, which has no relevancy to the general proposition, the Prime Minister, or, if he is not here, I myself will have an opportunity of stating the general views of the Government.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. A further Amendment m the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea comes after that of the hon. Member for Cork, and it deals with the composition of the Senate. It is perfectly idle to discuss the question whether it is to be a nominative Senate if the Government say, after all, that it is not going to be nominative, and is going to be elective. I do-suggest, in the interests of the Committee and in the interest of discussion, that the Government ought to tell us their intention now and at once.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Government will see that it is impossible to resist the demand now made. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork made a direct challenge to the Government. He said, "This is our scheme embodied in this Amendment. It may not be the high-water mark of statesmanship, but, at all events, it is better than the Government plan, and it is between this Amendment and the Government plan that this Committee has to choose." Although the Chief Secretary has not told us what the Government plan is, we know that the Government plan is not the plan of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has told us enough to make that clear. I submit that the Government have put us in a most unfair position. I see that the Prime Minister has come into the House, and I may tell him in a word the point that we are endeavouring to press upon the Government from this side of the House. It is that we have not only reached but long passed the stage when the Government ought to make us acquainted with any change it is proposed to make in the Bill. We had no knowledge when we came down to the House, except certain vague rumours, that any change was proposed, and we have been arguing throughout and up to the present, under the gag, upon the hypothesis that the Government proposal is contained in the Bill.
    The Amendments which are put down are alternatives to the proposal in the Bill; and that has been especially pressed upon the attention of the Committee by the hon. Member for Cork, who made a speech in

    501
    support of his colleague's proposal now before the Committee. He said, "Our plan as proposed by the Amendment may not be perfect, but, at all events, it is a better plan than the Government's plan." But apparently it is not the Government plan. The Government have some other plan of which we do not know. I think we have been treated with gross unfairness. My right hon. Friend made an appeal to the Attorney-General on this very subject some days ago, that, considering the circumstances under which we are compelled to discuss this Bill, we should have due notice of any change of policy on which the Government have determined before we come down to the House to discuss it. I understand that the Attorney-General, though he made no specific pledge about this particular Amendment, did say, as representing the Government, that he thought it was a reasonable request.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think I remember what I said, though I have sent for the Report. I think I did say that the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was a reasonable one. He asked if the Amendment would be put on the Paper, as it would be a great convenience. I replied that if it could be done, whenever we could do it, we would do it. I certainly did not go further than that.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee that I am not making the slightest suggestion of breach of faith. I do not say for one moment that the Government have made a promise and have now broken it. But surely it would be a most reasonable request, and was admitted to be a reasonable request by the Government themselves, that we ought to have time, especially when changes are going to be made in the Bill of great importance. It is impossible to discuss them under the restrictions of the Closure, and we should know what it is we are going to discuss. The Government not only do not tell us what we are going to discuss before coming into the House, but they do not tell us what is going to be discussed when they do come down to the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cork had the slightest knowledge in reference to this matter; I do not think he had from the tenor of his speech and of his argument, which was that at all events
    502
    the plan contained in his Amendment was a better plan than that in the Bill. Otherwise, his, argument had no meaning, if he did not know what the plan of the Government was. I think either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General not merely or simply because the Attorney-General thought it was a reasonable request, but in obedience to something much deeper than that, in obedience to the ordinary decencies of Parliamentary practice, ought to have said what was the plan we were to discuss this afternoon, and they should have given us full notice before we came down, or, if for some reason unknown to us it was not possible to make up their minds until a quarter to four this afternoon, then at all events at a quarter to four they should have given us a full explanation of the new plan.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I may take upon myself the duty of dealing with this matter. I had let it be known before we began the discussion to-day that I wished, as it were, to clear the course for what I took to be the chief discussion we were to have as between nomination and proportional representation, and it was for that reason that I made a special endeavour to confine the earlier discussion to a limited time. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in his claim that a declaration might be made on any Amendment, and I am not in a position to say that would be out of order, because he is quite right that alternatives may be submitted to the proposal put before the Committee. If it is the desire, either on this Amendment or that which comes immediately next, that the discussion should be widened, I will certainly agree to it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With all respect, may I point out the case we are putting is not whether one Amendment or another should be discussed. Our case is, if the Government have made up their minds to make such a change in their proposal as to practically mean a new Clause and new method of dealing with the question, it was utterly absurd that we should not have knowledge of that change before we began to discuss the subject. There would not have been any difficulty, without in the least interfering with your idea as to the proper method of conducting debate, for the Prime Minister, or someone else, to tell us what the Bill of the Government now is, and then we could have dealt with-it with that knowledge. To bring us down to discuss things which may turn out to

    503
    be absolutely useless seems to me to be an additional injustice to that under which we are working. I do not think that any of us would make the slightest objection now to a Member of the Government telling us what they mean to do, and simply making a statement, whether it is in order or not. We should very much like that that should be done, and after that we can judge what kind the discussion ought to be.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This kind of discussion in Committee we always have on both sides of the House on this sort of point. I have never known a Bill in which a similar question was not raised. I appealed to my hon. Friend who had the first Amendment to withdraw it, and he did withdraw it, in the hope that we might reach a point at which some general discussion could take place. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, within his rights, raised the question which is now before the Committee. What he suggests is a specific proposal of his own, which is quite a new one, and the one with which the discussion has hitherto dealt. It appeared to me to be desirable to get rid of that also before we came to the general question that arises on the word "nominated" in order that the Government might explain their views on the matter. If it is the general desire of the Committee, without any strict regard to technicalities of order, that some statement of the kind should be made I am ready to make it. When I introduced the Bill, and again on Second Reading, I said that in the view of the Government the important thing was that the Second Chamber should be relatively a small body, and should be a body in which adequate provision should be made for the representation of the minority or minorities in Ireland, and that, without having regard to the special circumstances of that country, we had come to the conclusion, not without a great deal of hesitation, that the best way in the first instance for securing that object would be to have a relatively small nominated Chamber. We thought it possible by means of nomination to introduce into the Second Chamber elements of Irish opinion and interest which might not secure adequate representation through the ordinary machinery of popular election. It was with that object, and with that object only, we suggested the principle of nomination as the basis of the selection
  504
  of this body. But I think I indicated then, or at any rate it has always been the opinion of the Government, that so long as the main governing purpose could be attained the particular machinery by which it should be arrived at was a matter which might well receive further discussion and the ventilation of public opinion.
  I received myself a deputation, I think in the month of June, shortly after the introduction of the Bill. It was a very representative deputation, including, I think, gentlemen coming from all parts of the country, and it strongly impressed on me and on my colleagues the importance of introducing, for the purpose of the adequate representation of minorities, what is called the proportional principle. I was very much impressed by the facts and by the arguments which were brought forward by that deputation, and I think, though I am not quoting literally but from memory, I said in substance it appeared to me that whatever general opinions we might have about the application of proportionate representation, that there were very few communities which were better fitted for its experimental application than Ireland, under its existing social and political conditions. Subsequent reflection, and the accumulation of evidence, has rather tended to confirm than to weaken the impression which was made upon my mind by the deputation. I think, and I have always thought, that the proposal in the Bill that the places of the original nominees on the Imperial Government should from time to time be filled by persons selected by the Irish Government at the time was open to criticism upon this simple ground that, whereas the Imperial Government in a matter of that kind, I should have thought from what I heard from the right hon. Gentleman, might be trusted to act, and certainly would have no temptation but to act with an honest, bonâ-fide desire to secure the representation of the minority, the same considerations might not operate, might not be expected to operate, with equal force in the minds of those who for the time being are in the position of power and represent the majority of the Irish Parliament. On the other hand, I think it would be open to very grave practical objection if you start with nomination by the Imperial authority, and that for all time to come places vacated by process of rotation or by dissolution or the termination of the body should be filled in the same way as the original Senate was filled,

  505
  because it cannot be expected, and one can see the force of the argument if yon apply the same plan to our Colonies or Dominions, that the Imperial Government should have the local and personal knowledge as we have in carrying on our own affairs in our own Legislature, as to the persons best qualified to fill these posts, which we might very well have in the first instance.
  So far as my recollection goes the only instance we have in the British Empire of a purely nominated Second Chamber is that in the Dominion of Canada. [HON. MEMBERS: "New Zealand."] At any rate Canada is the most conspicuous instance; I will not say it is the only example. In Canada the Senate is recruited from time to time by nomination on the part of the Government of the day. That produces from time to time, as I think all parties in Canada admit, somewhat inconvenient results, because, particularly when one party has been in power, as has happened more than once in the history of that Dominion, for a considerable term of years, the Senate is naturally recruited from adherents of that party. When a dissolution takes place in the popular Chamber and a General Election comes and a new party is placed in power, there is apt to be, and there has been in the past, possibly there is at the present moment, divergence of opinion between the popular Chamber and the Second Chamber, which it is difficult to rectify, and for which the Constitution does not find any remedy. That is undoubtedly an objection, a practical objection, to the continuance of the principle or practice of nomination to recruit a Second Chamber. This is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of machinery; it does not go to the essence of the Bill in any way.
  The object is, as I have said, to find a Second Chamber for Ireland which will as far as possible be from time to time fairly representative of the minority as well as of the majority of the electorate of that country. Personally, I do not care a bit, and I should not regard it as a matter in any way affecting the essence of this Bill, what particular plan was chosen if it was a plan which seemed to be the best calculated to attain that purpose. I do not regard this, therefore, as a matter which goes in the slightest degree to the fundamental principles of the Bill. I can only, therefore, give the Committee the best results of such reflection as we have been
  506
  able to apply to this subject on the various arguments and facts which have been brought before us. But, on the whole, the conclusion which we are disposed to recommend is this: That so far as the first Senate, the original Senate is concerned, the plan in the Bill is the best one; in other words, that it should be a nominated Senate. I think eight years, in view of what I am going to say, and what is to take place afterwards, is too-long, and a shorter term might very well be selected; but having, as we think, by means of a body nominated by the Imperial authority, in the first instance, secured, as I hope we shall, the adequate representation of minorities in the Second Chamber in Ireland, we think that, on the whole, in future, Parliament would be well advised in applying the principle of proportional representation for subsequent recruitment of that body.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is to apply to the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons as well?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking only of the Senate. When we come to the House of Commons, the popular body, I think very different considerations apply. It must be understood that what I say applies to the Senate and to the Senate alone. Let us see how that will work out practically. I have looked at the various suggestions that have been made, some of which appear in the form of Amendments on the Paper in the names of hon. Friends behind me. The plan which-seems to find most favour is this: That for the purpose of applying the principle of election as distinguished from the principle of nomination, to the recruitment of the Senate after the first senators, it would be well to proceed, not by counties or boroughs, but by provinces; because if you take the provinces of Ireland you have four large areas, and the distribution of the forty Members between those four areas might easily be arranged on the basis of population. I do not think there will be any real difficulty about that. Taking the case of Ulster, for instance,. it would work out at fourteen Members for that province. Taking the province as a whole, and the same electorate as voted for the Lower Chamber, there would be fourteen seats to-fill by the method of proportional representation, giving to each elector a transferable vote. In that way, over that larger area, you might easily succeed, I think, in

  507
  obtaining in the Senate an adequate representation of the minority of the electors. I am not sure whether the result would not be even more striking in some of the other provinces for instance, in Munster, where there is not, as there is in Ulster, a comparatively concentrated aggregated body, of people of the same religion and of the same politics, but where you have a number of scattered and relatively small communities, which if their members had to vote in small areas would hardy make their influence felt at all, but which if you aggregate them together over such a large area as that of a province might very well, through the machinery of the transferable vote, obtain an effective minority representation. That seems to us on reflection to offer the best chance of securing for the Irish Senate in the future the character and quality which we desire it should possess, namely, that of not merely reflecting the popular Chamber, but of giving an adequate and faithful reflection of the opinion of the scattered minorities throughout the length and breadth of the country. Although I am not an adherent of or even a convert to the principle of proportional representation as applied to popular election in this country—and I should be very sorry to say that I have changed my opinion on that point, because I have not; I am open to conviction and argument— yet, having regard to the peculiar social, political, and economic conditions of Ireland, it seems to us that, given we have a common object in view, namely, that the Second Chamber shall be a fair representation of the minorities in that country, on the whole the best way of obtaining that result is to endeavour to apply the principle of proportional representation by provinces and not by smaller areas. Therefore, in reply to the perfectly fair and legitimate appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me to state what is the plan favoured by the Government, I have to say that we think it would be better to start, for a short term of years, with a nominated Senate—because, after all, to bring into operation this entirely novel process of proportional representation by provinces is a matter which requires a certain amount of forethought and consideration. We think it would be better to start for a short term of years with a nominated body, a body which will not retire by rotation, but whose term of office would come to an end at the expiration of that period, and then for the recruitment of the Second Chamber
  508
  we should endeavour by some such system as I have adumbrated—I do not commit myself to the minute details—to give the minorities in Ireland the representation which we all agree they ought to have in a body of this kind.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the term of years for the nominated Chamber should be?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; but I think it ought to be a short one.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I desire to make to the right hon. Gentleman an appeal which I think must commend itself as reasonable to everyone who has heard the speech to which we have just listened, and which shows with what an entirely new proposal we are confronted. It is out of order for us to move to report Progress, but the Prime Minister has power to do it. I think that under these circumstances I am not making an unreasonable appeal in asking that we should adjourn now, so that we might have some time to consider the Bill of the Government as it now presents itself.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope I am not unreasonable in these matters. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a new proposition, though I think it is one that the Government were entitled to make, because in a matter of this kind, which is not a matter of principle, but a matter of machinery, I think we were bound to keep our minds open. ["Oh!"] It would be a very bad precedent if the Government were not to keep their minds open. But I do not quite know whether the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to me is to cease our proceedings now, in order that we might go on to-morrow, or that we should have some further discussion now and afterwards report Progress.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My appeal is that we should adjourn now, because personally— and I think this will apply to others—I would not like to speak on this subject until I have had time to consider what the general effect of the change will be, and until I have seen in black and white what the Amendments are. I really do not think that that is an appeal which can reasonably be refused.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of his party, tells me that they feel that they

  509
  cannot reasonably go on with the discussion, I feel very much coerced by the appeal, although I should have hoped that we might have had a general discussion, without committing ourselves to any decision—which I should not ask the Committee to do—which discussion might have done much to enable us to come to a final conclusion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I point out that even if we had that discussion, by what the right hon. Gentleman has already said, he has practically agreed that we should have more time than is allowed under the guillotine? You would have to give an additional day in any case. Would it not be far better to leave this matter now, and come to it with fresh minds when we know exactly what the proposal is?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to remind the Committee that under the terms of the Resolution of the House, if we report Progress now, it will still be an allotted day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: But surely the Government have power to move an amending Order, which would not be opposed in any part of the House, giving an additional day?
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not rest with me.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should like to say frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that, from the point of view-of those who wish to afford solid ground of appeasement to the Protestants of Ireland, his proposal will not effect its purpose. I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is acting in the most bonâ fide and honourable manner. I am equally satisfied that his object is exactly the same as mine. I am quite sure that as the Prime Minister of this great country he desires that this Bill should have a prosperous and happy career. But I must tell him what he will hear perhaps in accents of less sincerity, or in accents to which he will attribute less sincerity, from Gentlemen above the Gangway, that the proposal he is now making does nothing whatsoever for the solution of this problem. I am sorry, apparently on the spur of the moment, to have to give such a verdict. But it is in reality not arrived at on the spur of the moment, because while right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been thinking of this
  510
  problem for months, we have been thinking of it all our lives. Having devoted a life-long consideration to this problem, while I am in favour of proportional representation, and while I go the length of saying that I would be prepared to apply it to the Lower as well as the Upper House, I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my judgment this system will do nothing to safeguard the objects which I think every patriotic Irishman has at heart. It is of course difficult to come to a conclusion on what is called the transferable vote, but I will give my analysis of its effect. Out of the forty Members to be elected by this scheme of provincial voting, I do not believe that the Tory party would return fourteen.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Under proportional representation?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes. I believe they would be far safer under the nominated system. If I were a Conservative or a man from the North of Ireland, I would rather have the present plan for the safeguarding of my interests than the proposed plan. You could always appeal to the Imperial Government to give a representation to property, or to what I may call the more solid and stable elements in the country.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Does the hon. Member mean that he would propose to continue nomination by the Imperial Government, or, as it is in the Bills nomination in the first instance by the Imperial Government and subsequently by the Irish Executive?
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish again to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister's sincerity in this matter. I have watched his proceedings all through with a microscopic eye, and throughout I have detected the note of sincerity. My opinion is that the Bill in its present form, with a purely nominative system for ever, is a better plan for the Protestants of Ireland than proportional representation. That is my honest opinion. They will get more by it; they will get more Members by it; and as the periods of years go by, if the Lower House becomes too fanatical, if you like to use that word, you can always by the nominated system correct it. What you are now doing is this: Under your proportional representation system you are simply providing, two Houses of exactly the same

  511
  pattern with substantially a Nationalist majority in each. It is a very painful thing, for us to have to discuss religious distinctions, but our country has been fissured with them through your action for 400 years. Accordingly what we as Irish men have to consider is what is good for our own household and to try to bring about a true amalgamation of races and religion. We desire to give to the Protestant party more than their share. We desire to give them more than their due. We desire to remove every sort of apprehension from their minds. Therefore I do not intend to take up the time of the House now by repeating what I have already said. That —I give my honest opinion—if I were an Orangeman or a Protestant, I would prefer the Bill as it is to the Bill as it is proposed to be.
  Colonel GREIG: I just want to call the attention of the House to one matter which I think it is useful that Members should know. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the House, because I want to call attention to a statement he has made.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: On a point of Order. I wish to ask what the Committee is now discussing. Are we discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork or are we discussing the appeal made by my right hon. Friend below me, the Prime Minister?
  The CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for Cork, which proposes to leave out all the words after "of" ["shall consist of"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Lords Lieutenant and custodes rotu-lorum of the counties and cities of Ireland, the chairmen for the time being of the county councils of Ireland, and the Lord Mayors for the time being of the county boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry." Then a claim was made that we should discuss possible alternative proposals. That was a proposal I could not admit.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has definitely refused the appeal made by my right hon. Friend?
  Colonel GREIG: The point I wanted to make to the House is that this matter has not been sprung upon the Opposition by any means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Adjourn,
  512
  adjourn."] The facts are that a society well known to all the Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]— for proportional representation—[Interruption.] I shall wait until hon. Members opposite give me an opportunity of pointing out that on the publication of the Home Rule Bill that particular society approached the Leaders on both sides with a view to securing their support—
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to discuss the proposition as to whether we should now report Progress or not? That is what I understand he is doing.
  Colonel GREIG: I am only giving a few-facts.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is the one moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. My suggestion, which I still think was the best, did not find acceptance with the Committee. In deference to the views of the Committee, I have given way that a general discussion should be allowed on that Amendment; therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, of course, in order.
  Colonel GREIG: Perhaps I might be allowed to put the point that I wanted to mention. Upon the publication of this Bill the secretary of the society I named approached the Leaders on both sides with a view to get their support—a support given by both Liberal and Unionist Members in favour of proportional representation. A representative deputation therefore waited on the Leaders of both sides. The Prime-Minister saw that deputation on 25th May, 1912. He has stated a few minutes ago the substance of his declaration to that deputation. Upon the following day, 26th May, some members of the deputation waited upon the Leader of the Opposition. He said:—
  "He was prepared to stand to his declaration on the Second Reading of the Bill to support any Amendment which would make a bad Bill better. Accordingly, this question of proportional representation would be treated, not as a party question, but on its merits. It would not be even treated as an Irish question alone, but in relationship to the effect which the adoption of that principle might have on Parliamentary institutions in the United Kingdom. He intimated further that the members of his party would be free to vote as they desired on this occasion without affecting in the least their attitude towards the Home Rule Bill itself."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) substantially agreed with his

  513
  Leader, and said that he had little further to add to what his Leader had already said. Under these circumstances, I think hon. Members opposite cannot say that this matter has been sprung upon them.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I am very glad to find that the Government have not yielded to the desire of the Opposition to report Progress. I also hope that the Prime Minister will adhere to his resolve to leave this matter to be decided by the House without any influence further than that which he has already given. I notice that the Prime Minister quoted the example of the Colonies in regard to the question of a nominated Second Chamber, and the very obvious objection was brought forward that nomination put such a Chamber out of touch with the popular Assembly. As a matter of fact, so far as one can judge from Colonial example, a nominated Second Chamber has been found in many respects to get on better with the First Chamber than has an elected Second Chamber. I therefore hope that this matter will be left entirely to the free judgment of the House. There is another reason why I hope that the principle of election will not be substituted for that nomination.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the hon. Member if ho is speaking against my Amendment, or against another Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The point of Order should be put to the Chair, not to an hon. Member.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Well, I put it to you, Sir.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member listens to the hon. Member speaking, he will be able to tell.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I was speaking on the general subject raised by the Prime Minister's announcement which I understood the Chairman to say was in order at the present time. One reason why I hope we shall not substitute election for nomination is—
  The CHAIRMAN: It is clear that the Committee is in some difficulty, and perhaps I might be allowed to make a suggestion—that we should discuss the specific Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. The next Amendment on the Order Paper is one by
  514
  the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea, which raises purely the numerical question of the two Chambers. Then we shall get on to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield which proposes to substitute for nomination proportional representation. If the Committee will be prepared to get that amount of progress it will regularise the general discussion on proportional representation.
  Mr. HOARE: Whilst agreeing with your ruling, may I point out that hon. Members will be under considerable difficulty in discussing numbers before we have had an opportunity of considering the very important statement that the Prime Minister has just made.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Would not the only effect of adjourning now be to lose the hours between now and our regular time for adjournment? I understand that this is an allotted day under the guillotine Motion?
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no Motion for Adjournment. I have already pointed out that this is an allotted day. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea takes that view, then I must proceed to allow a general discussion on the alternative proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Cork.
  Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask you, Sir—and through you indirectly make an appeal to the Prime Minister—whether he cannot get us out of what you have described as the rather embarrassing position in which we find ourselves? I understood the Prime Minister to say—and this is relevant to your suggestion—that if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made an appeal on behalf of the Opposition he would adjourn the Debate, and would provide the extra day which would be lost, of course, by our not continuing the discussion to-day. I am not going to argue concerning that, but I understood the Prime Minister to accede. Under these circumstances, may I not suggest to the House, and ask you, whether it would not be best that we should act upon that at once. We should then have before us what are the proposals of the Government, and we should come down to-morrow prepared to deal with the proposals of the responsible Government, rather than to deal with the subject of proportional representation which may stand in the name of one hon. Member or another, but who have not

  515
  behind them the authority of the responsible Government. If I may, without trespassing upon the point of Order, say so, it is of special importance that we should be allowed to meet this question under the best circumstances, because our time is limited. It is, therefore, all-important that we should come down, under conditions which are really favourable to solid and conclusive discussion, on what is, after all, one of the most important changes which the Government have yet made, or are likely to make, in the Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am always very anxious with the right hon. Gentleman to carry out anything in the nature of a Parliamentary bargain to facilitate the general convenience of the House. In the first place, I thought we ought to dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. There is no reason whatever for not disposing of that Amendment. Further, I acknowledge the reasonable position of those who wish to see on the Paper what the modified proposal of the Government is. Under the Resolution allocating the time of the House, discussion upon this Clause comes to an end to-morrow night. I do not propose to modify that Resolution, but, under the circumstances, I am quite prepared to allow a certain amount of time, say half a day, on the Report stage for the discussion of this particular matter. More than that I do not think I can be reasonably called upon to do. If that meets the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to make that offer.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not feel in a position to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just put, but before that is dealt with, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the most convenient course that we should be called upon to dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork immediately. We have discussed that Amendment as an alternative to the scheme in the Bill. We now suddenly find it is not an alternative to the scheme of the Bill, but an alternative to another scheme, which indeed the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork thinks less favourable to the minority than the original Government scheme, but I should have thought it would be really better at the point at which we have arrived to adjourn the discussion at once without prejudging any of the ques-
  516
  tions raised, and to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork not as we have been doing now in the light of the Bill, but as we shall be able to do tomorrow when we see the Government Amendments on the Paper, in the light of what the Bill is really to be or will be.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know if the hon. Member for Cork City would see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: The summary and contemptuous rejection of my Amendment by the Chief Secretary does not entitle him to much consideration at my hands, but after the extremely important statement of the Prime Minister I should not feel justified in standing between the House and its convenience, and I shall therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I mean now to carry out my undertaking. I think I have made it manifest that under the Resolution the discussion of this Clause must come to an end to-morrow night, and, so far as this particular occasion is concerned the Closure must take place tomorrow night, but I have undertaken to give additional time on the Report stage —half a day—in addition to the days already allocated. That, I understand, is accepted, and on that understanding I will move to report Progress.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: An extra half-day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friends behind me will accept—I will not use any descriptive adjective—the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Before putting that question, Mr. Whitley, are we to understand that when we resume tomorrow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea will begin the discussion, or will it be on the Amendment of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will put down their Amendments and they will appear upon the Paper.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the Government Amendments come first?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

CIVIL SERVICES.—AMENDMENT OF SUPERANNUATION ACTS.
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts, and to make further provision out of the moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service, and for the increase of this amount of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, or Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, apply, and for the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not wish to oppose this Resolution, but if I have no other way of putting myself in order I shall move the Adjournment of the Debate, in order that I may simply ask the Government whether they propose to take any other business?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): No.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: If that is agreed, then I will not press the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he tell us something about this piece of paper which contains the Resolution1? It is the most undignified document that has ever come out of the Vote Office. There is nothing to show it is a Parliamentary Paper; there is no name of a printer or any human being, and there is no authorisation attached to it. Really something ought to be done to indicate that this is a Parliamentary Paper; as it is, it is a most slipshod way of doing business.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not made inquiry into the matter. In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Hope), as I have already indicated, it is not proposed to take any other business.
Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the paper referred to by the hon. Member for Croydon, I understand it was printed for the convenience of the hon. Member himself.
Earl WINTERTON: It was printed because no one on the Government Bench knew anything about it last night.
Mr. SPEAKER: It was printed in the usual form, according to the Standing Order; that is to say, no notice was given of the Resolution when it was read for the first time. The Committee then agreed to it, and the Resolution appears in the Votes and Proceedings to-day. It is perfectly in order according to the Standing Order.
Mr. MALCOLM: I had no idea that was so, but, even so, would it not be advisable in the future that it should bear some indication that it was authorised by Parliament to be printed, and that it is paid for by Parliament.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Masterman. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next (4th November).

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Mr. Essex, Sir Philip Sassoon, and Mr. John Ward were appointed Members of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

PRINTING TRADE, LONDON (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. PETO: The question I want to raise on this Motion for the Adjournment arises out of questions put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bower-man). The terms of these questions and answers are of great importance, and I should therefore ask the indulgence of the House while I read them. The hon. Member for Deptford
"Asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether consideration has been given to the representations placed before him in July last by a deputation from the London printing trade; and, if so, can he state whether any decision has been arrived at?
"Mr. Peto: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask if he has had any opportunity of meeting a deputation of Government contractors to enable them to put their case before the Government?

519
The Financial Secretary's answer was:—
"In reply to the hon. Member opposite, I may say that the case of both sides has been very fully put before the Government from time to time. ince July the Board of Trade, at my request, have undertaken a very full investigation into the conditions of the printing trade in London, involving some 60.000 persons. They report that fifty hours may be now accepted as the predominant working week within the meaning of the Fair-Wages Clause. After consultation with the Fair Wages Advisory Committee, I have instructed the Stationery Office in future to be guided accordingly in dealing with its contracts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1912, col. 240.]
Later on the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) asked specifically whether the Financial Secretary had that morning refused to receive a deputation from the contractors, and the right hon. Gentleman answered "No." I received a telegram yesterday from the Printers' Association in the following terms:—
"Masterman agreed to receive deputation of contractors this morning, but now telephones is engaged with Chancellor, contractors have had no hearing at all."
On that point I would call the attention of the House to a further answer given by the right hon. Gentleman:—
"Since July, the Board of Trade at my request have undertaken very fully to investigate—"
Notice taken that forty Members were not present, House counted and forty Members being found present—
Mr. PETO: I only want to call attention to one other matter which occurred yesterday at Question Time. I asked the Secretary for the Treasury if he could inform the House whether these very full inquiries to which he referred were private inquiries, and whether the result had been made public on both sides, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:—
"I cannot tell whether the inquiries were private or not, but I see no reason why the answer should not be made public. I have seen neither of the sides since July."
In face of the categorical statement from the printing contractors that their case had not been heard by the Government at all before they came to the decision announced yesterday in the House, I think it is very necessary that I should inform the House as to what were the nature of the inquiries made by the Government from the employers of labour in the printing trade in London, and then I will call attention to the decision arrived at. I am informed that the only inquiry made from the master printers in London was dated 25th July on a printed form headed "The Board of Trade, Labour Department," which was sent out immediately after the
520
deputations representing the men's federation had been received by the Board of Trade. It says:—
"In connection with the report published annually by the Board of Trade on changes in rates of wages and hours of labour, this Department desires to obtain particulars of recent changes in the hours of labour of work people employed in the printing and bookbinding trades."
I call attention to the fact that this communication is only in connection with the report published annually. It says further that—
"any information you may be good enough to furnish, as hitherto, will be regarded as strictly confidential and will be used only in the compilation of general statistical results in which the identity of the individual returns will not be disclosed."
I cannot see how that statement will reconcile with the answer I received yesterday that there is no objection to these returns being made public. The Government said that they had made inquiries involving 60,000 persons, and—
"They report that fifty hours may be now accepted as the predominant working week within the meaning of the Fair-Wages Clause. After consultation with the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee I have instructed the Stationery Office in future to be guided accordingly in dealing with its contracts."
Upon that they have decided that, fifty hours may be taken as the working hours in accordance with the meaning of the Fair-Wages Clause. Under the Fair-Wages Clause, which was amended in 1909, when the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade was at the Post Office, it says specifically that if there are no recognised hours of labour and wages in a district, then what is generally paid by good employers in the district shall be the rule. Not only does this decision of the Government involve that a trade dispute which is not settled to this day, and which commenced as far back as February, 1911, shall be in effect settled by the Government, but that the great printing houses now working fifty-two and a half hours per week are, if they wish to keep their Government contracts, which I am informed amount to £100,000, must immediately re-organise their arrangements with labour and conform to what is now the decision of the Government. I should have no objection if this were merely a question, after a fair inquiry, of the Government coming to a decision in the ordinary course as to what were the wages and hours of labour paid by good employers in the district, but no proper inquiry has been held, and the employers of labour maintain that their case has never been heard at all. What has really happened is that the Labour party in this House, acting in unison, have brought

521
so much pressure to bear upon the Government that they have in fact got them to settle this question and weigh down the scales of justice in favour of labour, and thus settle a dispute which was the subject of the strike last year which has not yet been settled. Only the other day I saw in the "Daily News," of the 24th October, the report of a meeting that was held in connection with the printing and kindred trades at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, and the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman) said:—
"Mr. Masterman's reply that evening was that the matter was before the Advisory Board dealing with the interpretation of the Fair-Wages Clause. If on Monday they did not receive an answer stating that the Stationery Office or Advisory Board had decided that only contractors working their men fifty hours per week had been allowed to tender for contracts, he would be a very disappointed man?"
I am sure the hon. Member would have been disappointed if the result of the pressure on the Government had not been to decide this trade dispute in favour of labour, and to transfer the venue of a labour dispute from outside to this House, making this the subject of political pressure brought to bear by a body of men returned to represent constituencies who are using their position for what I regard as an entirely illegitimate purpose. I ask the House to consider what is the history of this question. The agreed hours previous to the strike of 1911 were fifty-two and a half hours per week in some unions, and in others fifty-four hours. A strike took place for a forty-eight hours' week in 1911, and a number of houses, owing to the nature of their business and the impossibility of having their trade brought to a standstill, agreed to a fifty-hour week pending a settlement. Such a settlement has never been arrived at, and those houses preferring not to give a fifty-hours' week now remain non-society houses. In the vast majority of these cases the wages and conditions are those which the unions settled previous to the strike. In two cases the union is under an agreement with the masters for a fifty-two and a half hours' week, and this does not expire till September, 1915. The right hon. Gentleman said that 60,000 persons were included in these inquiries, and if that is so they must have included the whole of the newspaper printing trade, otherwise you could not arrive at such a figure. The men in the newspaper trade are working from thirty-six to forty-eight hours per week, and are therefore wholly outside this question. All the machine hands, compositors, and linotype men work fifty
522
hours, and therefore they are entirely outside the scope of this secret inquiry instituted by the Board of Trade.
That is the nature of the evidence which has been brought forward to induce the Stationery Office to decide that fifty hours are the hours worked by fair employers. At the time the Fair-Wages Clause was passed the right hon. Gentleman, who is now the President of the Board of Trade, stated that the Government placed infinitely larger contracts than anybody else in this country, and these amounted to £25,000,000 per annum, and this enormous power which is in the hands of the Government is being brought to bear on the employers because of the pressure of the Labour party, who are practically saying to the Government, "You must use your enormous power in placing these contracts to bring employers of labour to their knees and bring them into line." That is the line of action, and that is the kind of Parliamentary action we are now asked to take in the Trade Union Bill, which invites us to give the trade unions still greater power of this kind. I think this is a matter of very grave moment. I complain, not only of the irregular manner in which these questions were answered yesterday, but I complain that no proper inquiries were made from the employers, and the only document received from them was a false document, because it stated it was intended for statistical purposes only, and apparently it has been used for a wholly different purpose altogether. In addition to that, I say that a decision of this kind arrived at without any proper inquiry is, in fact, placing the Government in an utterly false position. It is an absolutely new thing that we have now to understand that a body of hon. Members in this House can use their position to settle to the advantage of one class or another questions which are purely industrial questions in dispute, and which are outside this House and outside the duties of those who are Members of this House. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give some explanation of this. The employers state definitely that their case has never been heard; that proper statistics have not been collected on which alone the Government could arrive at a fair decision, and we ask that the right hon. Gentleman will rescind this Order, which either stamps some of the largest and best employers in London as men who are not good employers of labour, or else

523
compels them to give up Government contracts of enormous importance and value to them.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I shall be able to convince the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that a good deal of what he has stated rests upon imperfect information in regard to the actual facts. One statement he enlarged upon with considerable heat was a suggestion that pressure had been brought on me by the Labour party in connection with this matter. May I say, first of all, the decision has gone through the ordinary apparatus that this House has decided all questions of this kind shall go through in connection with a definition of the Fair-Wages Clause. Secondly, as far as I remember, not a single word has been said to me by the Labour party, certainly not since this investigation was undertaken. Occasional questions have been put by the hon. Member for Deptford asking whether the report of the Board of Trade had been received, but that is the only kind of pressure that has been exercised, and so the hon. Member may dismiss that phantom from his mind. Yesterday I said in a general sort of way that I did not realise that this inquiry was private, and there was no reason the result should not be published. I agree that the terms of the inquiry prevent the publication of the result in regard to individual firms. It was stated that the main results would be published in the Board of Trade Returns, and I can see no reason why they should not be published. The third point the hon. Member raised was the question whether the particular people who contracted for the Government in the printing trade had been heard on this matter. I am sure the hon. Member will believe me when I state that ever since last December the authorities have been in close communication with these contractors from time to time in connection with this very subject, and as long ago as last winter the Master Printers Association provided us with figures in connection with this subject, which were examined by us at the same time as the figures provided by the organisations of the men, and it was the discrepancy between those figures which led us to refer the matter to a judicial tribunal. After that tribunal had given its decision I had no intention of reopening the question, either by further consultation with the masters or the men.
Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what judicial tribunal?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am coming to that. It is quite true I said it was no good to imagine I could reverse the decision given by the Advisory Committee. The contractors were offered an opportunity and they were seen by high officials, and those officials told me that which I made answer to the House. For many months, I might say years, there has from time to time been a dispute brought to the consideration of the Government whether a fifty hours week in London came legitimately under the Fair-Wages Clause. My own personal opinion as to what is a fair week has nothing whatever to do with the question at all. My sole function here is to interpret the Fair-Wages Clause as Parliament finally settled its terms, and in order that interpretation should not be left to the judgment or caprice of any individual Minister, this House also approved of the setting up of a special Advisory Committee, consisting of a number of specialists under the chairmanship of a member of the Board of Trade, to whom any difficult questions could be referred, and who would give a decision which the Government might accept as a judicial one. Figures were presented to me by the men showing that the standard rate under the Fair-Wages Clause, quite apart from the question whether it was the rate of a good employer or not, could be interpreted as including the fifty hours week. Figures were presented by the masters challenging that statement. Under these circumstances, and as we could not get an agreement on the facts between the two parties, I referred the whole matter to the census of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade started taking their census last July and it was completed in September. Whatever the terms of the agreement as to the secrecy of private firms may have been, everyone knew this census was on the question of the fifty hours' week. In fact, I had letters from the Master Printers' Association to the Board of Trade stating deliberately and in terms that they recognised this census was to decide those questions of a fifty hours week. The census form was sent to the employers and not to the men, and it was upon the figures sent in by the employers that the decision of the Advisory Committee was taken, and not on the figures presented by the men at all. They were

525
completely brushed aside. It was sent to all firms appearing in the Directory as printers and bookbinders within a radius of fifteen miles of Charing Cross and not to a selected list.
Mr. PETO: Does that include newspapers?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am coming to newspapers. The figures showed conclusively, omitting hand compositors and newspapers, and taking merely the ordinary various grades of printers and bookbinders, machinists and warehousemen, that the predominating standard rate at present was a fifty-hour week. They included not only most of the great firms familiar to everyone, but the tiniest firms which are altogether outside the general survey of Government contracts. I have very little time to go into details, showing how different classes are affected, but I will gladly give them in answer to a question. The figures, however, show this was the predominating rate under the test of the standard rate of wages quite apart from the test of good employers. Here, for instance, are the figures for the principal classes: Hand compositors on book or jobbing work, omitting newspapers, 54 per cent, of the returns; letterpress machine-minders, 55 per cent, of the returns; male printers' assistants, nearly 70 per cent, of the returns; and warehousemen, 61 per cent, of the returns, show a rate of fifty hours or under. The hon. Gentleman suggests that is a rate still open to revision. It is the result, he says, of a strike not yet settled. I am not concerned with what the rate may be in the future, but with the enforcement of the Fair-Wages Clause as it exists at the present time. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fair enough to acknowledge that is the fact. Having received those figures as the result of the Board of Trade census of the employers, I referred them to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, which is the
526
ordinary procedure, and I received this letter:—
"In reply to your letter of 18th October on the subject of the hours of labour in the printing trade in j London, I am directed by the Fair-Wages Advisory I Committee to state that they have given careful consideration to the memorandum by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade which has been laid before them. On the information contained in this memorandum, the Committee have arrived at the conclusion that fifty hours should be regarded as the recognised working week for males in the London printing and bookbinding trades at the present time. In the case of females, it would appear that the number working fifty hours or less is slightly in excess of the number of those working over fifty hours."
That is the verdict, and every week I refuse to accept that verdict I am refusing to accept the Fair-Wages Clause as interpreted by the very machinery set up by this House to interpret it. In those circumstances, I have no judicial function in the matter at all. I have no function but to carry out the recommendation of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee. The I hon. Member may be interested to know I how this affects particular Government contracts. The standing contracts for printing and bookbinding in the London district amounts to about £310,000 a year. Of this total a sum of £265,000 is held by houses now working a fifty hours' week. The balance of only £45,000 is held by firms working a 52½ hours' week. Therefore, already 85 per cent, of the Government contracts are given to firms which have accepted this favourable rate of conditions as far as they affect the men. I think it would be unfair to ask that 85 per cent, to compete in perpetuity with the 15 per cent who refuse to give that standard rate of wages, and I do not think those few firms who hitherto have not accepted that rate will have any difficulty in keeping their Government contracts and coming into line with those who have already accepted it. I submit, therefore, the Government are fully warranted in the action they have taken.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Seven o'clock.

  Surveyor of Taxes' Clerks.
  Surveyor of Taxes' Clerks.
  Death Duties (Finance Act, 1909–10).
  Death Duties (Finance Act, 1909–10).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  HEALTH INSURANCE INSPECTORS.
  HEALTH INSURANCE INSPECTORS.
  TUBERCULOUS PATIENTS.
  TUBERCULOUS PATIENTS.
  Income Tax Allowances.
  Income Tax Allowances.
  Super-tax.
  Super-tax.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
  UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
  IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  IRISH SERVICES.
  IRISH SERVICES.
  Agricultural Rents (Ireland).
  Agricultural Rents (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Language (Scholarships).
  Irish Language (Scholarships).
  Board of National Education, Ireland (Dismissal of Mr. Mansfield).
  Board of National Education, Ireland (Dismissal of Mr. Mansfield).
  Labourers' Cottages, Coachford, Macroom.
  Labourers' Cottages, Coachford, Macroom.
  Cinematograph Pictures in Schools (Religious Subjects).
  Cinematograph Pictures in Schools (Religious Subjects).
  Police Commissariat.
  Police Commissariat.
  Chinese Loan.
  Chinese Loan.
  State Leaseholds and Freeholds (Denmark).
  State Leaseholds and Freeholds (Denmark).
  London Census Returns.
  London Census Returns.
  Practical Land Training.
  Practical Land Training.
  Irish Provident Assurance Society.
  Irish Provident Assurance Society.
  Morayshire Telephones.
  Morayshire Telephones.
  Middlesbrough Postal and Telegraph Staff.
  Middlesbrough Postal and Telegraph Staff.
  Small Holdings (Departmenta Committee).
  Small Holdings (Departmenta Committee).